Language /An elementary 5-dimensional model applied in different sciences
 Sound  shifts

A collection of examples on sound shifts from the references have been made in Appendix, without providing any closer details about conditions and degree of regularity or accuracy in phonetic details of the characters.
   The material is only from sources that deal with Indo-European languages and these in relation to Semitic (LB), and further some divergences between branches of Uralic languages (BC).
   However, it's said that sound shifts seem to be general, with same phenomena in different languages.

To start with a suggested conclusion:

3 polarities among the sounds give 4 coordinate axes:
- Voiced (V) ↔Voiceless (Vl)
- Discontinuous (Dc) ↔ Continuous (C)
- Windpipe/lip sounds (Wp-L) ↔ Tongue sounds (T), (= Organ level I ↔ II)

The Swedish phonemes with some other fricatives as at poles of the coordinate axes:
   Sound shifts around the circle:

From this illustration a hypothesis could be suggested as a "law", which states that no sound shifts occur between phonemes that are polar in all 3 respects, that is to say along the diagonals, with the only exception of the phoneme h, for instance h —> g.

Some notes to sound shifts from previous dimensional interpretations:

1) A development Plosives —> Fricatives and in some cases Fricatives —> Liquids seems to be the most widespread trend.
   It means steps outwards in the dimension chain for phoneme types, 3 —> 2 —> (1 —> 0/00): P →F → L → R.

2) Transitions from voiced to voiceless sounds become a corresponding process as steps from double-direction (two "barriers", vocal cords included for the air current) to only one further out. a step towards the 00-pole in this regard.

The Indo-European → Proto-Germanic sound shift (Grimm's law) provides examples of both these trends:
   Voiced plosives —> voiceless plosives —> voiceless fricatives:

Other similar examples (P —> F) from the literature:
g —> dz, (front g), Proto-Indo-European —> Indian languages
t —> th voiced, Hungarian
ts —> s, Old French
ti —> si, Finnish, Greek
d, t —> s, z ..., Russian
pi —> vi; pa, pä —> va, vä, Uralic (here from plosive to fricative but from voiceless to voiced!)

Assuming a direction of a development from Semitic to Indo-European in the once common word roots, there are examples on similar steps P —> F (or F + P):
b —> v, p —> f, t —> st.

Examples of sound shifts Fricatives —> Liquids appear for instance in what is called "rothacism", s —> r (IE), and s —> l: Assyrian: khamisti —> kamili: a development s —> consonant + l from Semitic to Indo-European. Furthermore in voiced th —> l in Hungarian.

Vocalizing of the lateral l (Latin —> Portuguese, French) could be interpreted as fulfilment of the same direction outwards in the final step, outwards from "1/2" to no secondary barrier.
   (When the plosive g, voiced as d and l and vowels, also can become merged in the vowel as in cogitare —> cuidar (Latin —> Portuguese), it depends perhaps in a "missing link" g —> j —> i ?).

3) The return according to the loop model of a dimension chain:
Transitions from the plosives to fricatives etc. outwards represent in a dimension chain the way towards increasing "entropy", decreasing part of the energy in the structure as in more dissolved speech. Facilitation of pronunciations from a "principle of easy-goingness"

As the linguists point out however, there is a counter-force, "the self-preservation of language " (BM). This tightening, accentuating force corresponds in terms of the dimension model to an increase in structure, equivalent with increase in d-degree of the phonemes.

Examples are among others "Verner's law": the development within Germanic languages from voiceless fricatives to voiced ones and from voiced fricatives to voiced plosives.
   Compare the loop version of our model where directions meet in the middle step, with the fact that this "return" P <—F occurs for phonemes in position inside or at the end of words.
   Other conditions are that it follows after unstressed vowel and in a voiced environment (CE), hence may be governed also by the "law" of easy-goingness to a certain degree.

A similar change F —> P, (a long time back then) is given by changes between Semitic and Indo-European languages, according to a selection of examples (LB):
s —> sk, sq;    z —> dr, dhr, sq;    h —> gh, gwh, g(h)r, zg.

Here again, it's reason for remembering the reversal of Semitic languages' 3rd consonant to 2nd position in Indo-European (LB) - an "inflection" which seems akin to that of phoneme types and could be regarded from the aspects of the loop model. (Compare views in file about language families on different degrees of inflecting character. )

Further examples of "return" to plosives from fricatives are f —> b in Basque loan words from Latin (VS).
   The step w —> g among the Franks in e.g. warrior —> guerre could also be mentioned here, even if the w-phoneme sooner may be classified as a semivowel than a fricative.

