|
 |
Languages without Dialects | ||
Tags: Dialect | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| eyðimörk Triglot Senior Member France goo.gl/aT4FY7 Joined 4098 days ago 490 posts - 1158 votes  Speaks: Swedish*, English, French Studies: Breton, Italian | Message 33 of 49 22 January 2015 at 3:16pm | IP Logged | |||||
Everything derives from something, but that does not make a previous stage in history the original. Language is continuity, which makes the term "original" is utterly useless. Is "the original" of my Scanian dialect the Scanian of my parents (because that's where my Scanian originates, in constant evolution with similarly aged peers with a different Scanian background) or the Scanian of their parents or the East Danish dialect continuum of the 17th century or the East Norse dialect continuum of the 10th century, or the North Germanic dialect continuum...? Because "the original" sure as heck isn't "Standardised Swedish", a much younger Frankenstein's language, just because Scanian is a "Swedish dialect". 9 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Cristianoo Triglot Senior Member Brazil https://projetopoligRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 4120 days ago 175 posts - 289 votes Speaks: Portuguese*, FrenchB2, English Studies: Russian | Message 34 of 49 22 January 2015 at 5:22pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
I didn`t say that eyðimörk. But ok, whatever. I give up.
1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Cristianoo Triglot Senior Member Brazil https://projetopoligRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 4120 days ago 175 posts - 289 votes Speaks: Portuguese*, FrenchB2, English Studies: Russian | Message 35 of 49 22 January 2015 at 5:37pm | IP Logged | |||||
Well, with that I must say you`re right. Riverense Portuñol is surely a dialect of Portuguese. I researched the other 3 and I think they are languages, not dialects. But yeah, I didn`t know about Riverense Portuñol! :) Thats a real dialect to me, not the way people use Tu instead of Você. That`s merely an accent. Thank you very much for that information. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Ogrim Heptaglot Senior Member France Joined 4638 days ago 991 posts - 1896 votes Speaks: Norwegian*, English, Spanish, French, Romansh, German, Italian Studies: Russian, Catalan, Latin, Greek, Romanian | Message 36 of 49 22 January 2015 at 5:37pm | IP Logged | |||||
But history shows that a conscious government policy of standardisation and eradication of dialects and regional languages can be very "successful" in the long run. France is a good example of that, where a centralistic authority imposed standardised French at the expense of the "patois" (whether "dialects of French or regional languages such as Occitan) throughout the 19th and first half of the 20th century, to the extent that dialects are almost extinct. I say almost, becuase the French spoken in Provence (at least in rural areas) still have some strong phonetical features which distinguishes it from standard French, and then there are small parts of the north-west where they speak Chti. However, the overwhelming majority of French native speakers in France speak standardised French. And in France as in the Soviet Union the education system was key in imposing the standard language over the dialects or regional languages spoken. 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| tarvos Super Polyglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member China likeapolyglot.wordpr Joined 4706 days ago 5310 posts - 9399 votes Speaks: Dutch*, English, Swedish, French, Russian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Afrikaans Studies: Greek, Modern Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Korean, Esperanto, Finnish | Message 37 of 49 22 January 2015 at 5:44pm | IP Logged | |||||
It's not an accent. Accent's about the phonology only, it has 0 to do with your vocabulary. It is a dialect or at least a local variation. 9 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| daegga Tetraglot Senior Member Austria lang-8.com/553301 Joined 4520 days ago 1076 posts - 1792 votes Speaks: German*, EnglishC2, Swedish, Norwegian Studies: Danish, French, Finnish, Icelandic | Message 38 of 49 22 January 2015 at 7:08pm | IP Logged | |||||
It CAN happen that a dialect splits into 2 (or more) new dialects, you just can't define "dialect" that way. Even when this happens, it's usually the case that the split is just an exaggeration of small variations that already existed. And it's not like the "original" continues and then there is a separate "dialect" branching out from it. Both new dialects are equal continuations of the old one. But the simpler case is that a dialect goes back to and older version of the same dialect. Neighboring dialects influence each other, so you get similar (but not equal) development of different (but similar) dialects --> they form a language together. If you look at older sources of written language, you can see dialectal differences there too. It's harder to notice if you only have very few sources though. And for even older languages, we have no sources whatsoever. In that sense, dialects ARE separate languages, but they are very closely connected and influence each other. When this connection is broken (by natural borders or invading peoples speaking vastly different languages for example), new languages might develop out of these separated dialects (and not the other way round!). You see, "original" is just the wrong word to use when talking about dialects. In addition, it's emotionally loaded because of discussions in the not so distant past about the worth of dialects on one side and standard languages on the other (an older German term for it is "Hochsprache" ~ high (level) language, which implies "better language", ie. better than the dialects). 4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| eyðimörk Triglot Senior Member France goo.gl/aT4FY7 Joined 4098 days ago 490 posts - 1158 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, French Studies: Breton, Italian | Message 39 of 49 22 January 2015 at 7:45pm | IP Logged | |||||
Colour me very confused. You didn't say what? So... I am arguing that it's impossible to determine anything that could in any way justifiably be called "original", but I'm arguing for that point incorrectly because you "didn't say that". In other words, that means that you never said that there was a point that could be justifiably called "original". In that case, what is your point? You're saying that there's nothing that can be called "original", while saying that there is for a "fact" something that can be called "original"? At this point, I'm not sure I'm the only one who's confused. Edited by eyðimörk on 22 January 2015 at 7:46pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| eyðimörk Triglot Senior Member France goo.gl/aT4FY7 Joined 4098 days ago 490 posts - 1158 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, French Studies: Breton, Italian | Message 40 of 49 22 January 2015 at 7:58pm | IP Logged | |||||
Psst, it's (as you know) the north-east. In the north-west we speak Breton and Gallo and we'd rather not be mistaken for Picards! ;) The regional languages are certainly not doing well, thanks to French centralist policies, but there are quite a few speakers left. I'm not arguing against your point that the overwhelming majority speak standardised French (with or without an accent), just adding some nuance. The "patois" speakers are coming together and spreading the "patois" love with music, dictionaries, etc., and thanks to the internet there's a fair bit of cross-cultural support... Occitan-speakers cheering on speakers of Champenois, Bretons spreading Alsatian news, etc. I fear that it's too little too late, but there you are, some slight nuance added for the benefit of those with an interest in dialects/minority languages. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
