A Yiddish scholar once said that "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy."
It's really true. One might think that mutual intelligibility (ability for speakers of one to make themselves fully understood by speakers of the other) would be the standard for differentiating languages from dialects, but the distinction really ends up just being political. The spoken forms of Hindi and Urdu are entirely mutually intelligible but have two separate names.
Many varieties of Arabic and Chinese are mutually unintelligible but are called "dialects" of one Arabic or Chinese language, presumably to promote a unified Arab or Chinese identity. Speakers of Moroccan Arabic and Levantine Arabic or of Mandarin and Cantonese can't understand each other any better than speakers of Spanish and Italian can, but we don't call Spanish and Italian dialects of Modern Latin!
It gets even weirder when you have a dialect continuum, like with Polish-Russian-Ukrainian. Russian is somewhat mutually intelligible with both Polish and Ukrainian, but Polish and Ukrainian are not themselves mutually intelligible! So even if politics didn't play a role in the distinction between language and dialect, it would be hard if not impossible to come up with a universal distinction.
The same applies to the Scandinavian languages, to an extent. A Norwegian will generally have little issue understanding both Danish and Swedish, while Swedes and Danes have a much harder time understanding each other.
However, us Norwegians receive a lot of influence from our neighbors and so understanding of their slight differences in language comes as a side-effect of that. A kind of younger sibling complex. May the same apply to Poland and the Ukraine?
Nordic languages and Hindu-Urdu are great examples of how political language is. The reason Urdu was made a separate language was because of political reasons of the Mughals. Similarly, I believe Norwegians gave a separate legal status to Norwegian to make it distinct from Danish, as a mark of defiance to Danish colonial rule of the past.
TO be fair Hindi, even though it grew more organically was given a formal status of national language by the predominantly Northern Indian Congress government post-independence to use it as an instrument to exert central political influence on the rest of the country, rather unfairly. At the time of India's independence, there were far more Tamil and Bengali speakers (not just native) than Hindi, but the central government forced Hindi to the rest of the country which did lead to a lot of understandable backlash, primarily in the South, which is why they dare not make it the official language of the country.
This ignores the fact that Bengali attained its status because of British who ruled India from Calcutta and enabled Bengali hegemony. No native speakers learned Bengali as second language in rest of the undivided India. Only Bengali diaspora moved to different parts of country as part of British civil services.
'Hindi... was given a formal status of national language by the predominantly Northern Indian Congress government post-independence to use it as an instrument to exert central political influence on the rest of the country'
Another propaganda. Hindi-Urdu (or Hindustani) was the most spoken and widely understood language in undivided India. Hindustani was official language of British. It might lose to Bengali IFF one divides it into Hindi and Urdu. But that division happened AFTER independence, when the spoken Hindi was standardized to a Sanskrit base, and Arabic-Persian words were mercilessly pruned-off to enable non-Hindustani speaking people to grasp it easily. The only people who got the short end of the deal were Tamil, because Tamil language has got almost (almost) nothing to do with Sanskrit.
To blame a newly formed government of an enslaved country, of 'exerting political influence' is the racist tirade Tamils latched on to, after there beloved masters left the country and didn't leave them in charge.
> Another propaganda. Hindi-Urdu (or Hindustani) was the most spoken and widely understood language in undivided India.
Disagreed, if by Hindi you mean khari boli, a language restricted to the "cow belt". You gave an explanation why Bengali was prevalent, OP's point was that Bengali was prominent. Why it was so was besides the point.
>To blame a newly formed government of an enslaved country, of 'exerting political influence'
It still does not change the fact that it was imposed. BTW I am by mo means Tamil.
> khari boli, a language restricted to the "cow belt".
Khari boli is a dialect that, after independence, turned into standardized dialect of Hindi. But it was widely understood unlike Begali. And it was in no-way restricted to cow belt[1], even after ignoring how big that belt really is and how much population it holds. People in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat fully understand Hindustani[2]. Hell, Ghandi was from Gujarat and he used Khari boli.
> You gave an explanation why Bengali was prevalent, OP's point was that Bengali was prominent. Why it was so was besides the point.
OP said there were more Bengali speakers than Hindustani. I am saying that it is not true.0 I will have to check what effect inclusion of Bangaldesh might have had, but remember we are talking about national language. It ought to be understandable to large parts of nation - large parts of ethnically different groups.
Btw, if you want to step onto political land-mine, try comparing grammar and vocabulary of Bengali and Bhojpuri/Bihari. The idea of Hindi vs Bengali will take a new meaning :) Language is indeed political.
> It still does not change the fact that it was imposed.
Hindi was supposed to be encouraged over English, but it has never been imposed. You just have to get down in Chennai railway station to know that. The anti-Hindi propaganda is purely political in nature. As a matter of fact, no body in even "cow-belt" (Haryana + Delhi + UP + Bihar) + Madhya Pradesh + Gujarat [1] speaks standardized Hindi (though they all understand Khari boli). If you speak it in Delhi - the heart of Hindustani as it was - you will literally be laughed at.
> BTW I am by mo means Tamil.
