Talk:Dialect continuum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 'Serbo-Croat'

Would the languages of the former Yugoslavia (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin etc.) form a dialect continuum? I am aware that the other two Macedonian and Slovenian are slightly more divorced from the main four. Macedonian being closer to Bulgarian. - FrancisTyers 12:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, they might even be considered a single language. Allegedly, the differences between the languages are minimal, and they were classified as a single language before the war.
Not true. Most definitely Slovene, BCSM, and Macedonian and Bulgarian are at least four very different languages. There are huge syntactical differences between Slovene, Croatian/Serbian and Macedonian, and Bulgarian. But they do form a language continuum, true. Dialects exist dialects on both sides of linguistic borders (Slovene-Croatian, and Serbian-Macedonian, see Kajkavian, Torlakian), that are closer than the respective standardized languages.
Yes they most definately would. Not only just BCSM but dialectal continuum spreads from Slovenia down to Bulgaria. You have obvious transitional dialects from Slovenia through Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia and all the way to Bulgaria. BCSM only present even tighter dialectal continuum within that group as are Bulgarian-Macedonian.--Factanista 10:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely a dialect continuum from Slovenia to Bulgaria, with all the intermediate dialects alive and well. Zocky | picture popups 22:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, its wierd coming back to things you wrote before. For those who didn't know, that above was me before starting a degree in Linguistics, before I'd even applied in fact :) And now I can answer myself — yes, undoubtedly they do. BCSM are part of the Western South Slavic dialect continuum (along with Slovenian) and Macedonian and Bulgarian with attendant dialects form the Eastern South Slavic dialect continuum. - FrancisTyers · 22:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

... and, there isn't much of a break between eastern and western groups either. Zocky | picture popups 00:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're split into East and West for various reasons, but you're right, there are always dialects that are a bit of both :) viz. Torlakian - FrancisTyers · 00:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So, how about adding the new-found linguistic knowledge to the article? :) Zocky | picture popups 01:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong example

I am going to remove the following:

"A more or less similar interaction takes place between a creole language which lacks prestige, and its more prestigious relative. The relationship between Gullah and African American Vernacular English on the one hand, and standard American English on the other, is a good example of this. Some speakers can glide throughout the continuum depending on the subject and the context. There are many other examples throughout the world."

This was added by anon. contributor from 80.224.97.8 (12:02, 29 January 2004) who apparently did not understand the notion of dialect continuum ("gliding throughout the continuum" ?! clearly the author intended to say something about switching between 2 languages and that has nothing to do with our topic).

Please get a consensus before deleting chunks of text. Thank you. David Cannon 22:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You must be joking! This is pure editing, no consensus required if changes are explained. I have clearly stated my reasons and preserved the text on the talk page. You instead have reverted the text only because there was no discussion and no consensus... David, for your information, most edits in Wikipedia are done without lengthy discussions and voting. I am deleting the erroneous section again; I have stated my reasons; if you wish you can revert, but tell us why the text in question is right and I am wrong. 212.199.22.38 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Istro-Romanian

I think someone made a mistake here. Istro-Romanian isn't the closest surviving language related to Dalmatian, that is Istriot. Istro-Romanian and Istriot are two different languages.--Factanista 10:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinate with Sprachraum Article

Cross-reference or merge with Sprachraum article.

[edit] are you cree?

if smoebody is cree talk back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.128.81.68 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Low Saxon and High Alemannic

I have deleted the following sentence as an unsourced claim, even though the whole article consists of nothing more but unsourced claims: Although part of the same dialect continuum, the northernmost Low Saxon dialects are actually farther from High Alemannic/ Swiss German than from English. My personal and equally unsourced view is that a conversation between a (monolingual) speaker from, say Aurich and a (monolingual) speaker from Zurich will be utterly and completely impossible. I have personally witnessed occassions where dialect speakers from rural Hesse were unable to converse with dialect speakers from rural Suabia. But the English language has been separated from continental West Germanic for some 1600 (sixteen hundred) years. Moreover, both grammar and vocabulary of the English language have changed dramatically since 400 A.D., mainly through the influence of Norman French, which has not exerted any influence at all on any of the continental dialects. On the other hand, continental West Germanic dialects have continually been influencing each other without having much contact with the English language (up to the beginning of the 20th century). So, if you can source your claim, I will gladly accept it. But otherwise I cannot let it stand like that. Unoffensive text or character 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "Although part of the same dialect continuum, the northernmost Low Saxon dialects are in many ways actually farther from High Alemannic/ Swiss German than from English."? Not only is this true "genetically" (see North Sea Germanic) but also in terms of grammatical innovations. Although as you point out English grammar has simplified, so has that of Low German in many ways not seen in High German. These include a trend toward analytic grammar, loss of inflectional endings, and word order. Concerning sound changes, there is the Anglo-Frisian nasal spirant law, and of course the absence of the High German consonant shift, whose effects become greater and greater the farther south one goes. It further acts to remove the Upper German varieties away from Low Saxon, which is untouched like English. There are also many cases where High German uses entirely different words from Low German/Frisian/English/Dutch, and yet others where the sounds are shifted in other ways in Upper German.
Added to that, there are varieties of Swiss German that are so isolated and surrounded by mountains that they are mutually unintelligible with even the other Swiss German dialects. Also see South Germanic.
Compare:
English Low German / Low Saxon High German
late laat spät
to fight vechten (Dutch) kämpfen
heaven heven Himmel
many mennig viel
brain brägen Gehirn
busy besig beschäftigt
he is he is er ist
simple past tense (preterite) used commonly simple past tense (preterite) used commonly no simple past tense (preterite) in Swiss German, restricted to written language in the southern and central dialects of Germany
No prefix used on past participles No prefix used on past participles Prefix ge- on past participles of verbs

-User: Nightvid

Even though some may argue that "in many ways" is a weasel phrase, I agree.
Kind regards Unoffensive text or character 07:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkic language dialect continuum

I added this section based on the information in

Language Policy in the Soviet Union By Lenore A. Grenoble

Language Policy in the Soviet Union Series: Language Policy , Vol. 3 Grenoble, L.A. 2003, 248 p., Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-4020-1298-3 AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)