# Most similar languages



## kusurija

Hi, all!
I'm curious, according Your opinion, which pair of languages (but not dialects) is most similar each to other? Indicate which language family is the pair, please.

In my humble opinion, one of most close pair would be Czech and Slovak languages of Slavic language family, but I'm sure someone will find another pair, which are more close similar, than this pair.


----------



## Sionees

Kernewek (Cornish) and Brezhoneg (Breton) in the Brittonic Celtic family, perhaps?

Mind you, the Bretons and Cornish have appropriated our (the Welsh) national anthem and substituted their words for ours... Never mind, we're all P Celts together


----------



## Outsider

kusurija said:


> I'm curious, according Your opinion, which pair of languages (but not dialects) is most similar each to other?


In my opinion, the answer to this question is highly subjective.

It depends, for starters, on how well/badly you know the languages, and tends to be affected by personal biases. The less you know about two related languages, the more you're tempted to claim that they're very similar.

Then there is the issue that the dissimilarity between two "dialects" can sometimes be greater than the dissimilarity between two "languages".

The very notion of "language" is a social construct, so I prefer not to name any languages.


----------



## sokol

I only can agree with Outsider, and I'd like to further add that after all "a language is only a dialect with an army and navy" (see the Wiki link).

Linguistically speaking each dialect has its own grammar and is a language in its own right.

This question would make more sense if you rephrase it as: _"Most similar *standard *languages"._

In that case of course one should _not _take pluricentric languages into account - languages like English, Spanish, German, Arabic, Portuguese, Hindi/Urdu, Romanian (with Moldavian as second standard variety), also Bosnian/ Croatian/ Montenegrin/ Serbian ("technically" this still is one language - and not four different ones) and so on. Lower Sorbian and Upper Sorbian too should not be considered as "two languages".

If you restrict the question to standard languages then indeed Czech and Slovak could be candidates for most similar standard languages; but also Russian and/or Belarussian and/or Ukrainian, possibly.

I could imagine that probably Russian and Belarussian would be the closest two standard languages, but I know next to nothing about Belarussian - only that there still seems to be a debate going on on "how Belarussian" (i. e. how distinct from Russian) the language should be, at least according to Wiki.

Two other very similar standard languages are Tadshiki and Persian, but of these two languages I know hardly more than that they are rather similar.
Further there are Estonian and Finnish, of which I too know next to nothing except that they are similar.
Then there are Scandinavian languages to consider - especially the triangle of Norvegian (with two standard varieties of which one is closer to Danish) plus Swedish plus Danish (with Icelandic and Faeringian being more different). Allegedly Scandinavians talk to each other in their respective languages and do understand each other quite well.


----------



## 2PieRad

Yeah, this question is really hard to answer. Mostly because it's completely impossible to come up with an objective definition of _language_ and differentiate it from a _dialect_. The things is, a language starts out as a single language. Then the people speaking that language split off from each other and live in different environments. The people in different groups will be influenced by different customs/cultures/foreign languages in their own respective environment. And with that, their language will slowly change, but in a way that's different from another group, who's influenced by a whole new set of customs/cultures/languages. 

Thus, you start off with a single language. The people split off, and through time, these people will develop their own dialects, which were influenced by their own unique surroundings. If you bring them back together afterwards, they'll still understand each other, but not as well as they used to. It's why English/French/etc. speakers from different parts of the world now speak differently compared to each other, yet they're still mutually understandable, for the most part.

Given even more time for each dialect to change, sooner or later, when you bring these two groups back together, they'll no longer be able to understand each other. This would probably be the point where one ancestral language has branched off and evolved into two or more different languages. This is what happened to the Germanic family of languages, which started off as the same ancestral language (proto-Germanic). People speaking it broke off and lived in different places. Isolated, they developed their own dialects by changing the original language bit by bit. As time passed on, the changes increased until they branched off into the different languages we know today (English, German, Dutch, etc.) Same thing for other language families, such as the Romance languages. (Simplified model, of course)

Therein lies the problem. When you bring these two groups together, at what "percentage of mutual comprehension" do you need to pass in order to classify them still as two dialects? And at what percentage will you classify them as two different languages? So, there really is no "magic division" separating language and dialect. Whatever boundaries we impose are completely arbitrary. 

Thus, the best answer I can give you: two languages that have recently branched off as two different languages, and not just dialects, would be the most similar. Once again, the point where two dialects "suddenly" are different enough to be classified as two separate languages is an arbitrary and subjective decision.


----------



## Sionees

Outsider's points are perfectly valid and I will admit my initial answer was a little hasty in being 'a layman's response.' Being a profesional linguist, I fell into my own trap of being 'too popular' in my answer and not applying strict scientific criteria as we are supposed to. 

Perhaps for the average person in the street our responses to date on this thread are adequate. However, and this is where I re-iterate my support for outsider's 'subjective test', in the cold analysis of a linguistics laboratory where languages can be investigated and dissected under microscopes (if I may be permitted scientific metaphors) then similarities and differences between them can be established in a far more thorough, professional and objective manner.

This is not meant in any way to offend you, kusurija, and I welcome your enthusiasm for languages on this thread and elsewhere with open arms.


----------



## avok

Sionees said:


> Outsider's points are perfectly valid and I will admit my initial answer was a little hasty in being 'a layman's response.'


