3 ms·

There is no clear distinction between a dialect and a language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_an_army_and_navy https://en.wikipedi

There is no clear distinction between a dialect and a language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_an_army_and_navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_a... For instance, having taken German in school, I could generally read Yiddish as long as it was written in Latin alphabet and not Hebrew. Even though they are considered two separate langauges. However, I could generally not understand, say, Swiss German, even though that's still considered German. EDIT: I just found this interesting blurb regarding Low German in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German#A_language_or_a_mere_dialect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German#A_language_or_a_mer...?

mannykannot 8y ago
Nevertheless, they are not synonyms, and the existence of these two different words suggests that there is a useful distinction, even if it is not sharp, and even if it is not always applied consistently. In the case of 'Chicagoese', whatever it is, it is clearly the English language.
- jdmichal 8y ago
  The difference is social, not linguistic. I assume you're making your judgement about "clearly English" based on mutual intelligibility. That is, you expect that someone with strong skills in "English" but not "Chicagoese" would be able to understand someone speaking "Chicagoese". But what about dialect continua where any two neighbors are mutually intelligible, but the two ends are not? How do you classify which is in which language, if you are going to declare that there are in fact two languages based on the ends not understanding each other?
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    I am not concerned with doing so in the general case, and even less in corner cases that are not relevant here. My point is that preserving 'Chicagoese' will be difficult because it is essentially English in an English-speaking part of the world.
    - jdmichal 8y ago
      You said, "Nevertheless, they are not synonyms, and the existence of these two different words suggests that there is a useful distinction, even if it is not sharp, and even if it is not always applied consistently." That is what I was responding to. There is a difference, but it's social and not linguistic. Which means when you say things like, "Chicagoese is clearly English", that you are making a social judgement that they are the same language, whatever that means to you. Clearly, for at least a few people quoted in the article, it has social meaning that they both speak "Chicagoese" and not "just English". So they might have a quite different opinion on the matter. And clearly the author of the article does.
      - mannykannot 8y ago
        Ah, I see - though I don't think the distinction being social as opposed to linguistic makes a difference here. The question "what would you recommend doing about it?" would seem to apply both to how to classify Chicagoese, and how to stem its decline.

mannykannot 8y ago

Nevertheless, they are not synonyms, and the existence of these two different words suggests that there is a useful distinction, even if it is not sharp, and even if it is not always applied consistently. In the case of 'Chicagoese', whatever it is, it is clearly the English language.

jdmichal 8y ago
The difference is social, not linguistic. I assume you're making your judgement about "clearly English" based on mutual intelligibility. That is, you expect that someone with strong skills in "English" but not "Chicagoese" would be able to understand someone speaking "Chicagoese". But what about dialect continua where any two neighbors are mutually intelligible, but the two ends are not? How do you classify which is in which language, if you are going to declare that there are in fact two languages based on the ends not understanding each other?
- mannykannot 8y ago
  I am not concerned with doing so in the general case, and even less in corner cases that are not relevant here. My point is that preserving 'Chicagoese' will be difficult because it is essentially English in an English-speaking part of the world.
  - jdmichal 8y ago
    You said, "Nevertheless, they are not synonyms, and the existence of these two different words suggests that there is a useful distinction, even if it is not sharp, and even if it is not always applied consistently." That is what I was responding to. There is a difference, but it's social and not linguistic. Which means when you say things like, "Chicagoese is clearly English", that you are making a social judgement that they are the same language, whatever that means to you. Clearly, for at least a few people quoted in the article, it has social meaning that they both speak "Chicagoese" and not "just English". So they might have a quite different opinion on the matter. And clearly the author of the article does.
    - mannykannot 8y ago
      Ah, I see - though I don't think the distinction being social as opposed to linguistic makes a difference here. The question "what would you recommend doing about it?" would seem to apply both to how to classify Chicagoese, and how to stem its decline.