[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And:
Tendencies of language like Zipf are very easy to disrupt through other factors --- as Bob is in fact alluding to. Language change is like thatPerhaps you can get him to see the difference between countervailing tendencies and the nonexistence of a tendency.
Nah; I do have to start using my time more wisely. :-)
And a reminder, folks, that teleological arguments about language change are intuitive and appealing --- and like most simple, easy to understand answers, are wrong
Why are they wrong? They seem to me a good way of explaining tendencies, even if they are not good explanations of the mechanisms that bring about realizations of those tendencies. (Are you no longer the functionalist you once were?)
Horribile dictu, yes; that's what teaching has done to me (I've taken to calling anti-formalists "hippies" in class.) An explication that's vague on the mechanics seems to be dishonest.
That's enough tangent. :-) -- **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** * Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@hidden.email * Rm 637 Arts Centre, Melbourne University, Australia www.opoudjis.net * "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the * circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson, * _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. * **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****