5 ms·

Also present in North East English, which can be just as far removed from the Queen's English as the Scottish dialect. "Bairn" and "hus" definitely, and also "g

by udp 8y ago

Also present in North East English, which can be just as far removed from the Queen's English as the Scottish dialect. "Bairn" and "hus" definitely, and also "gan" (to go), "yam" (home, norwegian "hjem"). If Scots is now considered a language, then Geordie surely must be. Here's a nice example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaydon_Races#Lyrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaydon_Races#Lyrics

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
These trace back to the days of Viking raids and occupations for both Scots and Geordie.
BjoernKW 8y ago
The usual criterion for distinguishing language from dialect is mutual intelligibility. Mutual intelligibility, however, is a continuum, with Scots verging towards the language end while Geordie being more on the dialect end of the spectrum. There’s a limited degree of mutual intelligibility between some other Germanic languages, such as Dutch, Afrikaans, Frisian and German, too. However, for all practical intents and purposes those are still separate languages. Someone once quipped that languages are dialects with an army, which could explain why Scots historically is considered a separate language while Geordie is not.
- groovy2shoes 8y ago
  > The usual criterion for distinguishing language from dialect is mutual intelligibility. The problem with this criterion is that mutual intelligibility is not transitive, so it doesn't support an intuitive notion of sameness that one might expect. Consider some language with distinct dialects A, B, and C lying at different points on the dialect continuum. If A and B are mutually intelligible, and B and C are mutually intelligible, it is still possible that A and C are not mutually intelligible. However, this is a property we'd expect if this criterion were enough to say that A, B, and C were all dialects of the same language. In addition to being unintuitive, it also raises some tough questions, like: if they're all the same language today and the last speaker of B dies tomorrow, are A and C still dialects of the same language? From a linguist's point of view, there's no useful distinction between a dialect and a language. It's more common to talk about "varieties", which is a more general term that includes dialects, regiolects, sociolects, idiolects, &c. Grouping of varieties is done contextually and for utility, often for the sake of convenience, and often according to some guiding principles (phylogeny in diachronic linguistics, for example, helps us to understand the historical relationships among groups). There's some truth to the quip that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy, though: in practice, the distinction between the two is a sociopolitical one. Some people will be very upset if some outside group starts insisting that, in fact, no, you do not speak Arabic anymore, or, no, you do not speak Chinese anymore, or, no, Moldovan was never really a language. For many people, their native language is an integral part of their national identity, and it's not for outsiders to decide. It won't matter how precise and logical a definition someone comes up with, because it was never a scientific or philosophical issue to begin with. We allow social groups to self-actualize their own identities, or everyone is gonna have a bad time.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    >From a linguist's point of view, there's no useful distinction between a dialect and a language. I think you mean, for edge cases, there’s no useful distinction. Mutual comprehensibility is a pretty useful concept, and no one makes “Arabic is a the same language as English” their Hill-to-die-on.
    - acjohnson55 8y ago
      When the edges are numerous and blurry, you have to question the utility of trying to formalize a definition. Obviously, the idea of discrete languages is socially useful in many situations, but there's no point in trying to invent a hard rule to distinguish a dialect from a language. That's why it's better thought of as a continuum, with English vs Arabic being obviously distinct but recently divergent and convergent varieties left forever moot.
      - SilasX 8y ago
        The fact that you can recognize Arabic and English as being different languages, with practical implications, means that a substantive distinction exists.
        acjohnson55 8y ago
        That's a really simplistic way of looking at it. To most people, red and blue are very distinct colors. No one would argue that they're the same. But are crimson and pink different colors, or different shades of the same color? What about #f00 and #f11? It's both arbitrary and contextual. Categorization is easy when a difference is so large as to be irrefutable. But thinking in terms of continuum is much more useful when looking at small differences.
        SilasX 8y ago
        The fact that the boundary is blurry does not mean it doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t make useful distinctions.
- drb91 8y ago
  I’ve found the quip to be the most satisfying explanation in the end.
- ironic_ali 8y ago
  > Scots historically is considered a separate language while Geordie is not. Many Geordies would disagree it's not its own language. Me, being one...

by udp 8y ago

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

These trace back to the days of Viking raids and occupations for both Scots and Geordie.