4) Double direction:
Double direction, or turn to inward direction in the dimension chain, could perhaps shed light upon some other processes in the transformation of words and phonemes:

- Proto-Semitic is said never to have had two consonants next to each other, while the consonant clusters in Indo-European are said to be the result of contraction. Thus, a bi-directional force seems working on the rows of phonemes in words, even apart from sequence of individual phonemes.
   What is called "syncope" or loss of an entire syllable in the middle of words, is similar to "shortcuts", seems as a parallel contraction on the syllable level and again reminding of the loop model: Examples:
domina (Latin) —> donna (Italian), parabole (Greek) —> parole (French).

"Reversal" of phonemes adjacent to or away from each other, what is called "interversion" or "metathesis", is a type of sound changes that can be interpreted in terms of switching directions.

Dyslexia can be said to illustrate a difficulty to separate directions, here from 2-dimensional to linear, 1-dimensional reading (as separating left - right). If a gene or change in a gene could be found that guided this barrier to a polarization step towards lower d-degrees (expressed in terms of the dimension model), then a closer study of this change could perhaps tell something more general about polarizations as such within biology and in other fields?

As examples, among others, slips of the tongue in children's language are mentioned, as in Swedish bräda (= board) —> bärda (no Swedish word), Corresponding "fault" in English could perhaps be: broad —> board. (When there are "jumping genes", so why not "jumping" phonemes - and perhaps syllables?)
   Generally, it could be regarded as an expression for language not being linear on deeper levels. It becomes 1-dimensional first through the sequence of motions in the motor activity. Cf. some children's ability to backward speech (CEL).

A couple of examples of purely phonetic reversals:
- rabota (Russian) —> arbeta (Swedish) = work.
- wa (Hebrew) —> au, aue, but also we (IE) = away, from here.

Other things, similar to backward words: English stone = aitz in Basque:
aitz (Basque) —> IE —> Greek —> Germanic sti - stia - stai(na).
ziv (Etruscan) —> vita (Italian) = life. (z <--> t)

As an example of also semantic reversals, corresponding to complementary geometrical poles, there is the Russian words for a farm and a road:
gorod - dorog:
   Gorod ~ "farm" = city: a circular structure.
   Dorog = path, road: a radial structure (to / from a city).
Maybe it's just odd traces of how morphemes once were born?

Specially common are reversals when it concerns the liquids r - l:
Examples from the literature (CEL, BM):
   Andreas —> Anders; crux (Latin) —> kors (e.g. Swedish);
—> telning (Swedish); dridde —> third (English).
See the same in the example rabota —arbeta above. An example in modern Swedish: fader — > farsa ( = father), also with sound shift ds. (Farsa at lest earlier more vulgar.)

With the liquid type identified with step 1 - 0/00, as done in file a bout phonemes, they also correspond to each interval of one degree in the d-degree steps, inwards or outwards. Hence, it may be a natural feeling that they could appear "everywhere" among other consonants in the linear development of a word. (D-degree 1 eventually polarized to 0/00, the r-phoneme.).

In the examples above, it's mostly also reversals around vowels. Cf. vowels interpreted as intervals in relation to consonants on a more elementary level.

"Dissimilation", differentiation between the same phonemes in a word, is also reported as particularly common for the liquids r — l, e.g. morter —> mortal (BM).

Maybe it is because this polarization 1 — > 0/00 or 1<— 0/00 represents a basic element of the opposite directions outwards / inwards throughout a dimension chain?

At the same time it is said that l and r were mutually interchangeable already in the oldest joint language of Indo-European and Semitic. Many examples are given too on the l-sound in Semitic becoming r in Indo-European and vice versa (LB). Perhaps one among other features showing on a switching of directions between these two language families, as a trade relation goes both ways?
   For example: mer / mel (= dark), kel / ker (= cold), qar / qal (= hard).

The liquids may also be added or dropped into words without change of the meaning, as stated about words shared by Semitic and Indo-European languages (LB). It could justify the interpretation of the liquids as representing each interval in the dimension chain of phoneme types, between the other phoneme types.
- l-occurrence in IE, not in Semitic: mels - mazon; tolq - taqa (= speak);
- welq - wegh;
- r-sound: gherdh - ghedh (= include, comprise).

