From: Petr Hrubis
>I don't understand. Please, explain and exemplify.
>> Yes, but they are language-specific. They are not universal, are they?
>> They are "objective" within the language or dialect continuum.
>> You complain about "relativistic approaches", but you're using one as
>> well, aren't you?
> You may classify Uralic languages with them if you want.
>> I totally agree they're practically the same language, but would allWell, if you need something urgently and don't have the few necessary
>> the Croatians/Serbs? While Czechs wouldn't mind if you called their
>> language a dialect of "Czechoslovak", many Slovaks would be quite
>> angry, I guess. Yes, silly nationalism, but that's irrelevant. Those
>> languages have certain status, different phonologies, literary
>> traditions etc. Easternmost Slovak, by the way, wouldn't be understood
>> in westernmost Bohemia, or with serious difficulties.
> It depends what one calls "serious"
> Anyway it seems these people are not very interested in understanding eachHow have you come to that conclusion???
> And I'm not sure all English speakers understand each other easily.Define significantly.
>>> 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
>>>>> with other dialects.
>> "CERTAIN" number is what number exactly?
> Significantly fewer than those shared.
>Again. That's language-specific, hence relativistic.
>> "SPECIFIC" features are which features precisely?
> It depends what languages you compare.
> Moksha Mordvin does not have vowel harmony but Erzia Mordvin does.Of course. Hence, this criterion clearly cannot be a part of the
> This criterion is irrelevant when you compare Sicilian with Std Italian or
> Mandarin with Cantonese.
>And now you seem to have observed the same phenomenon as me: cultural
>> Some have proposed that dialect intelligibility should be above 90%,
>> for instance.
>> Others have proposed that dialects should have 81-100% on the swadesh
>> So, what are your universal criteria? What do you propose to use? Is
>> Chinese a single language?
> The cultural tradition is to consider the "dialects" (in Chinese the word
> means : local languages) as "dialects", but in my opinion, they must be
> considered separate "languages".
> Mandarin has dialects and Cantonese and Mandarin are not dialects of theYes, of course, some of us are well aware of those facts, but where's
> same variety of language.
> The level of abstraction of Chinese is comparable to that of Semitic or
> Germanic is not a "language".
> It's probable that the last common ancestor of all Chinese "dialects"
> existed more than 5000 years ago in my opinion, and it may be much more.
> This datation is the mininum to account for the fact Min dialects do not fit
> in the matrix of the phonetic components of the Chinese writing, which is
> based on proto-Mandarin dialects, which were already more simple than the
> conservative Min dialects, at the time the Chinese writing was created.
>Bohemian Czech - initial stress
>> Are Czech, Slovak and Polish dialects of the same language?
> My knowledge of them is about zero
> so I cannot answer.
> I suppose that the different places of demarcative stress,
> plus the absenceBohemian Czech, southern Moravian Czech - long vowels present
> or presence of long vowels
> plus different consonantal systems, all this mustI understand Polish quite well. There's an interesting dialect near my
> make intercomprehension fairly uneasy.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_languageYes, we who come from the north of Moravia understand Polish fairly well.
> They say here that Kashubian is not Polish, so I suppose it's worse with
> but here
> Czech is similar to and mutually intelligible with Slovak and, to a lesser
> extent, to Polish and Sorbian.
> I cannot judge by myself.That's too literal. It says that a "morel", which is a species of
> I noticed :
> "Smrz pln skvrn zvlhl z mlh." meaning "Morel full of spots dampened from
> Does it mean the same as "Colorless green dreams sleep furiously" ?I doubt that. The sentence should exemplify the syllabic liquids, I