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

sification of the pbysico-physiological arterial of language, end phonology, the study of this material in its relation to meaning and to the morphological structure of the language. It will thus he seen that morphology without phonetics, i.e. the same morphology with, different sounds, is perfectly possible- it matters little whether a given suffix is -t or -n - whereas morphology without phonology, i.e. the same morphology with a different ideal patterning of the sounds, is inconceivable - if the sing, suffix is -t and the plural -n, you cannot substi- tute sounds of a different phonological inter-relation without upsetting your morphological applecart. The material of phone- tics and phonology is the same, but one is linguistically external, the other linguistically internal. It is therefore obvious that you cannot treat phonology diachronically any more than you can morphology, whereas phonetics lends itself perfectly to that treatment. Another thing is that you probably would not get much out of such a history. The sounds, alter all, are nothing but the bricks of the building and are significant only when viewed phonologically in their proper places in the system.