5) Phoneme positions:
In a dimension chain of articulation places, where structure of speech organs are interpreted dimensionally, it seems that most sound shifts among consonants (or variations of the same word between related Uralic languages) occur between phoneme types within the group with the same articulation site:
   Velar plosives <—> velar fricatives, alveolar plosives <—> alveolar fricatives and laterals, and likewise within the group labiodental-bilabial sounds.

The main axis of the speech organs, the direction from inside out, from vocal cords to the lips, seems thus to be most decisive for the sense of words. While the air barrier types as more or less approximate centres seem to be more secondary processes in each step. (?)
   A principle sketch with secondary polarizations of phoneme types as along a z-axis:

Examples of sound shifts between positions seem more sporadic, and mainly then towards outer sites. The guttural vocal cord plosive for instance disappears in some languages: the Semitic (') gets replaced in the beginning of words with velar q or gh in Indo-European languages, except in Hittite. Sound shifts inside words as -kt- —> tt (= outwards in location) or -mn-—> -nn- (= inwards), described as assimilation, can be explained by the rule of convenience.

Mistakes in heard speech are most frequent between the same type of phonemes (BS), as for instance between p, t and k, quite different articulation sites.
   The conclusion would be that laws for sound shifts and mishearing broadly are opposite things, which sounds rather odd.
   If this statement isn't a mix-up in the interpretation of different forces, acting on the development of languages (?), could it perhaps reveal the opposition in direction between produced speech - in outward direction, and received, heard speech - the inward direction? (About the p-t-k-group, see below.)

6) p - q (k) - t shifts:
These shifts between p - q/k and t, representing quite different pronunciation sites, seem odd enough, between what we think should be essential, sense-differing phonemes.
- The evolution or division from q to p that characterizes what is called Q-and P-Celtic languages. Number 4: in Irish ceathair (k-sound written c), in Welsh pedwar (CEL).
- Latin: qui (= what), from IE kuo to Greek po. (But Latin quis —> Greek tis, ti.)
- Latin kt to Romanian pt. k-sound is said to be "labialized".

In the other direction from Indo-European to Latin: p —> q:
(The later development q —> p might be seen as a reappearing of the p-sound like a "collective historical archetype"?) Examples:
- prku (IE) —> quercus (Lain, = oak), (became in Swedish fura, f from p-sound).
- pequ (IE) —> quequ —> coquere (= cook);
- penque —> quinque (= number 5), (according to some linguists qu from quattuor in the word for 4).
   p-sound retained in word for number 5 in e.g. Greek, Sanskrit, Lithuanian. (~ f in Swedish).
   Cf. later Latin pl to Portuguese ch: plenum — > cheio (ch from a k-sound?).

A suggested interpretation of these shifts in position with an aspect on the dimension model, the coupling between d-degrees 4 and 0/00:

0 <—> 00 are outer poles of d-degree 4. The poles meet in last step, in "d-degree of motions 0/00".
   The 00-pole gives inward direction = pole 4a in d-degree 3, in position uvular - velar sounds as qk. (Cf. the displacement of vocal cord plosive forwards.)
   Inward direction of the chain as a whole, "the other way around", becomes voiceless labial sounds, at the end of the dimension chain.
   One in positions similar sound shift is g —> w, e.g. lagu —> law.

The axis: windpipe/vocal cords <———> lips, guttural - to labial sounds, may also be supposed as a first polarization, on level I, as it was dealt with above, in opposition to level II, the tongue phonemes.

A couple of specific phonemes in the International Alphabet (CEL) are also depicted as labialized velars kp, gb. Have these sounds been transitional forms? Or do they possibly represent a dimensionally very old nearly unpolarized phase?

The ambiguity in words for numbers 5 and 4 appears to exist already in the cuneiform writing for hand, easy to misinterpret as a number 4:

Number 8 in a Semitic language = "tamanin" (= 2 hands) is a loan word from IE (LB).

h - q - p (f) in words for numbers 5-4:
- Assyrian (Akkadian, a Semitic language): qatu (< qamtu) = hand; cf. Latin quattuor = 4 ?
- q —> h in other Semitic languages: —> hams, hamsu = hand.
(In for instance old Indian there existed also a special word asti for the surface of 4 fingers.)

Judging from the examples, it seems that it is mostly among the voiceless plosives that these shifts from guttural/uvular/velar to labial consonants appear. If so, why?
   Perhaps precisely because they are voiceless, in that polarity (voiced-voiceless) representing the 00-pole, as the labial sounds in the chain of articulation positions. Because they have only one outer barrier.

