Re: dialectal diversity in English

I don't think that's a perfect definition... I cannot understand many
dialects of English, but that doesn't make them separate languages (have
you ever heard some of the northern scottish dialects? Or many of the
african ones... they sound like different languages to me unless the
speakers are trying really hard to speak english which is closer to the
standard). Given the title of the thread someone else has probably
already said this though.

>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)
>
>
>

Reply