Subject: disc : evolution analytic > synthetic

as far as i can tell , melanie misanchuk 's query > i once read that the natural evolution of a language is from > analytic to synthetic . i ' ve been unable to find that assertion > since , and am wondering if i made it up . has been answered very inadequately . since her summary was posted on linguist , i feel that some corrections are necessary . judging from some of the replies melanie received , the view is still widespread that linguistic evolution can go in both directions , i . e . that there is no inherent directionality in language change . this is wrong . at the same time , we can't say globally that languages tend to change either from synthetic to analytic ( as some 19th century linguists thought ) or vice versa . what is going on is quite simple : we have to look at constructions , not at languages . we then see that there is a universal directionality of change : analytic constructions always turn into synthetic constructions ( unless they die out ) , and synthetic constructions are always replaced by newly created analytic constructions . ) that is , synthetic constructions never turn into analytic constructions , and analytic constructions are never replaced by newly created synthetic constructions . ( so both synthetic > analytic and analytic > synthetic are universal , but in different senses . ) when quite a few synthetic constructions are simultaneously replaced by analytic constructions , then one can get the impression that the language as a whole changes from the synthetic type to the analytic type - - this is what 19th century linguists such as august schlegel , wilhelm von humboldt , august schleicher , max mueller and others emphasized . ( the cycle mentioned by rob pensalfini was first described by georg von der gabelentz in 1891 . ) at the same time , 19th century linguists ( e . g . franz bopp and william d . whitney ) also recognized that the development from analytic to synthetic ( which they called agglutination , now called grammaticalization ) is possible and common , but they were confuded because they tended to think in terms of languages rather than constructions . it is true that 19th century linguists had some preconceptions about their own languages ( actually , latin and greek ) being the best languages , but this does not mean that all their insights are totally discredited . martin haspelmath , free university of berlin / university of bamberg
