4 ms·

What do you mean by "more diverse than the European Union"? In what way?

by phaemon 11y ago

Rexxar 11y ago
He means probably more different languages and religions.
vivin 11y ago
The sheer diversity of language and culture in a place that is a third of the size of Europe. India "officially" has 122 languages, but over 780 have been counted. Going from one state to another is like going from one EU country to another; each of the 29 states has a different language, different writing-system, different culture, different cuisine, different traditions, different everything. Of course, there are similarities and towards the borders between states you get a kind of continuum of language and culture.
- phaemon 11y ago
  Fair enough. I realise that the Indian states are very different, much like different EU countries. I don't think the EU has quite as many languages (and dialects) as that, though there are more than many people think. Have a quick look at the list here, for example: http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/saoghal/mion-chanain/en/ http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/saoghal/mion-chanain/en/ Many that previously existed have died out, of course. And as TV and radio became more prevelant, it did kill off a large number of dialects. I've noticed in the UK that in certain regions, it's the older folk who have the broadest accents and use the most dialect words, compared with younger people. Do you see the same thing happening in India, or are they managing to preserve local tradition alongside the mainstream?
  - pm90 11y ago
    There are so many people that there will definitely be enough people to continue tradition. Usually, it is more convenient to marry someone who is from the same state, so that is what ends up happening (also: in, Arranged Marriage, the suitors are generally from the same state and maybe caste). However, there is also a lot of intermingling...but I don't see it becoming one homogeneous race (like the Han Chinese) anytime soon.
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    It may at one point had so, but multiple nations had (sometimes recent) historical campaigns to define a national language and stamp out the rest.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      Like the Breton language in France.
  - shas3 11y ago
    > Do you see the same thing happening in India, or are they managing to preserve local tradition alongside the mainstream? It is complex! Some dialects are dying out, but the regions seem to be clustering around the 22 'scheduled languages'. In Karnataka (population ~ 60 million) for example, there are at least 4 dialects of Kannada. With the proliferation of social media, TV, and cinema, two things are happening: (1) the non-majority dialects are losing out to a 'standardized' mean similar to the Wisconsin-mean in the US, (2) paradoxically, non-standard dialects are gaining popularity because of their quirks. This is similar to how Irish dialects are highlighted in movies like Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, In Bruges, etc. giving them more visibility than it would otherwise get. Another analogy is how we all know about Minnesotan 'dialects' and Californian dude-isms from Coen brothers' explorations of these themes. The primary bulwark against the disappearance of dialects and languages in India is just the largeness of the masses of people who speak these languages. For example, Bhojpuri, a dialect that is different from standardized movie/TV 'Hindi' has tens of millions of speakers. Somehow standardized languages seem to co-exist with dialects in much of India. It is nearly impossible that any of the 22 languages will die out in the next few centuries. Even most dialects will survive because of the strength in numbers. (Note, the 22 languages includes Sanskrit, which like Latin and classical Greek has in some sense 'died out'. But the masses never 'spoke' Sanskrit, it was more of a formalized language for literature and administration.) Edit: By Wisconsin-mean, I mean General American https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_American https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_American
    - lake99 11y ago
      > But the masses never 'spoke' Sanskrit, it was more of a formalized language for literature and administration. That's a strange thing to say. Panini formalized it, but the language was in widespread use for a long time before that, quite like Latin and classical Greek were. Why else would people start using it for literature and administration? Of course, using it for these two purposes gave it a certain degree of prestige and made the language live on long after it was spoken by the masses.
      - shas3 11y ago
        The common people spoke 'Prakrit's and Dravidian languages, basically ancestors of modern languages. The word 'sanskrit' itself comes from the same root as 'samskara'. One of the meanings of 'samskara' is 'purification (rite)'. In all likelihood, only Brahmins and other scholars 'spoke' Sanskrit [1]. It is also likely that all Sanskrit speakers were bilingual. This exclusivity of Sanskrit learning is also one of the likely reasons why Buddhist teachings are in Prakrits (dharma = dhamma, etc.). [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=QYxpvZLg4hAC&pg=PA19&dq=sanskrit+spoken+language+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI_KyP6ouLyAIVB5aICh1FeQHK#v=onepage&q=sanskrit%20spoken%20language%20history&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=QYxpvZLg4hAC&pg=PA19&dq=sa...

