# Is it a language or a dialect?



## timpeac

timebomb said:
			
		

> Do dialects count?
> 
> If not, I know 3 languages.
> 
> English - I learnt that in school
> Chinese - I use it everyday as the wife doesn't speak English well
> Malay - I use it when I talk to my Malay workers
> 
> As for dialects, I'm a Hakka and I can also speak Hokkien, Cantonese and Teochew.


 
Interesting question, and one probably worthy of its own thread. The distinction is usually a political one - eg similar languages in one political union (country) are considered dialects whereas similar languages in different countries are considered different languages (say Flemmish, Dutch). I think dialects should count, but they would need to be significantly different, either in terms of vocab or grammatical structure. A good test might be whether speakers of one dialect can readily understand the speech of the other dialect. If not, I would say they are different languages. Not a black and white issue though.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Interesting question, and one probably worthy of its own thread. The distinction is usually a political one - eg similar languages in one political union (country) are considered dialects whereas similar languages in different countries are considered different languages (say Flemmish, Dutch). I think dialects should count, but they would need to be significantly different, either in terms of vocab or grammatical structure. A good test might be whether speakers of one dialect can readily understand the speech of the other dialect. If not, I would say they are different languages. Not a black and white issue though.


 
Indeed - a very thought-provoking and intricate issue!  

According to your standards, I speak both Classical Arabic and Palestinian Arabic - which differ widely in terms of vocabulary and grammatical structure.  Nevertheless, I would say they are mutually understandable, except no one speaks Classical Arabic on a daily basis - so what's the verdict? 

Dutch and Flemish, by the way, are *not* considered separate languages by everybody - linguists and common folk alike.


----------



## Sev

elroy said:
			
		

> Indeed - a very thought-provoking and intricate issue!
> 
> According to your standards, I speak both Classical Arabic and Palestinian Arabic - which differ widely in terms of vocabulary and grammatical structure.  Nevertheless, I would say they are mutually understandable, except no one speaks Classical Arabic on a daily basis - so what's the verdict?
> 
> Dutch and Flemish, by the way, are *not* considered separate languages by everybody - linguists and common folk alike.



I add to what elroy said that in another thread a spanish speaker said he/she can easily undersand italian and a portuguese said he/she can understand spanish.
I conclude that Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are dialects of the same language


----------



## elroy

Sev said:
			
		

> Maybe we should really start another thread for that (good idea tim) ? timebomb or tim, I'll leave you do it if you wish, as you were the first to talk about that...
> 
> I add to what elroy said that in another thread a spanish speaker said he/she can easily undersand italian and a portuguese said he/she can understand spanish.
> I conclude that Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are dialects of the same language


 
 Dangerous, dangerous conclusion!  

I have so much to say about this - but I'll try to restrain myself and wait for the new thread.


----------



## Outsider

Sev said:
			
		

> I add to what elroy said that in another thread a spanish speaker said he/she can easily undersand italian and a portuguese said he/she can understand spanish.
> I conclude that Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are dialects of the same language


Careful... I can understand French, too.


----------



## Sev

Outsider said:
			
		

> Careful... I can understand French, too.


Yes, but I don't understand Portuguese   anyway I'd love Portuguese and French being 2 dialects of the same language   
<chatt mode off, sorry   , I'll wait for the new thread>


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> Dangerous, dangerous conclusion!
> 
> I have so much to say about this - but I'll try to restrain myself and wait for the new thread.


 
Yes, me too but we need a mod to break off the discussion.
(EDIT: Done! by zebedee)

I think languages have to be mutually comprehensible to a large extent to be considered dialects of the same language, so in fact even Portuguese/Spanish/Italian wouldn't count. But perhaps they do - it's not such a silly idea Sev, after all once they all were the same language, Latin, and there was no one instant when one suddenly became a different language. It is of course the imprecision of "to a large extent" which makes this such a thorny issue.

By the way Elroy, I know Dutch/Flemish are not considered different languages by many people, myself included. It's interesting that it is considered necessary to have different names for them, though, isn't it, presumably just because they are in different political jurisdictions.


