4 ms·

> lingua franca Ironically, the term lingua franca doesn't actually refer to French as many people think, but to the Frankic language Sabir. Sabir was similar

> lingua franca Ironically, the term lingua franca doesn't actually refer to French as many people think, but to the Frankic language Sabir. Sabir was similar to modern Romance languages, but still distinct from them. The language no longer exists, because as it spread across the Mediterranean, it ended up forking and influencing the local languages there instead. Such is typically the fate of common languages.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
As a Romance language, Sabir cannot be a Frankic language, since the Franks were a Germanic tribe speaking a Germanic language. The wikipedia article notes that by the time of Sabir, "Frank" had turned into a generic term for western Europeans, which makes the term make more sense -- to the Byzantines, Italians and Spaniards were "Franks". Left unexplained is why the Byzantines would refer to Sabir with a phrase in Latin, a language they didn't speak.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > As a Romance language, Sabir cannot be a Frankic language, since the Franks were a Germanic tribe speaking a Germanic language. There should be a comma after "language": "but to the Frankic language, Sabir". As in, lingua franca literally means "the Frankic language", and it referred to Sabir.
marcoperaza 9y ago
One of the remarkable things about English is how little it varies from country to country, especially in written form. There is much more variation in how French, Spanish, and Portuguese are spoken and written in different countries.
- meric 9y ago
  Probably because English only spread from country to country in the past 200 years, and while the others you listed was hundred(s) of years before that. Chinese, which spread across China 2000 years ago, vary a lot from region to region, even more so than the languages you've mentioned.
  - krrrh 9y ago
    The fact that those 200 years were post-Gutenberg has probably helped as well.
  - xiaoma 9y ago
    If by "Chinese" you mean all of the languages in China today, such as Cantonese, Amoy, Hakkanese, etc... then you're talking about separate languages more distinct than modern French and Italian are from each other.
    - meric 9y ago
      Yes that's right - 2000 years ago I'm guessing they all sounded the same. I note Cantonese and Mandarin "dialects" have a common (formal) written form.
      - adrianN 9y ago
        What makes you think that the languages sounded more similar in a time when communication was much slower and regional dialects could develop easily without outside influence?
        thaumasiotes 9y ago
        For the same reason that English and Swedish sounded much more similar a long time ago, when communication was slow, than they do now -- they are descended from a common source, and at the time of that source they would obviously have been identical. After the time of the source, shortly after diverging[1], they would still have been more similar than they are now because they hadn't had much time to differentiate. [1] Unlike "the time of the source", you can rigorously defend the existence of the period shortly after divergence.
        meric 9y ago
        Because the net difference between dialects are the sum of all differences from 2000 years ago to now, while 2000 years ago, less time was elapsed, the net difference was much smaller. The net difference today is the net difference 2000 years ago plus all the new variations since then.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  For countries where it's the dominant native language, yes. On the other hand look at African countries where it's an official language and IIRC there are significant differences.
- realusername 9y ago
  That's because unlike French, English is not backward compatible, older English texts are much harder to understand than older French texts.
int_19h 9y ago
> Such is typically the fate of common languages. In the age where travel and communication is slow, yes. It's also why many languages that we perceive as monolithic today consisted of many often barely mutually intelligible dialects as late as 19th century. But things are very different now.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

As a Romance language, Sabir cannot be a Frankic language, since the Franks were a Germanic tribe speaking a Germanic language. The wikipedia article notes that by the time of Sabir, "Frank" had turned into a generic term for western Europeans, which makes the term make more sense -- to the Byzantines, Italians and Spaniards were "Franks". Left unexplained is why the Byzantines would refer to Sabir with a phrase in Latin, a language they didn't speak.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> As a Romance language, Sabir cannot be a Frankic language, since the Franks were a Germanic tribe speaking a Germanic language. There should be a comma after "language": "but to the Frankic language, Sabir". As in, lingua franca literally means "the Frankic language", and it referred to Sabir.

marcoperaza 9y ago

One of the remarkable things about English is how little it varies from country to country, especially in written form. There is much more variation in how French, Spanish, and Portuguese are spoken and written in different countries.

meric 9y ago
Probably because English only spread from country to country in the past 200 years, and while the others you listed was hundred(s) of years before that. Chinese, which spread across China 2000 years ago, vary a lot from region to region, even more so than the languages you've mentioned.
- krrrh 9y ago
  The fact that those 200 years were post-Gutenberg has probably helped as well.
- xiaoma 9y ago
  If by "Chinese" you mean all of the languages in China today, such as Cantonese, Amoy, Hakkanese, etc... then you're talking about separate languages more distinct than modern French and Italian are from each other.
  - meric 9y ago
    Yes that's right - 2000 years ago I'm guessing they all sounded the same. I note Cantonese and Mandarin "dialects" have a common (formal) written form.
    - adrianN 9y ago
      What makes you think that the languages sounded more similar in a time when communication was much slower and regional dialects could develop easily without outside influence?
      - thaumasiotes 9y ago
        For the same reason that English and Swedish sounded much more similar a long time ago, when communication was slow, than they do now -- they are descended from a common source, and at the time of that source they would obviously have been identical. After the time of the source, shortly after diverging[1], they would still have been more similar than they are now because they hadn't had much time to differentiate. [1] Unlike "the time of the source", you can rigorously defend the existence of the period shortly after divergence.
      - meric 9y ago
        Because the net difference between dialects are the sum of all differences from 2000 years ago to now, while 2000 years ago, less time was elapsed, the net difference was much smaller. The net difference today is the net difference 2000 years ago plus all the new variations since then.
TulliusCicero 9y ago
For countries where it's the dominant native language, yes. On the other hand look at African countries where it's an official language and IIRC there are significant differences.
realusername 9y ago
That's because unlike French, English is not backward compatible, older English texts are much harder to understand than older French texts.

int_19h 9y ago

> Such is typically the fate of common languages. In the age where travel and communication is slow, yes. It's also why many languages that we perceive as monolithic today consisted of many often barely mutually intelligible dialects as late as 19th century. But things are very different now.