Yes, Wendell. That’s exactly what I mean by stats. I can help you get started: I include myself who considers Chinese to be a group of languages based on the linguistic relationship, but also as a group of dialects of one language based on the political considerations. That’s because I don’t think we can really disregard the political issues involved. Language is, after all, an aspect of humanity. So is politics.
p.s. Standard German is a dialect of German, from all accounts I’ve heard.
:smack:
Above where I said “linguistic relationship,” I should’ve said, “genetic (in the linguistic sense of the word) relationship.”
Short hijack: How many corollaries to Gaudere’s Law are there now?
The Sino-Tebetan link is pretty recent and far from proven. Methinks that politics is playing a large role in trying to find a common source/commonality for both languages. Not saying it’s impossible, but seems way beyond a stretch to this layman.
Plus, about 2 years ago on this board it came up and I went through the site of the UC Berkeley guy that seems to be the champion of this theory. I personally was far from convinced or even made to think there was some real basis for the claim. YMMV
Thanks for the fascinating discussion, all!
From the above interesting but not definitive discussion, I conclude that:
-
There is no consensus definition of what constitutes a “language” vis-à-vis a “dialect.”
-
Deference is given to any reasonable notion that a nation may take as to what constitutes the language or languages spoken in it. E.g., if Belgians insist that Flemish constitutes a distinct language from Nederlandish Dutch, we will accept that perspective; likewise the Romanians of Moldavia speak Romanian in a Moldavian dialect; the Moldovans speak Moldovan, a separate language, and never mind that Moldavian and Moldovan are mutually intelligible.
-
A common written language, particularly one using ideograms rather than alphabet or syllabary, furnishes grounds for regarding a set of dialects, even if not mutually intelligible, as a single language, but this is strongly disputed.
Obviously, some degree of common sense needs to be applied here. The official French assertion that Breton is “a group of French dialects” is objectively true only in the sense that Breton is spoken by French nationals, whose dialects are “French dialects” in the same sense that “daown East Maine” and Deep South y’awlese are “American dialects.”
In short, there’s no real answer to my question as phrased – I’m trying to draw a line arbitrarily at a given point on what’s really a spectrum, a continuum from “exactly alike” to “clearly totally different” but with every point between reprsnted.
Is that about accurate?