Re: [tied] Re: Franco-Provençal

>>
>> For example, in the case of Sicilian versus standard Italian,
>
> Precisely. "IN THE CASE" of "SICILIAN" versus "STANDARD ITALIAN".
>
> You need to invent new rules from language to language. And that's
> whence the problems arise.

=========

I don't think so.

The criteria are fairly straightforward.

A.
========

> Are Croatian and Serbian separate languages or mere dialects of the
> same language???
> Are Czech and Slovak separate languages or mere dialects of the same
> language???

=======

I would personally consider them dialects of the same language.
The fact Croatian and Serbian are not written with the same alphabet does
not make them two different languages.

A.
=======

>
>> I'm afraid those people who misuse the word "language" just forget how
>> much
>> is _shared_ by dialects of the same language and take secondary features
>> as
>> reasons to dismember these dialects into separate "languages". In fact,
>> in
>> that kind of approach, the word "dialect" no longer exists : it has been
>> replaced by the word "language".
>> I disagree with this misuse of the words "language" and "dialect".
>
> This is no misuse. The heart of the problem lies in the definitions
> themselves and swadesh lists are not of much help here.

========

You proposed no definition at all so far.

A.
=======

>
>> A dialect is a particular variety of a language that displays a certain
>> number of specific features, but nevertheless shares most other features
>> with other dialects.
>
> So, which specific features do you have on mind?

========

It depends on the languages.
There are plenty of interesting cases.

A.

========

>
> I mean, construct a definition that would be applicable to ALL
> languages/dialects. Something we can test, really.
>
> Best,
>
> Petr
>

========

It's written above :

>> A dialect is a particular variety of a language that displays a certain
>> number of specific features, but nevertheless shares most other features
>> with other dialects.

Arnaud