----------



## Roi Marphille

timpeac said:
			
		

> Yes, me too but we need a mod to break off the discussion.
> 
> I think languages have to be mutually comprehensible to a large extent to be considered dialects of the same language, so in fact even Portuguese/Spanish/Italian wouldn't count. But perhaps they do - it's not such a silly idea Sev, after all once they all were the same language, Latin, and there was no one instant when one suddenly became a different language. It is of course the imprecision of "to a large extent" which makes this such a thorny issue.
> 
> By the way Elroy, I know Dutch/Flemish are not considered different languages by many people, myself included. It's interesting that it is considered necessary to have different names for them, though, isn't it, presumably just because they are in different political jurisdictions.


 
hey, I think there is no big deal. There are *specific definations * for what we call language and for what we call dialect. A dialect is a *variety of a language* used by people from a particular geographic area. That's it. 
You can consider whatever you want but then you have to face scientific approach. Forget about Politics.

btw, the other day I had a very 'stupid' conversation with a friend who was stating that American English is a different language from British English. That was her point of view and she was obviously mistaken according Linguistics so what to argue more? According to her, I may speak like 40 different languages or something. This is ridiculous, isn't it?


----------



## Sev

Sorry Roi Marphille, I'm afraid there is no real "scientific approach" to that. You can't avoid considering politics. Here is a quotation I've found :


> Linguists have a saying: "a language is a dialect with an army".


 For the whole article, have a look HERE.




			
				Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> hey, I think there is no big deal. There are *specific definations * for what we call language and for what we call dialect. A dialect is a *variety of a language* used by people from a particular geographic area. That's it.
> You can consider whatever you want but then you have to face scientific approach. Forget about Politics.
> 
> btw, the other day I had a very 'stupid' conversation with a friend who was stating that American English is a different language from British English. That was her point of view and she was obviously mistaken according Linguistics so what to argue more? According to her, I may speak like 40 different languages or something. This is ridiculous, isn't it?


----------



## Gustavoang

Hi.



			
				Sev said:
			
		

> I add to what elroy said that in another thread a spanish speaker said he/she can easily undersand italian and a portuguese said he/she can understand spanish.


Easily? That's imposible. If you give me a dictionary, *perhaps* I *might* do so.



			
				Sev said:
			
		

> I conclude that Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are dialects of the same language


Right. They're all dialects of Latin.



			
				Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> the other day I had a very 'stupid' conversation with a friend who was stating that American English is a different language from British English. That was her point of view and she was obviously mistaken according Linguistics so what to argue more? According to her, I may speak like 40 different languages or something. This is ridiculous, isn't it?


I'd say that she's right, but I don't know what she mean by that you may speak about 40 languages.

Cheers.


----------



## Gustavoang

[This is a compilation of a few messages I posted to another thread]

[It's worth noting that by "Castilian" I mean what you consider "the Spanish Language"]


A *language* is the ideal way of coding a message, recognized by the people who speak it.
*Dialects* are languages derived from a parent language.

So...


*Mexican Castilian* (or Mexican for short) is a dialect of the *Castilian Language*. So, *Castilian* is the language of the *Mexican Dialect*.
*Castilian* is a dialect of the *Latin Language*. So, *Latin* is the language of the *Castilian Dialect*.

On the other hand:

*U.S. English* is a dialect of the *English Language*. So, *English* is the language of the *U.S. English Dialect*.
*English* is a dialect of *Germanic Languages*. So, the later are the language of the *English Dialect*.

And so on...

It's something like this: Gustavo is *son* of Carlos, then Carlos is *parent* of Gustavo.

Child ~ Dialect
Parent ~ Language

So, yes: *Mexican (Castilian) is a language as well* and it has dialects. In addition, Mexicans (or the most of them) *do* speak Castilian.

I speak Venezuelan Castilian, or Venezuelan for short. Likewise, you can say that you speak Mexican.

Get it? It sounds a bit weird, right?


Mexican is a dialect.  
Mexican is a language.  
Castilian is a dialect.  
Castilian is a language. 
Andalusian is an Spanish Castilian dialect.  
Spanish Castilian is a Castilian dialect.  
Castilian is a Latin dialect. And so on... 
Gustavo is a son of Carlos and Carlos is son of Ramón and Ramón is son of Pedro... and so on. Thus, Pedro is the Ramón's father and Ramón is the Carlos' father and Carlos is Gustavo's father.  

You can be both parent and child, right? Well, so can Mexican Castilian.

[I learnt this from a Castilian book of the Spanish C.O.U.].




			
				lforestier said:
			
		

> In my opinion, a dialect has to vary a lot from the language it's derived from.


Not always.

Idists and Esperantists can hold a conversation, despite these are *two different languages* because Ido is a dialect of Esperanto.

Moreover, the Castilian spoken is Castille itself is considered a dialect as well.



			
				lforestier said:
			
		

> Mexican Spanish doesn't vary that much to be considered other than Spanish


I have never said that. In fact, Mexican Castilian is Castilian.




			
				lforestier said:
			
		

> You do not speak Venezolano



Of course I do: I speak Venezuelan Castilian, or Venezuelan for short.



			
				lforestier said:
			
		

> you speak Spanish with a Venezuelan accent and use idioms and words native to your country.


