1982/01/01 by Robert Blust · 6 citations
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Historical Linguistics and Language Studies #Linguistic Variation and Morphology #Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
paper · pdf · doi:10.1163/22134379-90003470
crossref issued 1982/01/01 · crossref published 1982/01/01 · crossref published-print 1982/01/01 · openalex publication_date 1982/01/01 · crossref created 2020/07/29 · crossref deposited 2020/07/31 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref indexed 2026/07/30 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
It is well known that reconstructed vocabulary can be of value in determining the center of dispersal ('homeland') of a language family.1 It is also commonly recognized that the level of assignment (chrono logical value) of reconstructed vocabulary is dependent on the sub grouping of the languages compared. In particular, a linguistic feature can safely be attributed to the common ancestor of a collection of lan guages only if it is attested in at least two primary branches of that collection, and is not likely to result from borrowing or convergence. We might thus say that the chronological value of a lexical reconstruc tion is a consequence of our subgrouping assumptions (Fig. 1):