 
I would call this "being down to earth".



sokol said:


> ... also Bosnian/ Croatian/ Macedonian/ Serbian ("technically" this still is one language - and not four different ones) and so on.


 
Ich glaub,daß du "Montenegrinisch" meinst


----------



## sokol

avok said:


> Ich glaub,daß du "Montenegrinisch" meinst


Yes, certainly; it seems my brain is even mixing up different languages by now. - Thanks, typo corrected!


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Chechen- Ingush
Bahasa Indonesia - Bahasa Melayu - Bahasa Brunei


----------



## sokol

Setwale_Charm said:


> Chechen- Ingush
> Bahasa Indonesia - Bahasa Melayu - Bahasa Brunei



I don't know Chechen and Ingush, but the three Indonesian languages probably should still count as polycentric language, although German Wiki already states that Indonesian and Malayan are drifting apart (quote, translated rather free by me):

_"Während sich Indonesier und Malaysier in der Kolonialzeit noch nahezu flüssig untereinander verständigen konnten, ist dies heute unter jungen Indonesiern und Malaysiern nur noch zu einem Grad möglich, wie es unter Sprechern verschiedener skandinavischer Sprachen der Fall ist.
_While Indonesians and Malayans were easily able to maintain a fluent conversation during colonial times this no longer is the case for the younger generation: they only can communicate with each other similar like it is the case between speakers of Scandinavian languages, with only partial understanding."

If the three Bahasa varieties already would be too distant for being called a single language then of course they could be very good candidates for most similar (standard) languages; else they still should count as varieties of the same language.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

I think, Belarussian and Ukrainian may probably be referred to that category.


----------



## MarX

sokol said:


> I don't know Chechen and Ingush, but the three Indonesian languages probably should still count as polycentric language, although German Wiki already states that Indonesian and Malayan are drifting apart (quote, translated rather free by me):
> 
> _"Während sich Indonesier und Malaysier in der Kolonialzeit noch nahezu flüssig untereinander verständigen konnten, ist dies heute unter jungen Indonesiern und Malaysiern nur noch zu einem Grad möglich, wie es unter Sprechern verschiedener skandinavischer Sprachen der Fall ist._
> While Indonesians and Malayans were easily able to maintain a fluent conversation during colonial times this no longer is the case for the younger generation: they only can communicate with each other similar like it is the case between speakers of Scandinavian languages, with only partial understanding."
> 
> If the three Bahasa varieties already would be too distant for being called a single language then of course they could be very good candidates for most similar (standard) languages; else they still should count as varieties of the same language.


I didn't know that "Bahasa Brunei" existed.

Btw, *bahasa* means simply "language".
German = Bahasa Jerman
English = Bahasa Inggris
etc.

About Indonesians and Malaysians:


MarX said:


> I used to think Malaysian was very hard to understand, which is true, if they speak fast and use a lot of slang. But I've had the chance of talking with a couple of Malaysians so far, and we realized that our languages are way over 90% similar. In fact, they're almost identical. I noticed that they use words that I personally wouldn't use, but still understand, and vice versa.


Salam,


MarX


----------



## Saluton

I don't think Russian/Belarusian/Ukrainian are that much alike. Ukrainian - in its standard form, not Surzhyk, - is easy to understand for a Russian.
To my mind, the most similar are some unrenowned languages anyway. Perhaps some of the languages of India, where there are so many people in a rather small territory and all languages and dialects are intermingled (perhaps I'm exaggerating, but still).


----------



## el12345

I'm currently studying/learning Norwegian and am shocked as to how similar it is to Danish. In terms of basic vocabulary they seem to be pretty much the same language.


----------



## Saluton

Sorry, I made a mistake in my previous message.


Saluton said:


> I don't think Russian/Belarusian/Ukrainian are that much alike. Ukrainian - in its standard form, not Surzhyk, - is *not* so easy to understand for a Russian.
> To my mind, the most similar are some unrenowned languages anyway. Perhaps some of the languages of India, where there are so many people in a rather small territory and all languages and dialects are intermingled (I might be exaggerating, but still).


----------



## Foygl

I would say some of the Baltic-Finnic languages are quite close to each other. I have seen Finns reading Karelian with no or only minor problems.
The Tai-Kradai languages, Lao and Thai, are also quite close to each other.

I wouldn't really say the Ingush and Chechen (and Bats) languages are very close to each other.
They are Nakh languages, yes, but as far as I know, they are farther from each other mutually intelligibly than the Scandinavian languages.



el12345 said:


> I'm currently studying/learning Norwegian and am shocked as to how similar it is to Danish. In terms of basic vocabulary they seem to be pretty much the same language.


If you are learning Bokmål, some of the explanation may be because of the fact that Bokmål is derived directly from written Danish. If you are listening to spoken Danish and Norwegian you will realize that they are quite different, especially if you listen to some of the Norwegian dialects in the far north. None of them are particularly close to the written language - it's like with English and French, it is spelled in one way, but pronounced in a completely different way.


