6 ms·

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 socia

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.
    - acjohnson55 8y ago
      I feel like you didn't bother to read my last comment.
  - posterboy 8y ago
    Language is simply uncountable. House and haus are pretty much the same word to me, so English and German overlap. If they are not disjunct, it doesn't make sense to count them one by one. That would be like counting sand by the corns, and by extension, coast lines by the sand. Language is recursive (a rose is a rose is a ...), what is its Housedorff dimension!? If you take a point in a topological space and give it a closed cover, you can calculate the area of the disc, but ... ok, I have close to no idea of complex analysis (didn't expect it would come in helpful for linguistics). The point is, if two arbitrarily large set's of Language are easier to compare by what they have in common, than where they are mutually exclusive, than you could colloquially call those different sets of language. If you can't even parse the speech, you won't be able to do that, so a natural speaker will perceive it as different. Book keeping Linguists are more interested in, or even bound to writing, as is clear from them calling spoken syntax "grammar" (which is from gramm~graph~scrapho writing, drawing, unless I'm missing something).
    - acjohnson55 8y ago
      Well, it's countable in the sense that a countable number of humans have existed, with a countable (or at least bounded) number of idiolects per human. That's pretty much the "point in discrete color space" point of view I was getting at on one extreme. That's not a very useful level of granularity for much else other than upper bounding. At the lower bound, maybe we all just speak and sign dialects of some inherent Chomsky-esque universal grammar. In between, there are all sorts of ways you can draw borders on the map to tesselate it into languages, but few of these schemes can be defined without resorting to idiosyncratic decisions. Language is a social construct. We're colloquial beings, and 99% of the time we all agree on what's what. What irritates me are the folks that think that the remaining 1% can be decided in some kind of objective way. Is Scots its own language? Depends on who you ask, and in what context. There are valid arguments either way. Embrace the ambiguity.
koralatov 8y ago
In the case of Scots and Scottish English, there's a lot of blurring and the distinction is of questionable actual value -- though I would make that distinction personally. I speak Scottish Standard English, and have a parent whose first language was a variety of Modern Scots. I find it very hard to follow them when they've switched into it to speak with someone from their hometown. Due to the difficulty in parsing it, both in my case and in the case of the other parent after 40-ish years of marriage, I'd consider it more than just a dialect. Both Scottish English and Scots descend from the same root Anglic, but there's been divergence since then -- in the same way Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaelic are descended from the same root, are somewhat mutually intelligible, but are treated as two different languages. It's useful to make that distinction simply because there is a degree of unintelligibility. Everyone on this website is speaking an Indo-European language, and I'd bet a majority of them have an Indo-European language as their first language. They're all from the same root, so are they all speaking dialects of Indo-European? Or are they speaking distinct languages? Where, exactly, you decide "this was a dialect, but now it's a language!" I can't say, but that point surely exists. It's obviously muddied by politics and national identity and a hundred other factors, but at some point, surely, a language ceases to be a dialect and becomes a language of its own.
- acjohnson55 8y ago
  That point exists, but it's contextual. You could draw the line at shared identity. Or political boundary. Or the existence of a body of literature. Or a certain bar of recognition. Or a certain number of university programs. Or some concept mutual intelligibility. Or whatever. But these distinctions will conflict with one another, so there is no clear line. I have no real authority, but to me, I see no reason why Scots shouldn't be a language. English and Scots would certainly not be the most similar languages to be considered distinct. Plenty of other varieties of the English continuum, for that matter.

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.
  - acjohnson55 8y ago
    I feel like you didn't bother to read my last comment.
- posterboy 8y ago
  Language is simply uncountable. House and haus are pretty much the same word to me, so English and German overlap. If they are not disjunct, it doesn't make sense to count them one by one. That would be like counting sand by the corns, and by extension, coast lines by the sand. Language is recursive (a rose is a rose is a ...), what is its Housedorff dimension!? If you take a point in a topological space and give it a closed cover, you can calculate the area of the disc, but ... ok, I have close to no idea of complex analysis (didn't expect it would come in helpful for linguistics). The point is, if two arbitrarily large set's of Language are easier to compare by what they have in common, than where they are mutually exclusive, than you could colloquially call those different sets of language. If you can't even parse the speech, you won't be able to do that, so a natural speaker will perceive it as different. Book keeping Linguists are more interested in, or even bound to writing, as is clear from them calling spoken syntax "grammar" (which is from gramm~graph~scrapho writing, drawing, unless I'm missing something).
  - acjohnson55 8y ago
    Well, it's countable in the sense that a countable number of humans have existed, with a countable (or at least bounded) number of idiolects per human. That's pretty much the "point in discrete color space" point of view I was getting at on one extreme. That's not a very useful level of granularity for much else other than upper bounding. At the lower bound, maybe we all just speak and sign dialects of some inherent Chomsky-esque universal grammar. In between, there are all sorts of ways you can draw borders on the map to tesselate it into languages, but few of these schemes can be defined without resorting to idiosyncratic decisions. Language is a social construct. We're colloquial beings, and 99% of the time we all agree on what's what. What irritates me are the folks that think that the remaining 1% can be decided in some kind of objective way. Is Scots its own language? Depends on who you ask, and in what context. There are valid arguments either way. Embrace the ambiguity.

koralatov 8y ago

In the case of Scots and Scottish English, there's a lot of blurring and the distinction is of questionable actual value -- though I would make that distinction personally. I speak Scottish Standard English, and have a parent whose first language was a variety of Modern Scots. I find it very hard to follow them when they've switched into it to speak with someone from their hometown. Due to the difficulty in parsing it, both in my case and in the case of the other parent after 40-ish years of marriage, I'd consider it more than just a dialect. Both Scottish English and Scots descend from the same root Anglic, but there's been divergence since then -- in the same way Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaelic are descended from the same root, are somewhat mutually intelligible, but are treated as two different languages. It's useful to make that distinction simply because there is a degree of unintelligibility. Everyone on this website is speaking an Indo-European language, and I'd bet a majority of them have an Indo-European language as their first language. They're all from the same root, so are they all speaking dialects of Indo-European? Or are they speaking distinct languages? Where, exactly, you decide "this was a dialect, but now it's a language!" I can't say, but that point surely exists. It's obviously muddied by politics and national identity and a hundred other factors, but at some point, surely, a language ceases to be a dialect and becomes a language of its own.

acjohnson55 8y ago
That point exists, but it's contextual. You could draw the line at shared identity. Or political boundary. Or the existence of a body of literature. Or a certain bar of recognition. Or a certain number of university programs. Or some concept mutual intelligibility. Or whatever. But these distinctions will conflict with one another, so there is no clear line. I have no real authority, but to me, I see no reason why Scots shouldn't be a language. English and Scots would certainly not be the most similar languages to be considered distinct. Plenty of other varieties of the English continuum, for that matter.