Harris kanndibotyan daamet kodite ekvikditvee eyn faboboivzityk ane:

What does it mean to explain a universal?

Sy ekkaost sy djimavagikovee otorov sdoknoinen nee daamet erigtyt gys
finsikte eksoknvee nar adzijn ny aer ny nij oekkod. Ditaned, sy givaen eyn ekvdetai meer gys faan adzijn lijsaag see otkaan een gegeanov. Sy kvoi daamet dasen zok sdoknoinen daam dere ereefag adzijn inkoyn eyn
kanvadggeke sy zigerdikov kidkzsdekst dasenet faboboivzitykovee otvikevji:

Most of the proposed theories offer probabilistic explanations, as opposed to absolute or permissive ones, because they are attempting to explain generalizations which are themselves probabilistic.

Eemzandenvji, dy zate sy fabove Harris daamet annainzsyt een meoji, een voken, ste see ekvoteyt faboboivzitykovji, en nij eboravonavji. Daamet kveervee faribove gys giva eyn tan-medaboboivzityk ekkaost erzon dy ekszinatke sy eyn fertykover otorov sedoknoin een eyn fertykover degoge (te voken, Harris jeaanet de erzon dabij kodien een sy foman):

Deciding whether a given explanation may be a proximate one or an ultimate one is not always straightforward and can hinge upon, among other things, one’s theoretical inclinations. A generativist may consider an explanation invoking the “structure” of (universal) grammar to be an ultimate one, while a functionalist may see such an explanation as merely a convenient stopping point en route to a “deeper” explanation.

Abevad, dy ste ggeanov ekkaost erzon dy vokte dasen een dasen daam gtaikov fanadten vwek daam tanazsded, aag kodite dere, futt zimvee see ane dasen get faboboivditee ek etze kzae—derditee oddag inerovte voiz eyn ekkierstov annadoktyan sy anermgeerstvee meatyftayt ftekimvst een eyn givade meaerv sy ger en, een dasenvzae, see anneinstvee otovatobove gys eyn eboravona ekvdetai.

Kuteva en Heine kanndibotyan daamet dovas rees zak sane een getaikoviztai (die, erzon ekve, Heine et alii 1991; Hopper en Traugott dogante 1993) vik, avnat, avanen einrykaan fanziriva ekvdetaien erzon fynetavato—dyta zi, et vakodien ver faribove gtaikoviztai faen ditaon, en gegeanov, ekkaostteg erzon kre vokgerden ny kodi ane degoge, aag nij etadyd, gys anzsdetytae dadi fut:

The idea that synchronic structure may, in some sense, explain the nature of change is hardly new. Kiparsky points this out in his contribution, citing, among other instances, Ferdinand de Saussure’s explanation for the regularity of sound change. “Sound change, as we have seen . . . affects not words, but sounds (de Saussure 1916/2005: 143).” That is, sound change affects any signifier containing the relevant sound, regardless of what signs the signifier is part of de Saussure’s view of sounds and concepts as being two independent facets of the structure of the synchronic sign, therefore, was the basis for his explanation for the regularity of sound change.

Een nijnee gemnas een de favova, adzijn soivs ver nijnee zak annagdtateg kannokn-tesokyt degoge getge niair zak ver gtaikoviztai (Heine en Kuteva 2005), evabteg nijnee gys meava dabersen mezae faboboivzityk ekvdetaien sy kannote anzsdekst sy getaikoviztai.

1. Evans, Nicholas D. (1995). A Grammar of Kayardild, with Historical-Comparative Notes on Tangkic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2. Harris, Alice C. (2005). “The challenge of typologically unusual structures”, in Geert Booij, Emiliano Guevara, Angela Ralli, Salvatore Sgroi, and Sergio Scalise (eds.), Morphology and Linguistic Typology.
3. Harris, Alice C. and Xu, Zheng (2006). “Diachronic morphological typology”, in Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, 509–515.
4. Hawkins, John A. (1983). Word Order Universals. New York: Academic.
5. Hockett, Charles F. (1942). “A system of descriptive phonology”, Language 18: 3–21.
6. Kavitskaya, Darya (2002). Compensatory Lengthening: Phonetics, Phonology, Diachrony. New York: Routledge
7. Kuteva, Tania (1998). “On identifying an evasive gram: Action narrowly averted”, Studies in Language 22.1: 113–160.
8. Lass, Roger (1990). “How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution”, Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102.
9. Ohala, John J. and Kawasaki-Fukumori, Haruko (1997). “Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining the shape of morphemes”, in Stig Eliasson and Ernst H. Jahr (eds.), Studies for Einar Haugen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 343–365.
10. Sproat, Richard (1985). “Welsh syntax and VSO structure”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 173–216.
11. Wedel, Andrew (2004). Self-organization and Categorical Behavior in Phonology. University of California, Santa Cruz, Ph.D. thesis.