Right. That's another way to say that I speak the Venezuelan Dialect of Castilian.



			
				lforestier said:
			
		

> It's like saying that the people from the US speak a dialect of English. That would be incorrect. Now if you want to say what is spoken in Jamaica is a dialect of English, that is different since someone from England or NZ will have a little trouble understanding the local speech.


Indeed U.S. English is a dialect of English, as well as English is a dialect of Germanic.

Accorging to TFD, one of the meaning of dialect is "_A language considered as part of a larger family of languages or a linguistic branch. Not in scientific use: Spanish and French are Romance dialects_."

Anyway, this is not the first discussion on the subject: You'll find more in the wikipedia and terralingua.

Just in case:

Even if Venezuelan (Castilian) was not a language, it's right to say "I speak Venezuelan" or "I speak Venezuelan Castilian" in order to specify the type of Castilian you speak.

"Venezuelan" might also be a shortening for "Venezuelan Castilian", as well as "America" might also be a shortening for "United States of America". The problem about these shortenings is that they lead to confusions, as if an Spaniard says "I speak Spanish"... Which Spanish Language or which Spanish dialect of Spanish? Catalan? Andalusian Castilian?... This is why I avoid using "Spanish" to refer to the language, I prefer "Castilian" instead.




			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Gustavo, I just want to point out that when one is speaking English it is incorrect to refer to regional variations of a language as separate languages. This is true regardless of where a person stands on the _dialect vs. language_ debate.  I agree that one can call the Venezuelan dialect/language "Venezuelan Spanish", but it isn't correct to call it "Venezuelan". This is not a form of shorthand or an abbreviation. It just sounds wrong.



What you say doesn't only apply in English, but also in Castilian (and likely in other languages). There are many Castilian-native people that think the same you think and other English-native people that think the same I think.

I consider "Venezuelan" might also be a dialect/language, but I wouldn't use it because that's how a Venezuela-native person is often refered to as. It's unclear, both in Castilian and English.

Likewise, if I say "I'm American", I might be saying that I was born in the USA or in the American continent ("The Americas").

IMO, these shortenings have more than one meaning, but the most of people only knows one (or they forget about the other ones)... That's what makes them unclear.

If I say "I speak Venezuelan" in Castilian (_Yo hablo Venezolano_), people will think that I'm a uneducated person.


----------



## vince

Why is Chinese considered one language while the Romance languages, which differ by similar degrees, are considered separate?

Here is my explanation, excerpted from a previous thread:

Imagine that everyone who speaks a Romance language (Portuguese, Castilian, Catalan, Occitan, French, Italian, Romanian, etc) was forced to write in French, but are told that this written language is actually not French, but "New Latin", as to not convey the sense that French is superior to the other Romance languages in this framework.

And then they are told that the only difference between French and their vernacular language was pronunciation of the words and the existence of some slang vocabulary and usages. Therefore their languages are all dialects of "New Latin".

Everyone speaking Romance languages is allowed to speak as they once did, but whenever they write, they must write in "New Latin" - based grammatically and lexically upon French. Writing in Spanish, Italian, or Romanian is frowned upon because these are spoken DIALECTS, the only correct written language is New Latin.

Of course the fact that most Romance languages use an alphabet makes it hard to understand how one can convince Spanish speakers that French words can be pronounced in Spanish, e.g. the New Latin "feuille" would be pronounced as "hoja" in Spain, but using a writing system similar to Chinese characters this comparison would be easier to see.

In the above paragraphs, replace "New Latin" with "Standard Chinese", "French" with "Mandarin", and "Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, and Romanian" with "Cantonese, Taishanese, Taiwanese, Shanghainese, and Hakka" to understand the Chinese linguistic situation.

Also here is an interesting article: "How to Forget Your Mother Tongue and Remember Your National Language" http://www.pinyin.info/readings/mair/taiwanese.html

I find it very sad that Chinese people look down on their spoken languages and view that as backwards patois while Catalonians can speak of their language with pride.

If anyone wishes, I can come up with summaries of grammatical and structural comparisons of Chinese languages, or they could also search for "Mandarin/Written Chinese" under my username.


----------



## optimistique

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> A *language* is the ideal way of coding a message, recognized by the people who speak it.
> *Dialects* are languages derived from a parent language.



