Quote:
Originally Posted by bianca  Casiopea, I'd like to comment on your previous statement: "History tells us that without a Standard, variants eventually become new languages." |
In other words, when variants of the same language deviate from the Standard they no longer share commonalities. Which is when they become new languages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bianca Variants become languages when having a culture of their own. |
Yes, but culture isn't the catalyst. In grad school, I documented an aboriginal language called Southern Tutchone, which has low tone where its Northern cousin, Norther Tutchone, had high tone. There's no cultural difference between the two groups, although they do live in different areas. As for the dialect variants, the elders of the communities believe the change came about because of a heated dispute that couldn't be resolved among the Tutchone people. Some elders believe that the group who moved on up to the North purposely switched the tone, which, if true, nicely supports this statement,
The need for individuality of expression makes models and rules [malleable]. If Tutchone weren't moribund, its dialects would eventually become new languages because they are no longer tied to the same Standard. But culture wasn't the catalysts, human emotion was. Specifically,
The need for individuality of expression. Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bianca But it is up to the governments themselves to give free reigns to various dialects to exist untarnished by the mainstream demands and rules. |
That sounds all too familair to me. I'm a French-Canadian.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bianca So, the standard is not always omnipotent. |
I agree with you. Which is why we are having this discussion, and, moreover, the reason grammar rules based on Latin aren't adhered to as much these days. You're right,
the times they are a-changing.