#1281. ū ([2012-10-29-1]) ˤĤƵХܸǤ5ˡūθýǺܤƤ
ǯθˤСūϰƤ¿ϰǼƤ褦ĤƤϿؼԡ붵աιԲȤˤäƸū10㤢ޤȤƤ15ǯ֤θˤꡤ70ۤɤ뤳ȤʬäƤοϤäƤǽ롥ūϡŪˤϸΡʡ (surrogate) Ȥ֤ŤǤϤ뤬Ǿİоʹ֤Υߥ˥˴ؤθƤΤȻפ롥*
ä˶̣ΤƬȤбȤȡߥ˥Υ˴ؤ¦̤ʥꥢΥѤ륷ܡȤڥĴˤѤūϡ첻ȻҲūΥԥåʲˤѲ©ǤȤɽηϤƤ롥ƬβηϤΤūǤϡūμȿȿοʤηϤȤȤؤƤ롥鷺ʶȿӰǤ⡤٤ѤȤΤä٤¤ޤĴѤūξˤϡūΥԥåϸƬˤĴбĴξȤϰۤʤηϤäƤȤפä⤺äʣʥƥबѤƤ褦
ŪˤϡūϸƬ٤ĹΥߥ˥˸Ƥ롥ŷϷʤɤιﲼǤϸūϿkmޤꡤºݤ˻Ϥ俹ӤǤαΥߥ˥ѤƤ뤳Ȥ¿ƬƱͤˡïˤ⽬ǤΤǤ롥
The World Whistles Research Association ȤΤꡤθūξƤΤǡͤޤǤˡ
J. ᥤָūסХ Scientific American ǡ١2017ǯ560--67.
[2017-05-02-1]ε˰³ƤꡥαѸ˾ˤϡԤɥĸˤˤƤΤᤤȤΤϡפѤɥĤˤƻϤޤäԥ륿 (Martin Luther; 1483--1546) ȡΩĻγǰѤȯԥƥ٥륯 (Johannes Gutenberg; 1400?--68) λǤ롥
륿Υɥĸ (1521) ¯ɥĸϰ̤¤ˤĤơ (35--36) β
륿ϡɥĸˤǤפʰ֤Ƥ롥ɥĸˤϡ¿ͤ¸ߤŪʶ̸ϤޤƤʤä륿ϡ˺ݤơ餷ʣɽǤϤʤäդ¿Ѥάϡ˼ǻȤƤˡΧθդǤʤ̱θˤ˭ɽȴơ¿Ѥ륿θդϡ߽Ф줿ΤǤϤʤƤɥĤΤ٤ƤθŪη褦Ǥä륿ϡïˤǤ狼ߤΤǤ롥Τ褦˽뤳Ȥˤäƥ륿ϡΤ̱Ω褦ȳƮ륿ϡʤȤƻԾ̤㤵졤̲ɤޤ뤿νʪȤʤäʹߥ륿Υɥĸϡɥĸؤ֤̱ζȤư졤ɥʸؤθΰĤȤʤꡤȤƤΥɥĸΩ˴ͿȤϴְ㤤ʤױư˲äƶŵǤ¯λѤ¥ʤΤǡ̤ȤƤΤȤǤϻŪǤäƥλϰϤᡤ¯ϰ̤뤳Ȥ˷Ҥäޤ륿ϡƥʤɤαˤʱƶͿΤǤ롥
륿ϡ¯ɥĸǽ뤳ȤˤäơưȻפƤƥθҤȤˤơɥĸ˾礭ʰյͭƤ롥ˡΤȥåθҤȷӤĤ졤Ūϰ̤³ƥθҤŪ˱ϤΤǤ롥αƶϤ˶ٹؤꡤɤˤƤ¯줿Ѹؤ˴褵졤ƤȤˤʤäꤷǰϥƥ٥륯ȯȾФơƻ˾Ϥᡤפ٤붯ϤʿϤȤʤäɥĸƱ͡ѸƥйҤȤɤθȤǧ褦ˤʤäƤ
ʾ (41) θդǤޤȤ褦
ױưͻʺ濴Ǥơŵ˰͵¯ǤȤˤäơ̱ˤȤäľܿ뤳ȤΤǤȶ¸ߤؤƤβḢ¯ͤ˳줿ϡ٤ƤμҲؤ˿ƩǮɤޤϤΤǤ롥η̽פϡ衼åѤζˤƥθҤ㲼դȤƤ¯ϰ̤ᡤɸη˴Ϳƥ٥륯γǰѤȯΤ褦ư岡
ʡ֥ɥĽ״ˤȶƱΡסƥȤȶƱΡ١ʸԡ2017ǯ29--42.
路ػˡ٤ϡ̺ȤƤλˤɤʤ顤̤ȤʸʸʸˤƱ˵ҤƤ롥̺ˤĤƤϡ#2465. ̺ȤƤλˤ ([2016-01-26-1])#2456. ̺Ƚƻ (1) ([2016-01-17-1])#2457. ̺Ƚƻ (2) ([2016-01-18-1]) ʤɤǰäƤϥδǯɽ (466--74) ǤȥƥΥҲưƤȤ褯ʬ뤬θդڤСּҲƥΥ߽ФƤפȤ٤ʤΤ
| 38000ǯ | ̥ڥΥ롦ƥƶ˻Ĥ֤ʹ֤ˤǸŤȤƤ |
| 3500ǯ | ݥߥг˺ǸŤʸޤ |
| 3300ǯ | Хӥ˥ʸ饯ˤΥ륯ǴĤʸޤ롥ܸʸλϤޤ |
| 3000ǯ | ǯ夬ꤵƤǸŤΥѥԥ륹ʸפΤʤʪ٥åʯ褫ȯ |
| 3000ǯ | ץȤΥҥվݷʸʿʸˤλϤޤ |
| 2500ǯ | ήǤϤʸ |
| 2400ǯ | ¸ǸŤΥץȸʸ |
| 2200ǯ | ήƼҤƫҤʸĦ |
| 2100ǯ | ǯ夬ꤵƤǸŤΥѡҤڥ롼ǽ |
| 1850ǯ | ǯ夬ꤵƤǸŤʸ˽줿ץȸδʪ |
| 18 | 쥿ǽηϤޤ |
| 1400ǯ | ǽùʸ |
| 1300ǯ | Ƽǿ顤äʸ |
| 1200ǯ | ȯã |
| 1100ǯ | ץȿͤե˥ͤ˥ѥԥ륹͢ФϤ |
| 1000ǯ | ե˥Υե٥åȤޤ |
| 600ǯ | ᥭǥݥƥߥƥʸޤ |
| 600ǯ | ȥꥷĤĢ |
| 5 | ̤ͤ˻Ȥ |
| 400ǯ | ˥ե٥åȤꥷǤɸȤʤ |
| 400ǯ | 줫Ϥȯ |
| 3 | 쥯ɥꥢ˿ۤ¤ |
| 255ǯ | ˴ؤϤƤεҤʤ롥ϤѤǴڤ˲줿 |
| 252ǯ | ϰȯ줿ǯΤ餫ʺǸŤλ |
| 250ǯ | ޥʸѤ |
| 220ǯ | ȯ̤ɮƻ˻Ȥ |
| 206ǯ | βī볫Ǥϴ˻椬ȯ |
| 63ǯ | ꥷؼԥȥܥߤݥȥΥߥȥƥ6βܤ˿뤳Ȥؤζä |
| 31ǯ | ¸ǽΥᥫʸ |
| 30ǯ | ץȤѥԥ륹泤˹ޤ |
| 1 | ޤǰŪʽ̤ϹĤѤ |
| 75ǯ | ܸʸǺǸʸ |
| 105ǯ | Ǥϸ촶ε˻ȤᴱѤȯȤƤ |
| 2 | ǥʥӥǥ롼ʸΥե٥åȤޤ |
| 250ǯ--300ǯ | ǯ夬ۤꤵƤ椬ȥ륭ǽ |
| 256ǯ | Ǻǽλ˽줿ܡȷС٤ |
| 297ǯ | ǽΥޥФĦ |