It may be true, but by giving this definition you should be careful which dialect belongs to which language. I'll give an example:

In the Netherlands you have 12 provinces of which most have their own dialect. Now it is easy to state that these dialects are derived from the parent language Dutch, which is true for only a handful of them. Frisian has become a language now, to great frustration of its neighbour-dialect _Gronings_, that wants to be a language too, since neither are derived from Dutch. 
The dialect of the province I come from, _Limburgish_, has  just as much right to become a language as Frisian has: it is definitely NOT a derivation of Dutch, but a language variation on the same level as Dutch (linguistically). The thing is that a language costs a lot of money, while a dialect does not. That's the main reason why it's not a language. 

But to return to your point: you can say that Dutch (aka Lower German),  High German  (Germany's official German) and for example Limburgish ("Half-way" German ) are all dialects of the mother language German (which is the old or older German, not the modern German).
So it's all really complicated in this case.


----------



## french4beth

vince said:
			
		

> Why is Chinese considered one language while the Romance languages, which differ by similar degrees, are considered separate?


Unfortunately, this is a very common error. I wonder if it's caused by the fact that China is 1 country, so some people assume that only 1 language is spoken there?

Here's an interesting definition of the word _'dialect'_ (found here: http://www.stc-nne.org/Noreaster/september03/featureI.htm):



> Linguists agree that when two speakers cannot understand each other, they are speaking different languages. When they can understand each other they are speaking the same language but may be speaking different dialects. The distinction between dialect and language is based upon the concept of mutual understandability.


 
And from thefreedictionary.com:


> *dialect* - a regional or social variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern of the culture in which it exists


----------



## Pivra

I consider minor languages that don't have significant numbers of speakers and are similar to larger language groups "dialects". That's my definition of the word "dialect". Like, I consider Asturian a dialect of Spanish, Flemmish as a dialect of Dutch, Venetian as a diacect of Italian, Jawi as a dialect of Malay, and so on.


----------



## Gustavoang

Hi, optimistique.



			
				optimistique said:
			
		

> It may be true, but by giving this definition you should be careful which dialect belongs to which language. I'll give an example:
> 
> In the Netherlands you have 12 provinces of which most have their own dialect. Now it is easy to state that these dialects are derived from the parent language Dutch, which is true for only a handful of them. Frisian has become a language now, to great frustration of its neighbour-dialect _Gronings_, that wants to be a language too, since neither are derived from Dutch.
> The dialect of the province I come from, _Limburgish_, has  just as much right to become a language as Frisian has: it is definitely NOT a derivation of Dutch, but a language variation on the same level as Dutch (linguistically). The thing is that a language costs a lot of money, while a dialect does not. That's the main reason why it's not a language.
> 
> But to return to your point: you can say that Dutch (aka Lower German),  High German  (Germany's official German) and for example Limburgish ("Half-way" German ) are all dialects of the mother language German (which is the old or older German, not the modern German).
> So it's all really complicated in this case.



Based on the information you provide us with, I would state that Limburgish and Gronings are definitely languages.

On the other hand, I don't understand what you mean by "a language costs a lot of money, while a dialect does not". Are you talking about creating a new language? Or about it being officially recognized by an State?

Regards.

PD: I'll be unable to answer you today, but tomorrow evening (Venezuelan time)... sorry for the delay...


----------



## ireney

> Linguists agree that when two speakers cannot understand each other, they are speaking different languages. When they can understand each other they are speaking the same language but may be speaking different dialects. The distinction between dialect and language is based upon the concept of mutual understandability.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Greek

While all these are definately dialects I can assure you that, at least when spoken, I cannot understand half of them and I know ancient Greek which means I am better off that your average Greek in this department.


----------



## grasshopper

I can't understand the dialect used by almost everybody where I live (in northern England) just a few decades ago, yet with the Spanish I have learnt in the last three years I am able to understand (written) Catalan, Galician and Portuguese without much trouble.
If someone told me that they could speak five different languages fluently, and those languages were, say, Basque, Japanese, Arabic, German and Quechua, I would be totally impressed.
If, on the other hand, they were Spanish, Catalan, Galician, Portuguese and Mirandese (which are all official languages where they are spoken) I would be more like..."Hmm, well, they are all pretty similar really, aren't they?"


----------



## emma42

What vince says about the various languages/dialects spoken in China was very interesting.  I am assuming he meant that "westerners" see Chinese as one language.  This is simply down to ignorance and lack of education.  We are taught practically nothing about China.

As to the attitude of the Chinese themselves, this smacks of a desire for "westernisation", possibly including a rejection of some communist ideas, which has led, really sadly, to the denigratory attitude towards their own spoken tongues (no, I don't really see the connection either, but I am guessing).  Or have I got that completely wrong, vince?


