Editing Comparative method (section)

===Principles===
The aim of the comparative method is to highlight and interpret systematic [[Phonology|phonological]] and [[Semantics|semantic]] correspondences between two or more [[attested language]]s. If those correspondences cannot be rationally explained as the result of [[linguistic universal]]s or [[language contact]] ([[Loanword|borrowings]], [[Sprachbund|areal influence]], etc.), and if they are sufficiently numerous, regular, and systematic that they cannot be dismissed as [[False cognate|chance similarities]], then it must be assumed that they descend from a single parent language called the '[[proto-language]]'.{{sfn|Meillet|1966|pp=2–7, 22}}<ref>{{Cite book|last=Fortson|first=Benjamin W.|title=Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|year=2011|isbn=978-1-4443-5968-8|pages=3}}</ref>

A sequence of regular [[sound change]]s (along with their underlying sound laws) can then be postulated to explain the correspondences between the attested forms, which eventually allows for the [[Linguistic reconstruction|reconstruction]] of a proto-language by the methodical comparison of "linguistic facts" within a generalized system of correspondences.{{sfn|Meillet|1966|pp=12–13}}

{{Blockquote|text=Every linguistic fact is part of a whole in which everything is connected to everything else. One detail must not be linked to another detail, but one linguistic system to another.|author=[[Antoine Meillet]]|title=''La méthode comparative en linguistique historique''|source=1966 [1925], pp. 12–13.}}

Relation is considered to be "established beyond a reasonable doubt" if a reconstruction of the common ancestor is feasible.{{Sfn|Hock|1991|p=567}}

{{Quote|text=The ultimate proof of genetic relationship, and to many linguists' minds the only real proof, lies in a successful reconstruction of the ancestral forms from which the semantically corresponding cognates can be derived.|author=[[Hans Henrich Hock]]|title=''Principles of Historical Linguistics''|source=1991, p. 567.}}In some cases, this reconstruction can only be partial, generally because the compared languages are too scarcely attested, the temporal distance between them and their proto-language is too deep, or their internal evolution render many of the sound laws obscure to researchers. In such case, a relation is considered plausible, but uncertain.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Igartua |first=Iván |date=2015 |title=From cumulative to separative exponence in inflection: Reversing the morphological cycle |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24672169 |journal=Language |volume=91 |issue=3 |pages=676–722 |doi=10.1353/lan.2015.0032 |jstor=24672169 |s2cid=122591029 |issn=0097-8507}}</ref>