Uddrag fra Synchrony versus Diachrony, [Uldall] 031-0030

it can explain why. As I see it, it is impossible to explain hy my method whatsoever vlv/ a certain group of people speak in a. certain way, except in a few cases where linguistic change 'as broughtl by non-linguisticjf actors. We can't even tell why people speak at all. I believe that it, is legitimate to divide linguistic chances into three main croups: l) phonetic changes, which again consist of mechanical changes such as assimilation'and harmony, and non mechanical changes suchjas the general ’closing’ of the English vowels (ee>i , oo > u , etc) '. 2) morphological changes, which are "brought about mainly hy analogy »compensation and borrowing; 3) syntactic changes, which follow the same general laws as the morphological changes,Since we have in language a constant inter-influence of form and function, it is clear that these three main classes of change must of necessity overlap and combine in all sorts of ways. If the element A is brought by phonetic change to resemble closely element E, several things may happen: the distinction in function between A and E maty be lost, if the phonetic change happens to coincide with a feeling that the grammatical con- cept expressed by one of the elements is no longer nessary; the distinction may be sufficiently expressed by the context so that ho^or.yr ity is safe; E may be forced to take on another form*)5the function of one of the elements may be taken over by a circumlocution, i.e. a syntactic expression. Which of tbe£e possibilities will be picked, depends on the ’genius’ of