|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Oct 25, 2014 6:11:36 GMT -6
Wales and Scotland both have substate assemblies/parliaments which don't have a state with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force over a given territory, per se. Defence, for example, is a matter for the entirety of the United Kingdom, and is not a devolved issue. As such, neither Scotland nor Wales are countries. Neither is Britain for that matter. The United Kingdom is a country, however, as it passes the methodological nationalist criterion of have a state, a nation (or collection of nations), and a given territory.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 25, 2014 19:57:03 GMT -6
(why are Elizabethan English and Modern English one language when Latin and Old French are two?) Well, there's a much higher degree of mutual intelligibility in the case of English, for one thing. It's true that there's no objective point at which you can draw a line between "Latin" and "French" and say Latin is clearly on one side and French is clearly on the other, but to some extent that's a continuum fallacy. It doesn't mean that Latin and French are the same language. EDIT: Sorry, I missed the "Old" in "Old French". Might not be much of an intelligibility gap, depending on how old the Old French and how vulgar (v. classical) the Latin. At some point, obviously, they blur together. That's the continuum problem.
|
|
|
Post by Moritz Fernaodescu on Oct 26, 2014 11:22:43 GMT -6
why are Elizabethan English and Modern English one language when Latin and Old French are two? But Old English, Early Middle English, Middle English, Modern English etc. are all considered different languages, right?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 26, 2014 22:09:36 GMT -6
A language is a dialect with an army or a navy. Therefore, defining a language by a country is a circular enterprise. Serbo-Croatian was a language until about 1992, now there are Serbian and Croatian, and according to some Bosnian, Macedonian and Montenegrin as well.
Anyway, a nation is different from a nation-state. The Sioux are a nation, but not a nation-state. Talossa is, er, a borderline case. And anything at all can be a "country".
|
|
|
Post by Moritz Fernaodescu on Oct 27, 2014 0:39:00 GMT -6
A language is a dialect with an army or a navy. Therefore, defining a language by a country is a circular enterprise. Serbo-Croatian was a language until about 1992, now there are Serbian and Croatian, and according to some Bosnian, Macedonian and Montenegrin as well. Anyway, a nation is different from a nation-state. The Sioux are a nation, but not a nation-state. Talossa is, er, a borderline case. And anything at all can be a "country". Yep, same goes for Romanian and Moldovan (I think they fixed that one by now), Malaysian and Indonesian and Hindi and Urdu. But Macedonian is indeed a different language, it's more a dialect of Bulgarian rather than of Serbo-Croatian. (according to the Bulgarians, that is)
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Oct 27, 2014 13:42:39 GMT -6
... we know for a fact that Welsh and English, both being Indo-European languages, are exactly the same age. Nonsense, sir! Hmm, their both being Indo-European does not, IMHO, make them the same age. Sanskrit (an Indo-European language), for example, is still an active language - but has not linguistically changed since about 600 A.D. Sanskrit is Indo-European ... but it is definitely older than any language or dialect that could "reasonably" be called 'English'. But, yes, it is the case, as you point out, that there are no hard boundaries between natural languages - no-one should ever pretend that Linguistics is an easy study . Welsh is also still an active language - and in that it still changes I grant that there is some doubt as to whether it is older/younger/same-age-as English.
An interesting discussion ... but the root question here is "What is a country?".
