Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?
From: Raymond S. Wise (mplsrayNOSPAM_at_gbronline.com)
Date: 09/14/04
- Next message: Ron Hardin: "Re: ``I see from whom it comes''"
- Previous message: Dalubwika: "Re: De (los) Estados Unidos"
- In reply to: Jim Tyson: "Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?"
- Next in thread: Robert Bannister: "Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?"
- Reply: Robert Bannister: "Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:56:00 -0500
Jim Tyson wrote:
> "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote in message
> news:<LbKdnd_m8vgfj9_cRVn-sw@gbronline.com>...
>> "Jim Tyson" <jimbot@uboot.com> wrote in message
>> news:d6305c73.0409100643.7050b266@posting.google.com...
>>> Jarmo Puolakanaho <jape@despammed.com> wrote in message
>> news:<chru9q$i8d$1@ousrvr3.oulu.fi>...
>>>> In alt.usage.english semiretired@my-deja.com
>>>> <semiretired@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> Branch of English or a Separate Language?
>>>>
>>>> A dialect. As far as I know, everyone who speaks Scots understands
>>>> most forms of English. I'm not sure if it works the other way
>>>> around, though.
>>>
>>> It's a language because people who decide these things (the people
>>> who speak it) say it's a language. Who understands what is just not
>>
>>
>> There must be some Scots who don't consider Scots to be a separate
>> language, but a dialect of English. Whether they constitute a
>> minority or a majority of Scots, I have no idea.
>
> Why must there be? There have at various times been people who have
> insisted that some or other minority or non-recognised language
> variety was a dialect, a patois or whatever - in some cases they were
> right in others wrong and the reason in the final analysis is that one
> or other view prevails socially. Whether or not the East Timorese are
> a people is not a matter of genetics or anyother technical fact but a
> matter of whether the view held (as it happens by the majority of the
> people) that they are a people comes to be the dominant view. It's
> the same with language and dialect.
The problem with the above is that you are assuming that identification with
a people automatically leads to identification with a language. It does not.
Think of all the Americans who are descended from some people other than the
English, but identify with the English-speaking community, even
though they might also identify with an ethnic community (Italian, for
example, or Chinese). The same is the case with the French-speaking
community: You don't have to descend from an ancestor who lived in France to
identify with the French-speaking community.
While I had in mind that some people might have been taught that Scots is
"bad English" (see Harlan Messinger's post on the subject, message ID
Message-ID: <vcr6k0p1lf68v4u316se6gd5v0b2c6u3b2@4ax.com>) I also think it
inevitable that there are bidialectal Scots who identify with the
English-speaking community and consider that they themselves speak two
dialects of that language.
Note that none of this says anything about what *I* think of the distinction
between a language and a dialect (I've said plenty about that elsewhere, but
nothing about it in this thread).
-- Raymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
- Next message: Ron Hardin: "Re: ``I see from whom it comes''"
- Previous message: Dalubwika: "Re: De (los) Estados Unidos"
- In reply to: Jim Tyson: "Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?"
- Next in thread: Robert Bannister: "Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?"
- Reply: Robert Bannister: "Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|