----------



## holingher

sokol said:


> I only can agree with Outsider, and I'd like to further add that after all "a language is only a dialect with an army and navy" (see the Wiki link).
> 
> Linguistically speaking each dialect has its own grammar and is a language in its own right.
> 
> This question would make more sense if you rephrase it as: _"Most similar *standard *languages"._
> 
> In that case of course one should _not _take pluricentric languages into account - languages like English, Spanish, German, Arabic, Portuguese, Hindi/Urdu, Romanian (with Moldavian as second standard variety), also Bosnian/ Croatian/ Montenegrin/ Serbian ("technically" this still is one language - and not four different ones) and so on. Lower Sorbian and Upper Sorbian too should not be considered as "two languages".
> 
> If you restrict the question to standard languages then indeed Czech and Slovak could be candidates for most similar standard languages; but also Russian and/or Belarussian and/or Ukrainian, possibly.
> 
> I could imagine that probably Russian and Belarussian would be the closest two standard languages, but I know next to nothing about Belarussian - only that there still seems to be a debate going on on "how Belarussian" (i. e. how distinct from Russian) the language should be, at least according to Wiki.
> 
> Two other very similar standard languages are Tadshiki and Persian, but of these two languages I know hardly more than that they are rather similar.
> Further there are Estonian and Finnish, of which I too know next to nothing except that they are similar.
> Then there are Scandinavian languages to consider - especially the triangle of Norvegian (with two standard varieties of which one is closer to Danish) plus Swedish plus Danish (with Icelandic and Faeringian being more different). Allegedly Scandinavians talk to each other in their respective languages and do understand each other quite well.


 
Moldavian is not  a "second standard variety " of Romanian.There is a unique standard variety of Romanian,identical in Romania and Moldova.Because of political reasons(different statehood is at the time the option of the majority of the Moldovan romanophones),romanian,in the same "standard variety",is called in Moldova, Moldovan!No more,no less.


----------



## holingher

Foygl said:


> I would say some of the Baltic-Finnic languages are quite close to each other. I have seen Finns reading Karelian with no or only minor problems.
> The Tai-Kradai languages, Lao and Thai, are also quite close to each other.
> 
> I wouldn't really say the Ingush and Chechen (and Bats) languages are very close to each other.
> They are Nakh languages, yes, but as far as I know, they are farther from each other mutually intelligibly than the Scandinavian languages.
> 
> 
> If you are learning Bokmål, some of the explanation may be because of the fact that Bokmål is derived directly from written Danish. If you are listening to spoken Danish and Norwegian you will realize that they are quite different, especially if you listen to some of the Norwegian dialects in the far north. None of them are particularly close to the written language - it's like with English and French, it is spelled in one way, but pronounced in a completely different way.


 
Bokmal is actually  in pronounciation norwegianised  written danish.But i'll say that both have a quite danish or,in the case of Nynorsk,a "danish-alike" local  base,the difference beeing more in vocabulary.


----------



## Hyper Squirrel

Although all the Romance languages are similar, Spanish and Italian are close to identical, at least according to a former Spanish teacher of mine. She didn't speak Italian but understood exactly what was being said when she heard it.


----------



## jana.bo99

When I was in Spain, summer 2004 for more than one month I had two experiences about languages and similarity. In that time I spoke Italian so much just to understand the tourists. 
If I had some question to the people on the street there, I have asked in Italian. They have understood me and gave answer in Spanish. It was a bit easier to understand as I went to the School for Spanish.

Other thing: there where I was sleeping was one woman from Bulgaria. She spoke Bulgarian and me, I spoke Serbo-Croatian. It was very easy to understand each other. Both are Slavic languages.

2005, I was in Italy. This time I had some conversation with one man: he spoke Italian and I spoke Spanish and our conversation was pretty clear. We understood each other although neither my Spanish nor my Italian was brilliant.

Now, I forgot all my Italian and can even think in Spanish. 

B.


----------



## Montesacro

Hyper Squirrel said:


> Although all the Romance languages are similar, Spanish and Italian are close to identical, at least according to a former Spanish teacher of mine. She didn't speak Italian but understood exactly what was being said when she heard it.


 
Spanish and Italian close to identical? What an astonishing statement!

Neddless to say, the two languages share many similarities but they are not mutually intelligible.

Even their core vocabularies have striking differences:

finestra........... ventana
tagliare........... cortar
arrivare............llegar
uscire..............salir
salire.............. subir
testa...............cabeza
faccia............. cara
gamba............ pierna
schiena.......... espalda
spalla............. hombro
letto.............. cama
cane.............. perro
aceto............. vinagre
olio................ aceite
asino.............. burro
burro.............. mantequilla
volere..............querer
richiedere.........pedir
domandare.......preguntar
mangiare..........comer
prendere..........coger/tomar


...and so on and so forth...


----------



## jana.bo99

Montesacro said:


> Spanish and Italian close to identical? What an astonishing statement!
> Neddless to say, the two languages share many similarities but they are not mutually intelligible.
> Even their core vocabularies have striking differences:
> finestra........... ventana
> tagliare........... cortar
> arrivare............llegar
> uscire..............salir
> salire.............. subir
> testa...............cabeza
> faccia............. cara
> gamba............ pierna
> schiena.......... espalda
> spalla............. hombro
> letto.............. cama
> cane.............. perro
> aceto............. vinagre
> olio................ aceite
> asino.............. burro
> burro.............. mantequilla
> volere..............querer
> richiedere.........pedir
> domandare.......preguntar
> mangiare..........comer
> prendere..........coger/tomar
> ...and so on and so forth...



Sorry, I didn't write all. 

Italian and Spanish are very similar when the people talk with each other.
As this list shows, the written words are very different like they belong to different group of languages. 

I was thinking very often, why is there such a difference?


