Saussure argues that despite their different status, diachronic statements are derived from synchronic statements. What allows us, he asks, to state the fact that Latin “mare” became French “mer” (“sea”)? The historical linguist might argue that we know “mare” became “mer” because here, as elsewhere, the final “e” was dropped and “a” became “e”. But, Saussure argues, to suggest that these regular sound changes are what create the link between the two forms is to get things backward, because what enables us to identify this sound change is our initial notion that one form became the other.… Whence the importance of separating the synchronic and diachronic perspectives, even when the facts that they are treating seem inextricably intertwined. … Saussure is all too aware of the intertwining of synchronic and diachronic facts; indeed, for him the whole difficulty is one of separating these elements when they are mixed.… Linguistic forms have synchronic and diachronic aspects which must be separated because they are facts of a different order with different conditions of existence.