| 394ǯ | ץȤΥҥվݷʸǺǸʸ |
| 5 | ܸȼʸηϤȯ |
| 450ǯ | ǯ夬ꤵƤܣݭդ˽줿ǽμơռܤҤȯ줿 |
| 476ǯ | Ǹι륹ȥ륹Ѱ̤ˤĤ |
| 500ǯ | ޥͤޥƤʸϤ |
| 500ǯ--600ǯ | ޥͤȯã |
| 538ǯ | īȾɴѤβǺ줿ŵʩܤ |
| 610ǯ | Τħˡܤ |
| 630ǯ | ϥޥɤå |
| 673ǯ | ηʩŵ̤ϤᡤۤɤʤܤǼ̷Фȯˤʤ |
| 8 | ǰϤޤ |
| 706ǯ | ֿͤå˻ |
| 711ǯ | ֿΨ٥٥ͷå饸֥륿볤ۤƥڥ |
| 712ǯ | ʸؤκǸŤκʡظŻ٤ʸǽ |
| 720ǯ | ʩοƩȤȤܤǤλλѤ硹Ū˹ޤ |
| 751ǯ | ޥ륫ɤ椬Ϥޤ |
| 762ǯ--66ǯ | Хɤη |
| 770ǯ | ܤξ뤬Ȥäΰʪµʿꤦɴκ |
| 794ǯ | ۤȤ줬Хɤߤ |
| 800ǯ | ץȤǻ椬ϤƻȤ |
| 832ǯ | ඵ̤ꥢ |
| 848ǯ | ӥǻ˽줿ʷܤ롥ǯ夬ꤵ줿ҤǤϺǸŤȤƤ |
| 850ǯ | ʪ٤Ϥƽ줿ȿꤵ |
| 868ǯ | ¸ǸŤνҡض̼С٤줿 |
| 889ǯ | ޥͤ٤ƤεϿФǤϤʤѤϤ |
| 9Ⱦ | ХɤȤνȤʤ |
| 900ǯ | ץȤ椬 |
| 969ǯ | ͷѥɡʻסˤϤƻȤ줿 |
| 1041ǯ--48ǯ | ŴǤȤޤƫǺ롥ǯ夬ꤵǸŤβư |
| 900ǯ--1100ǯ | ޥͤإɥ쥹ǥǥå٤ |
| 1140ǯ | ඵ̻۲ΥڥΥϥƥФ椬Ϥޤ |
| 1143ǯ | إ٤ƥ |
| 1164ǯ | ꥢΥե֥ꥢΤǽεϿ |
| 1308ǯ | Ƥؿʡ٤μɮ |
| 1309ǯ | ɤǻ椬ϤƻѤ |
| 1332ǯ | ǻ椬ϤƻѤ |
| 1353ǯ | ܥåإǥ٤ɮ |
| 1387ǯ | 硼إ٥ʪ٤μɮ |
| 1390ǯ | ɥĤ椬˥٥륯ǻϤޤ |
| 1403ǯ | īƼ¤ |
| 1411ǯ | 椬Ϥޤ |
| 1423ǯ | 衼åѤǰϤޤäȤ |
| 1440ǯ--50ǯ | 衼åѤǺǽܡʥ֥å֥åˤ |
| 1456ǯ | ƥ٥륯ưǽΡ٤ΰ |
| 1462ǯ | ޥĤ˲졤ԤΥ |
| 1463ǯ | åҡĥ뤬ǰ |
| 1464ǯ | ٤ΥӥƻꥢǺǽΰȤʤ |
| 1469ǯ | Ρز²ؤνʽ٤ͥĥǰ줿ǽνҤȤʤ |
| 1473ǯ | 롼֥ǥ塼٥åǰ |
| 1475ǯޤ1476ǯ | ʹϿ٤եǰ줿ǽνҤȤʤ |
| 1476ǯ | ꥢࡦ㥯ȥꥹǺǽΰ |
| 1494ǯ | ɥޥ̥ƥͥĥ˥ɰ˼ |
| 1495ǯ | ƥȤϡȥեɥ㡼˥ɤǺǽ¤ |
| 1502ǯ--20ǯ | ƥͤιפʪεϿ˻ͽǺܤƤ롥ǯָλäƤ¼⤢ |
| 1515ǯ | ֥ҥȡǥ塼顼åϤ |
| 1519ǯ | ʥƥ٥饯륹ն˾Φƥʸ˲Ϥ |
| 1520ǯ | ޥƥ륿Ρإꥹȶβ˴ؤƥɥĤΥꥹȽ²˰Ƥơ٤졤ǯ֤Ǹۤ |
| 1528ǯ | եǡޥ饬㤬轻̱߸ԤȤƥᥭ夷ܤdz䤹 |
| 1539ǯ | ڥͤ轻̱ܤ뤿˥ᥭΰ |
| 1549ǯ | ޥͤοۤڥͤ˾Ƥ |
| 1575ǯ | ڥͤᥭ˺ǽƤ |
| 1576ǯ | ͤ |
| 1586ǯ | ĤɥȥҥȤȯۤ롥˾ǸŤεϿ |
| 1605ǯ | ХƥΡإɥۡơ٤Ǥ |
| 1609ǯ | νʹȥ饹֥륯ϴ |
| 1627ǯ | եΥ顦뤬ȥåϤϤ졤楰ΡȼԤϥɤƨ |
| 1635ǯ | ǥޡ椬 |
| 1638ǯ | ѻϤƥꥫؤ⤿餵 |
| 1672ǯ | áȯˤꥪɼ͢͢йž |
| 1690ǯ | ꥢࡦåƥϥꥫǺǽΩ |
| 1690ǯ | ꥫǺǽοʹإѥ֥åܡեɡɥƥå٤ܥȥϴ |
| 1690ǯ | ꥫΦο̱ϤǺǽλʾޥ塼åĤȯԤ |
| 1698ǯ | ȥޥ꤬ۻӿŪǺǽξؤ߷פ |
| 1702ǯ | ɥإǥȡ٤ϴ |
| 1719ǯ | ͡ȥ̡ե륷硼ɡ쥪ߥ塼뤬ںफ륹Хμˡ |
| 1728ǯ | ޥ塼åĤ椬Ϥޤ |
| 1744ǯ | ϤƤλƸܡؾʤ襤ݥåȥ֥å٤ɤǽǤ |
| 1744ǯ | ˥椬Ϥޤ |
| 1767ǯ | ͥåȤ椬Ϥޤ |
| 1768ǯ | ٥롦ӥ奨뤬ꥫΦ̱ϤǤϤƳ¤ |
| 1769ǯ | ˥塼إΥåɥȥ뤬ꥹΥꥫΦ̱ϤǤϤư¤ |
| 1773ǯ | ˥塼衼椬Ϥޤ |
| 1774ǯ | ǥե롦ˤǤȯɺؤƻ |
| 1785ǯ | ɥΩϿʹإǥ˥롦쥸٤ϴǯ塤إॺ٤˻̾ѹ |
| 1790ǯ | ȥޥӥ奤åꥹǤäȤ͵ȤȤʤ |
| 1798ǯ | ˥-륤١뤬Ϣ³浡õ |
| 1798ǯ | JMWʡ̲Ǽ¸Ϥ |
| 1799ǯ | ͥեȥդͰ |
| 1800ǯ | ۡŴΰȯ |