----------



## vince

It has more to do with a desire for national unity and less to do with communism or anything like that. People educated in all major Chinese-dominated places are all taught the same ideology that I mentioned above.
It doesn't matter whether you are from Communist Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Singapore, the entire ideology is the same: everyone writes in Mandarin-based Written Chinese, any attempt at writing the local language is denigrated as "dialect slang". Playing on this self-denigration of local languages, Communist China, Taiwan, and Singapore have largely been successful in eradicating local Chinese languages and making everyone speak Mandarin. This linguicide may soon make the "Mandarin is Chinese, and Chinese is Mandarin" falsehood actually true!


----------



## vince

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I don't understand what you mean by "a language costs a lot of money, while a dialect does not". Are you talking about creating a new language? Or about it being officially recognized by an State?



Recognizing as few languages as possible is in the interest of the central government. Official recognition requires dispensing services and communications in that language, which costs money. Plus, it gives incentive to regionalism and grants legitimacy to separatists who claim to have a different culture. Defining everything as dialects gives people the impression that they are all the same kind, at least linguistically. Plus it gives foreigners and business investors the impression that hey, I only need to use one language to get around, thus lowering costs that would have been spent on language training. It's also easier to impose a national language upon all citizens if they are believing that they are merely learning a different, more prestigious dialect, rather than being forcefully assimilated into a foreign one. Just compare how relatively calmly Shanghai is losing its language (the Wu language, a.k.a. "Shanghainese") compared to Franco-era Barcelona.


----------



## moodywop

*1. *


> Linguists agree that when two speakers cannot understand each other, they are speaking different languages. When they can understand each other they are speaking the same language but may be speaking different dialects. The distinction between dialect and language is based upon the concept of mutual understandability.


 
*2. *


> *dialect *- a regional or social variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern of the culture in which it exists


 
As I argued in another thread it's these two completely different definitions of "dialect" that cause confusion.

In Italian we only use the word "dialetto" for 1. , i.e. to refer to mutually unintelligible _dialetti _like Neapolitan and Venetian. They are non-national languages with their distinctive phonology, morphology, grammar and syntax, lexis. 
In Italian universities _dialettologia _studies dialects. You can graduate with a thesis on "The morphophonemis of contemporary Neapolitan".
On the other hand 2., which we call _varietà regionali/sociali dell'italiano, _is studied by sociolinguists. They never use _dialetto _for 2.

Neapolitan, Venetian etc are *not *"dialects of Italian" but "dialects of Italy".

Italian was for centuries and until recently a purely literary language, originally based on 14th c. literary Tuscan, but then kept in a sort of stasis in a crystallized form that writers adhered to. It was only after WWII that, thanks to mass education and the media, it gradually came to be spoken by ever growing numbers and started evolving. The first lines of Dante's _Commedia _sound like current Italian.

The following approximate figures for Italians able to speak *only *Italian or *only *their local dialect are pretty shocking to anyone unfamiliar with our linguistic history: 


........................ (*Italian* *only*)...................(Dialect *only*)

1861........................2,5%.................. ................97,5%

1951........................18,5%................. ................63,5%

1982........................29,5%................. ................46,5%

1997.............................................. ....................6,0% 

While "standard" Italian was kept in a bubble by literary scholars the dialects (including Tuscan) kept evolving since they were the languages Italians used to communicate.

Actually so-called _varietà regionali _of Italian do not display considerable differences, exactly because when people want to express themselves in a more colourful, emotional way they still resort to dialect.


----------



## Brioche

When is a language not a language?

I lived in German for a while, and can understand Standard German very well. 

On the radio here in Australia there are programs presented in many, many languages, including Yiddish and Swiss German.

Swiss German is generally called a "dialect", and Yiddish always called a "language". Yet, with my knowledge of Standard German, I can understand a great deal of the Yiddish, but hardly any of the Swiss.


