Content deleted Content added
m Link to published version of paper rather than preprint |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Add: s2cid, jstor, doi, authors 1-1. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by SemperIocundus | #UCB_webform 1140/2500 |
||
Line 20:
Relation is considered to be "established beyond a reasonable doubt" if a reconstruction of the common ancestor is feasible.{{Sfn|Hock|1991|p=567}}
{{Quote|text=The ultimate proof of genetic relationship, and to many linguists' minds the only real proof, lies in a successful reconstruction of the ancestral forms from which the semantically corresponding cognates can be derived.|author=[[Hans Henrich Hock]]|title=''Principles of Historical Linguistics''|source=1991, p. 567.}}In some cases, this reconstruction can only be partial, generally because the compared languages are too scarcely attested, the temporal distance between them and their proto-language is too deep, or their internal evolution render many of the sound laws obscure to researchers. In such case, a relation is considered plausible, but uncertain.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Igartua |first=Iván |date=2015 |title=From cumulative to separative exponence in inflection: Reversing the morphological cycle |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24672169 |journal=Language |volume=91 |issue=3 |pages=676–722 |doi=10.1353/lan.2015.0032 |jstor=24672169 |s2cid=122591029 |issn=0097-8507}}</ref>
===Terminology===
Line 32:
==Origin and development==
In [[Classical antiquity|Antiquity]], Romans were aware of the similarities between Greek and Latin, but did not study them systematically. They sometimes explained them mythologically, as the result of Rome being a Greek colony speaking a debased dialect.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Stevens |first=Benjamin |date=2006 |title=Aeolism: Latin as a Dialect of Greek |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038039 |journal=The Classical Journal |volume=102 |issue=2 |pages=115–144 |jstor=30038039 |issn=0009-8353}}</ref>
Even though grammarians of Antiquity had access to other languages around them ([[Oscan language|Oscan]], [[Umbrian language|Umbrian]], [[Etruscan language|Etruscan]], [[Gaulish language|Gaulish]], [[Ancient Egyptian|Egyptian]], [[Parthian language|Parthian]]...), they showed little interest in comparing, studying, or just documenting them. Comparison between languages really began after Antiquity.
Line 356:
|}
has only one [[Voiced bilabial stop|voiced stop]], ''*b'', and although it has an [[alveolar nasal|alveolar]] and a [[velar nasal]], ''*n'' and ''*ŋ'', there is no corresponding [[Bilabial nasal|labial nasal]]. However, languages generally maintain symmetry in their phonemic inventories.<ref>{{Cite journal |
Even a symmetrical system can be typologically suspicious. For example, here is the traditional [[Proto-Indo-European]] stop inventory:<ref>{{harvnb|Beekes|1995|p=124}}.</ref>
| |||