----------



## Encolpius

kusurija said:


> Hi, all! I'm curious, according Your opinion, which pair of languages (but not dialects) is most similar each to other? Indicate which language family is the pair, please....



Hello, I think, another pair is: *Portuguese - Galego* or *Hindi-Urdu*. Bye.


----------



## Natalisha

Saluton said:


> I don't think Russian/Belarusian/Ukrainian are that much alike. Ukrainian - in its standard form, not Surzhyk, - is not so easy to understand for a Russian.


Yes, but those who speak Belarusian easily understand those who speak the Ukranian language and vice versa. 
Both the Belorussians and the Ukrainians speak Russian, but it's difficult for a Russian to understand the Belarusian and Ukrainian languages.


----------



## MaxJ

I don't know if the languages are most similar but Dutch and Afrikaans are very much alike too.


----------



## bibax

> Italian and Spanish are very similar when the people talk with each other.
> As this list shows, the written words are very different like they belong to different group of languages.
> 
> I was thinking very often, why is there such a difference?


Mostly the reason is that they are derived from different Latin words like

mangiare (from Latin mandere) and comer (from Latin comedere)
volere (from Latin volo/velle) and querer (from Latin quaerere)


----------



## Rallino

In my opinion Italian is more similar to French than it is to Spanish. I think Swedish and Norwegian are very close as well; also I can hardly distinguish German from Dutch 

By the way, although Turkish, Azeri, Uyghur, Uzbek, Tatar, Kyrgyz are all Turkic languages; only Turkish and Azeri are mutally intelligible.


----------



## HUMBERT0

Montesacro said:


> Spanish and Italian close to identical? What an astonishing statement!
> 
> Neddless to say, the two languages share many similarities but they are not mutually intelligible.
> 
> Even their core vocabularies have striking differences:
> 
> finestra........... ventana
> tagliare........... cortar
> arrivare............llegar
> uscire..............salir
> salire.............. subir
> testa...............cabeza
> faccia............. cara
> gamba............ pierna
> schiena.......... espalda
> spalla............. hombro
> letto.............. cama
> cane.............. perro
> aceto............. vinagre
> olio................ aceite
> asino.............. burro
> burro.............. mantequilla
> volere..............querer
> richiedere.........pedir
> domandare.......preguntar
> mangiare..........comer
> prendere..........coger/tomar
> 
> 
> ...and so on and so forth...


Verdad, pero tenemos sinónimos.

tagliare.......tajar(Del lat. taliāre, cortar). Tallar (Dar forma o trabajar un material. ant. Cortar o tajar)
arrivare....….arribar
testa……....…testa, testuz, testarudo (De _testa_)adj. Porfiado, terco, temoso.
faccia…...…..facial (del rostro)
letto……….....lecho
aceto………....acético, ca adj. quím. Del vinagre o de sus derivados, ácido acético.
canne …….....can
olio………….....óleo, como en santos óleos.
asino ………....asno
richiedere…...requerir (solicitar, pedir)
mangiare……..manjar (alimento, comestible, vianda, exquisitez)
prendere ….. prender


----------



## Encolpius

Rallino said:


> In my opinion Italian is more similar to French than it is to Spanish....



Very interesting observation!  I must confess sometimes I have the same feeling. And here are some examples of the most frequent verbs: 

avere - avoir - tener
andare - aller - ir
mettere - mettre - poner
*parl*are - *parl*er - hablar
prendere - prendre - tomar
trovare - trouver - encontrar
cercare - chercher - buscar
lasciare - laisser - dejar
arrivare - arriver - llegar
guardare - regarder - mirar

or

ma - mais - pero
più - plus - más
loro - leur - suyo
ancora - encore - todavía
giorno - jour - día
mai - jamais - nunca
allora - alors - entonces
lui - lui - él
magazzino - magasin - almacén
letto - lit - cama
affare - affaire - asunto

and many many more

And sometimes I've got the feeling Portuguese is more similar to Italian than it is to Spanish.


----------



## vandaman

Macedonian and Bulgarian are also very similar. At marketplace people can understand each other without problems but for readings books or university lectures people need dictionaries.there are also false friends


----------



## Orlin

vandaman said:


> Macedonian and Bulgarian are also very similar. At marketplace people can understand each other without problems but for readings books or university lectures people need dictionaries.there are also false friends


 
Здравейте, vandaman!
Не съм сигурен дали действително трябват речници в такива случаи. Според мен няма проблеми да се четат каквито и да е текстове, несъдържащи специализирана терминология (защото, ако не греша, терминологията е доста различна между нас и вас - в известна степен съм съгласен, че специализираните текстове трябва да се превеждат). Аз самият нямам почти никакви проблеми с разбирането на македонския, но значително ми помага и това, че говоря сръбски.

Поздрав!


----------



## vandaman

orlin said:


> Здравейте, vandaman!
> Не съм сигурен дали действително трябват речници в такива случаи. Според мен няма проблеми да се четат каквито и да е текстове, несъдържащи специализирана терминология (защото, ако не греша, терминологията е доста различна между нас и вас - в известна степен съм съгласен, че специализираните текстове трябва да се превеждат). Аз самият нямам почти никакви проблеми с разбирането на македонския, но значително ми помага и това, че говоря сръбски.
> 
> Поздрав!


