5 ms·

A language is a dialect with an army. The commonly accepted - but rather tenuous - criterion for distinguishing between language and dialect is speakers of dif

A language is a dialect with an army. The commonly accepted - but rather tenuous - criterion for distinguishing between language and dialect is speakers of different dialects being mutually intelligible to each other when making the effort. That can be said for Scouse, Southern American, Geordie, Cockney and Hiberno‐English, even though understanding speakers of those dialects talking among each other often is difficult for an outsider. Unlike these varieties, AAVE technically isn't a dialect but a an ethnolect and sociolect, so race definitely is a factor here. Maybe, AAVE can some day become a generally accepted dialect that's not dependent on speaker ethnicity. However, I think it's more likely that AAVE influences other - considered more standard - varieties of English. In fact that's likely already happening to some extent through culture, music in particular, and of course people just talking to each other and taking up linguistic quirks and habits from each other.

Chathamization 10y ago
> The commonly accepted - but rather tenuous - criterion for distinguishing distinction between language and dialect is speakers of different dialects being mutually intelligible to each other when making the effort. What's interesting is that I've seen Spanish and Portuguese speakers do this (enough to have a conversation, though I can't say how well that went). On the other hand, there are certain Chinese dialects (though maybe not considered dialect by linguistics) where the speaker of one finds it just about impossible to understand what the speaker of the other is saying.
- BuckRogers 10y ago
  Spanish, Italian and Portuguese are mutually intelligible and the Roman empire's legacy lives on through them. My wife is a native Spanish speaker and she has no problem with all 3 in general. It's worth noting she wasn't impoverished, it requires a high level of education to achieve this. There are many Spanish speakers (because it's a massive part of the world) who don't truly know their own language and cannot do this.
  - devishard 10y ago
    As a relatively fluent Spanish speaker who can't really understand Portuguese and finds Italian completely unintelligible, I think you're using 'mutually intelligible' pretty loosely here.
    - kw71 10y ago
      I learned some Spanish in latin america by immersion. I can make sense of written Italian and Portugese. However in Spain I can't understand anything spoken.
    - BuckRogers 10y ago
      I'm also relatively fluent and I'm the same way as you. You need to be Cervantes-level fluent, like my wife who was not only native born in a Spanish speaking country but educated in private schools and then college educated there as well. I also think some people may naturally be slightly more in tune with linguistics in general. Spanish speakers are a huge group and many simply don't know their own language. It's like going to Alabama and expecting to find Shakespeare. I'll grant you that mutual intelligibility is difficult to define but I'm using it in the sense that my wife is conversational with folks from Portugal and Italy when we travel there. That's a decent standard.
      - mcguire 10y ago
        ...in which we learn that one who fails to be educated in the appropriate schools can be fluent in their own language. And I'm left wondering if some people know what "language" is. But then I am a poor benighted bastard living in Alabama.
        BuckRogers 10y ago
        I should've used Texas in my example. Apologies to the good people of Alabama.
        mcguire 10y ago
- microcolonel 10y ago
  I don't think anyone calls Chinese languages "dialects" if they've ever heard more than one. There are some Canton dialects, but Wu is its own thing.
geon 10y ago
> mutually intelligible to each other when making the effort. By that definition, Norwegian and Swedish is the same language. Danish is intelligible too, if written, not spoken. Interesting. I'd call this language Scandic (IC), with the sub locale codes ic_SV, ic_NO and ic_DK.
- omonra 10y ago
  My understanding is that if you have a country, you get to have a language (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourgish_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourgish_language) Therefore the argument 'How come X is a language while Y is not' doesn't make sense if X has their own country and Y does not.
  - Pinckney 10y ago
    Look at Arabic; one "language" despite being barely mutually intelligible between, say, Iraq and Morocco.
    - omonra 10y ago
      Good point - but people explain that it is due to political reasons [1]. Ie same way that people in Luxemburg want to point out that they have their own language different from German, rulers of Morocco (who are Arabs - majority of Morocco's population native language is Berber) want to stress that they share same language & culture with rest of the Arab world. In other words - if you are a country, you have the option to have your own language (even if it's mutually intelligible with a major other language). If you are just a part of a country, that option seems off the table (ie you need a non-mutually intelligible language to make that claim). [1] http://matadornetwork.com/abroad/why-hindi-urdu-is-one-language-and-arabic-is-several/ http://matadornetwork.com/abroad/why-hindi-urdu-is-one-langu...
  - rspeer 10y ago
    The thing about a language being "a dialect with an army" is a bit tongue in cheek. Of course we'd like more consistent ways to distinguish languages that don't depend on politics. When there's a continuum (like the Scandinavian languages) and it's hard to decide where to draw the arbitrary line, national borders are a pretty convenient place to settle on. But that's not so fundamental that it "doesn't make sense" to ask why we distinguish languages. It's easy to imagine Norwegian and Swedish being considered the same language if they were the same country. It'd be a language with multiple written forms, but Norwegian already has two of those anyway. But you can only get so far by simplifying the issue to say that language borders are national borders. That erases a lot of the linguistic complexity of Europe, it defies reality in Africa and South Asia, and it just wouldn't make sense at all in North America. (What's the Canadian language, besides a joke on South Park?)

