3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou 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 agoAh, 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.