Здраво Орлин, и јас читам бугарски книги без проблеми, но имам учено и српски и руски и старословенски. Зборувам за луѓе со просечно образование. На две до три реченици има збор кој луѓето не го разбираат или може да ги збуни.На тие зборови мислев кога мислев речници
Поздрав


----------



## Orlin

Извинявам се, че е off topic, но съм убеден, че всеки, който знае и сръбски, и руски, разбира български на практика 100%-ово. Може би същото се отнася и за македонския, ако знаеш български и сръбски.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

I understand nearly 100 of what you've written in Bulgarian and a deal less in Macedonian. However, understanding spoken Bulgarian proved for me - years ago - not so easy a task.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Encolpius said:


> Very interesting observation!  I must confess sometimes I have the same feeling. And here are some examples of the most frequent verbs:
> 
> avere - avoir - tener -> Spanish has haber as auxiliary and impersonal verb; in dialects (actually, languages) of Southern Italy tenere has more or less the same meaning as in Spanish),
> andare - aller - ir -> French uses "ir-" as future stem for aller, Spanish knows andar. The conjugation of all three verbs in the present tense is quite similar.
> I personally don't find that the infinitives "andare" and "aller" are that similar, even if they begin with the same vowel.
> mettere - mettre - poner -> Spanish knows meter, Italian porre ; French poser is related but not very similar
> *parl*are - *parl*er - hablar -> older Italian knows favellare - older Spanish fab(u)lar
> prendere - prendre - tomar
> trovare - trouver - encontrar -> Italian knows incontrare, French knows rencontrer; Spanish even knows trovar, but only as the activity of the trovatori - trouvères - trovadores (here again Italian and Spanish are more similar)
> cercare - chercher - buscar
> lasciare - laisser - dejar
> arrivare - arriver - llegar
> guardare - regarder - mirar -> French garder is a false friend of Italian guardare but more similar tu Spanish guardar; older Italian also knows "mirare"
> 
> or
> 
> ma - mais - pero -> Spanish knows mas (without accent), which was more used in past, and Italian knows però. French doesn't know a p-word in this case
> più - plus - más
> loro - leur - suyo
> ancora - encore - todavía -> Italian knows tuttavia, French knows toutefois, although the meaning of the three adverbs is not quite the same
> giorno - jour - día -> Italian knows dí, although it was more used in the past; by the way, both Italian and Spanish know the adjective diurno, which doesn't exist in French
> mai - jamais - nunca -> Spanish knows jamás and Italian also giammai
> allora - alors - entonces -> dunque - donc???
> lui - lui - él -> here you confuse the subject and the indirect object forms in the three languages. It should be:
> egli/lui (if you're less puristical) - il - él
> gli/ a lui; le/ a lei - lui - le
> magazzino - magasin - almacén ->technically, it's the same word, even if in Spanish the Arabic article, typically, got stuck and in French and Italian not
> letto - lit - cama -> lecho has already been mentioned
> affare - affaire - asunto ->  you have negozio in Italian and negocio in Spanish which are both frequent, but négoce is quite rare in French
> 
> 
> and many many more
> 
> And sometimes I've got the feeling Portuguese is more similar to Italian than it is to Spanish.



The thing about Portuguese and Italian needs an explanations.


----------



## Encolpius

Encolpius said:


> Very interesting observation!  I must confess sometimes I have the same feeling. And here are some examples of the *most frequent *verbs: ....


----------



## Rallino

Angelo di fuoco said:


> The thing about Portuguese and Italian needs an explanations.


 
I still think that Italian and French are more similar actually


----------



## Favara

According to that list, Catalan vocabulary seems to be somewhere between French/Italian and Spanish. We have a ton of synonims for most words.


Encolpius said:


> *avere* - *avoir* - _tener_ - _tindre_/_tenir_*/heure*/*haure*
> *andare* - *aller* - ir - *anar*
> *mettere* - *mettre* - _poner_ - _posar_/*metre*/ficar
> *parlare* - *parler* - hablar - *parlar*
> *prendere* - *prendre* - tomar - *prendre*
> *trovare* - *trouver* - encontrar - *trobar*
> *cercare* - *chercher* - _buscar_ -*cercar*/_buscar_
> *lasciare* - *laisser* - *dejar* - *deixar* (apparently, all four come from Latin _laxare_)/amollar
> *arrivare* - *arriver* - _llegar _- *arribar*/_aplegar_
> guardare - regarder - _mirar_ - _mirar_
> 
> or
> 
> ma - mais - _pero_ - _però_ (old Catalan: *mes*/*mas*/*mays*)
> *più* - *plus* - _más_ - _més_ (old Catalan: *pus*)
> *loro* - *leur* - _suyo_ - _seu_/son/*llur* (different usage for each)
> *ancora* - *encore* - todavía - *encara*
> *giorno* - *jour* - _día_ - _dia_/*jorn*
> *mai* - *jamais* - nunca - *mai*
> *allora* - *alors* - entonces - *aleshores*/llavors/allavons
> lui - lui - _él_ - _ell_
> *magazzino* - *magasin* - *almacén* - *magatzem*
> *letto* - *lit* - cama - *llit
> affare* - *affaire* - _asunto_ - *afer*/_assumpte_


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Rallino said:


> I still think that Italian and French are more similar actually



Not if you have a closer look at the morphology.


----------



## Encolpius

Favara said:


> According to that list, Catalan vocabulary seems to be somewhere between French/Italian and Spanish. We have a ton of synonims for most words.



