Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-r6c6k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T06:19:54.958Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconstruction, The Comparative Method, and the Proto-Language Uniformity Assumption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Isidore Dyen
Isidore Dyen*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The chief views requiring the Assumption’ of proto-language uniformity are evaluated. The conclusion is reached that the ‘assumption’ can usefully be replaced by (1) a hypothesis regarding the relation of the reconstructed phonemic system to that of some occurrent idiolect, and (2) an assumption regarding the interrelevance of non-irreconcilable reconstructions. In the course of developing the argument, the article touches on the law of the regularity of phonetic change, and proposes a definition of the comparative method.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , September 1969 , pp. 499 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1926. A set of postulates for the science of language. Lg. 2.153–64.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1904. Kurze vergleichende Grammatik. Strassburg: Trübner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugmann, Karl, and Delbrück, B. 1897. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, vol. 1. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Dyen, Isidore. 1951. Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *Z. Lg. 27.534–40.Google Scholar
Dyen, Isidore. 1963. Why phonetic change is regular. Lg. 39.631–7.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. jr. 1964. Introductory linguistics. Philadelphia: Chilton.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1950. The principal step in comparative grammar. Lg. 26.35764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1959. Some uses of nothing. Lg. 35.409–20.Google Scholar
Kent, Roland G. 1948. Review of Linguistica generale e indoeuropea: saggi e discorsi, I, by Vittore Pisani. Lg. 24.194–5.Google Scholar
Marchand, James W. 1955. Was there ever a uniform Proto-Indo-European? Orbis 4.428–31.Google Scholar
PuLGRAM, Ernst. 1959. Proto-Indo-European reality and reconstruction. Lg. 35.421–6.Google Scholar
Twaddell, W. Freeman. 1948. The prehistoric Germanic short syllablcs. Lg. 24.139–51.Google Scholar