Sound shift q / k —> t:
Examples of sound shifts q / k —> t within the group of tongue sounds appear as natural expressions for a tendency forwards in the chain of positions.
   One example: ku —> t before front vowel in Greek, as in the word for number 4: tessares (Greek) where Latin has qu, quattuor. (Hardly a step Latin → Greek - ? Sooner branched ways from common IE? Or tessares related to tres, 3, in Latin - a counting in the other direction?)
   Other examples: k —> ts (Portuguese, inside a word); kt —> tt, defined as "assimilation". And pacar (Tocharian, = father), pater (IE, Latin).
   An example of corresponding voiced plosives is g —> dz , from IE to Indian , (the front g).

"Number shifts", a sketch. (0¾00 = poles of d-degree 5, equivalent 5b, 5a):

Shifts as p —> t don't seem to exist, judging from the collection of examples, i.e. from DL-BL-phonemes (as f, p, or v, b) to DA-AP-P-sounds as t, d (and fricatives in the same positions). If so, why not?
   Maybe because it should imply a shift inwards in the position chain but "outwards" ~ upwards when it comes to the levels I → II, a contradiction in directions. (?) The difference between lip sounds and tongue sounds as p and t are obviously more decisive (semantically and in the speech organs), than changes of positions between tongue sounds.

7) h-sound:
Examples of conversions (points, arcs in Semitic h-signs here omitted):

Thus, it seems that the h-sound can replace the majority of plosives and fricatives:

As a half closing of vocal cords, farthest in, (a 5→4-step), a most elementary "quantum" of articulation, the h-sound seems as an expression for the transition moment in each steps.
   The h-sound out of the interval 5 - 4 appears in the Indo-European sound shifts to contribute as an intermediary factor in shifts from plosives to fricatives (step 3 —> 2 in the chain of phoneme types). In the Germanic sound shift p, t, k to fricatives, the plosives were first aspirated. The h-phoneme serves as a transformation phoneme, for example: okto —> ahtar —> acht. Note that in Uralic languages the h-sound may replace all whispered vowels, here described as the intervals, the steps. (BC,u).
   In the examples from Semitic to IE: h —> ng(h), gh, gwh, g(h)r, , the h-sound could be perceived as transport steps between phoneme types N —> P —>P-R.

In terms of articulation sites, in the development from constructed Indo-European:
   h as the inner fricative has its antithesis in the f-sound from outside, on level I, the larynx/vocal cords <——> dental/labial sounds. It meets ("the other way around") the lip plosives b, p for further inward development towards f, v ...

In this way it could correspond to a turn inwards in the position chain. (Compare again inflecting languages when it concerns syntax.) A sound shift as caused by counterdirection from a 00-pole.

(Maybe -/+ h-sound resembles effects of enzymes: a) raising the energy level to "3" = tightening of the aspirated plosive (b <— bh, etc.), b) lowering the energy level in the transition to a fricative as b —> v, p —> f,. ?)

Examples of steps between h-sound and plosives, fricatives:
   - h —> qw, q, k (Sem. —> IE), outwards in position.
(Is h-sound in Semitic a memory of the vocal cord plosive?)
   - h <—k — > s, for instance in the word for number hundred:
   - k —> s, a shift outwards in step 3-2, both in phoneme type and in location: k, a plosive in d-degree 3; s a basic form of fricative in d-degree 2 among voiceless phonemes.
   Is there also a "missing link" as "affricate" ts in the sound shift k —> s ?

(Voiced g —> z isn't found as a direct step in this collection of examples, only g —> dz.)

Such changes as the sound shift k —> s are said to occur from the core area of a language. Hence analogous to the displacement outwards phonetically.

h <— s:
The sound shift sh .occurs in several languages within different language families, as in Greek and Avestan, Finnish and Samoyedic (BC). How should this shift be explained? Perhaps while s is the weakest among tongue fricatives, most like a whisper? A step back to a more original form, a lower level? (In numbers: fricatives in d-degree step 2 - 1: interpreted as 1/2 = ½, identified with half closed vocal cords?!)
   Many other explanations surely possible.

Aspiration as a ion channel in the cell for H + (!)