I don't care man! :) I am not a native speaker of khari boli either.
For what it's worth - the backlash is still kind of the case in the South (not speaking statistically, just from personal experience). I grew up around Mumbai and traveled to the southern part of the country 5 years ago where Hindi is not the native tongue.
Hindi was not particularly well-spoken nor was it always well-received by the other person. We wound up talking in English most of the time.
In South Africa, many Tamil Hindus, when asked what their religion is, say "Tamil", not "Hindu". "Hindu" to them, refers to Hindus of North Indian descent (of Gujarati and Hindi origin). Since their ancestors came to South Africa more than 150 years ago, this sort of separatist instinct seems to long predate modern India.
I don't know if that's the case with Polish and Ukrainian. That certainly is the case with Arabic where many speakers of Levantine or Gulf Arabic will probably understand Egyptian Arabic since they grow up watching Cairo-based media. Likewise, most Indians who don't speak Hindi will probably understand it perfectly since they grow up with Bollywood. I assume that's especially true for northern Indians whose languages are related to Hindi.
I'm not convinced your Polish-Russian-Ukrainian example is correct.
My wife is from the west of Ukraine, and her home language is Ukrainian. However, she is totally fluent in Russian, as to be expected from someone growing up during the Soviet era.
Both Ukrainian and Russian are written using the Cyrillic alphabet, whereas Polish uses Roman letters.
She finds Polish fairly easy to understand, from an aural point of view, but does have difficulty reading it unless she mentally sounds out words phonetically.
My understanding is that Polish and Ukrainian languages are closer to each other, than Polish and Russian, or Ukrainian and Russian. It just so happens that almost all Ukrainians can easily slip between Ukrainian and Russian, with many Russian words now found in every day Ukrainian speech, due to political events of the last one hundred years.
Today, Ukraine is almost evenly split between ethnic Ukrainians in the west and ethnic Russians in the east. Kiev is the standout melting pot. This ethnic split is one reason why Ukrainian politics find themselves so often in a mess.
I would disagree with both you and your parent comment.
Russian and Ukrainian are East Slavic languages; Polish is a West Slavic language. None of these three languages is mutually intelligible with any other, but Russian and Ukrainian are much closer to each other than other pairings. For example, Polish words generally have a fixed stress position, which makes Polish speech sound foreign and bizarre to unaccustomed Russian/Ukrainian ears. Many features of grammar and syntax are also much more similar between Russian and Ukrainian compared to Polish.
This basic picture is clouded a little by the split between east Ukrainian, which is lexically much closer to Russian, and west Ukrainian, which is farther from Russian and has very many lexical borrowings from Polish, because west Ukraine had been a part of Poland for a long time. So someone from the west of Ukraine will hear many familiar words in Polish speech, and will find it easier to understand Polish than someone from the east of Ukraine. That's sort of an icing on a cake, however; it doesn't change the basic fact that Russian is still much closer to their native language. If you could find someone from the west of Ukraine who had never been exposed to anything but their native language (and it's rare, as you mention, because almost everybody knows Russian at least to some extent), they would almost certainly find it much easier to learn Russian than Polish.
(my native language is Russian and I grew up in east Ukraine)
Actually, all three are pretty close.
The thing about Polish is that in Polish words that are similar and understandable to Ukrainians are pronounced a little differently. My background is similar to yours, and it only took very little practice hearing Polish to adjust and start recognizing them -- and a lot of people from Western Ukraine, such as in the example above, have had that practice.
Similarly, a lot of Russians from Russia proper who have never been exposed to Ukrainian, find spoken Ukrainian very difficult to understand.
I'm agree that the grandparent example is, uhm, weird: it rather reflects Poles' and Ukrainians' knowledge of Russian language than some unbiased inter-intelligibility.
Polish language is quite close to Ukrainian in regard of vocabulary and maybe grammar, but is quite different phonetically and does not use Cyrillic like Russian.
Still, I can't agree that Ukraine is _ethnically_ divided in halves, ethnic Russians are near 17% of the population. Language question is much more vague, I think that more than 50% of Ukrainian population use Russian on daily basis (though it's hard to say how many of them use a mixed Russian-Ukrainian dialect, surzhyk and a lot of people actively use both languages) and it's very hard to find someone who does not understand Ukrainian and Russian at the same time.
it's very hard to find someone who does not understand Ukrainian and Russian at the same time
Hard to find in Ukraine, since most people (both Russian and Ukrainian native speakers) have been constantly exposed to both, very easy to find in Russia :)
You're right, ethnic Russians are only about 17% of the total Ukrainian population and heavily concentrated in the east. I guess it must be the distribution which effects voting patterns, rather than purely ethnicity.
Having asked the wife, so yes it's anecdotal evidence, she feels both Polish and Slovakian are closer to Ukrainian than standard Russian. She cites the example of a friend from St Petersburg who can only understand a few words of Ukrainian. Perhaps my wife's Ukrainian is somewhat dialectical, incorporating many Polish/Slovakian elements.
A side note: as a teenager I spent one summer working in a clothing store in London, with a bunch of Spaniards and Italians. They spoke to each other using their respective tongue, and said they could understand each other. Just basics of course.
