Bichakjian (2000): "... languages have been steadily replacing the ancestral implements with ever more advantageous altenatives (linguistically more powerful and biologically less costly)"

Bichakjian hizkuntalariak zioen an bere "Reply to Suddendorf on Bichakjian on Language-Complexity" (2000):

My target article, which showed that, ... languages have been steadily replacing the ancestral implements with ever more advantageous altenatives (linguistically more powerful and biologically less costly), provided data that clearly suggest there is no empirical support for the steady state conception, and that language evolution is a gradual process with roots going very far back in time. Indeed, just as industry started with primitive tools and weapons and steadily evolved into the sophisticated hardware available to us to day, so language began with an improvised set of features which consistently remodelled into ever more efficient instruments of thought and communication.[Bichakjian, 2000]

eta reférituz ki kontrastea arten sintaxi buruazkena eta sintaxi burulehena (zeini deitzen dión "the modern word order"), egiten ditú ondoko reflexioak (an bere artikulua titulatzén "Language evolution and the complexity criterion", 1999):

The modern word order has therefore a double advantage: in the first place, it allows for the coding and decoding of linguistic messages with a minimum of mental effort, since it taxes the working memory of speakers and listeners as little as possible; and, in the second place, because the processing of linguistic messages is facilitated, it makes it possible to conceive and express increasingly more complex thoughts. [Bichakjian, 1999]

Gauza da ze prozesu gradual horretan munduko mintzaira guztiak ez dutela iritsi ber estadioa simultaneoki (nola nahiago genuken), halan-ze gaur egun, suerte txarrez, existitzen dirá diferentzia ondo nabarmenak arten erraztasun komunikatiboak zein sintaxi ezberdinek eskaintzen dituzten. Eta soluzioa soilik datorke ti jarraitú bidea an norabide egokia artio iritsí estadio sintaktiko bat non diferentziak ez diren jada esanguratsuak (behar dirá aukera burulehen funtzionalak). Bichakjian-ek dioenez (ikus goragoko aipua):

Indeed, just as industry started with primitive tools and weapons and steadily evolved into the sophisticated hardware available to us to day, so ... [Bichakjian, 2000]

Edonola ere, esan behar da ze, teknologia linguistikoak bádu konponente ezberdin oso inportante bat respektu beste teknologia edo erreminta batzuk: konponente soziala, halan-ze bere evoluzioa ez da hain erraza, nahiz, nire ikuspegitik, ez den hain zaila ere, eta dudagabe, eman daitezke aurrerapusu oso errazak, emánez bide ki beste aurrerapusu batzuk ... (gradualki, asmoz eta jakitez). [⇶]

Newmeyer (1998): 'I have seen it claimed in a variety of places that attested (or uncontroversially reconstructed) word order changes from OV to VO are far more common than those from VO to OV.'

Atzoko sarreran ikusten genuen idatzi bat non Bingfu Lu (1998) zíon erantuzten ki mezu bat ga (ganik, ganika, ganikan) Newmwyer hizkuntzalaria (1998), nork, atzo ikusten genuenez, zioén hau an 1998:

One might even conclude that the OV preference is a remnant of a 'proto-world' OV (caused by what?), which functional forces (but what functional forces?) are skewing gradually to VO. And, indeed, linguists coming from a variety of direction (Venneman, Givon, Bichakjian, and others) have concluded something very much along those lines.

Ikus daigun orain Newmeyer-en idatzi osoa (1998):

Matthew Dryer has shown that, once we correct for areal and genetic bias, the 'preference' for OV order is greater than that for VO order in the world's languages. But interestingly, I have seen it claimed in a variety of places that attested (or uncontroversially reconstructed) word order changes from OV to VO are far more common than those from VO to OV. 

My first question is how widely accepted is such a claim among historical linguists and typologists? Is there much support for such an idea and its implication of an overall general 'drift' from OV to VO? 

If this claim seems well motivated, the conjunction of the 'preference' for OV and the 'drift' to VO is very curious, no? One might even conclude that the OV preference is a remnant of a 'proto-world' OV (caused by what?), which functional forces (but what functional forces?) are skewing gradually to VO. And, indeed, linguists coming from a variety of directions (Venneman, Givon, Bichakjian, and others) have concluded something very much along those lines. 

Gauza da ze, izánik interesgarriak gaur egungo maiztasun estatikoak buruz hitz-ordenak, askoz interesgarriagoak dirá datu dinamikoak buruz nóndik, norántza eta zéin baldintzetan joan diren evoluzionatzen sintaxiak zehar historia (ez soilik evoluzioak, baizik-ere evoluzio horien baldintza diferenteak). Izan ere, maiztasun estatikoak soilik dira puntu bat, azken puntua, azken argazkia atérea ki fluxu evolutibo bat zeintaz bádugun informazio dinamiko kualitatiboa, ondo relevantea, zein, jakina, ez genuken ahaztu behar an gure analisiak. [⇶]

Kintana jauna: zure kritika (edo dena delakoa) ez da serioa

Gure hizkuntzalari eta akademiko Xabier Kintanak dio:

... ez baitut uste, "etxe horretan" esateko "an etxe hori" bezalakoak idazten dituena inori maisu-irakaspenik emateko dagoenik.

