Maurits & Griffiths (2014): "... the higher frequency of SOV in present languages is perhaps best attributed to widespread descent from ancestral SOV languages, while the high frequency of SVO seems to be due to preferred directions of word-order change... presumably affected by functionality"

Maurits & Griffiths ("Tracing the roots of syntax with Bayesian phylogenetics", 2014) aski orokorrean mintzo direlarik (on the whole), euren ereduan ez dute konsideratzen efektuá on kontaktu linguistikoa ezta ere efektuá on behar eta baldintza komunikatibo ezberdinak an garai oso diferenteak, baina hala ere argiki bereizten dituzte arrazoi orokor-nagusiak zergátik gaur egun egonen lirakén, alde batetik, maiztasun handia an (S)OV sintaxiak (nahiz jaitsiz), eta bestetik maiztasun orobat handia an (S)VO sintaxiak (kasu honetan, igoz):

On the whole, it seems that the higher frequency of SOV in present languages is perhaps best attributed to widespread descent from ancestral SOV languages, while the high frequency of SVO seems to be due to preferred directions of word-order change and variation in word-order stability, both of which are presumably affected by functionality. [Maurits & Griffiths, 2014]

Ikusten dugunez, ematen dituzte oso arrazoi ezberdinak: (S)OV sintaxiak sinpleki etorriko lirake ti aintzinako egoera bat, bitárten, oso ezberdinki, (S)VO sintaxiak gerota gehiago zabaltzen ariko lirakén...

... presumably affected by functionality... [Maurits & Griffiths, 2014]

non ulertu beharko litzaken ze funtzionalitate hori lotzen den kin behar linguistiko gerota handiagoak azpi baldintza komunikatibo gerota exigenteagoak, gerota ezberdinagoak respektu baldintzak eta beharrak zein zíren existitzen noiz sintaxiak ari ziren sortzen ti... zero. Bai, azken buruan, (S)VO zabaltzen ariko litzake zatio bere funtzionalitate erlatibo handiagoa azpi baldintza exigenteagoak. [1359] [>>>]