Wow, thanks, interesting addition. And once again we all know that those words exist in the other language, too, but less frequent or false friends or obsolete, etc. I meant: *Parla *Inglese? *Parlez*-vous Anglais? *Habla *Usted inglés? ... etc.


----------



## Encolpius

lui - lui - él -> here you confuse the subject and  the indirect object forms in the three languages. It should be:
egli/lui (if you're less puristical) - il - él
gli/ a lui; le/ a lei - lui - le

I meant the "emphasized pronouns (what you call them?): con *lui *- avec *lui *- con *él *


----------



## Perkele

Am I the only one who feels that this is like asking who can shout most quiet?

Finnish and Karelian can be mutually intelligible, depending on the dialect. Karelian is also more closely related to Finnish than Estonian. Swedish, Danish and Norwegian are also mutually intelligible. Both cases are examples of nation borders separating dialects close to eachother before the creation of a standard language.


----------



## Encolpius

Hello, I'd like to have a more concrete practical question. The first comment here is about *Slovak *and *Czech*. I think a rather good proof of the similarity is whether *subtitles *are used on TV. In case of Czech and Slovak, if you have a DVD you can choose both Czech and Slovak subtitles. But if a Slovak is speaking on TV (and vice versa), never ever any subtitles. How about other similar languages??? Thanks.


----------



## Orlin

Encolpius said:


> Hello, I'd like to have a more concrete practical question. The first comment here is about *Slovak *and *Czech*. I think a rather good proof of the similarity is whether *subtitles *are used on TV. In case of Czech and Slovak, if you have a DVD you can choose both Czech and Slovak subtitles. But if a Slovak is speaking on TV (and vice versa), never ever any subtitles. How about other similar languages??? Thanks.


 
In Bulgaria we never subtitle Macedonian; I'm not sure but as far as I know, in Macedonia Bulgarian is at least sometimes subtitled, but in my opinion not because it isn't understandable enough but (almost) entirely because of political reasons.


----------



## Encolpius

Orlin said:


> In Bulgaria we never subtitle Macedonian; I'm not sure but as far as I know, in Macedonia Bulgarian is at least sometimes subtitled, but in my opinion not because it isn't understandable enough but (almost) entirely because of political reasons.



That's a very interesting comment indeed. Thanks.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Irish and Scottish Gaelic are extremely close, so much so that a native speaker of Ulster Irish could probably understand even the most out of the way Scots Gaelic speaker with very little difficulty.
The main difference lies in the writing system. Irish Gaelic reformed its spelling in 1950, Scots Gaelic did not.


----------



## bb3ca201

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Irish and Scottish Gaelic are extremely close, so much so that a native speaker of Ulster Irish could probably understand even the most out of the way Scots Gaelic speaker with very little difficulty.
> The main difference lies in the writing system. Irish Gaelic reformed its spelling in 1950, Scots Gaelic did not.



Most of the time we can; many words are close enough (written and spoken) that we can get across what the other is saying.

Some easy examples:

IR.	i gcónaí			tá mé		eaglais		scoil
SC.	an-còmhnaidh		tha mi	eaglais		sgoil
ENG	always			I am		church		school


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Some easy examples:
> 
> IR.	i gcónaí			tá mé		eaglais		scoil
> SC.	an-còmhnaidh		tha mi	eaglais		sgoil
> ENG	always			I am		church		school



Just checking what this means in English?  _I always go to Sunday school_ or something like that?


----------



## bb3ca201

Alxmrphi said:


> Just checking what this means in English?  _I always go to Sunday school_ or something like that?



Sorry for the misunderstanding.  I was just trying to list some examples of similar words -- they weren't meant to make up an actual sentence.

Here's an easier way, maybe:

	i gcónaí (Irish) - an-comhnaidh (Scottish) - always 
tá mé = tha mi = I am
scoil = sgoil = school
eaglais = eaglais = church


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

It's also interesting to note that in Ulster Irish _Gaelige_ is pronounced as Gaeleg or Gaeilic, much akin to the Scottish pronunciation of Gàidhlig.

One other well-known example is:

Chan eil airgead agam (Scottish Gaelic)
Chan fhuil airgead agam (Ulster Irish)
Níl arigead agam ("standard" Irish)
I have no money (English)

Being a native Gaelic speaker, bb3ca201 probably knows quite a few more similarities.


----------



## bb3ca201

Pedro y La Torre said:


> It's also interesting to note that in Ulster Irish _Gaelige_ is pronounced as Gaeleg or Gaeilic, much akin to the Scottish pronunciation of Gàidhlig.
> 
> One other well-known example is:
> 
> Chan eil airgead agam (Scottish Gaelic)
> Chan fhuil airgead agam (Ulster Irish)
> Níl arigead agam ("standard" Irish)
> I have no money (English)
> 
> Being a native Gaelic speaker, bb3ca201 probably knows quite a few more similarities.



I'd have to look in an Irish dictionary for most of the Irish words -- but I would probably know the Scottish Gaelic equivalents


----------



## Ottilie

Romanian and Moldavian,Moldavian is basically Romanian with a different accent and many Russian words in use(which weren't used in the language before Moldova joined the USSR)


----------



## Chechenboy

the Chechen and Ingush are 95% mutually understandable (with some different words /that the languages sometimes do share/ and slight distinctions in the grammars). The KISTIN (dialect of the Chechen) spoken in GEORGIA is also understandable (although the Kistins use lots of Georgian words).

