Re: dialectal diversity in English

Jan van Steenbergen scripsit:

> Objective criteria are the
> only way out, but in this part of the world every objective criterion implies a
> political statement by itself.
That can't be helped.  It may in some circumstances be a political statement
to affirm that the earth revolves around the sun, but it is a statement of
fact nonetheless (and to affirm the converse, as generally understood,
remains a falsehood).

But the question "What is a language?" has to be countered with the
question "For what purpose?"  The Ethnologue takes the view that
*unintelligibility* is the relevant criterion; if speakers of dialect X
cannot understand speakers of dialect Y, then X and Y are in fact
distinct languages.  The Introduction to the Ethnologue is well worth
reading: http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/introduction.asp .

--
Winter:  MIT,                                   John Cowan
Keio, INRIA,                                    jcowan@reutershealth.com
Issue lots of Drafts.                           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
So much more to understand!                     http://www.reutershealth.com
Might simplicity return?                        (A "tanka", or extended haiku)

Replies