8) s before k, t, p:
It's assumed that the derived Indo-European probably had many word stems on sp-, st-, sk- (as in modern Swedish). Both in Semitic and IE-languages the phoneme s can be put in front of the q, k, t without change in the sense (LB).
   A contraction (~ syncope) of phoneme types plosives-fricatives in step 3 2, voiceless ones, are thus common in fusional, inflecting languages, as indicating the turn inwards in directions, or dual directions in these languages according to the loop model.
While other languages do not allow 2 consonants next to each other.
   Sound shifts (or differences?) from Semitic languages —> Indo-European are e.g. s —> sk, sq, and t —> st. They might be interpreted as still another example of more inward direction features in Indo-European.

[As an example of "prothesa" = new, added initial sound, the reference (CEL) mentions Latin scholar (Latin) —> escuela (Spanish), Old French escola. A question is whether this e-sound is so "new" or if it might have appeared as a memory of an older IE e-form?

9) Vowels:

A displacement in location of vowels in what is called "umlaut" (mutation) is described as a type of distant assimilation (BM), related to vowel harmony. A front or higher vowel in a plural suffix pulls the word stem vowel to an articulation further out.
   Examples: foti —> fötter (Swedish, = feet), fathir —> fäder (Swedish = fathers).
   According to the dimension model, the 00-pole corresponds to multitudes as plural forms and thus the end of a dimension chain, front phonemes - or higher ones in the dimension chain or levels of phonemes. Hence, these "umlaut" changes in plural forms could also be found to have a semantic function.

10) Nasals:

Regarding nasals, there are not many examples of sound shifts in this collection: neither to other phoneme types or between different articulation locations.
Some exceptions:
   - Semitic h —> ng in IE is one example in (LB).
The close link between nasals and plosives (interpreted as above from step 4→3 in the dimension chain for phoneme types, is exemplified in the development of Uralic languages:
   - n + voiceless plosive —> voiced plosive initially in words: ngk — > g,
nt —> d, mp —> b.
These nasals could be apprehended as remnants of a "field level" (d-degree 4), which disappears in step 4 → 3 to plosives or become included in other phonemes as nasalization.
   The Uralic combinations nasals→plosives, not easily pronounced, are interesting examples of this straight d-degree step 4 → 3, also appearing in some African languages, indicating a sense for where "it starts".

(What is called "insertions" of voiced plosives in for instance ormr — > ormbr, Primitive Norse to Old Swedish, should perhaps be interpreted as a return to a previous N + P form, a sense that nasals come before plosives in the series of phonemes, a marking of the development path of phonemes?)

In the Uralic languages (BC) there are sound shifts as

ng —> w: ngarka (= big, in Yurak, Nenets) = warg in Selkup-Samoyedic:

It is a sound exchange in position between nasal + velar phonemes and lip sounds that could be explained as a parallel to q / k - p-shifts in IE languages, with interpretation according to point 6 above. (4 — 0/00.).
   The nasal m can also replace the semivowel w as a variation between lip sounds themselves (appearing in a few northern Uralic languages).

In Celtic languages it seems (SEO) to exist alternating forms of lip sounds m and b:
- bruig, mruig (= ground, borderland) in medieval (?) Irish,
- bridge (g), mrog (related to land), in Cymric,
- brithyl (= trout), Cymric, from IE mrkt, to merg (= shimmer dimly) —> mörk (Swedish, = dark).
- mrecht (= parti-coloured), Old Irish, —> brokoter, Old Swedish.

If it's correct, as linguists state, that the oldest linguistic forms are found in the periphery of a language area, the question arises if perhaps initial nasals in front of plosives have been common in a historically early era, - before the well-known Indo-European P —> F back to P displacements according to Grimm's and Verner's laws? If so, depending on N —> P shifts as dimensionally representing a higher d-degree step?

Of position shifts within the group of nasals, only m —> n is mentioned: Thus, in positions inwards from labial sounds. Any equivalent to the step
k —> t in outward direction among plosives seems not to exist as ng —> n. Possibly step m —> n should b interpreted as a step upwards between organ levels I → II. Laryngeal/vocal cord <———> labial sounds versus tongue sounds. Upwards in levels dimensionally equivalent with outwards. This may then be associated with the upward air current for nasals.
   The few examples m —> n, which are given, can also be interpreted in other ways: It is for instance a displacement in suffixes for accusative singular in Uralic —> Old Finnish and Latin —> Greek (BC), which could be interpreted semantically as a syntactic differentiation from the sense of from subject to object "degraded" nouns, the roles of the phonemes.

