All these languages evolved from the same language, Proto-Indo-European. It seems like there is a correlation between being economically more developed and having simpler grammar. Why? Like with most correlations there are outliers.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxOJ4p8e7NQ
>>18426891Simplicity is always preferable to multiplicity. Not in absolute terms (i.e. not uniformity), but in terms of relative unity. IYKYK.
>>18427158make an argument or fuck off
>>18426891pie was never a languageit's just a sum of base root words devised from languages
>>18426891Correlation does not imply causation. Provide an argument for this tendency.Latin had 6 grammatical cases i believe, while italian has 0. The roman empire was the richest country in its time and had 6 cases, so a complex grammar according to your graph and also rich. It is a counterexample.The propensity to simplification of grammar in languages over time is i believe agreed between linguists as historical fact.
>>18427204>Correlation does not imply causation.didn't say that>Provide an argument for this tendency.What tendency? I provided an argument for the correlation: the map.>roman empireI'm talking about now. If you go back that far Romance languages didn't even exist, go back even further and, as I said, all the languages in the map were one language.>The propensity to simplification of grammar in languages over time is i believe agreed between linguists as historical fact.so?
>>18427214>What tendency? I provided an argument for the correlation: the map.No. You provided the correlation through a map, number of cases and economic development. The Why? in your original post implies you do not have an argument, besides the correlation. So its on you to provide an argument for this not being a spurious correlation.Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase from latin indicating a faulty reasoning, logical fallacy. Correct, you did not say that. I accused you of it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
>>18427249I did not imply that the correlation shown by the map implies causation.>The Why? in your original post implies you do not have an argument, besides the correlation. So its on you to provide an argument for this not being a spurious correlation.I simply pointed out the correlation. This is a proposition, not an argument. The map is an argument for the proposition that there is a correlation between economic development and complexity of grammar, it's backing up that proposition. That's a static thing, not a tendency. The snapshot in history shown in the map, which is now, in combination with the hidden premise which is the common knowledge of which countries are richer now, backs up the proposition or statement that there is a correlation. A correlation is a correlation, there's no such thing as "a spurious correlation". Learn basic logic, you're completely lost and confused.