BjoernKW 8y ago

The usual criterion for distinguishing language from dialect is mutual intelligibility. Mutual intelligibility, however, is a continuum, with Scots verging towards the language end while Geordie being more on the dialect end of the spectrum. There’s a limited degree of mutual intelligibility between some other Germanic languages, such as Dutch, Afrikaans, Frisian and German, too. However, for all practical intents and purposes those are still separate languages. Someone once quipped that languages are dialects with an army, which could explain why Scots historically is considered a separate language while Geordie is not.

groovy2shoes 8y ago
> The usual criterion for distinguishing language from dialect is mutual intelligibility. The problem with this criterion is that mutual intelligibility is not transitive, so it doesn't support an intuitive notion of sameness that one might expect. Consider some language with distinct dialects A, B, and C lying at different points on the dialect continuum. If A and B are mutually intelligible, and B and C are mutually intelligible, it is still possible that A and C are not mutually intelligible. However, this is a property we'd expect if this criterion were enough to say that A, B, and C were all dialects of the same language. In addition to being unintuitive, it also raises some tough questions, like: if they're all the same language today and the last speaker of B dies tomorrow, are A and C still dialects of the same language? From a linguist's point of view, there's no useful distinction between a dialect and a language. It's more common to talk about "varieties", which is a more general term that includes dialects, regiolects, sociolects, idiolects, &c. Grouping of varieties is done contextually and for utility, often for the sake of convenience, and often according to some guiding principles (phylogeny in diachronic linguistics, for example, helps us to understand the historical relationships among groups). There's some truth to the quip that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy, though: in practice, the distinction between the two is a sociopolitical one. Some people will be very upset if some outside group starts insisting that, in fact, no, you do not speak Arabic anymore, or, no, you do not speak Chinese anymore, or, no, Moldovan was never really a language. For many people, their native language is an integral part of their national identity, and it's not for outsiders to decide. It won't matter how precise and logical a definition someone comes up with, because it was never a scientific or philosophical issue to begin with. We allow social groups to self-actualize their own identities, or everyone is gonna have a bad time.
- SilasX 8y ago
  >From a linguist's point of view, there's no useful distinction between a dialect and a language. I think you mean, for edge cases, there’s no useful distinction. Mutual comprehensibility is a pretty useful concept, and no one makes “Arabic is a the same language as English” their Hill-to-die-on.
  - acjohnson55 8y ago
    When the edges are numerous and blurry, you have to question the utility of trying to formalize a definition. Obviously, the idea of discrete languages is socially useful in many situations, but there's no point in trying to invent a hard rule to distinguish a dialect from a language. That's why it's better thought of as a continuum, with English vs Arabic being obviously distinct but recently divergent and convergent varieties left forever moot.
    - SilasX 8y ago
      The fact that you can recognize Arabic and English as being different languages, with practical implications, means that a substantive distinction exists.
      - acjohnson55 8y ago
        That's a really simplistic way of looking at it. To most people, red and blue are very distinct colors. No one would argue that they're the same. But are crimson and pink different colors, or different shades of the same color? What about #f00 and #f11? It's both arbitrary and contextual. Categorization is easy when a difference is so large as to be irrefutable. But thinking in terms of continuum is much more useful when looking at small differences.
        SilasX 8y ago
        The fact that the boundary is blurry does not mean it doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t make useful distinctions.
drb91 8y ago
I’ve found the quip to be the most satisfying explanation in the end.
ironic_ali 8y ago
> Scots historically is considered a separate language while Geordie is not. Many Geordies would disagree it's not its own language. Me, being one...