Maciamo said:
In Belgium some people say that Flemish is a language and not a dialect of Dutch, when I personally cannot see that much difference (let's say as much as between British and American English). This is all political, a trick of nationalists to give Flanders its own language. On the other hand, Walloon (spoken by only a fraction of the population of Wallonia, and with very few native speakers left) is a real language, because even I who grew up hearing it occasionally and speak French cannot understand more than a few words. 20 years ago it was still considered a dialect of French, which is an abberation (it's more like a mix of Scandinavian and Italian dialects than French,
as you will judge by yourself !).
Oh boy!
You certainly made that point! Yeah!
That's a language!
Maciamo said:
It's up to us to decide whether it is a dialect of language. But for me, all these should be under the same category (either dialect or language) :
- Danish, Swedish, Norwegian => speakers of the 3 understand each others, but which one is the main ?
- Frisian, Dutch, Platte Dütsch, (High) German => The 3 first are closer together than the last one. But again, it's hard to say that Platte Dütsch (Low German) is a dialect of Dutch or vice versa...
- English, Scots
- Portuguese, Galician, Spanish, Catalan => The 2 first are probably the closest, but all are considered as separate languages, as opposed to dialects like Andalusian and Valencian
- Mandarin Chinese, Shanghainese Chinese, Cantonese Chinese, etc. => officially called dialect, but not intelligible to each others, so further away from my examples above.
I believe that the word "dialect" is used too often politically to subordinate a language and its speakers to the main language of the country. If Europe was one big federal country (with smaller states than now), all of the above would be called languages.
Yes. I do agree with your last paragraph. I would also agree that with "Scots" this is very much at the heart of the matter. It is certainly recognised as a "dialect" among a large proportion of the
English population, but regarded with some pride as a "Language" among lowland Scots.
However ... where does one "draw the line"?
When does a ?gdialect?h slip into "languagehood" (... dat's a good woid! - as one would say in "Brooklynese" ...:biggrin: )?
Personally, I feel that the line is crossed when
syntax changes, coupled with a substantial revision of vocabulary to a degree where mutual intelligibility
can no longer exist without substantial effort and/or assistance.
(How long winded can I get? But it possibly does suffice to separate Spanish from Italian!
)
Perhaps, in this regard, our Extreme Northern European friends all speak "Scandinavian" (dialects - with the Norwegians, perhaps, having
slightly stronger claims to a ?glanguage?h).
Similiarly, I would define ?gScots?h as a dialect. Sure, the vocabulary differs somewhat from my own ?gEnglish?h vocabulary, and the accent is different – but the syntax is the same. It?fs not truly Germanic. ?c. I don?ft have to wait for the verb! :biggrin:
Fundamentally ?c?c I understand it! I comprehend. (Unless the speaker has ?ghad a dram or twae ?c..?h! ?c.. or
I?fve had a dram or twae ?c..?)
Where is the line drawn?
Is it by bureaucratic definition, or is it by intelligibility? By syntax, vocabulary or both?
Fascinating questions !
And BTW – great idea to create this ?goff-topic?h thread. I think it deserves it!
Regards,
?W????