[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-43012-en":3,"doc-seo-43012-105":29,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":91},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":20,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":20,"is_downloadable":20,"audit_status":20,"page_count":21,"language":22,"language_code":23,"site_id":24,"html_lang":23,"table_of_contents":25,"faqs":26,"seo_title":13,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":27,"read_time":28},43012,4398048949847,"Eliana","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/400002536579ef2da7f?_k=1778318612642679267",8,"Research & Report","Global Etymologies","Global Etymologies by John D. Bengtson and Merritt Ruhlen examines how researchers can determine whether languages and language families are genetically related. It contrasts arbitrary sound–meaning links with unreliable typological resemblance, using linguistic taxonomy principles borrowed from fields such as molecular biology and botany. The work argues that shared similarities must not stem from borrowing or convergence, and presents evidence supporting strong, though debated, language monogenesis.","14  \nGlobal Etymologies  \nJohn D. Bengtson and Merritt Ruhlen  \nIf the strength of Indo-European studies  \nis largely based on the existence, in a few instances at least, of very old sources, the strength of Amerindian studies is simply the vast number of languages. Thus synchronic breadth becomes the source of diachronic depth.  \n—Joseph H. Greenberg (1987)  \nHow does one know that two languages are related? Or that two language families are related? Every linguist purports to know the answers to these questions, but the answers vary surprisingly from one linguist to another. And the divergence of views concerning what is actually known is even greater than that exhibited on the question of how one arrives at this body of information. This is not a particularly satisfactory state of affairs. In what follows we will explore these questions in a global context. We conclude that, despite the generally antipathetic or agnostic stance of most linguists, the case formonogenesis of extant (and attested extinct) languages is quite strong. We will present evidence that we feel can only be explained genetically ([i.e. as](i.e. as)  \n278 14. Global Etymologies  \nthe result of common origin), but we will also attempt to answer some of the criticism that has been leveled at work such as ours for over a century.  \nTHE BASIS OF LINGUISTIC TAXONOMY  \nThat ordinary words form the basis of linguistic taxonomy is a direct consequence of the fundamental property of human language, the arbitrary relationship between sound and meaning. Since all sequences of sounds are equally well suited to represent any meaning, there is no tendency or predisposition for certain sounds or sound sequences to be associated with certain meanings (leaving aside onomatopoeia, which in any event is irrelevant for classification) . In classifying languages genetically we seek, among the available lexical and grammatical formatives, similarities that involve both sound and meaning. Typological similarities, involving sound alone or meaning alone, do not yield reliable results.  \nThe fundamental principles of taxonomy are not specific to linguistics, but are, rather, as applicable in fields as disparate as molecular biology, botany, ethnology, and astronomy. When one identifies similarities among molecular structures, plants, human societies, or stars, the origin of such similarities can be explained only by one of three mechanisms: (1) common origin,(2) borrowing, or (3) convergence. To demonstrate that two languages (or language families) are related, it is thus sufficient to show that their shared similarities are not the result of either borrowing or convergence. As regards convergence—the manifestation of motivated or accidental resemblances—linguists are in amore favorable situation than are biologists. In biology, convergence may be accidental, but is more often motivated by the environment; it is not by accident that bats resemble birds, or that dolphins resemble fish. In linguistics, by contrast, where the sound/meaning association is arbitrary, convergence is always accidental.  \nIt is seldom emphasized that similarities between language families are themselves susceptible to the same three explanations. That we so seldom see mention of this corollary principle is largely because twentieth-century historical linguistics has been laboring under the delusion that language families like Indo-European share no cognates with other families, thus offering nothing to compare. At this level, it is alleged, similarities simply do not exist.  \nWhat is striking is that this position—for which considerable evidence to the contrary existed already at the start of this century (Trombetti 1905) and which on a priori grounds seems most unlikely (Ruhlen 1988a)—came to be almost universally accepted by linguists, most of whom have never investigated the question themselves. Those few scholars who have actually investigated the question, such as Trombetti (1905), Swadesh (1960), and Green","cbCaigXNGVHiYYTJ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaigXNGVHiYYTJ","pdf",365424,1,60,"English","en",105,"# THE BASIS OF LINGUISTIC TAXONOMY\n# BORROWING\n# CONVERGENCE","[{\"question\":\"What criteria does the document use to judge whether languages are related?\",\"answer\":\"It focuses on shared similarities involving both sound and meaning. It also requires that these similarities cannot be explained by borrowing or convergence.\"},{\"question\":\"Why are typological similarities considered less reliable for proving relationships?\",\"answer\":\"Typological similarities involving only sound or only meaning do not yield reliable results for genetic classification.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the document argue against explaining global linguistic similarities through borrowing?\",\"answer\":\"It emphasizes that basic vocabulary is highly resistant to borrowing, and that borrowing occurs between specific languages at particular times and places—not across whole language families.\"}]",1783375721,151,{"code":4,"msg":30,"data":31},"ok",{"site_id":24,"language":23,"slug":32,"title":13,"keywords":33,"description":14,"schema_data":34,"social_meta":86,"head_meta":88,"extra_data":90,"updated_unix":27},"global-etymologies","",{"@graph":35,"@context":85},[36,53,68],{"@type":37,"itemListElement":38},"BreadcrumbList",[39,43,47,50],{"item":40,"name":41,"@type":42,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":44,"name":45,"@type":42,"position":46},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":48,"name":12,"@type":42,"position":49},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":51,"name":13,"@type":42,"position":52},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/global-etymologies/43012/",4,{"url":51,"name":13,"@type":54,"author":55,"headline":13,"publisher":57,"fileFormat":60,"inLanguage":23,"description":14,"dateModified":61,"datePublished":62,"encodingFormat":60,"isAccessibleForFree":63,"interactionStatistic":64},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":56},"Person",{"url":40,"name":58,"@type":59},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-07-14","2026-07-06",true,{"@type":65,"interactionType":66,"userInteractionCount":20},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":67},"ViewAction",{"@type":69,"mainEntity":70},"FAQPage",[71,77,81],{"name":72,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":74},"What criteria does the document use to judge whether languages are related?","Question",{"text":75,"@type":76},"It focuses on shared similarities involving both sound and meaning. It also requires that these similarities cannot be explained by borrowing or convergence.","Answer",{"name":78,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":79},"Why are typological similarities considered less reliable for proving relationships?",{"text":80,"@type":76},"Typological similarities involving only sound or only meaning do not yield reliable results for genetic classification.",{"name":82,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":83},"How does the document argue against explaining global linguistic similarities through borrowing?",{"text":84,"@type":76},"It emphasizes that basic vocabulary is highly resistant to borrowing, and that borrowing occurs between specific languages at particular times and places—not across whole language families.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":51,"og:type":87,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":58,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":89,"canonical":51},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":24},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":92},[93,97,101,105,109,114,119,122,127,130,134],{"id":20,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":94,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":96},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":108},5,"Comic","comic",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},30,"research-report",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":125,"slug":126},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":125,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":125,"slug":129},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":131,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":132,"show_sort_weight":131,"slug":133},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":135,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":136,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":137},19,"General","general"]