If there is such a person as the average phonologist, he might have a conception of the relation between phonetics and phonology that comes close to the relation between social perceptions of crimes and a Code of Criminal Law. The Code's definition of various types of crimes and the penalty each type carries ultimately reflect, to put it crudely, the feelings of the people. Also, the Code's development will reflect social change. Criminal codes will typically incorporate the changing perceptions of the general public, and will now begin to include articles devoted to the use of the Internet, for instance. But at the end of the day, what counts in a law suit is what is in the Criminal Code, not the feelings of the people. So it is with phonology. It is easy to show that lexical forms are frequently related to functional (ergonomic) considerations, and that the way the grammar processes them into surface representations will amount to a reasonable articulatory task for the speaker, while equally the acoustic result will enable the listener to recognise these forms with reasonable ease. However, ultimately we say things the way we do because our lexical representations are the way they are, and our phonological grammar is the way it is.