Convergence and secondary entropy in a macrodiachronic perspective

The theory of secondary convergence and entropy has had interesting results in the comparative linguistics of Semitic languages, as in the studies of Lutz Edzard who analyzed the secondary convergence between various Semitic languages once they were already distinguished from one another as separate...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Cyril Aslanov
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN FR
Publicado:	Publications de l’Université de Provence 2021
Materias:	typological convergence Sprachbund ancient Indo-European languages ancient Semitic languages Tyrrhenian languages Philology. Linguistics P1-1091
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/ebd09aab31c8421998fe0053da953594
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:ebd09aab31c8421998fe0053da953594
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:ebd09aab31c8421998fe0053da9535942021-12-02T10:41:30ZConvergence and secondary entropy in a macrodiachronic perspective2264-708210.4000/tipa.4125https://doaj.org/article/ebd09aab31c8421998fe0053da9535942021-07-01T00:00:00Zhttp://journals.openedition.org/tipa/4125https://doaj.org/toc/2264-7082The theory of secondary convergence and entropy has had interesting results in the comparative linguistics of Semitic languages, as in the studies of Lutz Edzard who analyzed the secondary convergence between various Semitic languages once they were already distinguished from one another as separate branches deriving from Proto-Semitic. However, Edzard’s contribution to the issue of secondary convergence regards only languages of the same family, the Semitic languages, a relatively small language family integrated in the loose macro-family of Chamito-Semitic (Afroasiatic) languages. What should be expected now is the application of a similar methodology that could take into account the dynamic of mutual convergence between languages belonging to families looser than the Semitic languages and tighter than the Chamito-Semitic ones.My assumption is that at late stages of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) (around 2500 BC), when PIE had already been divided into various dialects, the dynamics of entropy and convergence could also have been at play between languages of different origin, not only between branches of the same linguistic family. The question is whether the contact of various subdivisions of PIE with allogenic languages could be perceived from a different perspective: not only as a centrifuge process with respect to PIE, but also as a centripetal process, by way of which initially non-IE languages were eventually Indo-Europeanized.Cyril AslanovPublications de l’Université de Provencearticletypological convergenceSprachbundancient Indo-European languagesancient Semitic languagesTyrrhenian languagesPhilology. LinguisticsP1-1091ENFRTIPA. Travaux interdisciplinaires sur la parole et le langage, Vol 37 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN FR
topic	typological convergence Sprachbund ancient Indo-European languages ancient Semitic languages Tyrrhenian languages Philology. Linguistics P1-1091
spellingShingle	typological convergence Sprachbund ancient Indo-European languages ancient Semitic languages Tyrrhenian languages Philology. Linguistics P1-1091 Cyril Aslanov Convergence and secondary entropy in a macrodiachronic perspective
description	The theory of secondary convergence and entropy has had interesting results in the comparative linguistics of Semitic languages, as in the studies of Lutz Edzard who analyzed the secondary convergence between various Semitic languages once they were already distinguished from one another as separate branches deriving from Proto-Semitic. However, Edzard’s contribution to the issue of secondary convergence regards only languages of the same family, the Semitic languages, a relatively small language family integrated in the loose macro-family of Chamito-Semitic (Afroasiatic) languages. What should be expected now is the application of a similar methodology that could take into account the dynamic of mutual convergence between languages belonging to families looser than the Semitic languages and tighter than the Chamito-Semitic ones.My assumption is that at late stages of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) (around 2500 BC), when PIE had already been divided into various dialects, the dynamics of entropy and convergence could also have been at play between languages of different origin, not only between branches of the same linguistic family. The question is whether the contact of various subdivisions of PIE with allogenic languages could be perceived from a different perspective: not only as a centrifuge process with respect to PIE, but also as a centripetal process, by way of which initially non-IE languages were eventually Indo-Europeanized.
format	article
author	Cyril Aslanov
author_facet	Cyril Aslanov
author_sort	Cyril Aslanov
title	Convergence and secondary entropy in a macrodiachronic perspective
title_short	Convergence and secondary entropy in a macrodiachronic perspective
title_full	Convergence and secondary entropy in a macrodiachronic perspective
title_fullStr	Convergence and secondary entropy in a macrodiachronic perspective
title_full_unstemmed	Convergence and secondary entropy in a macrodiachronic perspective
title_sort	convergence and secondary entropy in a macrodiachronic perspective
publisher	Publications de l’Université de Provence
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/ebd09aab31c8421998fe0053da953594
work_keys_str_mv	AT cyrilaslanov convergenceandsecondaryentropyinamacrodiachronicperspective
_version_	1718396860436054016

Convergence and secondary entropy in a macrodiachronic perspective

Ejemplares similares