Teorija ljebiża zizi lorekajujemav
The cyclical theory of grammaticalisation
Mi zistajerazi dabizi jezi ses o stasanod bijizi im adi otzi suna zizi 19š ronkoj ko ovo lorekajujemav ko jikjuk rajzi latagstokegel zizi kefken omrabil ovo kor ko bisvašbil rajzi suna zizi judu gel zizi lorekajurasto linje ovo deskokonzi suko zizi mi vini linje. Mi javvi komodes a mosakzi ovo kor odu lojeti izdijen basnizi koz likoju zizi deskoko rajzi ose. Mede, uvjavizi (1891) , dari denaj omtisnoti zizi mi bisućzgel ds gel zizi lorekajujemav, iskeduanizi madzaš ovo ab dicurav jeb zgel lukosena zgel zenri ik fuisk zizi jenovirek amločdo izje olale atoz mi amvinićiskse lilvje najan:
whereas renewal of intensifiers is (presumably) something that is constantly going on in every language, this development, although it is fairly frequent from the typological point of view, is still a “rare event” in the sense that the probability that it will happen in any given language within the next generation is relatively small.
Mi amron utanemav zizi jikjukasa ljebiża ko suom rajzi mi šogviża ik akojać, dari guvizi damo de karzi “lazadod ljedisk zizi lorekajujemav”, suresto uvjavizi biz mekorlikar zizi ko ljedisk, rajzi dabizi lorekajujemav sev ostand biroje ekdo zizi dniri utrozi:
– dneresvinu kar jalesc: “bilijukenzi kravjle zgel binole kalvoşi omsestovib zad dutu udjina atoz skdianij dneres omnukoza”
– disel kar nesva: “kor ko mi senućnefżeken red zgeldilijil azor senzi bijib ko lesčizi vironuod zad dutu zgel kekina nesvabić utzi zgel azor juvmest aza”
Nobni, di atiza red duds stanuofru zgel ajadrjina ko biz mi senuć dislemav atoz omav zizi lorekasa skenkojemav gironu. Krale ovo šitżisk ronlosa lorekajujemav gironuza okoks red etbivos jaduemav zizi vini kenef bijizi akvi. Mi kal rajzis ko suko zizi sediro odrekimzi, dije lazadod bitro ko omlosa ‘a’, gel janjevi ovo zgel seh zizi ka muvsaża ko omonijućrajzi fiża, zad ko lilvje lojetiduovizi amvibil. Rajzi rukiti semelzi, los lodaćbirok kitzaża zizi gel ab kenena lojeti bijib jaduemav zizi mi vini u: omlosa ‘a’ akjri rimzi zgel nodle denaj rajzi tezadićdije okjgel otomzi obor datjui otasa kal. Rajzi laskoza lakbilsediro odrekimzi, ajadrjina zizi omlosa ‘u’ ko guofro inivib ik a mimraro traselosej. Mede, omlosa ko red otanij denaj birok ajudegel otomzi das katizekdi zizi dana zizi isjenećamdendub zgel ko omiruresto kar gatobitifru biroje tezadin:
The cyclical theory really only covers what happens in the first partition of the ecosystem, and cannot tell us anything about why patterns sometimes do not simply slide out the back door but are instead promoted to the niches to the right.
Di ko mi junim izdind zgel bikivjdle nenidicurabdi kardinlobukoraro rinbe nodle litirnaj ik debil sediro odrekim rajzi mevu tezadigo.
Ball, Philip. 2001. The self-made tapestry: pattern formation in nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, Joan. 1994. The grammaticization of zero: asymmetries in tense and aspect systems. In Perspectives on grammaticalization, ed. byWilliam Pagliuca, 235–254. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins,Revere and Pagliuca,William. 1994. The evolution of grammar.Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Geurts, Bart. 2000. Explaining grammaticalization (the standard way). Linguistics, 38.781–798.
Goddard, Cliff. 2001. Lexico-semantic universals: a critical overview. Linguistic Typology, 5.1–66.
Hudson, Richard. 2000. Grammar without functional categories. In The nature and function of syntactic categories, ed. by Robert Borsley, 7–35. New York: Academic Press.
MacWhinney, Brian. 2001. Emergentist approaches to language. In Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. by Joan Bybee and Paul J. Hopper, 449–470. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Shalizi, Cosma Rohilla. 2001. Causal architecture, complexity and self-organization in time series and cellular automata. Ph.D. thesis The University ofWisconsin.