The languages that are close to the Chechen/Ingush/Kistin dialect but aren't really understandable are the "BATSBI" language (that is also sometimes referred to as the Tkhova-Tushi), that shares about 50% of the Chechen vocabulary but can really hardly be understood by the Chechens/Ingush/Kistins (although it can be understood something like 40/50% of what they speak about).

One more DEAD language cosely related to the Chechen/Ingush/Kisti (+Batsbi) is HURRIAN (in terms of vocabulary and partially grammar).

Georgian is related to Chechen but in terms of vocabulary only and Chechen/Georgian aren't mutually understandable due to being different although relative languages.


----------



## Medune

Portuguese and Galician are pretty similar.


----------



## francisgranada

Encolpius said:


> And here are some examples of the most frequent verbs: ... or ...


 As this thread is about similarity between languages, I have added to your list (in parentheses and red color) the Spanish and Italian etymological equivalents. These words correspond to their etym. counterparts to a certain degree:  some more, some less, and some of them are not used today (at least not in the corresponding meaning). However, they surely facilitate the mutual understanding (in my opinion).

avere - avoir - tener (haber)
andare - aller ? - ir (andar)
mettere (porre) - mettre - poner (meter)
parlare - parler - hablar (parlar)
prendere - prendre - tomar (prender)
trovare - trouver - encontrar (trovar)
cercare (buscare) - chercher - buscar (cercar)
lasciare - laisser - dejar _(same etymology)_
arrivare - arriver - llegar (arribar)
guardare (mirare) - regarder - mirar (guardar)

or

ma (però) - mais - pero (más)
più (mai)- plus - más
loro (suo) - leur - suyo
ancora (tuttavía) - encore - todavía
giorno (dì) - jour - día (jornada)
(giam)mai - jamais - nunca (jamás)
allora - alors - entonces (a la hora)
lui (egli) - lui - él
magazzino - magasin - almacén (magacín)
letto - lit - cama (lecho)
affare (assunto)- affaire - asunto (afer)

P.S. I notice a similar situation between the Polish and the Slovak: there are many etymologically (almost) identical words, but they often (more or less) differ in their meaning. However, they mostly don't create an obstacle for the mutual understanding as in the appropriate context the meaning is spontaneously perceivable.


----------



## Bonefish

Norwegian, Swedish and Danish are all very similar. With Norwegian, Bokmål is more like the other two than Nynorsk. Danish pronunciation is ... let's say 'a bit different' to Norwegian and Swedish... (Apologies to all Danes...)


----------



## Penyafort

francisgranada said:


> As this thread is about similarity between languages, I have added to your list (in parentheses and red color) the Spanish and Italian etymological equivalents. These words correspond to their etym. counterparts to a certain degree:  some more, some less, and some of them are not used today (at least not in the corresponding meaning). However, they surely facilitate the mutual understanding (in my opinion).
> 
> avere - avoir - tener (haber)
> andare - aller ? - ir (andar)
> mettere (porre) - mettre - poner (meter)
> parlare - parler - hablar (parlar)
> prendere - prendre - tomar (prender)
> trovare - trouver - encontrar (trovar)
> cercare (buscare) - chercher - buscar (cercar)
> lasciare - laisser - dejar _(same etymology)_
> arrivare - arriver - llegar (arribar)
> guardare (mirare) - regarder - mirar (guardar)



Many of them certainly have a different meaning (_trovar, cercar, guardar._..).

And there are so many words anyway to which there's no really used cognate equivalent in "West Iberian" (Spanish+Portuguese):

Italian / French / Catalan: *cugino / cousin / cosí*
Spanish / Portuguese: *primo / primo*

Italian / French / Catalan: *nipote / neveu / nebot*
Spanish / Portuguese: *sobrino / sobrinho*

Italian / French / Catalan: *blu* */ bleu / blau*
Spanish / Portuguese: *azul / azul*

Italian / French / Catalan: *formaggio / fromage / formatge*
Spanish / Portuguese: *queso / queijo*

Italian / French / Catalan: *agnello / agneau / anyell*
Spanish / Portuguese: *cordero / cordeiro*

Italian / French / Catalan:* troia / truie / truja*
Spanish / Portuguese: *cerda, puerca / porca*

Italian / French / Catalan: *segale / seigle / sègol*
Spanish / Portuguese: *centeno / centeio*

Italian / French / Catalan: *ammalato / malade / malalt*
Spanish / Portuguese: *enfermo, doliente / doente, enfermo*

Italian / Catalan: *mungere / munyir*
Spanish / Portuguese:* ordeñar / ordenhar*

Italian / French / Catalan: *sbadigliare / bâiller / badallar*
Spanish / Portuguese: *bostezar / bocejar*

Italian / French / Catalan: *cotogna / coign / codony*
Spanish / Portuguese: *membrillo / marmelo*

Italian / Catalan: *milza / melsa*
Spanish / Portuguese: *bazo / baço*

Italian / Catalan:* schizzare / esquitxar*
Spanish / Portuguese:* salpicar / salpicar*

etc.​


----------



## Nino83

Italian / Catalan :* olio (d'oliva)/oli (d'oliva)*
Spanish / Portuguese:* aceite/azeite*


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Chechenboy said:


