Three Germanic dialects were originally spoken in the Low Countries: Frisian in the north and along the western coast; Saxon in the east (contiguous with the Low German area); and Franconian in the centre and south. It is the Franconian dialects that is designated as Old Dutch, and that would develop in Middle Dutch and later Modern Dutch. The division in these development phases is mostly conventional, since the transition between them was very gradual. One of the few moments linguists can detect somewhat of a revolution is when the Dutch standard language emerged and quickly established itself. The development of the Dutch language is illustrated by the following sentence in Old, Middle and Modern Dutch:
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): Which Germanic dialect was spoken in the eastern region?
Ah, so.. Saxon

The critic Joseph Bedier (18641938) launched a particularly withering attack on stemmatics in 1928. He surveyed editions of medieval French texts that were produced with the stemmatic method, and found that textual critics tended overwhelmingly to produce trees divided into just two branches. He concluded that this outcome was unlikely to have occurred by chance, and that therefore, the method was tending to produce bipartite stemmas regardless of the actual history of the witnesses. He suspected that editors tended to favor trees with two branches, as this would maximize the opportunities for editorial judgment (as there would be no third branch to "break the tie" whenever the witnesses disagreed). He also noted that, for many works, more than one reasonable stemma could be postulated, suggesting that the method was not as rigorous or as scientific as its proponents had claimed.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What was Joseph Bedier's main criticism of the stemmatic method?
Ah, so.. critics tended overwhelmingly to produce trees divided into just two branches.

Paper made from wood pulp is not necessarily less durable than a rag paper. The ageing behavior of a paper is determined by its manufacture, not the original source of the fibres. Furthermore, tests sponsored by the Library of Congress prove that all paper is at risk of acid decay, because cellulose itself produces formic, acetic, lactic and oxalic acids.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What does lactic acid produce?
Ah, so..
unanswerable