| 1801ǯ | 祻-ޥ㥫뤬ѥɤˤ뼫ưȯ |
| 1804ǯ | ֥饤ɥĹ־浡¤ |
| 1809ǯ | ǥ־浡õ |
| 1811ǯ | եɥҡ˥ҤưϤΰȯ |
| 1814ǯ | ɥΡإॺ٤˥Ҥξ |
| 1818ǯ | 祷奢ԥꥫǤϤϢ³浡¤ |
| 1820ǯ | ǯꥹɴʾοʹ |
| 1825ǯ | 祻ա˥ե롦˥ץϤƼ̿Ƥ |
| 1830ǯ | ɺˡˤ꿧ĤΤܤۤǽȤʤ |
| 1833ǯ | ںȤõꥹϿ |
| 1840ǯ | ꥢࡦإեåܥåȤ夹̿Ϥƺ |
| 1841ǯ | ӥˡǥ륺ɥɻإѥ٤ϴ |
| 1843ǯ | ꥫΥ㡼ɡMۡưϤžȯ |
| 1863ǯ | ꥫȼԤںѥפλѤϤ |
| 1867ǯ | ꥹκڵѥŸ |
| 1867ǯ | ޥ塼åĽΥȥå֥åǹ罰Ѥںѥפ |
| 1867ǯ | ץ饤ȯ |
| 1872ǯ | ꥫ罰ꥹȥɥĤȴλˤʤ |
| 1874ǯ | ͭҤ¤ϡ塤ԡͤϻҤȤ³ |
| 1890ǯ | 罰ιĴ˥ѥɼνѤ |
| 1899ǯ | ǥõȥإǥԻԡϰΰȯ桤252ǯλȯˤɤѤ |
| 1931ǯ | ֥ͥå夬ʥԥ塼ȯ |
| 1945ǯ | եΥޥŻҥץߥ뤿ʿκѤʸȯɽ |
| 1947ǯ | ȥ٥븦ȯ |
| 1951ǯ | ߥȥɤ֤Ƚ֤˼ơפкܤUNIVAC1ͽ¤ |
| 1959ǯ | ޥåפõд |
(230) ϡػˡ٤10ϡְȽספˤơѤȤǿƥΥפưȤˤĤơΤ褦˽Ҥ٤Ƥ롥
ϽפοҤȤäۤۤɿ¤˶ᤤפάȤưѤϤƤαưäפä餳Ϥλˡξȯ줿ΤĤޤȤ衼åѿͤϰ¤ˡ⡤°Ħ⡤¤⡤Ħ줿˥Ĥƺˡ⡤֤ޤΤäƤơεˤʤСĤǤưǰϤ줿κ俷ۤѲؤߵʨ֤äƤɥĤǰȯ줿Τ϶ǤϤʤץƥȤνױưˤϡοƥΥβǽľŪϤäΤץƥȤϹߤ˰Ȥʤ衤ͥåȤδޤޤǡϤ뱿ưȿμܤȤƤεǽ̤
ϡۤʤȤСƬⶵ餤ΤΤä͡μΨ夬äƤȡʸ𤬤ŪʼʤȤƬƤ롥פߤƤۤȤȿ͡μΨθ塤ưѤȤƥΥŪˤԤä礷ΤǤ롥ơפȰѤϤͻӤǿʤळȤˤʤä
16ƬΥɥĤǻϤޤäͻӤϡ˥ɤˤäޡȥå䤷ƥɹΩإ8ϡɹ̱λٻդ뤿ˡʸĤޤѤѤΤǤ롥 (258) ϡˤĤƼΤ褦Ƥʸʸ˵ϲؤƤˡ
ɹˤ罰λٻɬפǤꡤɤνޤؼ뤳Ȥϵ٤ǤϤʤȤĥʤ罰ζ뤫⤷ʤäʤФʤʤʢȥޥ०ϤάIJȶĤɥĤΥץƥȤΤ褦˰ȼԤѤ罰λٻᤵ०ϡȿĤαѸϢξʸǤѥեåȤ⤽ΤʤƤͤ罰˽ʬ˼ΤäʪʤݤοϤطʤǽϻ夷Τ
०뤬ѤѤƾʸȤʸˤإ8̱˼줵褦ȤפǤ롥ơ줬ޡȥåȷӤĤƥǤϤʤǤ줿ѸǤäȤ˽פǤ롥ˤơסѡαѸ3ĤӤĤȤˤʤäפʤСޤޤ¿αѸ줬դƤϰ̤夹뤷Ѹϰ̤夷ư뵡Сפϩ줿츫ӤĤʤ褦͡ʸݤ16ΥɼҲ礭ưƤΤǤ롥
ޡˡ һҡˡػˡˤͤư줿ѡ١ֽŹ2016ǯ
ε#2913. Chinese character ǤϤʤ Chinese spelling ȸƤ֤٤ ([2017-04-18-1]) Ǽ夲δܸϤ֤äܤʻɷƤ롥⤷ܸϡʸȤդ礤ܤС֤÷θǤ롤ȹ (243) 롥ǰƬˤΤϡֹءסֹۡסֹסָסֹԡפʤɤƱΤȤǤ롥
ܤθؼԤϤ褯ܸϤʤüʸǤϤʤդ줿Ǥ롤ܸ˻ϵˤ⤢롤ȸϡ̾ñʣ̤ᤵʤȤиΤȤư줬֤ȤäˡΤȤǤ롥Τޤ줿ؤˡܸʬϤ뤫顤ʸˤܤʤؤܤΤϡȸˡỌ̇̄Ǥ롥
̵ϤǤ뤿ˤȤФʸΤŤޤʤа̣ʤȤܤСܸϡǤ餯ĤΡüʸǤ롥
̣ˤʤʤȤΤϡȤƷʻѤǤϤʤܸ÷ŪʸǤ롤ȸ虜ʤ
ǤϡܸΤ褹뤳ȤǤΤϡݡפ롥÷ΤޤĹƤޤäΤǡʻѤˤʤȡܸϡ÷ΤޤƤ椯ۤ¸ˡϤʤ (p. 236) ȹͤƤ롥
ܸˤĤƻξ͡˵뤳ȤǤ䤬⤷Τϡͳβ١θؤ鸫ȡܸϲ̤ʤȤΤʤ̤θʸȤδطꤽˤθؤ鸫ȡܸ÷θǤ롤Ȥˡܸ÷⤷Ƥ櫓顤ʸȤδطꤽˤθؤΤۤ˸줷Ƥ뤳Ȥˤʤ롥ĤޤꡤǽפȤߤʤήζؤæĤġ椷ʤʸβͤƤ롤Ȥɤ롥
ʸϲȶӤĤƤϤ뤬ܼŪΩǥǤ롥ؤϡʸƱ褦˽Ż뤹ɤڤɬפΤǤϤʤդμΩˤĤƤϡʲεȡ
#1829. եƥȤ3Ĥεǽ ([2014-04-30-1])
#2339. դμΩ˴ؤ Vachek ε (1) ([2015-09-22-1])
#2340. դμΩ˴ؤ Vachek ε (2) ([2015-09-23-1])
#2431. դμΩ˴ؤ Bolinger ε ([2015-12-23-1])
#2508. դμΩ˴ؤ Samuels ε ([2016-03-09-1])
#2819. ä濴æĤĤء ([2017-01-14-1])
ˡشܿ͡١ʸ麽սҡ2001ǯ
ε#2818. 蘆εǽ ([2017-01-13-1]) Ǽ夲ؤ蘆Ȥϲ٤ɤǤơؤήˤĤƹͤ뵡ä
ĤˤȡΤ蘆θϤ蘆ơʾˤˤ뷹ä㤨СŵŪʡ֤蘆θפˤȡ蘆ζή (Rumor) ϡԤФνפ (importance) ȤˤĤƤξڵۣ椵 (ambiguity) ȤѤ㤹롤Ĥޤ R?ia Ȥ (23) ۤˤͤ٤¦̤Ϥ롥㤨СΥǥȯ칭뤫ȤǥδιͻɬפĤϤΤ褦ˡ蘆ƤǤϤʤθ뤳Ȥ⤤Ƥ롥ǽҤ٤Ƥ뤳Ȥ⤷̱¯ؤˤ椬Ƭˤ뤢ޤꡤΤ蘆塽ǥޤࡽФƴؿפȤŦƤΤǤ (154)