> the Chechen and Ingush are 95% mutually understandable (with some different words /that the languages sometimes do share/ and slight distinctions in the grammars). The KISTIN (dialect of the Chechen) spoken in GEORGIA is also understandable (although the Kistins use lots of Georgian words).
> 
> The languages that are close to the Chechen/Ingush/Kistin dialect but aren't really understandable are the "BATSBI" language (that is also sometimes referred to as the Tkhova-Tushi), that shares about 50% of the Chechen vocabulary but can really hardly be understood by the Chechens/Ingush/Kistins (although it can be understood something like 40/50% of what they speak about).
> 
> One more DEAD language cosely related to the Chechen/Ingush/Kisti (+Batsbi) is HURRIAN (in terms of vocabulary and partially grammar).
> 
> Georgian is related to Chechen but in terms of vocabulary only and Chechen/Georgian aren't mutually understandable due to being different although relative languages.



Obviously. Still, I can only understand Ingush when it is written, and I even have trouble understanding different dialects of Chechen, as a non-native speaker. 
Of the three Chechen speakers that I hear daily, I understand most of what the one from Grozny says, I do not understand the one hailing from near the border with Ingushetia, although I can recognise that this is Chechen he is speaking. And when I heard the one from Shatoi, I would have not even said it was the Chechen language, I could not recognise it.


----------



## olaszinho

Very similar languages:* Corsican - Italian. Written Spanish and Portuguese *are similar, too*.*


----------



## projectsemitic

Amharic and Tigrinya are very similar.


----------



## Karton Realista

If you consider Kashubian a language (the Polish state does, which makes it "standard", I guess), it is really close to Polish in vocabulary and grammar, with the exception of archaisms and germanisms. But it is nowhere being mutually understandable, mainly because of the vast phonetical differences.
Kashubian - Polish - Polish aprox. transcription of a Kashubian word
Pòlskô - Polska - Puelsky/Puelsku (last letter is y pronounced with lips put to say u)
òpisëwôjącëch - opisywających - uepisewyjuncech/uepisewuj*un*cech (ą in Kashubian is nasal u, I can't really conwey it otherwise)
wòlnô - wolna - wuelny/wuelnu


----------



## AutumnOwl

Bonefish said:


> Norwegian, Swedish and Danish are all very similar. With Norwegian, Bokmål is more like the other two than Nynorsk. Danish pronunciation is ... let's say 'a bit different' to Norwegian and Swedish... (Apologies to all Danes...)


Norwegian and Danish are very similar, especially the written language, as Norway was a part of the kingdom of Denmark for about 450 years until 1814. Swedish differentiates a bit, but it's said that a Swede understands about 75% of a newspaper text in Danish or Norwegian. For me it's easier to understand spoken Norwegian than Danish, but I don't find Danish that difficult to understand, perhaps because of the part of Sweden where I live now was Danish until 1658.


----------



## Penyafort

Nino83 said:


> Italian / Catalan :* olio (d'oliva)/oli (d'oliva)*
> Spanish / Portuguese:* aceite/azeite*



Indeed. Although *óleo *exists in Spanish too, even if mostly used for an oil painting.

Spanish has a few Arabic/Latin pairs that are relatively common:

*aceituna vs oliva
alacrán vs escorpión
alacena vs armario
alcoba vs dormitorio
alhaja vs joya
almirez vs mortero*
...
​


----------



## 涼宮

As for the Romance branch, in my experience, Italian is similar to Spanish grammatically (especially the use of the subjunctive) but Italian is more similar to French lexically, which is quite interesting. Portuguese-Spanish-Galician is a much better pair, they're very close lexically and grammatically with specific differences, of course.




Montesacro said:


> Spanish and Italian close to identical? What an astonishing statement!
> 
> Neddless to say, the two languages share many similarities but they are not mutually intelligible.
> 
> Even their core vocabularies have striking differences:
> 
> finestra........... ventana
> tagliare........... cortar
> arrivare............llegar
> uscire..............salir
> salire.............. subir
> testa...............cabeza
> faccia............. cara
> gamba............ pierna
> schiena.......... espalda
> spalla............. hombro
> letto.............. cama
> cane.............. perro
> aceto............. vinagre
> olio................ aceite
> asino.............. burro
> burro.............. mantequilla
> volere..............querer
> richiedere.........pedir
> domandare.......preguntar
> mangiare..........comer
> prendere..........coger/tomar
> 
> 
> ...and so on and so forth...



Since the verb 'arribar' to talk about ships and trains exists any Spanish speaker would get that one. ''Testa'' is also used in Spanish, actually, in Venezuelan Spanish it's common, though it's mainly used when you wanna say 'brain' as in 'use your brain and be smart'. There's a synonym for 'burro' which is 'asno', so we can understand 'asino'. With a bit of imagination I think we can guess the meaning of 'domandare' since we have the word 'demanda' as in 'la demanda de un producto', and they're both semantically similar.




francisgranada said:


> ma (però) - mais - pero (más)



Actually Spanish also uses 'mas' (with no accent) to say 'but'. It's considered more formal than 'pero' but it's perfectly understood, and, at least in my variety it's not uncommon to hear it in the spoken language, 'me encantaría ir mas no tengo los recursos para hacerlo'.


----------



## Chechenboy

projectsemitic said:


> Amharic and Tigrinya are very similar.



does ıt mean that IF I LEARN ONE OF THEM I wıll automatıcally understand the other one?! )


----------

