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
- Discontinuous (Dc) ↔
- 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
Some notes to sound shifts from previous dimensional
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
Voiced plosives —>
voiceless plosives —>
Other similar examples (P —>
F) from the literature:
g —> dz, (front
g), Proto-Indo-European —>
t —> th voiced,
ts —> s, Old
ti —> si, Finnish,
d, t —> s, z
pi —> vi; pa, pä
—> va, vä,
Uralic (here from plosive to fricative but from voiceless
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
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 —>
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
s —> sk, sq; z
—> dr, dhr, sq; h
—> gh, gwh, g(h)r,
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
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:
domina (Latin) —>
donna (Italian), parabole (Greek) —>
"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.
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
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):
Anders; crux (Latin) —>
kors (e.g. Swedish);
telning (Swedish); dridde —>
See the same in the example rabota —arbeta
above. An example in modern Swedish: fader —
> farsa ( = father), also with sound shift d
→ s. (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.
between the same phonemes in a word, is also reported as
particularly common for the liquids r —
l, e.g. morter —>
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
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
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
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
- 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
(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) —>
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 q
→ k. (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:
8 in a Semitic language = "tamanin" (=
2 hands) is a loan word from IE (LB).
h - q - p (f) in words for
- 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 —>
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 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.
Examples of conversions (points, arcs in Semitic h-signs
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
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 —>
In terms of articulation sites, in the development from
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 —>
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
- 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
Is there also a "missing link"
as "affricate" ts in the sound shift k —>
(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 s →
h .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
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
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?
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.
Regarding nasals, there are not many examples of sound shifts
in this collection: neither to other phoneme types or between
different articulation locations.
- 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 —
nt —> d, mp —>
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
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 —
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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 <—>
z. The historic developments in phonetic and syntactic
- Selection of aspects on the dimensional diversity of the
- 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.