----------



## moodywop

A few examples of the linguistic variety in Italy:

Standard Italian: _Dov'è tua madre? (where's your mother?)_

Southern regional Italian: _Dove sta tua madre?_

Neapolitan dialect: _arò sta mamm't'?_


Standard Italian: _Andate a casa, ragazzi! (Go home, kids!)_

Venetian dialect: /ve kaza tuzi/

Neapolitan dialect. _jatuvenn' a 'a cas', guagliu'_


Standard Italian: _ho comprato una scatola di pelati ( I bought a tin of tomatoes)_

Neapolitan dialect: _m'agg' accattat' 'na buatt' 'i pummarol'_

(there is no way I could have guessed the meaning of the Venetian example, which I got from a linguistics textbook)


----------



## robbie_SWE

moodywop said:
			
		

> A few examples of the linguistic variety in Italy:
> 
> Standard Italian: _Dov'è tua madre? (where's your mother?)_
> 
> Southern regional Italian: _Dove sta tua madre?_
> 
> Neapolitan dialect: _arò sta mamm't'?_
> 
> 
> Standard Italian: _Andate a casa, ragazzi! (Go home, kids!)_
> 
> Venetian dialect: /ve kaza tuzi/
> 
> Neapolitan dialect. _jatuvenn' a 'a cas', guagliu'_
> 
> 
> Standard Italian: _ho comprato una scatola di pelati ( I bought a tin of tomatoes)_
> 
> Neapolitan dialect: _m'agg' accattat' 'na buatt' 'i pummarol'_
> 
> (there is no way I could have guessed the meaning of the Venetian example, which I got from a linguistics textbook)


 
God! Should'nt these two dialects (Venetian and Naapolitan) be accepted as two different languages??!! The linguistic relation is very hard to see. 

In Sweden we have also many dialects, some are harder to understand than others. But they're still quite similar to the Swedish language. The biggest difference I think is the dialect on Gotland (a big island isolated from the rest of Sweden). 

 robbie


----------



## Brioche

moodywop said:
			
		

> A few examples of the linguistic variety in Italy:
> 
> 
> Standard Italian: _ho comprato una scatola di pelati ( I bought a tin of tomatoes)_


 
Dove sono i pomodori?

Wouldn't it be _pomodori pelati_ = peeled tomatoes?
not just _pelati_ = peeled?


----------



## vince

moodywop said:
			
		

> A few examples of the linguistic variety in Italy:
> 
> Standard Italian: _Dov'è tua madre? (where's your mother?)_
> 
> Southern regional Italian: _Dove sta tua madre?_
> 
> Neapolitan dialect: _arò sta mamm't'?_
> 
> 
> Standard Italian: _Andate a casa, ragazzi! (Go home, kids!)_
> 
> Venetian dialect: /ve kaza tuzi/
> 
> Neapolitan dialect. _jatuvenn' a 'a cas', guagliu'_
> 
> 
> Standard Italian: _ho comprato una scatola di pelati ( I bought a tin of tomatoes)_
> 
> Neapolitan dialect: _m'agg' accattat' 'na buatt' 'i pummarol'_
> 
> (there is no way I could have guessed the meaning of the Venetian example, which I got from a linguistics textbook)


Using the exact same examples, for Mandarin and Cantonese:

*Where is your mother:*
Cantonese: Nei go mama hai bin(do)?
Mandarin: Ni de mama zai nali/ nar?

*Go home kids:*
Cantonese: Faan okkei, sammanzai!
Mandarin: Hui jia, xiaohaizi!

*I bought a can of tomatos:
*Cantonese: ngo maai zo jat gun faanke
Mandarin: wo mai le yi guan xihongshi.

Note: In this Romanization scheme, Cantonese 'z' is pronounced like English "j", Cantonese "j" is pronounced like English "y"

Here are some examples that show even wider variance:

*What are they eating?*
Cantonese: Keoidei sik-gan me?
Mandarin: Tamen zai-chi shenme?

*Why don't you like strawberries?
*Cantonese: Nei dimgaai m zongyi sidobelei?
Mandarin: Ni weishenme bu xihuan caomei?

*I don't speak <language>
*Cantonese: Ngo m sik gong <language>
Mandarin: Wo bu hui jiang <language>

*Everything has been wasted.*
Cantonese: Matye dou saai saai
Mandarin: Quan dou lang fei diao.


----------



## moodywop

robbie_SWE said:
			
		

> God! Should'nt these two dialects (Venetian and Naapolitan) be accepted as two different languages??!!


 
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Many people speak about Italian dialects without knowing much about them. 
Compared to the huge differences between dialects, differences between Italian as spoken in, say, Bologna and Naples are mainly confined to a few different sounds and intonation. Even these are much smaller than the differences between English as spoken in, say, SE England and Newcastle.
Many "dialects" also have an extensive literary tradition.




> The linguistic relation is very hard to see.


 
Scholars themselves are not quite sure why dialects have evolved so differently:

_Why did spoken Latin evolve so differently in different parts of Italy? We do not know for certain. An often accepted explanation uses the notion of substratum: the Italian dialects are Latin as spoken by Celts, Veneti, Etruscans, Umbrians, Oscans, etc_
_(G Lepschy, The Italian Language Today)_

Interestingly, two of the Neapolitan words in my "tin of tomatoes" example are clearly loanwords from French (_buatt' _from _boite_ and _accatta' _from _acheter_), which entered the dialect/language during French rule. 