Ҳ˴ؤǤ⡤19̱¯ؤˤϽդλषŻ뤵Ƥ顤ߤϤȰžƺƤӽդޤƼǥܤȤʤäƤΤȸ
Τ褦Ĭήϸؤˤˤ⸫뤳ȤǤ롥20μήɸؤϡоݤȤƤäѤäդŻ뤷¾ΥǥĤޤդڻ뤹ȯŸָƬˤ뤢ޤסȤФָФƴؿפäΤǤ롥Ȥ20Ⱦ21ˤƤϡҲؤʤɡǥ䥳ƥȤŻ뤹뷹ޤäƤؤˤϡषʸ (philology) ȸƤФнŤθ츦ΩƤ櫓顤ϤϤꤰȰžƺƤӳƼΥǥ˴ؿäƤȸ
žäƤȤäƤ⡤ȤƤϰऱ֤äƤȤȤǤꡤñʲؤβǤϤʤϤǤ롥21θؤϡä濴뤤ϡơ濴æơ¾ΥǥˤۤꤹȤạ̈ǤΡַŻؤɤڤäƤȸ
ϢơդμΩȤˤĤơܥ֥Ǥ#2339. դμΩ˴ؤ Vachek ε (1) ([2015-09-22-1])#2340. դμΩ˴ؤ Vachek ε (2) ([2015-09-23-1])#2431. դμΩ˴ؤ Bolinger ε ([2015-12-23-1])#2508. դμΩ˴ؤ Samuels ε ([2016-03-09-1]) ʤɤǵƤΤǡһȤ
ؤ蘆Ȥϲ١ҡӡ2014ǯ
Swadesh θǯ (glottochronology) ˤСŪʳǰɽ路ʸˤۤܰ¸ʤȹͤøäϡ֤ȤȤ˰Ψ֤ƤȤǰƬ֤ƤΤϡäդθݤǤꡤդȤƤʤȤȤϡɤ߽ǽ (literacy) ϤΡְΨפ̤ʱƶڤܤʤȤȤްդƤ뤳Ȥˤʤ롥ľŪˤϡɤ߽ǽϤȽդϸФݼŪ˺ѤĹˤ錄ä¸ʤɤˤΤǤϤʤȤ⵿롥
Zengel ϤΤ褦ռ顤衼åѻˤ2ǯʾˤ錄Ѿ줿ˡʸˡΧäФݻΨĴĴˡΧʸŵΤʤǺǤŤΤϡ450ǯ The Twelve Tables Ǥ롥ˡǯδ֤Ƶ533ǯ Justinian I ˤ The InstitutesǸˡǯʾλ֤Ф1621ǯ˥եǽǤ줿 The Custom of Brittany Ǥ롥ĴˤơƱδϸ촴٥ǤΰפǤꡤŪѷʤɤϹθƤʤǽǯ "First interval"ǯ "Second interval" ȤƥƥˡΧäݻΨ¬ȤΤ褦ʿͤ줿 (Zengel 137)
| Number of items | Items retained | Rate of retention | |
|---|---|---|---|
| First interval | 68 | 58 | 85.1% |
| Second interval | 58 | 46 | 80.5% |
Some new factor must be recognized to account for the astonishing stability disclosed in this study . . . . Since these materials have been selected within an area where total literacy is a primary and integral necessity in the communicative process, it seems reasonable to conclude that it is to be reckoned with in language change through time and may be expected to retard the rate of vocabulary change.
ʤۤɡZengel ϥƥˡΧäȤˤꡤݻФɤ߽ǽϤαƶ¾ڤ褦Ȼߤ櫓ǤϤ롥Ф줿ϡ̣ľŪQŪˤȤɤޤηȤʤʤSwadesh ˤиʸ˰¸äݻΨŪ㤤ϤǤꡤˡΧѸϤʸŪʸäȹͤ뤫顤ޤޤݻΨ㤤ϤȤλǤϤषݻΨϹ⤫äϡäȤ٤ʸŪǤäƤ⡤줬Ĺˤ錄٤ȷӤĤΤǤС˱ƸäĹݤ롤Ȥθݤɽ路ƤˤʤΤǤϤʤξ硤ä٤ϡäݻΨǤϤʤ2ǯˤ錄ä٤ȤƵǽƤˡη³ϤʤΤǤϤʤˡΧѸΤۤѸʳѸʤɡ̤ΤѤȹͤͤʤɤɽäϡβͤ¸³뤢Ϥ¸³ΤǤϤʤΤ褦ʼθäϡɤ߽ǽϤդ̩ܤ˷ӤĤƤ뤳Ȥ¿Τǡ⤪˴ͿƤȤưפ롥ޤää٤ǤϤʤ
Ѳ® (speed_of_change) ˤĤơȴϢơ#430. Ѳ˳װ ([2010-07-01-1])#753. ʤθϸŤᤫ ([2011-05-20-1])#2417. ʸݼƿ ([2015-12-09-1])#795. ͥåȻϸѲβžΨκǤ® ([2011-07-01-1])#1874. ٸθݼ ([2014-06-14-1])#2641. Ѳ®٤ˤĤƺƹ͡ ([2016-07-20-1])#2670. դݼˤĤơ ([2016-08-18-1]) ʤɤ⻲Ȥ줿
Zengel, Marjorie S. "Literacy as a Factor in Language Change." American Anthropologist 64 (1962): 132--39.