The fact that sound shifts for nasals and liquids from / to other phoneme types are so rare, could depend on their roles for syntax and their frequency in suffixes (file Semantic roles...).

Some general thoughts on sound shifts:
- A difference of phonemes for the same words between neighbouring communities or ethnic groups could be interpreted as manifestations of a polarizing force (as anti-identification), not only as result of an isolated development. Polarization as a force whose complementarity or counter-force are such things as reciprocal loans.
   The same differentiating effect could be involved in e.g. reversals of phonemes within a word - or choice of different parts of a shared word (omission of syllables in the beginning-middle-end). One divides the word and goes separate ways?

- Linguists talk about the circular pathway (CEL) in the displacement from plosives to fricatives to plosives again in the development Indo-European —> Germanic. (Grimm's and Verner's laws). Perhaps this is just one example of how more original forms of words may reappear, caught from the so-called subconscious level as a sort of "Jung's collective archetypes"? While it simultaneously could be interpreted as direction reversals in a dimension chain of phonemes in terms of the model here.

From these shifts in Indo-European to Germanic languages, a general hypothesis could be proposed: that geographical spread of humans outwards "uninhabited" regions coincided with "spread" of phonemes outwards from plosives to fricatives, more of voiceless sounds and/or more of front phonemes. That this development then turned to its opposition, to "tightening", to more of the plosives and phonemes in inner positions, when these groups in the periphery were turned back towards original areas of their language through trade connections, wars and other things. (?)
   Thus, it could exist a correlation in direction between development of phonemes and social divergence - convergence.
   An abundance of examples would certainly contradict this hypothesis. Nevertheless, it could be valid, even if only one out of 10 - 100 other parameters - and therefore drown in the others?

A question which may sound provocative but isn't meant to be: How much of the relationship between words that linguists track are guided by their expectations, their sense of what is a natural step in the development of phonemes? ( "Dimension steps"?)
   If there had been sound shifts or sound switching as for instance n —> p or m —> z or k —> l or d, should then language historians have been able to identify them as such?

Differentiation between languages:

2 - 3 intersecting coordinate axes, each of which makes up a dimension chain, define a "speech plane" or "speech space" for the great diversity of languages.
   With poles c - ac as peripheries:

x. The geometrical coordinate axis of speech organs <—> phonemes with their immanent phonetic development possibilities

y. The dimensional development of the speech situation and semantic sense <—> to syntax.

z. The historic developments in phonetic and syntactic rules.

- Selection of aspects on the dimensional diversity of the talked-about.
- Received, inherited heard speech.

Different groups of people can perceive and focus on different dimensional aspects in a thing or a phenomena - always complex. For example, in their word for backbone:

- carries up - or is flexible, pliant, curved
- bends - or is similar to a tree trunk
- resemble pillars - or is knobbly bone
- a ridge - or is straight
- vertical line - or is a row of similar parts
- back side - or is upper side of animals

An ocean may be perceived as a flat surface, "talatta", or something unsure or constantly mumbling, "mare", or the original abyss, all things origin (hav), etc.

The choice of phonemes for the word "I" for instance: the I interpreted as open direction outwards or as a closed unit, a Self. As an owner or an actor etc., outward or inward direction of tongue, open or closed vowel and similar choices. (Cf. the words or rather sounds: open I, closed Ego in English.)

The given external factors in the differentiation, different social and geographic conditions for different language groups, could also be interpreted in dimensional terms of directions, divergence and convergence, central "core area" and the periphery, isolation or "meeting of poles" as counterdirection, social groups' with superior or subordinate positions, the spread in different geographical directions and points of the compass, the oppositions in appearance of nature, climate, geography of the area - and of course conditions for the livelihood.
   Shortly, complementary differences in social structure and other things could provide complementary differences in language structure and syntax rules.
   Differences in social and geographical conditions may lead to the groups perceiving the environment through different "outlook categories" through various built-in (mental) geometries...

A note:"4 - 0":

First polarization of "the Entirety", d-degree 5, in the dimensional model gives d-degree 4, identified as "Direction", with outer poles centre - anticentre, 0 <—> 00: nought (naught) as the centre pole, noll in Swedish.


To Appendix

© Åsa Wohlin
Free to distribute if the source is mentioned.
Texts are mostly extractions from a booklet series, made publicly available in year 2000








Files here


as pdf:
Part I, files 1-8
Part II, files 9-13

Latest updating