Eirelyr Elnageyigi
Nedrokdes elangeyodok slasdem
Uverves an Kibder 1 sid soeyn vaak areyn invaeyd n'eyi ys uels menaeyn rar naveel beyrbady, nas an sleyvereyred kibdereyn dawes slaw beabeli kradnadelyr kneidi naveel eyigi bidderneyn nas reynkdoraiel kidegarody vyr eyang sodang elangeyodok mideroiel, sydregang ard a'wen kradedeyn nas regawang ard wog wen grimmidokiel reynkdora. An sleyvereyred kibdereyn wi dawes slaw soeyn greeriel dridegyr kna vi eels nebraoveli rar sleymna elnageyigi geveelabang anda na ankneiangelyr mane wennes ael ys kammeynokidora nas krakebdeyielozidora:
Work based on classical methods of historical linguistics has brought about a wealth of insights into the substance and structure of earlier forms of human languages. But this work gives us access to only a fairly small phase in the history of human languages: Linguistic reconstruction becomes notoriously fuzzy and conjectural once we are dealing with a time depth exceeding 8,000 years. While there exists a wide array of opinions on how far back reconstruction can be pushed and on how the genetic and areal relationship patterns among earlier languages may have been, there appears to be general agreement on the following point: The languages that were spoken 8,000 ago were typologically not dramatically diVerent from what they are today. Thus, compared to the biologist, the linguist is in a deplorable situation.
Ard areyn slabes sid ueyr gokeysora slieyn gemradrides sid ddene areyn nasang masderoaeyeyn invaeyd kambele dreykdeyriel beenamrei sleyk ineyn slasndikdok nekeyrora ur gobelikemred, zok rielel ueyd nideyrielelyr riram in elrag slereyreki ys inielokidoraeyn ys sid veryr dridegas, ineyn sliw an Kibdereyn 5 nas 6:
There are at least two types of rate variation in lexical evolution. First, rate variation can occur between cognates. For example, even in the Swadesh word list, the Indo-European word for five is highly conserved (1 cognate set) whilst the word for dirty is highly variable (27 cognate sets). This is akin to site-specific rate variation in biology.
Second, rates of lexical evolution can vary through time and between lineages. Clearly this will cause problems if we are trying to estimate absolute divergence times on the inferred phylogenies since inferred branch-lengths are not directly proportional to time. Again, biologists have developed a number of methods for dealing with this type of rate variation. One such approach is the penalised likelihood method of rate smoothing implemented in r8s (version 1.7; Sanderson, 2002a), which allows for rate variation between lineages while, at the same time, incorporating “roughness penalty” that costs the model more if rates vary excessively from branch to branch. Sanderson (2002b) has shown that the penalised likelihood optimization procedure performs significantly better under conditions of rate heterogeneity than procedures that assume a constant rate of evolution.
In neymver ys ne slasbasdydy gokeyses eene slivi vere brabaes an slami
rarm vyr user ineysareyn (dybekoielelyr Gova´s 2002i, 2005; slei inela JikkregaV 2002; Aielelermna 2007); zid godangeyoeeeyn ueyr bneredidora riram sai warkeyn areyn sid ard areyn vies drokdelyr ra n'ynielokidora ys grimmidokielozidora ddearas. Soeyn nedrokdora slieyn n'yngvnadigi sid ueyr slasbasdydy kna vi rieloWes wog nererreki a' soeyn ddearas; ind ne slimi aomi ard inela slis rearmaeyeyn goigvnadigdy:
Some of these critics have argued that it is hard enough to get the tree typology correct, let alone branch lengths or divergence times. From this point of view all efforts to estimate dates should be abandoned until we can get the tree exactly right. We think that would be a big mistake. It would prematurely close off legitimate scientific inquiry.
Elnageyigi evaeleydora slieyn vekami in birigogm Weels ys andergokobelaniryr neeirk, weene new Wngangeyn migi an inneieyn sleyk ineyn evaeleydorairyr voaelagas, baskaelagas, baskaelangeyodok, neeyraelagas, greedok, bieliea-nasrabaelagas, ne kambeyder slkorekdy, edk. slivi vere ur kna vi kamvanes an urger a' nekradreykd zid in rew gekigdy inga doelel sleemes a' vi veasras ne slkabi ys emborokiel neeirk.
An na inddembd a' vi kraodred an ueyr mesagaelagas, slis a' argnane inelel soeyn wark skebd rar ukkioraiel kras-nererrekdy. Rar simbele, nekred deygody an kambeyder slomeyelidora daw angebregredelyr sid kambele slasnydikdok reyeldy kna emergi ueyd ys reyodi slombeli slasdem, sleyk ineyn neeyriel ned, zok slivi in mielel neymver ys anodoiel inseymbdoraeyn nas eleirs riram armberrekd anbeyd, wog neymeraeyeyn wargeyn inkreyones vyr uvervidoraiel eleirnang. Slami ys ddei slomeyelidoraeyn sysovod drokang slomoelirodody a' ueyr grimmidokielozidora sylkreiroa, nas ard waeyels vi aembdang a' neelidi n'awa a' rai naaser.
Slawever, ineyn elrag ineyn ard nemianeyn eynkeleir slaw sikdelyr ddei slomoelirodody inne a' vi gewneg, nerrian riram beyreyang soeyn arseye—abang sid reydeyne neeirk woelel vi inveli a' griw ra in mane kambyneenovi vioeyn ys naielaso:
This leaves us with the remaining motivations that we identified in (4):
All of them are incompatible with the cognition hypothesis. We are thus left with the following situation: Since all motivations can be reconciled with the communication hypothesis, and none is exclusively in support of the cognition hypothesis, the only reasonable conclusion is that the communication hypothesis is the one that has to be adopted, while cognition may be defined as an auxiliary function in structuring early linguistic communication.
An ne bynekegang slekdora wi aroes a' Wens nawereyn a' reydydoraeyn sid wi kraoger a' vi neelevnad rar eyngerdnagang elnageyigi gredyoeyn nas evaeleydora. Veyd ddene weri mnayr user reydydoraeyn an inggodora sid slivi vere rioes vyr deygredeyn ys elnageyigi evaeleydora. Sley-Aski ard, an krakeleygang, a' mredora rai reydydora sid wieyn argnanes sraeygaeyd ne vaak, nimeelyr a' zid sdred elnageyigi ar, ur areyn abbird ys, na annidi sleymna rikeyeldas, nas weeser elnageyigi gredyoeyn daeyels nad vi inkkaeyndes rar wog nererreki a' sleyk in rikeyeldas.
Soeyn areyn an rikd in meyk gokeyses arseye, veyd ard areyn inela na eynneaelves rae.
Rar ueyr beyrbady ard wieyn ys slekragiryr armbard slanki ueyr inkkaeynd ys ne gredyoeyn ys grimmir gos nad nereyone nayr inseymbdoraeyn ra annidredy. Inkkargangelas, arrnebekdovi ys weeser reydeyne neeirk woelel dydivelos sid elnageyigi evaeleydora ar, ind eleid a' slami sdred, gedermanes vyr annidi meknaom, soeyn waeyels nad sleem a' inVekd ne Wngangeyn bneredes eene an nayr grimidok wias.
From Species To Languages
A phylogenetic approach to human prehistory
Quentin D. Atkinson
The University of Auckland, 2006.
The Genesis of Grammar - A Reconstruction
Bernd Heine and Tania Kuteva
Oxford University Press, 2007.
Syntax at Age Two: Cross-Linguistic Differences
Colin Phillips,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Simulated Evolution of Communication: the Emergence of Meaning
Amy Perfors
Stanford University, 2000.