Chathamization 10y ago

> The commonly accepted - but rather tenuous - criterion for distinguishing distinction between language and dialect is speakers of different dialects being mutually intelligible to each other when making the effort. What's interesting is that I've seen Spanish and Portuguese speakers do this (enough to have a conversation, though I can't say how well that went). On the other hand, there are certain Chinese dialects (though maybe not considered dialect by linguistics) where the speaker of one finds it just about impossible to understand what the speaker of the other is saying.

BuckRogers 10y ago
Spanish, Italian and Portuguese are mutually intelligible and the Roman empire's legacy lives on through them. My wife is a native Spanish speaker and she has no problem with all 3 in general. It's worth noting she wasn't impoverished, it requires a high level of education to achieve this. There are many Spanish speakers (because it's a massive part of the world) who don't truly know their own language and cannot do this.
- devishard 10y ago
  As a relatively fluent Spanish speaker who can't really understand Portuguese and finds Italian completely unintelligible, I think you're using 'mutually intelligible' pretty loosely here.
  - kw71 10y ago
    I learned some Spanish in latin america by immersion. I can make sense of written Italian and Portugese. However in Spain I can't understand anything spoken.
  - BuckRogers 10y ago
    I'm also relatively fluent and I'm the same way as you. You need to be Cervantes-level fluent, like my wife who was not only native born in a Spanish speaking country but educated in private schools and then college educated there as well. I also think some people may naturally be slightly more in tune with linguistics in general. Spanish speakers are a huge group and many simply don't know their own language. It's like going to Alabama and expecting to find Shakespeare. I'll grant you that mutual intelligibility is difficult to define but I'm using it in the sense that my wife is conversational with folks from Portugal and Italy when we travel there. That's a decent standard.
    - mcguire 10y ago
      ...in which we learn that one who fails to be educated in the appropriate schools can be fluent in their own language. And I'm left wondering if some people know what "language" is. But then I am a poor benighted bastard living in Alabama.
      - BuckRogers 10y ago
        I should've used Texas in my example. Apologies to the good people of Alabama.
        mcguire 10y ago
microcolonel 10y ago
I don't think anyone calls Chinese languages "dialects" if they've ever heard more than one. There are some Canton dialects, but Wu is its own thing.

geon 10y ago

> mutually intelligible to each other when making the effort. By that definition, Norwegian and Swedish is the same language. Danish is intelligible too, if written, not spoken. Interesting. I'd call this language Scandic (IC), with the sub locale codes ic_SV, ic_NO and ic_DK.

omonra 10y ago
My understanding is that if you have a country, you get to have a language (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourgish_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourgish_language) Therefore the argument 'How come X is a language while Y is not' doesn't make sense if X has their own country and Y does not.
- Pinckney 10y ago
  Look at Arabic; one "language" despite being barely mutually intelligible between, say, Iraq and Morocco.
  - omonra 10y ago
    Good point - but people explain that it is due to political reasons [1]. Ie same way that people in Luxemburg want to point out that they have their own language different from German, rulers of Morocco (who are Arabs - majority of Morocco's population native language is Berber) want to stress that they share same language & culture with rest of the Arab world. In other words - if you are a country, you have the option to have your own language (even if it's mutually intelligible with a major other language). If you are just a part of a country, that option seems off the table (ie you need a non-mutually intelligible language to make that claim). [1] http://matadornetwork.com/abroad/why-hindi-urdu-is-one-language-and-arabic-is-several/ http://matadornetwork.com/abroad/why-hindi-urdu-is-one-langu...
- rspeer 10y ago
  The thing about a language being "a dialect with an army" is a bit tongue in cheek. Of course we'd like more consistent ways to distinguish languages that don't depend on politics. When there's a continuum (like the Scandinavian languages) and it's hard to decide where to draw the arbitrary line, national borders are a pretty convenient place to settle on. But that's not so fundamental that it "doesn't make sense" to ask why we distinguish languages. It's easy to imagine Norwegian and Swedish being considered the same language if they were the same country. It'd be a language with multiple written forms, but Norwegian already has two of those anyway. But you can only get so far by simplifying the issue to say that language borders are national borders. That erases a lot of the linguistic complexity of Europe, it defies reality in Africa and South Asia, and it just wouldn't make sense at all in North America. (What's the Canadian language, besides a joke on South Park?)