Here's a link to a brief discussion of Neapolitan and Southern dialects

PS Brioche, in conversation we almost always shorten "pomodori pelati" to "pelati"(see here)


----------



## optimistique

vince said:
			
		

> Recognizing as few languages as possible is in the interest of the central government. Official recognition requires dispensing services and communications in that language, which costs money. Plus, it gives incentive to regionalism and grants legitimacy to separatists who claim to have a different culture. Defining everything as dialects gives people the impression that they are all the same kind, at least linguistically. Plus it gives foreigners and business investors the impression that hey, I only need to use one language to get around, thus lowering costs that would have been spent on language training. It's also easier to impose a national language upon all citizens if they are believing that they are merely learning a different, more prestigious dialect, rather than being forcefully assimilated into a foreign one. Just compare how relatively calmly Shanghai is losing its language (the Wu language, a.k.a. "Shanghainese") compared to Franco-era Barcelona.



Gustavoang, Vince already answered you, but the main reason why a language costs an incredible amount of money is: if a dialect becomes a language, then all official documents should be available in that language too, people have the right to speak or be spoken to in that language when they appear in court or when they visit a governmental building/institution etc. etc. 
At least in the Netherlands that's how it works.


----------



## Gustavoang

vince said:
			
		

> Recognizing as few languages as possible is in the interest of the central government. Official recognition requires dispensing services and communications in that language, which costs money. Plus, it gives incentive to regionalism and grants legitimacy to separatists who claim to have a different culture. Defining everything as dialects gives people the impression that they are all the same kind, at least linguistically. Plus it gives foreigners and business investors the impression that hey, I only need to use one language to get around, thus lowering costs that would have been spent on language training. It's also easier to impose a national language upon all citizens if they are believing that they are merely learning a different, more prestigious dialect, rather than being forcefully assimilated into a foreign one. Just compare how relatively calmly Shanghai is losing its language (the Wu language, a.k.a. "Shanghainese") compared to Franco-era Barcelona.


Yes, I'm in agree with you.


----------



## Gustavoang

Brioche said:
			
		

> When is a language not a language?


A language is always a language, but not always a dialect; it's a dialect if it's derived from a parent language or languages.


----------



## emma42

Standard English - I don't know about your mother, but my wife makes a lovely corned beef and potato dish.

Geordie (one variety thereof) - Ah divven knah boot yor mutha, but wor lass meyuks a canny panagul(t)y.


----------



## vince

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> A language is always a language, but not always a dialect; it's a dialect if it's derived from a parent language or languages.



Yes but most world languages are derived from parent languages, and have relatives that can be described as "sibling relationships" (e.g. Russian and Ukrainian) rather than "distant cousins" (Swedish and French). There aren't many languages that have no living relatives. So IMHO it is not enough to say that a language is a dialect if it comes from a parent language. Otherwise Spanish and Bengali would be distant dialects of the same language (proto-Indo-European).

That's why, for the purpose of linguistics at least, the best way is to judge by mutual intelligibility. There are many unwanted political and social consequences of such a test, but scientifically I believe that's the best.


----------



## panjabigator

I agree with you Vince, but the only problem with that is politics...everyone wants to assert their identity and say that they are different...ie India.  

Many languages become the standard just simply because of politics....in India, the Mughals settled in Delhi and the interaction with the Delhi dialect led to it being standardized.  Now there are so many negative views on the "dialects" and other closely related languages as being "crude."  Perhaps if they had settled in Punjab or Bengal, those vernaculars would also have risen to prominence.


----------



## Outsider

moodywop said:
			
		

> _Why did spoken Latin evolve so differently in different parts of Italy? We do not know for certain. An often accepted explanation uses the notion of substratum: the Italian dialects are Latin as spoken by Celts, Veneti, Etruscans, Umbrians, Oscans, etc_
> _(G Lepschy, The Italian Language Today)_


The political fragmentation of Italy throughout most of the Middle Ages, and until the 19th century (in a grand total of 1200 years, give or take a few), would seem like a natural explanation...


----------



## moodywop

Outsider said:
			
		

> The political fragmentation of Italy throughout most of the Middle Ages, and until the 19th century (in a grand total of 1200 years, give or take a few), would seem like a natural explanation...


 
Yes, but the "substratum" explanation (if one accepts it, of course) seems to suggest that the development of extremely differentiated vernaculars occurred early on.


