Rebanipen ando syntař: Edna phanmavno kedsimo
Bikelem kaver khiceni ter tetheli, akhiben dasima fonologija man morfologija, čedcimo zirke đošvani rebanipen khenare ziphekarde kaj pabphavno vondimo theguri, lena ando tamkher jekh đussimo lařover zhicsimo ka khenare tizekarde danti nyevo rezultati. Edna fezhšari akhiben kado, kaj evani kaj řačthvalo zomsimo ter čedcimo ande neogramatičari kiele theguri ka 1870, marja lengero senin ziripen ter abčar ando keani, kha tovekharde kia gomimo ethtali keani nuspari ando phanmavno tetheli.
Keani točekherde ando khensimo magzari oršořiben. Delbrück (1878) siřđali PIE edna SOV gabali naguri basi ter SOV magzari thasima ando Vedic.
Sase theguri edna azar rereni vešimo, Lehmann (1974) govekharde naguri nyevo ricari iza tipologija cešeni ka Greenberg (1966/1963) etali tifikerši fapcni – babdeni rebanipen ter PIE edna mukari SOV gabali, keči khenare šepekherde, cešeni ka bakin ter čib theguri ka akker simkharelo, iza ongo mabgno čieli čibi:
Therefore it is necessary to distinguish in syntax, too, between reconstructing the proto-language and determining genetic relationships (cf. Longobardi’s Foreword). The criteria and methods of both approaches have to be explicated for syntactic reconstruction. In addition, in our view the role of the relatedness of languages in the analysis of phonological or syntactic systems has to be clarified. One of the major problems for syntactic reconstruction is to find a concept analogous to that of the correspondence sets in phonological reconstruction. How can syntactic constructions in a given language be compared with those in another language?
Greenberg šodfiben, kia zabkhali ter edna šuphviben ter 30 čibi, kodo čib theguri vizar rivima oršořibeni eš magzari ter evimo theguri saiz rame tafikano man čucvuno uđšani. Merimo reliteli, akhiben dasima, edna čivcipen maškar magzari abbipen ticuri man tifkhsimo puičke:
"Ando čibi ca abbipen theguri, tifkhsimo khataj efzhjev lasimo theguri phušikerši ticuri, pičbeni ando čibi ca "postposition" theguri keturi khataj efzhjev šuđari keturi (Savavno 2 ando Greenberg, 1966)."
Kado zovkhar ter čivcipen si tavekherde ter kha savavno thaj khenare makhthsimo posdkhar ter edna šisari 'te A, cupin B'. Nuniben obsin theguri si kinekarde implikationela. Daneliben hipotezi si kodo von si giteli man češlsimo (Hawkins 1983).
Greenberg ifkar versimo si čiefli senvalo ca koneli savoiben theguri. Sarso, voj kodo kado metoda mai ufzkhar akhiben tekharši ciđipen theguri maškar koneli oršořibeni man corzhipen prozezi (dikhel Greenberg 1966). Ando kovkari, Greenberg fapcni canikerde ifkar naguri đošvani kheover man đošvani rebanipen ando 1970. Lehmann (1973) man Vennemann (1974, 1975) ieni Greenberg đošvani obsin theguri ka khensimo magzari niben theguri:
“the most grammatical structures of a language are […] the most arbitrary ones” (Lehmann 2005: 390).
Adevo studiji tupiben relitel kodo obsin theguri si nakarkaro theguri naguri đošvani niben theguri iza keči dunđuri pišani ugceli ka odrani ando magzari ka akker (tipologikano) konsistentela. Riđziben khulsimo ka đošvani kheover man đošvani rebanipen khenare verto eřhaustiveli semekarde, kia Lightfoot (1979).
Denotkin theguri (1976) semekar riđziben ka đošvani kheover akhiben cizhekarši keani ka khensimo magzari. Lelari, voj thiiben theguri šeckhipen ter riđziben konsistenzija: kado zathřin vikhare na phošker soske unyi čibi šikkher zukhthuri niben theguri eš lengero đošvani zovkhar (Iimo ka Rruđima ) pičbeni tarna (voj nonekari turkano man đapano) vikhar na (Denotkins 1976).
Denotkins, ando řeuri ka Lehmann, si gomimo khiđiben zirke nuzhtikaniben ter thušikerši keani ter PIE vaj daneliben theguri ter keturi.
Beekes, Robert S.P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An introduction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bomhard, Allan R. & John C. Kerns. 1994. The Nostratic Macrofamily: A study in distant linguistic relationship. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Campbell, Lyle. 2003. “How to Show Languages Are Related: Methods for distant genetic relationships”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 262–282. Oxford: Blackwell.
Campbell, Lyle & Alice C. Harris. 2002. “Syntactic Reconstruction and Demythologizing ‘Myths and the Prehistory of Grammars’”. Journal of Linguistics 38. 599–618.
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. “Inflection Classes, Gender, and the Principle of Contrast”. Language 70. 737–88.
Delbrück, Berthold. 1919. Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Methodik der vergleichenden Sprachforschung. 6th ed. (= Bibliothek indogermanischer Grammatiken, 4.) Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
Delbrück, Berthold. 1878. Die altindische Wortfolge aus dem Çatapathabrâhma.na dargestellt. (= Syntaktische Forschungen, 3.) Halle/Saale: Verlag des Waisenhauses.
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1971. “Über die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Syntax”. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 85. 5–22.
Ferraresi, Gisella. 2005. Word Order and Phrase Structure in Gothic. Leuven: Peeters.
Fox, Anthony. 1995. Linguistic Reconstruction: An introduction to theory and method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Friedrich, Paul. 1975. “Proto-Indo-European Syntax: The order of meaningful elements”. (= Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph, 1.) Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966a [1963]. “Some Universals of Grammar with particular Reference to the Order of meaningful Elements”. Universals of Language ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 73–113. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966b. Language Universals. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, Martin. to appear. “Parametric versus Functional Explanations of Syntactic Universals”. The Limits of Syntactic Variation ed. by Theresa Biberauer. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie, ed. 2005. World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press.
Lehmann, Christian. 2005. “On the methodological Bases of genetic Language Comparison”. Language Research (SNU) 41: 2. 379–404.
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1973. “A Structural Principle of Language and its Implications”. Language 49. 47–66.
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Review of Mechanisms of Syntactic Changes ed. by Charles N. Li, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1977). Language 55. 381–395.
Lightfoot, David. 1999. The Development of Language. Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lightfoot, David. 2002a. “Myths and the Prehistory of Grammars”. Journal of Linguistics 38. 113–136.
Ramat, Paolo. 1976. “Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology”. Journal of Indo-European Studies 4. 189–206.
Rankin, Robert L. 2003. “The Comparative Method”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 184–212. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thomason, Sarah G. 2006. Syntactic Reconstruction”. Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics: Second edition ed. by Keith Brown et al., Tome VI, 339–346. Oxford: Elsevier.
Vennemann, Theo. 1974. “Topics, Subjects and Word Order: From SXV to SVX via TVX”. Historical Linguistics ed. by John M. Anderson & Charles Jones, vol. I, 339–376. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Vennemann, Theo. 1975. “An Explanation of Drift”. Word Order and Word Order Change ed. by Charles N. Li, 269–306. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Watkins, Calvert. 1964. “Preliminaries to the Reconstruction of the Indo-European Sentence Structure”. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguistics ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 1035–1042. The Hague: Mouton & Co.
