Реклама. ООО «ЛитРес», ИНН: 7719571260.
1. Why typology but not lexis should be the base of genetic classification of languages
2. Prefixation Ability Index (PAI) allows us to see whether two languages can potentially be genetically related
2.1. PAI Method
2.1.1. PAI method background
2.1.2. PAI hypothesis development
2.1.3. PAI calculation algorithm
2.1.4. PAI method testing: from a hypothesis toward a theory
2.1.5. PAI of a group/stock
2.1.6. PAI in diachrony
2.1.7. Summary of PAI method
2.2. Why is it possible to prove that languages are not related?
2.3. Applying PAI method to some unsettled hypotheses
2.3.1. PAI against Nostratic hypothesis
2.3.2. Whether Ainu belongs to Altaic stock?
2.3.3. PAI suggests that Buyeo stock seems to be real
2.3.4. PAI against Mudrak’s hypotheses
2.3.5. Potential relatives of Ainu seem to be in South
2.3.6. Particular conclusion about PAI method
3. Verbal Grammar Correlation Index (VGCI)
3.1. VGCI Method
3.1.1. VGCI method background
3.1.2. Why the method is about verb?
3.1.3. General scheme of VGCI calculation
3.2. VGCI illustration and searching for threshold values
3.2.1. VGCI of English and Russian
3.2.2. VGCI of English and Lithuanian
3.2.3. VGCI of English and Latin
3.2.4. VGCI English and Persian
3.2.5. VGCI of Chinese and Tibetan
3.2.6. VGCI of Khmer and Vietnamese
3.2.7. VGCI of Hawaiian and Lha’alua
3.3. Measurement error
3.3.1. New list of Hawaiian forms
3.3.2. New VGCI of Hawaiian and Lha’alua
3.3.3. Measurement of error estimation
3.4. Whether is it possible for random languages to be coincidentially related
3.4.1. Estimation of probability of coincidence
3.4.2. Test of VGCI of randomly chosen languages with close values of PAI
3.5. Values of VGCI thresholds
3.6. Representation of grammar systems as topological vector space: key to further formalization of linguistics
4. VGCI proves unrelatedness
4.1. VGCI proves that Ainu and Austronesian are unrelated
4.1.1. VGCI of Ainu and Lha’alua
4.1.2. VGCI of Ainu and Cham
4.1.3. VGCI of Ainu and Hawaiian
4.1.4. Conclusion: Ainu isn’t relative of Austronesian stock
4.2. VGCI proves that Ainu and Mon-Khmer stock are unrelated
4.2.1. VGCI of Ainu and Khmer
4.2.2. VGCI of Ainu and Vietnamese
4.2.3. Conclusion: Ainu isn’t relative of Mon-Khmer stock
4.3. VGCI proves that Itelmen and Nivkh are not relatives
5. VGCI proves relatedness
5.1. VGCI proves that Austronesian and Mon-Khmer stocks are relatives
5.1.1. Khmer and Austronesian
5.1.2 Austronesian and Vietnamese
5.1.3. Conclusion about Aunstronesian and Mon-Khmer stocks genetic relationship
5.2. VGCI proves close relationship of Japanese and Korean
5.2.1. VGCI of Japanese and Korean
5.2.2. VGCI values of closely related languages
5.2.3. Conclusions about Buyeo group
6. General conclusion
References
In contemporary linguistics can be seen an obsession of proving relationship of certain languages by comparison of lexis and an obsession to separate typology from comparative linguistics. The main problem of all such hypotheses is that they are not based on any firmly testable methods but just on certain particular points of view and on “artist sees so” principle. Tendency to think that typology should be separated from historical linguistics was inspired by Joseph Greenberg in the West and by Segrei Starostin and Nostratic tradition in USSR/Russia. Despite followers of Nostractics insist that their methods differ from those of Greenberg actually their methods are almost the same: they take word lists, find some look-alike lexemes1 and on the base of these facts conclude about genetic relationship of certain languages. Followers of Greenberg and Starostin consider typological studies as rather useless “glass beads game”. Typological items are never considered as a system by adepts of megalocomparison2; usually some randomly chosen typological items are taken outside of their appropriate contexts. For instance, active or ergative typology, or the fact of so called isolating or polysintetic typology (i.e.: items that are not usual for native languages of researchers and that shock researchers’ minds) are considered as interesting exotic items, while no attention is paid to holistic and systematic analysis of language structures. Such approach makes typology be a “curiosity store” but not a tool of comparative linguistics, however, initially, according to founding-fathers of linguistics, it is typology that should be the main tool of comparative linguistics. According to the mythology created by adepts of megalocomparison comparative linguistics has actually little connection with typology and makes its statements with use of lexicostatistical “hoodoo”. Megalocomparativists often object on this critics saying that they also pay attention to structural issues and they also compare morphemes beside lexis. However, we know very well what actually means megalocomparative comparison of morphemes: it means analysis in a lexical way, i.e.: only material components are compared so there is no difference between such comparison of material components of morphemes and comparison of lexemes. The cause of it is the fact that megalocomparativists ignore that any morpheme consists of three components: meaning, position and material expression and reduce morpheme to their material implementation. Almost no attention is paid to the fact that grammar is first of all positional distribution of certain meanings. There is a presupposition that genetic relationship of two languages can be proved by discovering of look-alike lexemes of so called basic vocabulary and by detecting certain “regular phonetic correspondence”. However, yet Atoine Meillet pointed on the fact that lexical and phonetic correspondences can appear due to borrowings and can’t be proves of relationship:
Correspondence in vocabulary and regular phonetic correspondence can be between any randomly chosen languages. For instance it is possible to find some regular correspondence between Japanese and Cantonese and even “prove” their relationship: boku Japanese personal pronoun “I” used by males – Cantonese buk “servant”, “I”; Japanese bō “stick” – Cantonese baang “stick”; Japanese o-taku “your family”, “your house” or “your husband” – Cantonese zaak “house”; Japanese taku “swamp” in compounds – Cantonese zaak “swamp”; Japanese san “three” – Cantonese sam; Japanese shin “forest” used in compounds – Cantonese sam “forest”; Japanese roku “six” – Cantonese lük; Japanese ran “orchid” – Cantonese laan “orchid”. If there would be no other languages of so called Buyeo3 stock4 and no languages of Chinese stock we would have no ability to single those words as items borrowed from Southern Chinese dialects since they have same regular and wide use as well as words of Japanese origin. In the case of Japanese and Cantonese we know history of correspondent stocks rather well and have many firm evidences that Japanese isn’t a relative of Chinese stock.
.....
Pic. 3. Diagram representing PAI values of some firmly assembled stocks
PAI of a group or a stock can be calculated as arithmetical mean and it’s quite precise for rough estimation.
.....