What do you mean by "more diverse than the European Union"? In what way?

by phaemon 11y ago

What do you mean by "more diverse than the European Union"? In what way?

Rexxar 11y ago

He means probably more different languages and religions.

vivin 11y ago

The sheer diversity of language and culture in a place that is a third of the size of Europe. India "officially" has 122 languages, but over 780 have been counted. Going from one state to another is like going from one EU country to another; each of the 29 states has a different language, different writing-system, different culture, different cuisine, different traditions, different everything. Of course, there are similarities and towards the borders between states you get a kind of continuum of language and culture.

phaemon 11y ago
Fair enough. I realise that the Indian states are very different, much like different EU countries. I don't think the EU has quite as many languages (and dialects) as that, though there are more than many people think. Have a quick look at the list here, for example: http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/saoghal/mion-chanain/en/ http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/saoghal/mion-chanain/en/ Many that previously existed have died out, of course. And as TV and radio became more prevelant, it did kill off a large number of dialects. I've noticed in the UK that in certain regions, it's the older folk who have the broadest accents and use the most dialect words, compared with younger people. Do you see the same thing happening in India, or are they managing to preserve local tradition alongside the mainstream?
- pm90 11y ago
  There are so many people that there will definitely be enough people to continue tradition. Usually, it is more convenient to marry someone who is from the same state, so that is what ends up happening (also: in, Arranged Marriage, the suitors are generally from the same state and maybe caste). However, there is also a lot of intermingling...but I don't see it becoming one homogeneous race (like the Han Chinese) anytime soon.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  It may at one point had so, but multiple nations had (sometimes recent) historical campaigns to define a national language and stamp out the rest.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    Like the Breton language in France.
- shas3 11y ago
  > Do you see the same thing happening in India, or are they managing to preserve local tradition alongside the mainstream? It is complex! Some dialects are dying out, but the regions seem to be clustering around the 22 'scheduled languages'. In Karnataka (population ~ 60 million) for example, there are at least 4 dialects of Kannada. With the proliferation of social media, TV, and cinema, two things are happening: (1) the non-majority dialects are losing out to a 'standardized' mean similar to the Wisconsin-mean in the US, (2) paradoxically, non-standard dialects are gaining popularity because of their quirks. This is similar to how Irish dialects are highlighted in movies like Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, In Bruges, etc. giving them more visibility than it would otherwise get. Another analogy is how we all know about Minnesotan 'dialects' and Californian dude-isms from Coen brothers' explorations of these themes. The primary bulwark against the disappearance of dialects and languages in India is just the largeness of the masses of people who speak these languages. For example, Bhojpuri, a dialect that is different from standardized movie/TV 'Hindi' has tens of millions of speakers. Somehow standardized languages seem to co-exist with dialects in much of India. It is nearly impossible that any of the 22 languages will die out in the next few centuries. Even most dialects will survive because of the strength in numbers. (Note, the 22 languages includes Sanskrit, which like Latin and classical Greek has in some sense 'died out'. But the masses never 'spoke' Sanskrit, it was more of a formalized language for literature and administration.) Edit: By Wisconsin-mean, I mean General American https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_American https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_American
  - lake99 11y ago
    > But the masses never 'spoke' Sanskrit, it was more of a formalized language for literature and administration. That's a strange thing to say. Panini formalized it, but the language was in widespread use for a long time before that, quite like Latin and classical Greek were. Why else would people start using it for literature and administration? Of course, using it for these two purposes gave it a certain degree of prestige and made the language live on long after it was spoken by the masses.
    - shas3 11y ago
      The common people spoke 'Prakrit's and Dravidian languages, basically ancestors of modern languages. The word 'sanskrit' itself comes from the same root as 'samskara'. One of the meanings of 'samskara' is 'purification (rite)'. In all likelihood, only Brahmins and other scholars 'spoke' Sanskrit [1]. It is also likely that all Sanskrit speakers were bilingual. This exclusivity of Sanskrit learning is also one of the likely reasons why Buddhist teachings are in Prakrits (dharma = dhamma, etc.). [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=QYxpvZLg4hAC&pg=PA19&dq=sanskrit+spoken+language+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI_KyP6ouLyAIVB5aICh1FeQHK#v=onepage&q=sanskrit%20spoken%20language%20history&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=QYxpvZLg4hAC&pg=PA19&dq=sa...