#2717. Ź椫Ϥޤä ([2016-10-04-1]) εǸ褦ˡ֥饤ϡ롦ХӥιͰƤʸפαѤǤ12֥饤椬6˲ɤȤüȯ롥19ϤˤϡܤԼͳʿ͡ˤȤäƤɤ߽ϡʸ⤭ФʸפˤΤäؤǿäˤ뤳ȤϤʤäΤ褦ʻˡ֥饤椬ɤߤ䤹䤹ͰƤȤϡŪʽäڤդä֥饤ϡɽˤɽǽˤ
θ塤19Ⱦ20ˤơ֥饤Ͻ˱Ѥ졤˹äƤ1854ǯ˥եܤǧ줿塤ꥹǤϱѹΩտͶΩȡޥߥơ֥饤ѤɤĤĹꥫǤϡ˥塼衼ճعΥꥢࡦȤ餬Ϥ֥饤˴ŤѤ1915ǯɸƹդȡ1932ǯˤϱƤιĤˤѸ춦̤ޤäʤǤϡꥫȥꥹǰۤʤηϤѤƤä֤ƤȤϰ褹롨see #1662. äϸǤ (1) ([2013-11-14-1])ˡ
椬Ǥ⡤1887ǯճع˶ФƤȬ֥饤ߡܸؤαѤƻõäơ1890ǯ23ǯ111ҼʡˤΰƤѤ˻äϡ국ǰȤƤ롥
ƻˡġ구ɮåȤˤʤäספ롥Ĥξ˻Τ֤ǡζ구ѤɮDZ麸ؤǤäƤΤǤ롥̾ʸȰۤʤꡤϻ¦ǤäƤɬפꡤäơȯԤνȼԤɤߤդȤʤ롥ɤ߽˴ؤ븲ħȤäƤ褤ޤܸϤʽǽ뤿ᡤʬɬפǤ⡤ܸ̾Ȱۤʤ (see #1112. ʬ (1) ([2012-05-13-1])) ǤϡŪפΤۤץ饤䥳ԥ塼ˤꡤؤȤǤ褦ˤʤäƤ롥
ܤǤȶʤȤ˽вƤƤ롥Ųʡ̰ʤӤƴʤɡ¿ξ褦ˤʤä
ⶶ ̦Ĵ٤ؽɴʡ륤֥饤ĤäͤӤȡ١Ź2016ǯ
ε#2695. Ѹˤʬζ̡ ([2016-09-12-1]) ˰³ʬ˴Ϣꡥ
#1903. ʬˡ ([2014-07-13-1]) Ǥߤ褦ˡʬδȯˤϡƥȤ륢ɤνƻΤθسؽƥ˥åͿƤʬ˹װϡФǤϤʤCrystal (10--13) ˤС7ޤǤȯãƤɽ䡤St Augustine ˤ륭ꥹȶˡȤʸŪҲŪװͿƤ
ɽȯãȤȤϡդäդȤ϶̤ΤȤƵǽ褦ˤʤäȤȤǤꡤɤͥϺȤȤǤ롥̤δ餤С³ġɤߤˤפؤδƤƤΤȤϡֶΤߤʤ餺ˡ (punctuation) ̤ȯãˤط
By the seventh century in England, word-spacing had become standard practice, reflecting a radical change that had taken place in reading habits. Silent reading was now the norm. Written texts were being seen not as aids to reading aloud, but as self-contained entities, to be used as a separate source of information and reflection from whatever could be gained from listening and speaking. It is the beginning of a view of language, widely recognized today, in which writing and speech are seen as distinct mediums of expression, with different communicative aims and using different processes of composition. And this view is apparent in the efforts scribes made to make the task of reading easier, with the role of spacing and other methods of punctuation becoming increasingly appreciated. (Crystal 10)
ˡꥹȶȤδطǤСSt Augustine ʤɤνꥹȶζ㤬ŪᤰäƥƥȤ̯ʺۤˤȤʬޤˡŻ뤹뷹߽ФȤ
The origins of the change are not simply to do with the development of new habits of reading. They are bound up with the emergence of Christianity in the West, and the influential views of writers such as St Augustine. Book 3 of his (Latin) work On Christian Doctrine, published in the end of the fourth century AD, is entitled: 'On interpretation required by the ambiguity of signs', and in its second chapter we are given a 'rule for removing ambiguity by attending to punctuation'. Augustine gives a series of Latin examples where the placing of a punctuation mark in an unpunctuated text makes all the difference between two meanings. The examples are of the kind used today when people want to draw attention to the importance of punctuation, as in the now infamous example of the panda who eats, shoots and leaves vs eats shoots and leaves. But for Augustine, this is no joke, as the location of a mark can distinguish important points of theological interpretation, and in the worst case can make all the difference between orthodoxy and heresy. (Crystal 12--13)
ޤ嵭2ȤŪ˴ؤ뤬ֶʤǤϤȤƤɤ˴ʤΥƥȤ褦ˤʤäȤ⡤ʬδ¥ʤ뤳Ȥˤʤä㤨СʸϤǤϤʤñ콸Ȥ٤ glossary तǤ롥μñϤ⤽˺ϿѡѤǤꡤФɤ߾夲ȤϡƳǧӤǻȤ뤳Ȥ¿ȸζ뤳ȤäᤵƥȤȤäƤ褤 (Crystal 10--11)
Τ褦˸ߤ˴Ϣ뤤ĤʸŪҲŪ̮űѸ7ޤǤ˹ήʬδޤδǧʤΤΡ褽̲ȹͤ롤
Crystal, David. Making a Point: The Pernickety Story of English Punctuation. London: Profile Books, 2015.
ɸ˴ؤơ#753. ʤθϸŤᤫ ([2011-05-20-1]) #2417. ʸݼƿ ([2015-12-09-1]) Ϥᡤܥ֥Ǥ¿ˤƤʸηϤݼϤޤǤʤʸѤ١ʤդΤäդ椷ݼŪǤ뤳ȤϳΤʻ¤Ǥ롥ʤʤΤܼ͡ŪΤꤿ
ε#2669. ѸܸʸˡˤĬή ([2016-08-17-1]) ǻȤ (86) ˡդλλäդޤ¿ͳƤ뤯꤬ꡤɸͻǤ˥ҥȤˤʤ롥ʸʸεΤϿΤˤʤƤ롥ޤˤ붯ĴϰѼԤˤΡ
ɮϿΤθʸǤ˽θƬ줽ΤޤޤǤϤʤʤۤϤȯ̾˻ƸƬ˶ᤤФƾθʸظƬ줽ΤޤޤǤϤꤨǤʸȤƤΡʤϤθƬǵɮϿΤθʸǵʸ˶ŤϡθƤεҴŪҲŪŪŪΤĻĶŵŪҴɬŪ˷ӤĤǤ롥˰صҴŪҲŪŪŪĸƤʸ졤ʸ줬Ω롥äƤϡ褷ƤλɮϿΤθʸǵϸƬ֤ΤΤǤ褢ꤨʤƱˡʤ餺Ūʸŵޤ̣ˤơ褷ƤƱǤ뤳ȤǤʤȤؤСθʸˤΩ˾ʸˤϤʸʸݤ⤬Ǥ롥ͥ줿ʤȤΤϡɮϿΤθʸǵϸŪ¯ȸŵŪŪʲȤκ¡ǵϸʸΰפˤƤФд줿ϸġΰĿͤȤƤʹȤȤˡİ̤ȤƤΤνμԤƤĿŪˤƼҲŪŪˤƵҴŪʴפΩġ餳ͥ줿̣ˤˤˤΤΤǤ롥
ĴʬȤƤ뤳Ȥϡˤаʲ̤Ǥ롥դäդ٤ơֵҴŪҲŪŪŪפĤ٤ΤǤꡤݤ³뤿ˤϡǤˤΤ褦ͭ뤳Ȥ̤ƾƤ¸νդϤΤȤȤǤ롥äդϾѲ³ƤΤǤ뤫顤夫³Ť뷹ΤդϡŪ˸ŤݼŪȤȤˤʤ롥С͡ϡդȤƴƤΤȤ³뷹ΤΤ褦ˡդݼŪǤͳϡ줬ܼŪˡֵҴŪҲŪŪŪפǤȤΩ뤳Ȥˤꡤ褯Ǥ롥
ҡʸˡˤλʬסعء221955ǯ79--87ǡ
Curzan ˤ Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History ɤǤ롥ϡѸεϼ (prescriptivism) ˤˤĤƤŪʱѸˤΤ꤫ƤŪȤƤɤ롥
αѸ˵ҤǤϡϼ18ʹߤαѸˤ˼Ҳؤ̣ḁ̈Ūʥѥ餤ΰäƱΤθФ1Ĥ٤ȤƤεϼϡ켫ΤѲεϡ®١˱ƶڤܤװǤ⤢롥ξˡʱѸˤҤ뤳ȤǤ뤷ɬפΤǤϤʤԤ϶⤯μĥϡȤ櫓2 "Prescriptivism's lessons: scope and 'the history of English'" Dz٤Ȥʤ֤Ƥ롥Τ1սѤ褦
When I began this project, I was not expecting to end up asking one of the most fundamental scholarly questions one can ask in the field of history of English studies. But examining prescriptivism as a real sociolinguistic factor in the history of English raises the question: What does it mean to tell the "linguistic history" of "the English language"? Or, to put it more prescriptively, what should it mean to tell the history of the English language? Attention to prescriptivism in the telling of language history gives significant weight to writing, ideologies, and consciously implemented language change. In so doing, it highlights some inconsistencies within the field about the focus of study, about what falls within the scope of "linguistic" history.
