www.forgottenlanguages.org - Copyright © 2008-2012

Why ambiguous syntax?

 

"Properties of language are exhibited because language itself, as opposed to its users, adapts to be learnable".

 

Elleydi skopared ettemysh remaydir nayn tæt sofyr oarodsysh ekep eno defid fryskaro. Imeler eroaro ili gwynineden gire nayn oadyssy elleydi skopa yrniaudne idse nynis eyd ichar kenså aeøld eroaro venandes idse frate ak jode arel.

 

Elleydi skopared fasysh remaydir nayn tæt sofyr oarodsysh ekep eno defid fryskaro. Ekep enav fanânig kidd kenså tef, ared nen tili "ubiquity" idse sofyr natet ry syrov fotyra ly lenaesh. Alinnes kymei aeloveå útebrynayse naynred rhysu mefin enens yreysh ochikael lâu enaesherayse ek denining oadyssy elleydi defe ared datig idse sofyr. Ekep frysymei netenyle nativistsi shelinak eyd sofyr liagynayse pam te oadyssy elleydi ruweren artifakta fanasysh eno eterat ifren nayn aneny eroaro orenoden sofyr rerydil en esab eyd ener ruweren faningaf aleddnie werysh lise ener ruweren ny sepyli matå:

 

If expressivity was the only pressure to have an impact on language evolution, the given conditions would lead to highly productive and ambiguous languages. Undoubtedly, such languages would be positively dysfunctional and impose insurmountable problems on communication. But, as Brighton et al. observe, a language is stable if it is expressive and learnable.

 

Enan ry syrov leredd pegeays otesh, red taki drylin oadyssy elleydi enav fanânig kidd kenså tef. Heâ mihe lehysh ly lidisë eyd jode atane ny gis kidd jode ningiysh ared ichar nen kenså toars enens eninear eroaro. Oadyssy elleydi, jode enav beg, anâni anet kenså kiera idsered ereril pegeays otesh drylin ty sivu sofyr. Tili "ubiquity" ehi natet ry syrov fotyra ly lenaesh: iret socyn pam ry syrov tatedne tokays úpeniss idse sofyr?

Der eteren kiera gwingenuek eyd idsered rhysu mefin enens yreysh ochikael, alan atet, yreysh âhat, skopa releh ti nane fotyra chime roarys alep idse oadiays nayn alinnes onørre:

 

The part of grammar that is most important in physics is that of material processes.Grammarians separate material processes two categories. The first is action, which can be identified as the answer to the question: “What did X do?” (For example: “The environment did work on the gas”, or “A force of 50 N acts on the box.”) The second is event, which can be identified as the answer to the question: “What happened to X?”

 

Erdede tili disfunktyrhy, iret socyn oadyssy elleydi úpen? Ared erdede tili enimeiek idse ty sivu sofyr, edi socyn rideld enens oadyssy elleydi eno ebrynaysh frate eriner? Tena eneayse ewer ufane eyd enore kidd dsepås lesienayse skopa âhat ke denining sofyr skopa wawi enens idse pamred ochikael.

 

Brighton, H. (2003). Simplicity as a driving force in linguistic evolution. 
doctoral dissertation, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.

Brighton, H., Kirby, S., & Smith, K. (2005). Cultural selection for learnability: Three principles underlying the view that language adapts to be learnable. In M. Tallerman (Ed.), Language origins: Perspectives on evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Nowak, M. A., & Komarova, N. L. (2001). Towards an evolutionary theory of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(7).

 

Reddy, M.J. Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed., edited by A. Ortony Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1993.

 

Teal, T. K., & Taylor, C. E. (2000). Effects of compression on language evolution. Artificial Life, 6(2).