----------



## panjabigator

I believe the same is true of France also...hell...every country has a story to tell!


----------



## OCCASVS

Hi moodywop,
do you think that Italian "dialects" are (slowly) disappearing, because they seem too rude? In fact, they're often used in very informal chatting.

For example, I can only understand a bit of my dialect, because I was taught not to speak it.
However, I think that they're must be kept alive. If they disappear, Italiy will lose a part of his culture.


----------



## moodywop

OCCASVS said:
			
		

> However, I think that they're must be kept alive. If they disappear, Italiy will lose a part of his culture.


 
It's great to hear a 15-year-old say that! 



> I can only understand a bit of my dialect, because I was taught not to speak it.


 
Sad but true. My parents had the same attitude. They could speak it but my brothers and I were only supposed to speak Italian.



> do you think that Italian "dialects" are (slowly) disappearing, because they seem too rude? In fact, they're often used in very informal chatting.


 
It varies from area to area. For example, in Veneto people from all social backgrounds use their dialect quite extensively. In Campania, probably because of a Southern inferiority complex, the use of the Neapolitan dialect is gradually being confined to the lower socioeconomic groups. I guess (please correct me if I'm wrong) that by "rude" you mean Italian _rude, _i.e. coarse, unrefined, unsophisticated, _rozzo_. That's the reason some of my pupils (especially the girls) give for not speaking the dialect.
On the other hand there has recently been a revival, for example with the development of Neapolitan hip-hop music(Neapolitan having a rhythm more similar to English and being therefore more suitable for rap than Italian).

My personal experience is that since I re-discovered my dialect and started using it I have felt as if I had got rid of a straitjacket. Italian is a beautiful language but it's also still somewhat stiff because of its being until recently a literary language. 

You might find what I wrote in this post interesting.


----------



## OCCASVS

moodywop said:
			
		

> In Campania, probably because of a Southern inferiority complex, the use of the Neapolitan dialect is gradually being confined to the lower socioeconomic groups.


In fact, I was referring expecially to Southern dialects, because I don't know very well the Northern situation.


> I guess (please correct me if I'm wrong) that by "rude" you mean Italian _rude, _i.e. coarse, unrefined, unsophisticated, _rozzo_. That's the reason some of my pupils (especially the girls) give for not speaking the dialect.
> On the other hand there has recently been a revival, for example with the development of Neapolitan hip-hop music(Neapolitan having a rhythm more similar to English and being therefore more suitable for rap than Italian).


I mean both unsophisticated and impolite.
Anyway, I think Neapolitan is a "mainstream" Southern dialect.
Other dialects are much less known.


> My personal experience is that since I re-discovered my dialect and started using it I have felt as if I had got rid of a straitjacket. Italian is a beautiful language but it's also still somewhat stiff because of its being until recently a literary language.
> 
> You might find what I wrote in this:


Thank you for the link!


----------



## panjabigator

Someone today wrote to this sentence to me in a Hindi forum I am in:





> Panjabi, though treated as a separate language, has actually been declared a dialect of Hindi by many linguists.



Why is it that Panjabi is a dialect of Hindi then?  Why can it not be the other way around?


----------



## modus.irrealis

I've always accepted the position that the language vs. dialect question is not a scientific question and has nothing to do with objective facts. Like all matters of self-identification (ethnicity e.g.), the best thing is probably to respect what people themselves say about what language they speak, and what counts as a dialect will have to do with the way that society determines what speech is standard and prestigious.

The problem with mutual intelligibility for me is that it's not always symmetric. Speakers of X might understand Y but not vice versa, especially when X is a "non-standard form" of Y -- e.g. I can think of English dialects I wouldn't understand, but those speakers would understand standard English. But that may be because they're exposed to standard English. So do we have to find "pure" speakers of the dialect to determine mutual intelligibility? As another example, I've even read that Danes have a much easier time understanding other Scandinavians than vice versa because of some of the phonetic changes that have occured in Danish.

And then, what about situations where speakers of X understand Y and speakers of Y understand Z but speakers of X don't understand Z (and vice versa). I've read this was the situation with Romance languages in Western Europe a century ago where you could walk from Paris to Rome without ever finding adjacent villages that couldn't understand each other, but Parisians could not communicate with Romans. How many languages are there then?

To panjabigator: I wonder who these "linguists" are. Everything I've read suggests that linguists rarely wade into these issues because a large component of it is so subjective.

Thymios


----------



## Outsider

Very well said, Modus.Irrealis.


----------



## panjabigator

I assume those linguists are really politicians in disguise...


----------