Re-examining the scope of the linguistic history of English encompasses at least three major issues . . .: the relative importance of language attitudes and ideologies in understanding a language's history; the relative importance of the written and spoken versions of the language in constituting "the English language" whose history is being told; and the relative importance of change above and below speakers' conscious awareness (to use standard terminology in the field) in constituting language change. (42--43)
Curzan (48) ϡ2ˤ3ĤδΤ褦˴ʤ顤Ѹ˵ҤμȤƤƤ롥
The history of the English language encompasses metalinguistic discussions about language, which potentially have real effects on language use.
The history of the English language encompasses the development of both the written and the spoken language, as well as their relationship to each other.
The history of the English language encompasses linguistic developments occurring both below the level of speakers' conscious awareness --- what is sometimes called "naturally" --- and above the level of speakers' conscious awareness.
1ܤΡϼºݤθѲ˱ƶͿȤŦˤĤƤϡΤˤ̤ȻפäƤ롥Ѹ˸ԤϤ˿˸礦ɬפȤĥˤϡ礭ʤǤ롥
Curzan, Anne. Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: CUP, 2014.
ε#2628. Hockett ˤѸνդäդδطɽ魯ľ ([2016-07-07-1]) Ǽ褦ˡѸνդøդδ֤εΥϡޤˡ־梪碪ʡˡפɽǤѥǿܤƤ餿ȡ̤Ǥ롥
դäդεΥϡűѸ줫ѸˤƤŪޤޤˤȤɤޤäƤͥζѸȽդɸಽ (standardisation) ʤȤ⤢äơξΤЪΥϳƤѸˤʤꡤŪǤդˤή褦ˤʤ (= colloquialisation) ξԤεΥϺƤʬŪ˶ޤäƤƤȹͤ뤳ȤǤ롥
ξΤάˤĤƤϡCurzan (54--55) εҤŪΤǤ롥
The fluctuating distance between written and spoken registers provides one fascinating lens through which to tell the history of English. For the Old English and Middle English periods, scholars assume a much closer correspondence between the written and spoken, with the recognition that the record does not preserve very informal registers of the written. While there were some local written standards, these periods predate widespread language standardization, and spelling and morphosyntactic differences by region suggest that scribes saw the written language as in some way capturing their individual or local pronunciation and grammar. The prevalence of coordinated or paratactic clause structures in these periods is more reflective of the spoken language than the highly subordinated clause structures that come to characterize high written prose in the Renaissance. . . . The Renaissance witnesses a growing chasm between the spoken and written, with the rise of language standardization and the spread of English to more scientific, legal, and other genres that had been formerly written in Latin. To this day, written academic, legal, and medical registers are marked by stark differences from spoken language, from the prevalence of nominalization (e.g., when the verb enhance becomes the noun enhancement) to the relative paucity of first-person pronouns to highly subordinated sentence structures.
At the turn of the millennium something interestingly cyclical appears to be happening online, in journalistic prose, and in other registers, where the written language is creeping back toward patterns more characteristic of the spoken language --- a process referred to as colloquialization . . . . In other words, the distance between the structure and style of spoken and written language that has characterized much of the modern period is narrowing, a least in some registers. Current colloquialization of written prose includes the rise of features such as semi-modals (e.g., have to), contractions, and the progressive.
ϡդäդδطȤߤ⤦1ĤθʱѸ˵ҤȻפ
Curzan, Anne. Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: CUP, 2014.
Curzan εϼ˴ؤɤǤơѸˤˤդøդεΥˤĤƤ Hockett (1957) ιͻҲ𤵤Ƥ (Hockett, Charles F. "The Terminology of Historical Linguistics." Studies in Linguistics 12 (1957: 3--4): 57--73.) ʲοޤϡCurzan (55) ˷ǺܤƤޤ˼äΤʤΤǡHockett ΥꥸʥȤ¿Ȥۤʤ뤫⤷ʤޤ³ơƱ Curzan (55--56) ¹Hockett դѤ롥

With Alfred, the 'writing' line begins to slope downwards more gently, becoming further and further removed from the 'speech' line. This is because Alfred's highly prestigious writings set an orthographic and stylistic habit, which tended to persist in the face of changing habits of speech. The Norman Conquest leads rather quickly to an end of this older orthographic practice; the new 'writing' line which begins approximately at this time represents the rather drastically altered orthographic habits developed under the influence of the French-trained scribes. I have begun this line somewhat closer to the 'speech' line at the time, on the assumption --- of which I am not certain --- that the rather radical change in writing habits led, at least at first, to a somewhat closer matching of contemporary speech. From this time until Caxton and printing, the 'writing' line follows more or less inadequately the changing pattern of speech, never getting very close to it, yet constantly being modified in the direction of it. But with Caxton, and the introduction of printing, there soon comes about the real deep-freeze on English spelling-habits which has persisted to our own day. (Hockett 65--66)
οޤȲϡ20ȾФޤǤСƤˤʤθ塤20θȾ鸽ߤˤƤϡषդ colloquialisation (cf. #625. ѸʸˡѲ˸뷹 ([2011-01-12-1])) ФƤȤˤꡤʤȤ⤢ѰˤơξΤεΥϽ̤ޤäƤƤ褦ˤפ롥äơ2ܤΤ褦ʼݤDZĹƤߤȤ⤷⤷ʤ
դäդεΥȤˤĤƤϡ#2292. ֻȯϥפǤĤʤ줿2ۤΥܡȡ ([2015-08-06-1]) #15. Bernard Shaw äɤ "ghotiy" ? ([2009-05-13-1]) οޤ⻲Ȥ줿
Curzan, Anne. Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: CUP, 2014.
