Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!ames!enews.sgi.com!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!not-for-mail
From: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: Mutual intelligibility (again)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ellis-nfs.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <E3sxw8.H6H@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <01bbeec7$1dddd340$af8faec7@festus.inhouse.compuserve.com> <E37LoF.I9C@midway.uchicago.edu> <5atl0c$3u9@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk> <E3qA7E.HJF@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:00:07 GMT
Lines: 28

In article <E3qA7E.HJF@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Daniel von Brighoff <deb5@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <5atl0c$3u9@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>,
>Donald Fisk <donald@srd.bt.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>>Mutual intelligibility should apply *in general*, and not just to
>>specific examples.   The criterion should apply only after repeated exposure.
>
>What criterion?  Provide me with a straightforward definition of "mutual
>intelligibility", one that is unambiguous in its application and will
>account for all the lines you have attempted to draw.  (If I remember
>correctly, in an earlier post you called the major Chinese dialects
>"dialects" as opposed to "languages".  
[snip]

As it turns out, I was not remembering correctly in this case.  Someone
else called them "dialects"; Mr. Fisk called them "languages in their own
right" in a post to the "Pinyin" thread.  He's unable to post right now,
but I repeat my challenge:  Can anyone out there provide me with a
reasonable, unambiguous, objective standard of "mutual intelligibility"?
As far as I can tell, the standard generally used is "Two [speech
varieities] are mutually intelligible if speakers of one or the other say
they are."  Real scientific, that.

-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
