Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: Re: Dialect or Language?difference=???
Message-ID: <Cztq12.H64@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <3atgla$890@news.CCIT.Arizona.EDU> <3b0euv$jr0@medici.trl.OZ.AU> <kjp1003-251194105334@pc1003.sidg.pwf.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 12:43:47 GMT
Lines: 29

In article <kjp1003-251194105334@pc1003.sidg.pwf.cam.ac.uk> kjp1003@hermes.cam.ac.uk () writes:
>The criteria of mutual intelligibility cannot be thus viewed as a
>means of dividing up varieties into languages and dialects.

That's right.  Czech and Slovak come immediately to mind.

>If it were so then we would have to call German and Dutch dialects of
>the same language (since they are intelligible near the border),

But farther away from the border they aren't.

>and the dialects of Chinese such as Mandarin are surely languages by
>the mutual intelligibility criterion, yet are always called dialects.

Always?  In my experience Mandarin and Cantonese, say, are virtually
always counted as separate languages.

>'Dialects' and 'languages' are so called for geographical/political
>reasons, e.g. Holland and Germany want to regard themselves as
>diferent countries.

That doesn't always work.  Austria and Germany are different
countries, too, yet there is no separate Austrian language.

-- 
`That's yer oan problem, Judas', they telt him.  `It's nae concern tae us.'
Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk/chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)  (The G-- G--)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,   Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House E113, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Pk Rd, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
