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

thø lc.ngu.6g6 5 if ø# on th© no-tunø of its 6 ti'uotu.i'G 6i c viiolø ? which again shows that we cannot properly understand any kind of linguistic change without reference to the whole structure, a view which is further strengthened hy the fact that a change like the one sketched does not occur as an isolated phenomenon hut is likely to have widespread effects on other parts of the structure: if you push the man at the end, the whole queu will feel it. Diachronic grammar across the structure and indifferent to it, seems to me of very doubtful value. If it does consider the relation between part and whole, it becomes, as Hjelmslev says, a comparison between a series of synchronic studies. "tXv aX- It. is interesting to notef l similar war is raging between the functionalistic (i.e. synchronic) school of Ethnology and the historioo-diffusionistic (diachronic) group. As to Hjelmslev’s exclusion of phonetics from grammar, I think there is something to he said for that view. It is, possible to analyse the sounds of a language and even to worry out its phonemic structure without reference to or knowledge of the morphology of the language or the meaning oi the linguistic material. So far, phonetics is completely extra-grammatical, but when it comes to determining what Hapir calls the ideal sound pattern, we are dealing with the very soul of the language and can, of course, not proceed without a thorough study of morphology. It would, perhaps, be wise to distinguish between the two: phonetics, the analysis and cl