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Oct 27, 2014 16:09:56 GMT -6
... we know for a fact that Welsh and English, both being Indo-European languages, are exactly the same age. Nonsense, sir! Hmm, their both being Indo-European does not, IMHO, make them the same age. Sanskrit (an Indo-European language), for example, is still an active language - but has not linguistically changed since about 600 A.D. Sanskrit is Indo-European ... but it is definitely older than any language or dialect that could "reasonably" be called 'English'. But, yes, it is the case, as you point out, that there are no hard boundaries between natural languages - no-one should ever pretend that Linguistics is an easy study . Welsh is also still an active language - and in that it still changes I grant that there is some doubt as to whether it is older/younger/same-age-as English. I think what you mean, in that case, is that Welsh is more archaic than English (which I would also dispute). Certainly languages like Icelandic, Lithuanian, and Sanskrit are more archaic than English or Welsh. Not older, but more resembling Proto-Indo-European.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Oct 28, 2014 1:56:22 GMT -6
Hmm, their both being Indo-European does not, IMHO, make them the same age. Sanskrit (an Indo-European language), for example, is still an active language - but has not linguistically changed since about 600 A.D. Sanskrit is Indo-European ... but it is definitely older than any language or dialect that could "reasonably" be called 'English'. But, yes, it is the case, as you point out, that there are no hard boundaries between natural languages - no-one should ever pretend that Linguistics is an easy study . Welsh is also still an active language - and in that it still changes I grant that there is some doubt as to whether it is older/younger/same-age-as English. I think what you mean, in that case, is that Welsh is more archaic than English (which I would also dispute). Certainly languages like Icelandic, Lithuanian, and Sanskrit are more archaic than English or Welsh. Not older, but more resembling Proto-Indo-European. It just struck me that archaic languages might even be called young languages, not old ones. If two men were both born in 1930, and one of them has aged unnaturally slowly and still looks like he's 40, who's the old one, he or his friend who looks 84?
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Nov 3, 2014 4:47:38 GMT -6
It just struck me that archaic languages might even be called young languages, not old ones. If two men were both born in 1930, and one of them has aged unnaturally slowly and still looks like he's 40, who's the old one, he or his friend who looks 84? It's obvious - they are twins, but one of them has been travelling close to the speed of light, and.... ....and I think I'll go and lie down again
|
|
|
Post by Martì Vataldestreça on Nov 5, 2014 13:46:12 GMT -6
Ián T., the island of Sark (part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey) and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK, but Crown Dependencies. They are British soil and their inhabitants British citizens so culturally it might not make a lot of difference, but the distinction needs to be made. [...](why are Elizabethan English and Modern English one language when Latin and Old French are two?)[...] Ián A., Elizabethan English is Modern English. A better comparison would be Middle English and Modern English.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Nov 5, 2014 14:30:54 GMT -6
Hi,
This is an article I wrote for Qator Itrins, volume 1, Issue #2, published in October 2004:
Keep in mind I wrote that article while a citizen of the Republic...
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Nov 6, 2014 2:30:05 GMT -6
Ián T., the island of Sark (part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey) and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK, but Crown Dependencies. They are British soil and their inhabitants British citizens so culturally it might not make a lot of difference, but the distinction needs to be made. [...](why are Elizabethan English and Modern English one language when Latin and Old French are two?)[...] Ián A., Elizabethan English is Modern English. A better comparison would be Middle English and Modern English. It's Early Modern English, I know. Fair enough.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Nov 8, 2014 12:03:42 GMT -6
Ián T., the island of Sark (part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey) and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK, but Crown Dependencies. They are British soil and their inhabitants British citizens so culturally it might not make a lot of difference, but the distinction needs to be made. I'm puzzled. I thought Sark was in the UK but not in Great Britain.
|
|
|
Post by Martì Vataldestreça on Jan 30, 2015 6:46:13 GMT -6
"Great Britain" is a purely geographical term. Technically, the Isles of Wight, Anglesey (Ynys Môn) and Skye (An t-Eilean Sgitheanach) aren't part of Great Britain, but they are parts of England, Wales and Scotland (and therefore the UK) respectively.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jan 30, 2015 15:05:29 GMT -6
Ián T., the island of Sark (part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey) and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK, but Crown Dependencies. They are British soil and their inhabitants British citizens so culturally it might not make a lot of difference, but the distinction needs to be made. I'm puzzled. I thought Sark was in the UK but not in Great Britain. No. The UK is Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as it says on the tin. The Channel Islands and the Island of Man are Crown Dependencies of the UK, not part of it. So, for example, the Manx have no legal right to permanent residence in Britain or in Northern Ireland. Interesting.
|
|