From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 24 2004 - 06:13:34 EDT
On 23/04/2004 17:15, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>Think more recently about the new codification for Serbo-Croatian, and the split
>of "sh", with no definition except that it is country based (Serbian, Croatian,
>Bosnian, Montenegrin), assimuming that one country uses only one language when
>in fact there are several in the same one, that are shared by multiple
>countries, and differ mostly by their script...
These are language which were probably originally somewhat artificially
unified, to be the main language of the old Yugoslavia, and which since
the old Yugoslavia fell apart have rapidly diverged.
When it comes down to it, whether the speech varieties used in two
different areas are counted as one language or as separate ones is down
to the choice and self-perception of the speakers. For now, many
Belgians prefer to say that they speak French, although their spoken
dialect is no doubt quite different from Parisian French and their
written form is not identical. A time may come when they decide they
want their own language, Walloon. At that time they will no doubt ask
for appropriate ISO etc codes. That would be the choice of the people of
Belgium, and it would not the business of standards committees (or the
French) to tell them what to call their language.
A language has been defined as a dialect with an army.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 24 2004 - 06:40:55 EDT