morgaine at zonnet.nl
Sun Jun 4 14:33:40 BST 2006
Mark A. Mandel wrote:
> --- Sylvus Tarn <sylvus at rejiquar.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 14:16 -0700, Mark A. Mandel wrote:
>>> * (If anyone is about to take offense at the word "dialect"... don't.
>>> Just... don't.
>> Surely no-one on this list would do so?
> But for many people, usages like the 1d example, "spoke a rough peasant
> dialect", are their main or only exposure to the word, and they associate
> the term with "uneducated" or "rural" or "nonstandard". And from that it's
> a logical step to "I don't speak a dialect, I speak good English!"
An other possibillity is when people are involved in a struggle for
independence. The fact that their language has some fundamental
difference from the 'occupying' country is taken as proof of a seperate
identity and thus it legitimizes the claim for independency. Calling
their language a 'mere' dialect would take away this claim and would be
seen as a political act in itself.
In the Netherlands we have currently 2 official languages (i.e. you can
for example be tried in both languages, oficial documents can be
requested in the other langague). One is Dutch, the other is Friesian.
(A province in the north east of the Netherlands) Even though hardly any
Frisian nowadays would considere himself a seperatist. Sugesting that
Fries is not a real language will get you some very angry face in that
area of the country. (It is a strongly related language, also to old
English and and Danish, it has distinct gramatical features and a long
and strong literary history).
More information about the Lois-Bujold