Lucky Charms Diglot Senior Member Japan lapacifica.net Joined 6952 days ago 752 posts - 1711 votes Speaks: English*, Japanese Studies: German, Spanish
| Message 9 of 32 21 November 2005 at 4:02pm | IP Logged |
Knowing two closely related languages, such as Spanish and French, would help someone out with basic vocabulary and grammatical concepts, but basic vocabulary and grammatical concepts are not what makes a polyglot. The test of true fluency in a language is to know the idioms, all the quirks, all the obscurities, and to be able to speak with a near-flawless accent. I'm assuming that prior knowledge of another related language would not help at all in this respect. There is a huge difference between a Spanish-speaker who can also speak French, and one who is bilingual in Spanish and French, so the achievement of mastering another tongue should never be undervalued.
As a rule, they say separate languages shouldn't be mutually intelligible. But as I said, there's a difference between understanding a language or dialect and being completely fluent yourself. I think it depends on how closely related the dialects are. With American and British English it would be a "no", because there are only a few differences in vocabulary and idioms, and of course the accent-- it's easy for some people to "fake an accent", and the quirks of British English are well known. With Scandinavian languages, it is probably a much bigger achievement to pass as a native speaker in two or three, even though they are all supposed to be mutually intelligible.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
patuco Diglot Moderator Gibraltar Joined 7018 days ago 3795 posts - 4268 votes Speaks: Spanish, English* Personal Language Map
| Message 10 of 32 21 November 2005 at 4:29pm | IP Logged |
Lucky Charms wrote:
The test of true fluency in a language is to know the idioms, all the quirks, all the obscurities, and to be able to speak with a near-flawless accent. |
|
|
Basically, the ability to pass for a native of that particular country/region/etc.
Lucky Charms wrote:
it's easy for some people to "fake an accent" |
|
|
Not meaning to offend anyone, but I've never heard an American who could really "do" a good British accent whilst I've known quite a few Brits who could imitate various American accents quite well. However, since I'm not American, they might sound OK to me but they might have actually been rubbish!
1 person has voted this message useful
|
Lucky Charms Diglot Senior Member Japan lapacifica.net Joined 6952 days ago 752 posts - 1711 votes Speaks: English*, Japanese Studies: German, Spanish
| Message 11 of 32 21 November 2005 at 6:25pm | IP Logged |
Same with me, actually. I'm not native British so I probably can't tell if a faked accent sounds bad. :)
But still, you can't liken "learning a different way of pronouncing things" to learning an entirely new language, especially when 99% of the vocabulary and idioms are identical! I'm sure with other "dialects" it's a different case entirely.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
patuco Diglot Moderator Gibraltar Joined 7018 days ago 3795 posts - 4268 votes Speaks: Spanish, English* Personal Language Map
| Message 12 of 32 22 November 2005 at 10:40am | IP Logged |
Lucky Charms wrote:
But still, you can't liken "learning a different way of pronouncing things" to learning an entirely new language, especially when 99% of the vocabulary and idioms are identical! I'm sure with other "dialects" it's a different case entirely. |
|
|
I agree, although then the distinction between language and dialect comes into play (don't want to start that discussion again!).
1 person has voted this message useful
|
Lugubert Heptaglot Senior Member Sweden Joined 6870 days ago 186 posts - 235 votes Speaks: Swedish*, Danish, Norwegian, EnglishC2, German, Dutch, French Studies: Mandarin, Hindi
| Message 13 of 32 05 February 2006 at 12:02pm | IP Logged |
Lucky Charms wrote:
With Scandinavian languages, it is probably a much bigger achievement to pass as a native speaker in two or three, even though they are all supposed to be mutually intelligible. |
|
|
Most varieties are indeed mutually intelligible. If you want them to be, and try just a little bit. Exceptions are for example a "dialect" of Swedish, Älvdalsmål, spoken at the 62nd parallel, which is unintelligible to everybody else (and thus would qualify for a "language").
I agree with the quote above. I would even say that it is impossible to pass as a native in all three. The Queen of Denmark is said to be fluent in Swedish. I don't remember having heard her speak our language, but having the relatives on my father's side in Southernmost Sweden, I have no doubt that I blindfolded would be able to identify at least a Danish accent if I heard her speaking.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
victor Tetraglot Moderator United States Joined 7321 days ago 1098 posts - 1056 votes 6 sounds Speaks: Cantonese*, English, FrenchC1, Mandarin Studies: Spanish Personal Language Map
| Message 14 of 32 05 February 2006 at 1:40pm | IP Logged |
Just wondering, when the Scandanavian Royal Families talk to each other, do they just speak their own brand of the language - or do they resort to another language like English?
1 person has voted this message useful
|
Lugubert Heptaglot Senior Member Sweden Joined 6870 days ago 186 posts - 235 votes Speaks: Swedish*, Danish, Norwegian, EnglishC2, German, Dutch, French Studies: Mandarin, Hindi
| Message 15 of 32 06 February 2006 at 6:22am | IP Logged |
victor wrote:
Just wondering, when the Scandanavian Royal Families talk to each other, do they just speak their own brand of the language - or do they resort to another language like English? |
|
|
I suppose everyone uses their own language. I'd guess that the Danish Queen using Swedish would be for example when interviewed by wedish media.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
Hencke Tetraglot Moderator Spain Joined 6897 days ago 2340 posts - 2444 votes Speaks: Swedish*, Finnish, EnglishC2, Spanish Studies: Mandarin Personal Language Map
| Message 16 of 32 07 February 2006 at 5:45pm | IP Logged |
Lugubert wrote:
Exceptions are for example a "dialect" of Swedish, Älvdalsmål, spoken at the 62nd parallel, which is unintelligible to everybody else (and thus would qualify for a "language"). |
|
|
I'll second that. Did you know there are some areas in Finland (Närpes in Österbotten) where that same ancient variant is spoken? I hear they can go to Älvdalen and the locals will think they are from the next village (first-hand knowledge, from someone it actually happened to).
I once saw a sample text in "Älvdalsmål", with translation and analysis so you could actually follow what it was about. My personal impression was that this so-called "dialect" was approximately as far removed from Swedish as German, perhaps more. Definitely a lot further than Danish or Norwegian.
1 person has voted this message useful
|