Xabier Kintanak hartu du adibide ezin sinpleago (non ez den ongi ikusten ahal ezer ere) afin desitxuratu bide garakor bat zeinen izateko arrazoia dén diskursiboa (nahizta, behin baliabide bat hizkuntzan sartuz gero, halako kasu sinpleetan ere erabiliko zen libertade osoz, jakina).

Hori da nola frogatu nahi izatea ezen "zeren" kausala ez da beharrezkoa zeren ez luke zentzurik esatea "zeren bainaiz satsua", zein den agertzen an Etxepare (1545) [edo, idatzi beharko genuke "in Etxepare (1545)"?]. Bistan da: "zeren" baliabideak markatzen du diferentzia noiz aurkezten perpaus luze edo konplexuagoak, nola onartzen baitu Txillardegik berak ere:

Onartu beharra dago, beraz; batez ere, denaz gain, perpausa luzeetan eskaintzen dituen aukera aberatsengatik. [Euskal Gramatika, 400. or.]

Bichakjianek berak dio ze:

The advantage of the modern order is hardly apparent if we compare brief segments such as 'victoriam reportavit' and 'he won a victory', or the Engl . 'a red ball' and the Fr. 'un ballon rouge'. But the important advantage of a technique, however, is not to do the simple things drastically better, but to achieve what was out of reach or to produce easily what required considerable effort. The advantage of an internal combustion engine over the sprocket wheel of a bicycle is negligible when it is matter of going to the corner store for a quart of milk, but it becomes noticeable when pounds of groceries are to be hauled from a distant supermarket. Likewise, if a comparison is made between the following sentences, where the first one uses head-last structures and the second their head-first equivalents, it quickly becomes apparent that sentence 1, though formally correct, is in fact difficult to decode and ambiguous, whereas sentence 2 does not present any problem, neither for the speaker nor the listener.

1. (The dog chased) the cheese eating mouse catching cat.

2. (The dog chased) the cat that caught the mouse that was eating the cheese.

Similar restrictions occur in German, where the head-last order is a must in subordinate clauses (3), but becomes impossible when the modifier is an embedded sentence (4).

3. Ich glaube, dass Heinz das Buch gelesen hat lit. 'I believe that John the book read has'

4. *Ich weiss, dass du, dass Heinz das Buch gelesen hat, glaubst lit. 'I know that you that John the book read has believe'

In those cases, German abandons the canonical head-last order and uses instead the more manageable head-first alternative (5).

5. Ich weiss, dass du glaubst, dass Heinz das Buch gelesen hat lit. 'I know that you believe that John the book read has'

(cf. Bach et al. 1986; and Kempen 1996 for corroborating psycholinguistic evidence).

Beraz, Kintanak kritika serioa eta argumentatua egin nahi badu, har ditzala adibide representatiboak eta eman ditzala argumentuak, eta ez zeharkako komentarioak ze(inek) ez duten ezer ere aportatzen at eztabaida (ikus "Euskararen garabideak" eta blog hau). Adibide bat: nola emanen luke Xabier Kintanak hurrengo gutunaren aurreneko paragrafoa?



Ez da dudarik ezen aditza aurreratzea oso egokia da asko eta askotan, eta euskara estandarrean desagertu beharko litzateke araua zeinek ezintzen baitigu jartzen aditza non nahiago dugun.

Ez da dudarik ezen bádira euskararen tradizioan baliabide batzuk zein diren oso interesgarriak afin lortu emaitza progresiboagoa, eta zein, praktikan, debekaturik dauden an euskara estandarra, hala nola, nabariki: "zein" erlatibo mugagarri orokorra edo "ezi" konparatiboa.

Ez da dudarik ezen bádira beste baliabide batzuk zein, gutxi erabili badira ere, bádauden eskura, hala nola, nabariki: "afin" finala, "bitartean-eta" denborazkoa, edo "kontra" prepositiboa, zein erabiltzen den afin iragarri pilota-partidak (ez dakigu Kintanak zer pensatuko duen buruz erabilera hori).

Ez da dudarik ezen, hala nola "baizik" prepositiboa báden oso erabilgarria, berdin ere izan litezke erabilgarriak (baldin eskura eta normalizaturik izanen bagenitu) beste antzeko baliabide desdoblatu batzuk nola "buruz", edo "inter", edo "kin", edo "on", edo "an", zein, jakina, konbinatu daitezke kin aurreko beste baliabide guztiak afin lortu soluzio komunikatiboak zein bestela ezinezkoak izanen baitziren (ohartu ze baliabide pospositiboak ere hor izanen genituzke).

Beste kontu bat da ritmoa (ikus geherago gure komentario bat non diogun ze tresna horiek bultzatu beharko liraké gradualki, baina galdera da: zéin da ritmo gradual optimoa?): hor bai dagokeela duda gehiago, eta akaso hor zentratu beharko litzateke debatea (edo dena delako hau). [63] [⇶]