Maybe someone from Spain or Italy could chime in here?
As with the Arabic and Chinese language families, different varieties of Romance languages are similar enough in syntax and vocabulary that speakers can kind of make themselves understood to each other if they speak slowly and choose their words carefully. Same with lots of closely related languages, e.g. German and Dutch. But they're not nearly mutually intelligible to the degree that American English and most varieties of British English are or that Hindi and Urdu are.
Regarding the Spanish/Italian example, the father of a friend of mine was fluent in Spanish, French, and Portuguese. Using an Italian grammar guide and his knowledge of Romance vocabulary from the other three languages, he learned Italian in a single flight from the US to Italy to the point where he was able to conduct business in Italy immediately upon landing.
I'm Dutch, and people from the east of Netherland don't understand why I don't understand German, claiming the languages are so similar. But I have real trouble understanding German. Maybe when it's someone from the north-west of Germany who speaks very slowly and clearly. People from the east of Netherland have much less trouble, somehow.
(I'm utterly unable to understand people from the Dutch province of Zeeland when they're speaking to their parents. That's complete gibberish to me, though it doesn't have a special status as a local language, as far as I know. (unlike Nethersaxon, for example))
When you have trouble understanding germans, are they speaking Hochdeutsch or Platt? I'm curious if Platt is more closely related to Dutch than Hochdeutsch or not.
As a german, I always have problems understanding other germans when they speak english, so there's always that ;).
I'm Romanian, as a kid in a few months I became fluent in Italian just from watching their TV channels, no dictionary involved. It was a mass phenomenon at the time since their TV channels were quite popular on cable.
As a French I can tell you we can understand most of casual Italian / Spanish conversation just fine (and I believe Spaniards and Italians can understand a good portion of French too). The roots are very similar for most words that you catch it up very quickly.
In "The Grammar of Romanian"[1] book, Romanian language contains the following: 20 percent inherited Latin, 11.5 percent Slavic, 3.6 percent Turkish, 2.17 percent Hungarian, 43 percent Romance borrowings (mainly French - 38.4 percent).
The lexical similarity of Romanian with Italian has been estimated at 77%, followed by French at 75%, Sardinian 83%, Catalan 73%, Portuguese and Rhaeto-Romance 72%, Spanish 71%.
In modern times Romanian vocabulary has been strongly influenced by French, Italian and other languages.
Phonemes are similar, but spoken Romanian is complete gibberish to me.
Things get better in writing, but there's still no comparison to Spanish.
After all there was a longer interaction with the latter: for historical reasons words and verbal constructs in southern dialects can give insights with regard to it or French.
As a portuguese who learnt some french in school, portuguese, spanish and italian are all similar enough that you can communicate or at least kind of understand what's being talked about. Spanish is the closest to portuguese though (how entirely unsurprising), and the degree to which I understand italian is quite influenced by knowing some french.
As a person currently studying Spanish, I can understand basic Portuguese, Italian, French.
As all these languages are from the same origin (Latin).
Similarly, although Hindi is derived from Sanskrit, over the years, due to lots of Mughal invasions, and Urdu arts, poets, a lot of Urdu words are a part of Hindi. Hence they are easily understood in either part of the border.
As a Spaniard that has visited Italy, I can attest that they definitely understand us and we understand them, at least for the basics. However, there are interesting differences, like the way we pluralize words (quite different in both languages) or the lack of certain prefixes that Spanish imported during the Arabic occupation (carciofo -> alcachofa, zucchero -> azúcar, etc). I haven't studied Italian but I guess that the grammar is very similar.
It's a little like Galician or Catalonian (languages without an army or navy ;) ), the other latin languages spoken in Spain (then there is Basque, but that's a completely different thing): they have palpable differences to Spanish, but in most cases both tongues can reasonably understand each other without many problems (it also helps that most Galician and Catalonian speakers also speak Spanish, of course).
You sure it's not Polish-Ukrainian-Russian? My mom can sit down and yak the night away with her Ukrainian friend, but when I spent a few days in Russia, "ne gaviria po rusku" because I couldn't understand a damn thing.
It's really true. One might think that mutual intelligibility (ability for speakers of one to make themselves fully understood by speakers of the other) would be the standard for differentiating languages from dialects, but the distinction really ends up just being political. The spoken forms of Hindi and Urdu are entirely mutually intelligible but have two separate names.
Many varieties of Arabic and Chinese are mutually unintelligible but are called "dialects" of one Arabic or Chinese language, presumably to promote a unified Arab or Chinese identity. Speakers of Moroccan Arabic and Levantine Arabic or of Mandarin and Cantonese can't understand each other any better than speakers of Spanish and Italian can, but we don't call Spanish and Italian dialects of Modern Latin!
It gets even weirder when you have a dialect continuum, like with Polish-Russian-Ukrainian. Russian is somewhat mutually intelligible with both Polish and Ukrainian, but Polish and Ukrainian are not themselves mutually intelligible! So even if politics didn't play a role in the distinction between language and dialect, it would be hard if not impossible to come up with a universal distinction.