#1277. ʸ⤿ʤοϡ ([2012-10-25-1]) ǡμפ뤳Ȥ˿줿ϡ̱²ɴʻŵ٤ˡ̵ʸפȤĤΤǡƤ
̵ʸ (unwritten language) Ȥϡ֤ʸ˽뤳ȤʤȤȤǤϤʤԤʤɤˤäƽ뤳ȤȤƤҲ夷Ƥ餺줬̿䵭ϿΤȤƵǽƤʤפǤ롥̵ʸοˤĤƤϡܹƤ (186) ΤʤȤϸʤ褦ǡEthnologue ˤθοפȤʤ顤ȡʸ줿ϡˤ餯%ʤΤǤϤʤºŪΤۤȤɤʸ̵ʸʤΤǤפȽҤ٤Ƥ롥
εǤ줿̵ʸüԤʸΤʤȤɬ⤤ʤȤդǶʸƤǽϤ뤫ºݤˡ¿ο͡Τ褦ʾˤƤ롥դ˸Сǡʤ뤤ǡ˶ȤΤϡʤΤǤ롥
ȥꥢ̵ʸä̱²ʸ̵ʸȤݸ褦Ȥ뱿ưʤɡΤĤϰǾݻλߤʤƤϤ롥Τ褦ʸ (language_planning) ϤޤŪȤϤ¿θ줬ϰζʸ줫ΰϤ亹̤ˤ餵ƤΤ֤
(187) ϡ̵ʸ˴ؤο (language_myth) ˸ڤĤġ̵ʸҲˤߤƬ礭ŦƤ롥
ʸʤɽ̡ˤʤΤǤϤʤȹͤ⤢뤬ϤषդǤ뤳Ȥ¿ʸʤ餳ɽ˰ηͿߥ˥ΤʤΤˤ褦ȤռƯʤ䥢եꥫθ̱äȤꡤޤ2,0003,000⤢ΤͤƤߤ褦㤨иȤΤϡҲαΤѥȤɽΤǤ뤬ˤϱƧжѤȤޤޤʷƳƤ롥
άʸϡޤޤʤΤʸѤ뤳Ȥ롥㤨С̾̾ϽεϿΤȤƵǽ뤳Ȥ¿ϰǤߤ롥㤨СեꥫʤɤǤϡפȤ̾ϡ²ӤƤȤޤ줿Ҷפ襤äȤλҶƻפƤʤ˵ޤΤ֤˹鷺ƻǻҶȤäǤ롥̾ϸĿͤ¾θĿͤȶ̤ǤʤƱ̿̾ԡʤϼȤƻҶοơˤˤȤäƽפʽҶ̾˵ϿƤΤǤ롥ޤٿͤФơ褦˥åҶ̾Τ¿
Τ褦ˡ̵ʸ줽̵ʸҲˤƤϡʸʤ餳˭ʸʸݤȯãƤΤǤ롥ʸ䤬礭ʤФʤۤɡʸݤषƤȤϺ桹ܤˤƤȤǤ롥
Ϣơ#1685. ƬΤĵϤȰҿ ([2013-12-07-1]) ȡ
м̵ʸס̱²ɴʻŵ١Ω̱²ʪۡԡˡǡ2014ǯ186--87ǡ
"colloquial" Ȥ쥸 (register) ˤĤƹͤƤ롥ȤƤϡָ(), äդΡäΡΤΡĥʤפۤɤͿ졤ϢȤƤ "conversational", "spoken", "vulgar", "slangy", "informal" ʤɤ롥Ū "literary" ȤѸ줬ꤵƤ뤳Ȥ¿̵ʿͤθոɽƻǤϤʤषΤͤäǻȤդȤްդĤγؽԱѱѼѤ褦
(of words and language) used in conversation but not in formal speech or writing (OALD8)
language or words that are colloquial are used mainly in informal conversations rather than in writing or formal speech (LDOCE5)
(of words and expressions) informal and more suitable for use in speech than in writing (CALD3)
Colloquial words and phrases are informal and are used mainly in conversation (COBUILD)
used in informal conversation rather than in writing or formal language (MED2)
ɽȤƤ a colloquial expression, the colloquial style, a colloquial knowledge of Japanese, colloquial speech ʤɤͤˤʤ롥
嵭顤"colloquial" ŵŪˡ (mode of discourse) ȤƤäաʲˤ° (style (tenor) of discourse) ȤƤϷĥʤΤ°Ȥ (cf. #839. register ([2011-08-14-1])) "colloquial" ϸ§ȤʳŪƻ (gradable adjective) Ǥꡤɽ "colloquial" Ǥ뤫ݤŪ˷ꤹ뤳ȤΤäդդȤΤ°ϥǥǤϤ뤬դؤ "colloquial" ɽ뤳ȤԲǽǤϤʤ (ex. The passage is written in a colloquial way.) ޤˤĤƤϷĥٹ礤ϥʥǤ뤫顤"colloquial" "uncolloquial" ζϤȤ꺤Ǥ롥ɭ"colloquial" ΰ̣ΤΤȥȤ2°Ȥ߹碌ˤäʬʬ (componential_analysis) ŪȤϡץȥ (prototype) ȤΤդ路褦˻פ롥
ץȥפȤƤβǤ뤳Ȥϡ#611. Murray θ ([2010-12-29-1])#1958. Hughes θ ([2014-09-06-1]) Ǽʡ֥쥸פɤؤƤ褵ˤˤäƤ⼨롥˵Ƥ "colloquial" ۤ "dialectal", "literary", "formal" ʤɤΥ쥸Ѹΰ̣⡤٤ƥץȥŪˤȤ館ƤΤ褵
#2534. (sign) μ --- Ūˤʬ ([2016-04-04-1]) ȡ#2535. (sign) μ --- ʤˤʬ ([2016-04-05-1]) εǰѡȤ¼ۤɤǤơʸ餷ʸȤƥۥܥ (Hobo signs) ȤΤ¸ߤ뤳ȤΤä¼ (50) ˤȡ20ä衼åѤǤϡư̱²ϲԤδ֤ǡ֥ۥܥפȤ볨ʸΤ褦˻ȤƤޤʽƻ˥硼ǽ줿ʸ͡ʾä褦Ǥס
Ĵ٤Ƥߤȡhobo ϤϫƯԡˤ Hobo signs ⡤ŵŪˤϥ衼åѤǤϤʤꥫˤ¸ߤǤ롥LAAD2 ˤȡhobo ιˤ "someone who travels around and has no home or regular job" Ȥ롥19ޤǡä1929ǯ˻Ϥޤ網λˡȤ꿦⤿ʤϤϫƯԤϤ⤤ϤϫƯԤɤԤ衹ȴξ礦ΤˡγʸٴŪ˻ȤФΤΤ褦ǽȤƤϡʤƤ٤ϷȤƤˡܤǺΥԥȥ˶ᤤۥܥϡʲΥ֥ڡʤɤǸ뤳ȤǤ롥
"Hobo signs" by Google Images
hobosigns
CyberHobo's Signs
Hobo Signs
Hobo signs (symbols) from Wikipedia
ʸԥȥˤĤƤϡ#2244. ԥȥβǽ ([2015-06-19-1])#2389. ʸηϤεȯã (1)([2015-11-11-1])#2399. ݷʸǯɽ ([2015-11-21-1])#2400. ԥȥβǽ (2) ([2015-11-22-1])#2420. ʸʤɤˤˤȳ ([2015-12-12-1]) Ȥ줿
ʤhobo ϸ츻ԾܤθȤΤƤ롥ϤϫƯԤߤ ho! beau! Ȥ路Ȥ188ǯƹŴƻؼ谷ʪϤȤ ho, boy ȳݤȤ͡⤬Ƥ롥OED ˤȽϡ"1889 Ellensburgh (Washington) Capital 28 Nov. 2/2 The tramp has changed his name, or rather had it changed for him, and now he is a 'Hobo'." Ȥ롥
¼ سɽդ١̿ʹҡ2014ǯ
