Analogy

It is a typological observation in more than 90% of languages where the basic word order is either subject–verb–object (SVO) or subject–object–verb (SOV). Functional typologists believe that the prevalence of these two orders; in which the subject precedes the two other elements, and the verb and the object are contiguous is due to the functions of language in the real world. Hence, the two principles of subject salience and verb-object contiguity have been proposed. The typological explanations put forward for these two principles hold that transitive sentences of a language have come into existence as a result of the encoding of the prototypical transitive action scenario. In such a scenario, subject salience is a result of the fact that the transitive action scenario is started by the doer of the activity. Also, because of the tight causal relationship between the activity and its receiver, the linguistic counterparts of these two elements, too, tend to be contiguous. Since functional pressures can only be manifested in language through human cognition, the present paper looks at the cognitive processes involved in the cross-linguistic prevalence of the afore-mentioned word orders.

The following article discusses the problem of univocity in theology. It considers the classical dilemma that univocal terms used of God and human beings compromise God’s mystery while terms used equivocally of each compromise knowledge of God. One solution is that all terms used of both are analogous. Critical arguments against univocity, equivocity, and analogy are considered. Modern analysis of analogy identifies significant problems with the theory, prompting reconsideration of arguments against univocity since equivocity holds no promise for theological knowledge. Our thesis is that these arguments have plausible responses and propose a way of conceiving univocity in theology.

Among the authoritative dictionaries of Persian language, Borhān-i Qāti’ (lit. ‘Conclusive Proof’) is considered a turning point in the field of dictionary production, and it provides attractive data for applied linguistics studies in the field of lexicography. Borhān-i Qāti’, compiled in India in the 17th century by Moḥammad-Ḥosayn Khalaf Tabrīzī, is remarkable in several respects, but one of its features which does not seem to have received a proper attention, is its method of providing the pronunciation of its entries. In this reference, almost half of the entries have been given a pronunciation based on analogy, in which the entry word is echoed with a second-well known one, having the same phonotactics (distribution and arrangement of vowels and consonants), and distribution of vowels, and prosody pattern. This method was successfully practiced later on in another important but unfinished reference: Āsaf al-Loghāt (1906-1921). In This article, this pattern of presenting pronunciation is introduced and explained. Also it provides the readers with a list of the reference words which have been used to recognize the pronunciation of the other words, and the frequency of them will also be given and analyzed. The final list of this article presents those words which were believed to be “basic” or “core” by the compiler of Borhān-i Qāti’.