ε#2534. (sign) μ --- Ūˤʬ ([2016-04-04-1]) ³¼ (15) 국ʥˤΡʤˤʬפοޤ

μФʤ륵μ¿Ȥ狼뤬¤˥86ѡȤȤ¼ (16--17) ˤȡ
ͳϡФΤˤƤ뤳Ȥ軰ԤϤ¾δдﴱʤᤤȤȤʤΤǤʸ®®30ˡᤤֻФǡפˡİФǡפȤ®300ȥȤäȡΤۤȤɤ٤Ƥּפ뤳Ȥˤʤޤᤵ˼Ȥ顤տޤȤ軰Ԥ褦Ȥ־פϡμʤȤơּפλİФʤ뤳ȤˤʤΤǤ
ʤֻФǡפΡַפΡֲפŪˤäƤ˲ʬहȡŪɽסݳ衤ݳ衤ݽѼ̿ˤȡּŪɽפʬ롥ԤϤˡо¨ŪפʤΡʼ̡̿Ͽޡޡˡ־ħŪפʤΡʥܥ롤ޡԥȥࡤʥˡŪפʤΡʥա䥰ࡤɽˤ˶ʬȤ¼ۡpp. 17--19ˡ
ϢơҥȤδдﴱȥߥ˥ʤδطˤĤƤιͻϡ#1063. ʹ֤θϤʤ˰¸ƤΤ (1) ([2012-03-25-1])#1064. ʹ֤θϤʤ˰¸ƤΤ (2) ([2012-03-26-1]) εȡ
¼ سɽդ١̿ʹҡ2014ǯ
(sing) ͡ʬव뤬¼ (14) ˵ΡŪˤʬפοޤǺܤƤΤǡѤΤʲ˼Ǥϡ֥פȤɽɽŪѸȤѤƤ롥

Ṳ̄ʬˤȡ䤿ʸդɽʸѤƤȤˤϡ֥פΤΡ֤뤷פΤΡָʬפȤѤƤ뤳Ȥˤʤʸϡֽ̾פΤΡֵ̾פˤѤ뤳ȤǤ뤷֤뤷פ¾ŪˤѤǤ롥㤨СΡȡפ֡פϡ־פṲ̄˿ʩ̾Ȥˤϡ־ħפȤʤ뤷ˤСְ̡פȤȤ館롥
ոƤСǤϵȤɬͰŪǤɬפϤʤʹ֤餫μʤγФ뤳ȤǤСݤʤɤǤäƤ⡤ϵȤʤꡤ̣뤫Ǥ롥
Ȥ¼ۤϡԥȥ˴ؤܤǤ롥2020ǯԥå˸ܤǺοʤԥȥˤĤƤϡ#2244. ԥȥβǽ ([2015-06-19-1])#2400. ԥȥβǽ (2) ([2015-11-22-1])#2420. ʸʤɤˤˤȳ ([2015-12-12-1]) Ȥ줿
¼ سɽդ١̿ʹҡ2014ǯ
#2339. դμΩ˴ؤ Vachek ε (1) ([2015-09-22-1]) Ȥĥäε#2340. դμΩ˴ؤ Vachek ε (2) ([2015-09-23-1])#2431. դμΩ˴ؤ Bolinger ε ([2015-12-23-1]) ǰäƤǤ롥Samuels դμΩȤͤ뤷ƤꡤѲ˴ؤŵŪǼΤ褦˽Ҥ٤Ƥ롥
The substance of language, from a descriptive point of view, exists in two equally valid and autonomous shapes --- spoken and written. As a code, each exists in its own right, and there has been justifiable insistence, in recent decades, that graphetics and graphemics must in the first instance be studied separately before their relationship with phonetics and phonemics can be considered. This according of equal status to the written language is not to deny that it is ultimately derived from, and dependent on, the spoken language; but it is necessary, if only to disprove the naive speaker's notion that the written language is a mirror-image of what he speaks (or vice versa), or that it is based on contemporary spoken language, and not the spoken language of various periods in the past. (Samuels 4)
Samuels (5) ϽդäդߴطˤĤơΤ褦ˤҤ٤Ƥ롥
Though there are many differences of convention, the two media both expound what is essentially 'the same language'; and although, for the purpose of describing them at a given point of time they must be kept separate, it may be that for studying their development over a period of time, the interactions between the two media are just as important as their developments as entities.
դμΩȤˤĤƤϡǶʸΤʤǰƤΤǡ (188--92) Ȥ줿
Samuels, M. L. Linguistic Evolution with Special Reference to English. London: CUP, 1972.
δ졡ֱѸηϤɽŪȯãסʸˡҤν?ؿʸʳظԡˡ2016ǯ183--216ǡ
#2427. ̤ʸ ([2015-12-19-1]) εǿ줿褦ˡ̤ʸβɤˤϥޥ롥ԤβɥץҲ𤹤ϰΥߥƥȤäƤ褯ºݤ˿¿ǤƤ롥¿ʸηϤäƤɤߤ䤹ȤǤϡˤǤ롥ܼȡʷϵĤ
åФɤ
ڥ륷ܸʸ
٥ҥȥɤιʸ
ܸʸǽ줿֥Υ
ʸκȯ
ҥåȤʸ
ʥʸȥե٥åȤε
ȥꥢ
泤θʸ
쥿ߥʸȯ
ʸBȷ۲ȥȥꥹ
٥ꥢǸĤäȥ륳ʸ
ùʸʸ
ۥȰפʸ
奤ǥνʸ
ʸȥʸ
եȥαפʸA
롼ʸȥʸ
εȥѥʸ
ǸŤʸϤɤޤǤɤ뤫
ʸϤ˲ɤ뤫
(234) ϡǽϡָʸϤ˲ɤ뤫פǡߤޤǤʸɤˤ4ʳʬƤ롥
(1) ꤵλʰȬ
(2) ޥλʰ
(3) λȾ
(4) ʳŪõλȾ
褯ħȤ館ʬǤ롥ʸɤޥͶΤϡ줬ݱʤ۹ȽŤʤ뤫(2) Ρ֥ޥλפطʤˤϡ֥衼åؤλüŪˤп̱ϼ (239) äȤϵʤJean-François Champollion (1790--1832) Υå (Rosetta stone) βɤˤʩѤ褤ؤäƤ뤷ܸʸɤ˹ Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson (1810--95) βַͤä
(3) λϡŪ˹ųŪȯ꼡Ȥȴط롥쥿硤ҥåȡХӥ˥ץȡơҤȯˤꡤ³ȿʸȯƤϲɤλߤդƤä
³ (4) λϡλΤ褦˸ĿͤγؼԤ֤ȲɤĩȤϡԽĤѤ䥳ԥ塼ȤưŹΤ褦ˤ̤ʸ˸Ǥ롥ء׳ءŹɤμˡѤʤĴʤƤˤʤäϤʸɤΡ֥ޥפλȤϸȤ⡤ȤƥޥΤΤϻĤäƤΤǤ롥
ʸסزɡʸ١˼1999
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow