Talk:Mutual intelligibility

Spanish and Portuguese

I think pretty much every single speaker of both languages can understand the other without much trouble, especially in a written way. In fact, in writing I'd challenge any non-trained non-speaker to tell the difference between them both. In Latin America sometimes products are labelled in both Portuguese and Spanish (as I believe happens in Spain and Portugal) and as a native speaker you can read the other language all the way until you find something a bit different and realise you've been reading the other text... A little example of a sentence:

Portuguese: Vi estas notas de português para comentar antes de ir á casa de José, mas como estamos irritados nunca nos vimos.

Spanish: Vi estas notas de portugués para comentar antes de ir a casa de José, mas como estamos irritados nunca nos vimos.

Try and spot the difference!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.177.159 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 22 April 2010

Bring a source; this article is not a repository for peoples' opinions. Regardless of your opinion, it seems that the issue of mutual intelligibility of these languages is controversial; see, for instance, [1]. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, I thought the article was for FACTS with SOURCES, while the part of DISCUSSIONS was a repository for OPINIONS, you see. And as any native speaker of Portuguese or Spanish can tell you, I provided not source but proof, with two identical sentences belonging to both languages. Meanwhile, the article you mention was written (oh surprise) by an English speaker. If you spoke either language, you'd see that in both the Spanish and the Portuguese Wikipedia these languages are classified as mutually intelligible. But sure, what do we poor speakers know about our understanding each other? You English speakers must know better, for sure... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.78.100 (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand something. Neither your brain nor your abilities are reliable sources. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And anyway, constructing one sentence that happens to be spelled the same in both languages doesn't prove anything. I can do that for English and Afrikaans too:

• English: My hand is warm.
• Afrikaans: My hand is warm.

Wow, English and Afrikaans must be mutually intelligible, huh? Now go to af:Japan and see how much you understand. +Angr 05:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Honey, can you count up to four? OK, so my1 hand2 is3 warm4. Now, try hard and count this "Vi estas notas de portugués para comentar antes de ir a casa de José, mas como estamos irritados nunca nos vimos."

Once again, your ignorance is astonishing. 21 words out of hundreds of thousands is still just a tiny fraction. +Angr 06:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility is a very problematic concept anyway. That may be the reason why it is hard to find any reliable sources on that topic. Whether you understand a foreign language depends very much on your individual abilities and background. A person from Vigo (even if he does not speak Gallego) will be much more exposed to Portuguese, both in spoken and in written form, than a person from Alicante. Thus, he will probably think Portuguese and Spanish are mutually intelligible and will be much surprised when the person from Alicante tells him he cannot understand a single word of spoken Portuguese, as the two languages are worlds apart, phonetically. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and stick to your view, we Spanish and Portuguese speakers know better...

This isn't "our view", it's the view of published researchers who have investigated it. You know, people who make studying linguistics their profession and actually know what they're talking about. +Angr 06:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny discussion. Here's my contribution, though: I'm a perfectly bilingual Spanish-English Mexican-American, and I'd say I understand Brazilian Portuguese much better than your average Ebonics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.176.43 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that calling other people ignorant while quoting examples from language pairs that don't have the same historical relation isn't productive nor appropiate. Here's a source Here's another source-- Simiyachaq (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

One single example of a sentence spelt the same way in Portuguese and Spanish is not proof at all. And, in fact, there is another issue here at hand. Portuguese as it is spoken in Portugal vs. Portuguese as it is spoken in Brazil. And let's just ignore regional differences within each country. Then look at Spanish. Different in Spain from South America. And different from country to country in South America. You give just one example to prove a point? I can give one example of just about everything, but those might just be the exceptions, and not prove anything. As for my personal experience, and I am NOT trying to use this of proof of anything, my wife, Argentinean-born, Paraguayan resident for most of her life had no trouble at all making herself understood in Brazil, even though she spoke in Spanish (and doesn't speak Portuguese) and the people she spoke to replied in Brazilian-Portuguese. It seemed she understood more of their Portuguese than they understood of her Spanish. Just one single example, too.

In addition, when I met my future wife, I had very little knowledge of either Spanish or Portuguese. But I DEFINITELY heard a BIG difference between both languages. The pronunciation of the "j" for instance. And many more sounds. There is no way I would, not even from the very start, confuse Spanish with Portuguese, even though, back then, I didn't know more than 3 words of Spanish and none of Portuguese.

One single example does not prove anything. Not in your case, not in mine. 68.200.97.152 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is going to be tough, but I'll try to sort things out, possibly with sources. Portuguese and Spanish ARE mutually intelligible, though, of course, the actuall degree of intelligibility depends on a series of factors.

One of these is schooling — especially for P-speakers, contact with traditional literature exposes the reader to old-fashioned Portuguese words that are the word of choice in Spanish. Here are some examples:

Portuguese word (usual)	Portuguese word (poetic or archaic)	Spanish usual word	Meaning
Esquecer	Olvidar	Olvidar	Forget
Natal	Natividade	Navidad (*)	Christmas
Casamento	Matrimônio	Matrimonio	Marriage/Wedding
Morar (BR)	Viver (usual in PT)	Vivir	To live (e.g. in house)
Professor	Mestre	Maestro (*)	Schoolteacher

In the example above it must be noted that the Spanish word marked with the (*) is not used exclusively, but is used more often than in Portuguese, in that context.

The second factor is familiarity. People who live close to the border of a country where the other language is spoken will get acquainted with it fairly easily, though the language is not readily understood. Similarities are so many that language acquisition is possible by mere immersion. In border regions people may be bilingual and have never been to language school.

Two important restrictions do apply. First, the written form is easier to understand. This is especially true since Portuguese abandoned etymological (traditional) spelling. Nowadays, the two orthographies are fairly similar and cognates are identifiable in most cases. The second restriction is the assymetry of the mutual intelligibility: P-speakers understand Spanish better because the phonetic inventory and the phonetic rules of Spanish are simpler.

All these considerations are found also in the quoted paper above. So I just note it here. But there are some other interesting links. This article [2] details how a monolingual S-speaker managed to speak to a doctor in Germany by means of a P-speaker (actually Portuguese) nurse who could not speak Spanish. This other article [3] is interesting because it discusses how the populations of the border towns of Tabatinga, Amazonas (Brazil) and Letícia (in Colombia) interact. In a region where the school system is generally weak, both popultions keep their cultures but are able to interact seamlessly.

Hope this helps (btw, the articles are in Portuguese, sorry).

jggouvea (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dutch and Afrikaans

Are Dutch and Afrikaans mutualy intelligible? In writing I don't have much difficulty understanding Afrikaans being a Dutch speaker myself. In speach I don't know yet. Ofcourse I am no expert but is there an expert that thinks alike? Quintinohthree (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thus far, no-one has brought a reliable source to back it up, that's the point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I re-added Afrikaans and Dutch, with some sources. Some of them do emphasise that comprehension may be assymetric (i.e. it is easier for Dutch-speakers to understand Afrikaans than the other way round) and that it is easier to understand the written language than the spoken language (without saying that the spoken language is not mutually intelligible). --Hooiwind (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations... this is the first time someone actually brings some academic sources for this... *sigh* :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the sources do not support the claim of mutual intelligibility. I will finish poring over them tonight. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think all of them support the claim.--Hooiwind (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Please check your respective tps, you can find the page numbers in the syntax codes of the citings.--Hooiwind (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Page 232 is should be accessible here.--Hooiwind (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not accessible for me. As I said in the edit summary, when a source is not available online you can provide a quotation of the relevant part. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That's weird... I can't seem to be able to copy-paste text from the page though. But we have enough other sources I guess.--Hooiwind (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is easier for a Dutch to understand Afrikaans, than the other way round (since Dutch is basiclly a complicated version of Afrikaans) and so it depends. For example the Dutch have Het and Die, and to some Afrikaners seeing 'In het dorp' is confusing. My family have visited friends in the Netherlands (Maastricht) and they can kind of communicate with them if they speak clearly and take time when having a conversation. Is that Mutual intelligibility? The problem you also get is that some Afrikaans speakers find it offensive when people refer to Afrikaans as a Creole of Dutch, and mutual intelligibility is conveying that? Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Maastricht lies in Limburg, which is not Holland (which is just two (of the twelve) provinces of the country); the correct term for the country is "the Netherlands". --JorisvS (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of this, but in England common usage is Holland. I rarely hear people call it 'The Netherlands' (to be honest, the name's too long) :) Just remember this next time Germans or Dutch say 'I am going to England/Grossbritannien (UK)' Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What you must also remember is that because Afrikaans people are SO far spread throughout South Africa and becauseo of their low density it has caused some dialects, especially among Coloureds who speak 'Kaaps-Afrikaans' (which is actually quite Amusing). Kaaps-Afrikaans is different in that it is actually 'more' Dutch than Afrikaans itself. Another thing is that Afrikaans in Rural areas is obviously alot 'stronger' do you suppose a Dutch man can understand that? Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would really like to see a Dutch person understand this (YouTube). Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker of Dutch, and I can't understand but fragments of it, something I also noted from other times I heard Afrikaans. In my definition of mutual intelligibility, that's within the unintelligible region: communication is significantly hampered. But as different people have very different ideas about when they consider something intelligible there will be sources claiming the two to be intelligible (yes, there will also be claims of intelligibility when much more dissimilar languages are involved). And that's the inclusion criterion here: merely having "decent" source(s) to back up the claim. This has already lead to quite the growth of the list, I'm afraid:(. But if you know a better criterion... --JorisvS (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My parents and aunt also agrees. My aunt (whos first language is Afrikaans) moved to the Netherlands because she married an Afrikaans-speaking Dutchman, and they decided to move to Maastricht. She had to take a half-year course to learn Dutch in order to communicate. She now lives in Flanders (just a little west of Maastricht) and if anything, Flemish is closer to Afrikaans than Dutch. But she still says that they are NOT mutually intelligible. I think one of the principles of mutual intelligibility is the ability to enter another country and be able to communicate with shop-owners/police etc. which I feel Afrikaans speaking people don't have the ability to do. Written, however I think they are very much mutually intelligle. Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to be able to engage in such day-to-day conversation without having to intentionally study, so I think this half-year course says a lot. As for the written languages, I have little difficulty reading the Afrikaans Wikipedia. --JorisvS (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am just one person, and I am not going to prove anything based on just my opinion. But I am a native Dutch speaker. And I have met some native Afrikaans speakers in my time. Again, this is JUST my opinion. But they had a LOT more trouble understanding me than I had understanding them. That was while speaking. While reading... well, I could very easily read books written in Afrikaans. I am not trying to sound bad, but the spelling of Afrikaans has been so simplified that even while I was reading a book on physics in Afrikaans, it seemed like it was written by a Dutch 8 year old. VERY understandable. Again, don't get me wrong. Spelling in Afrikaans is SO EASY to read by Dutch people. Because in Afrikaans, they have gotten rid of the "baggage". Just like a lot of letters in the English language still exist in writing but are no longer pronounced. In Dutch, we still have that "baggage". So it's very easy to read Afrikaans. At least, my experience. Again, just one example. Can't prove anything from one example. 68.200.97.152 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

One more thing I would like to say on the Afrikaans vs. Dutch matter... . A lot of people in South Africa had to take a few years of Dutch in school. At least the generation of 40 years or older. And, STILL, they couldn't understand me when I spoke Dutch to them. While I had no trouble understanding them. Either spoken or written. Yes, I think this is an a-symmetric form of mutual intelligibility. With the Dutch understanding much more of Afrikaans than the other way around.

Then, again, there are some Dutch dialects in Belgium that us Dutch really cannot understand, while I think they easily understand "us". So it works both ways. But that's a different story. 68.200.97.152 (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Turkish and azeri

They are both mutually intelligible, therefore they should be added to the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.51.169 (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only Turkish and Azeri, but the entire family of Turkic languages are mutually intelligible to some degree. I tried to add a reference and added the fact to the list. Candymoan (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Swedish and Danish

are not symmetrically intelligible. Most Swedes do not understand spoken Danish without great difficulty (written Danish is not much more difficult than Norwegian). Swedes and Danes can still communicate somewhat, but often just speak English instead. Some kind of source: in Swedish, page 12 and on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.242.109.49 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Xibe and Manchu?

Questioning this addition: Ethnologue claims they are mutually intelligible, but I was a bit surprised—I'm not an expert, but I do know someone who's studied both and who never gave me the impression they were considered mutually intelligible. I know Ethnologue can sometimes be questionable, so I asked for another source, but the other source the editor added was a Wikipedia mirror (and the WP article it was mirroring was also based on Ethnologue; not to mention the mirror itself, sandiegoaccountantsguide.com, was clearly not a reliable source for this kind of thing). I looked around on Google scholar and found this book that says, on p. 420, they're not mutually intelligible. There may be other sources to check as well, though. Does anyone know more about this? rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

English and Scots

Although I haven't heard Scots spoken much, reading it is fairly simple, having English as a mother tongue. sco.wikipedia.org is writen is Scots, and it is pretty easy to be understood —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobotast (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd add Scots and English to the list, but I don't have any proper citations I could use. But yeah, they're mutually intelligible in both spoken and written forms, Scots just has a few more sounds compared to English. (Like that sound used in the proper pronunciation of "loch")122.175.70.160 (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Proper pronunciation of "loch". Lots of countries in Europe have that same "ch"/"g"/"j" sound. Although some countries (or even regions of countries) might pronounce it a bit harder than others. The south of the Netherlands and Belgium, for instance, pronounce it softly. But they have no problem whatsoever to do the "hard" sound. And the entire continent of South America can pronounce that sound. Usually soft in South American Spanish, usually hard in Spain Spanish. German usually has the soft version as well.

Arabic countries, I've heard the hard version. I even have a US colleague who laughs using the hard version. I have no citations, either. Just speaking from personal experience.

And if you want to talk about sounds, then mention tonal languages. With Thai and Mandarin Chinese, I believe both using 4 tones, and Cantonese even using 9. Or mention Dutch. With a dozen or so of two vowel combinations, each sounding different. (And I'm a native Dutch speaker, so I should know.)

It's not easy. Aren't there at least 5 or so different ways to pronounce the letter "r"? 68.200.97.152 (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Bahasa Malaysia, Bahasa Melayu (Brunei & Singapore) and Bahasa Indonesia

These 3 languages above are extremely mutually intelligible, although Bahasa Indonesia is a bit distinct from the former two. They are all rooted from the same language: Bahasa Melayu or Malay language. In Malaysia, any comments from Indonesian speakers especially in news, talk shows, are normally without subtitles... and vice versa. We only put up subtitles for dramas, cartoons, or other scripted shows, where usage of local dialects or accents are strong. If it happens that an Indonesian, a Malaysian and a Bruneian speak to each other, they will surely speak Bahasa of their own without a problem. Even Anggun (Indonesian singer) taught Julian (French singer) how to sing in Bahasa Malaysia, although Anggun is from Indonesia and her mother tongue is Bahasa Indonesia.

Hence... Bahasa Malaysia, Bahasa Melayu (Brunei & Singapore) and Bahasa Indonesia should be added to the list. Pinangjawa (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, just find a reliable source for it and it can be added. +Angr 12:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic

I added this before but it was removed, why? Being an Irish speaker, amongst my friends and other classmates, we've all been tested to read Scots Gaelic and pretty much everyone understood it. The Scottish language (and people) are after all descended from Irish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.211.252 (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you also put in a citation supporting your claim? (by the way, "being descended from" doesn't mean much in this context) --JorisvS (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, add a source. I will try to find one. By the way, you are wrong on the Scottish descended from the Irish. From what I know they are a mix of Irish and English (Germanic). Kanzler31 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The languages are extremely similar, they are essentially dialects of the same language. Scotts Gaelic speakers are descended from Irish, as is the language itself. This article on wikipedia backs the intelligibility up.[[4]] 86.44.193.45 (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact the opposite, it says "Most dialects are not immediately comprehensible". --JorisvS (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The written standards don't have dialects like spoken forms do (not to the same extent, anyway). The written forms do have a very high amount of mutual intelligibility. It's times like this that WP:NOR becomes such a pain - Estoy Aquí (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is extremely irritating. I completely echo what my Irish cousin says at the start of this section. I am an educated native speaker of Scots Gaelic (with a degree in Celtic Studies), but even before I ever studied Irish at university, I was able to read it with a fair degree of understanding - probably about 50-70%. It's 23 years now since I last actively studied Irish, but I've just been watching the RTE broadcast of the Queen's visit to Dublin and would say I understood 95% of the Irish commentary. I have a friend who is a Scots Gaelic journalist. He attended a conversion course in Dublin to enable him to broadcast on Irish-language radio and TV. It should give you some idea of how close the two languages are when I say that the full course lasted two weeks. The written languages are extremely close, because both are derived from the single Classical Gaelic standard used up until 1700 or so. Learners of one language will certainly have greater problems understanding the other, but please, please can someone find some research which will satisfy the stupidly restrictive standards of Wikipedia and allow us to insert into this article what all native Scots Gaelic and Irish speakers know -- our languages are very largely mutually intelligible, and that is because they are basically the same language, which diverged a few centuries ago because of politics, religion and geography.

And on the topic of our origins -- anyone who looks at the history will quickly find that the original speakers of Scots Gaelic did come from Ireland. That's not considered to be in doubt by anyone, as far as I know. Scots Gaelic was certainly influenced later on by Pictish, Norse and Scots English, but it's simply wrong to argue that the language is not an off-shoot from the earlier Common Gaelic which originated in Ireland. Le gach deagh dhùrachd á Alba/Slán is beannachd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.110.91 (talk • contribs)

To add to what I've just written above -- here is an example of a well-known text in both languages, the Lord's Prayer (the "Our Father"). Can anyone honestly look at these, especially someone who is aware of the spelling conventions of both languages, and tell me that someone who can read one would find it difficult to understand what the other is saying?

Scots Gaelic -

Ar n-Athair a tha air nèamh,

Gu naomhaichear d'ainm.

Thigeadh do rìoghachd.

Dèanar do thoil air an talamh,

mar a nìthear air nèamh.

Tabhair dhuinn an-diugh ar n-aran làitheil.

Agus maith dhuinn ar fiachan,

amhail a mhaitheas sinne dar luchd-fiach.

Agus na leig ann am buaireadh sinn;

ach saor sinn o olc.

Irish -

Ár nAthair atá ar neamh,

go naofar d'ainm,

go dtaga do ríocht,

go ndéantar do thoil ar an talamh

mar a dhéantar ar neamh.

Ar n-arán laethúil tabhair dúinn inniu,

agus maith dúinn ár bhfiacha,

mar a mhaithimidne dár bhféichiúna féin,

agus ná lig sinn i gcathú,

ach saor sinn ó olc.

OK, I'm done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.110.91 (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines for this article are very clear. If you want a pair of languages included, you need to provide a reliable source, not just personal anecdotes, that verifies they are mutually intelligible. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And the two versions of the Lord's Prayer/Our Father don't prove that? Did you actually take time to compare them? I didn't write them myself - they are the normal forms of the Prayer used in both languages. One could show the same using any other standard text. There certainly are differences between Irish and Scots Gaelic, but they are just as mutually intelligible as Turkish and Azeri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.110.91 (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, how about a paper on "Dialect Variation in Gaelic Relative Clauses" by David Adger (Queen Mary,University of London) and Gillian Ramchand (University of Tromsø)? They say the following, "As has often been remarked, Gaelic and Irish form a (rather messy) continuum of mutual intelligibility from Lewis to Munster, and yet these days we tend to speak of Scottish Gaelic on the one hand and Irish on the other (see O Baoill, 2000). Similar points have been made about the Inuit languages, which form a dialect continuum such that geographically close communities of speakers are able to understand each other while speakers from either end of the continuum are not (see Chambers and Trudgill, 1980, for general discussion)." Is this adequate? The paper can be found at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.66.8852&rep=rep1&type=pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.110.91 (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The following website also gives a list of quotations from various works, all supporting the partial mutual intelligibility of Irish and Scottish Gaelic -- http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~oduibhin/alba/ouch.htm -- in the section in the middle of the webpage beginning "Here are the views of yet more people on the unity of Gaelic." At least two of these certainly do qualify as recently published academic sources:

"Dónall P Ó Baoill, Celtica 13 (1980), pp 102-3: It could indeed be said that the entire area stretching from South Donegal all the way across to Islay and down as far south as Co. Meath, and including most of Kintyre in Scotland and parts of South Argyll and Arran formed a very close linguistic unit."

"James Grant in Léann na Trionóide (2004) p 88: When the different varieties of vernacular Gaelic are examined we find that we are not dealing with three separate languages, but a series of dialects of what is essentially the same language which shade into one another as one moves from the north of Scotland to the south of Ireland."

I'm not going to bother adding anything else. If you're not persuaded by all that I've written in the last few paragraphs, you're not likely to be persuaded by any other evidence I might give. Leis a h-uile beannachd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.110.91 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As I already said, your own impression about the similarity of two passages does not qualify as a reliable source, it is considered original research; I already linked to those two Wikipedia guidelines above, please take the time to read them so we don't keep arguing in circles.

As for the sources you've listed, none of them specifically says Irish and Scots Gaelic are mutually intelligible. The Adger paper specifically says they are not (in your previous message you seem to have misunderstood the argument being made in this paper). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Adger and Ramchand paper in fact mentions a continuum of intelligibility, without declaring Irish and Scots Gaelic unintelligible. This seems consistent with the "(partial)" caveat which 77.44.110.91 included. I have just added that reference to the article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nor does it say these endpoints to be intelligible. --JorisvS (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(I'll still post this, risking some repetition) Ultimately such examples do not matter. We've got the guideline here that all languages added to the list must be properly sourced, this to prevent people from lightly adding a language pair to the list or for some improper reason. From what I've heard so far, Irish and Scottish Gaelic are not unlike Dutch-Afrikaans with respect to mutual intelligibility, something that seems reasonable to expect given their history. This leads me to expect that there should be reliable sources out there that say these are partially intelligible. The documents you provide do not actually say (see WP:synthesis) these are (partially) intelligible, and (from what I've seen and like what you quote) just discuss issues common to dialect continua or closely related languages. --JorisvS (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly 77.44.110.91 and Bill don't understand the concept of a dialect continuum, which (as explicitly said in the Adger quote that 77.44.110.91 provided), means that two languages at opposite ends of the continuum are not mutually intelligible, even though they may both be intelligible with intermediate languages. To give another example: there is supposedly a dialect continuum between French and Italian in parts of southern France and northern Italy, but that does not mean anyone would claim French and Italian to be mutually intelligible languages. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly Rjanag does not understand that a "continuum" is not necessarily a line with ends. English itself is a topologically complex continuum, with e.g. some speakers from rural (US) Georgia unintelligible to some speakers from Mumbai, and vice versa. Further, in the Adger and Ramchand quote, the "explicit" statement that "two languages at opposite ends of the continuum are not mutually intelligible" refers to Inuit, not Gaelic.

Here are two quotes from the second source, "Gàidhlig" agus "Gaeilge" — ouch! that 77.44.110.91 provided:

"It is because we discuss this subject in English that the terms 'Irish', 'Scottish' and 'Manx' obtrude themselves so forcefully, convincing us that we are speaking of three different Gaelic languages."

(The point above being that they are not "three different Gaelic languages.")

"When a Gaelic speaker from Ireland approaches the Gaelic of Scotland, for example, he should approach it as he would approach another form of his own language."

I'll wait for other sources to appear, but the two already presented make a fair case for partial mutual intelligibility. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

JorisvS and Rjanag -- The section on Turkish and Azeri is supported by one reference which isn't even available for examination online. Given that, I'm surprised that you are not willing to accept at least the reference from James Grant. Maybe it was not clear, but "Léann na Trionóide" is an official journal of the School of Irish at Trinity College Dublin. You would think their staff would know what they're talking about. Actually Grant goes even further than I would like you to go, given that I am only asking for the recognition of partial mutual intelligibility. I did say above that I was not going to get involved again in this discussion, but I've remembered something else which should convince any fair-minded, neutral observer. The national, government supported, Gaelic-language radio stations of Scotland and Ireland, BBC Radio nan Gaidheal and RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta, have for many years co-produced a music programme called "Sruth na Maoile." The programme goes out weekly and is co-presented by a speaker of Scots Gaelic and of Irish. It is not in any way a language lesson, but simply for entertainment. Each presenter speaks to the other in their own language, and no explanation is given to the audience of any differences between the two languages/dialects. Both presenters speak the standard forms of their languages rather than some obscure dialect, and at no time do they feel the need to resort to English or another third language to make themselves understood. The music broadcast is a mixture of Irish and Scots Gaelic traditional music. If this is not a concrete, non-subjective example of partial mutual intelligibility in action, then I don't know what is. You can read about and listen to the programme at either http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007tz5q or http://www.rte.ie/rnag/sruthnamaoile.html One Youtube video was enough for German and Yiddish to be included as mutually intelligible at the spoken level, so I really don't see why a radio programme and the article by James Grant cannot be sufficient evidence for the partial mutual intelligibility of Scots Gaelic and Irish.

Oh, and please don't patronise me by assuming I don't know what a dialect continuum is. Just plain Bill is correct, as far as I can see from the article by Adger and Ramchand. Clearly someone who speaks Embo Gaelic (please look it up, if you've never heard of it), who has never heard someone from Dingle, is not going to understand them without a great deal of work, just like the rural Georgian and the Mumbai English speaker. Speakers of more standard forms of Scots Gaelic, Irish and English will have a much easier time of it. Right, I'm definitely done this time. 77.44.110.91 (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Turkish/Azeri. Any more that I've missed? --JorisvS (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Will Lamb (2001, Lincom Europe "Scottish Gaelic" ISBN3-89586-408-0) sums it up nicely "The Gaelic languages of Ireland and Scotland are today not mutually intelligible without considerable priming...". O'Rahilly in "Irish Dialects Past and Present" (1988 Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies) says the same but in a more roundabout way "The Gaelic o the unlettered classes in Scotland kept drifting more and more apart from the spoken and still more from the written Gaelic of Ireland. As a result the Irish literary dialect became more and more impossible for Scottish purposes and had inevitably to be discarded". A point of OR; I would say the degree of MI depends on various factors and can vary considerably: the two dialects in question, degree of fluency and intra-language dialect skills, the topic. If you take an Islay speaker and a Donegal speaker with a very high degree of fluency and knowledge of other dialects of their own country and a conversational topic, then there's a limited degree of MI. Take a Wester Ross and a Kerry speaker and you can forget it. I think the sources would support a claim of "limitid innate MI" but "greater latent MI". How you want to word that on the page I have no idea ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

German and Jiddisch

Though these languages arent mutually intellgible when written, they are when spoken. please add this example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teutschvölkischer (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We need a reliable source first. I doubt the intelligibility between them is very consistent; a Yiddish sentence made up only of words of German origin is certainly understandable to German speakers, but a sentence where all or most of the content words are of Slavic or Hebrew origin will be quite impenetrable. In practice, sentences have a good mixture of German and non-German words, so a German hearing spoken Yiddish will understand a lot, but will be thrown off by a fair proportion of unfamiliar vocabulary. I imagine the same is true in the opposite direction too. +Angr 20:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This Youtube video shows 2 people communicating in their languages, one in Yiddish and another in German.--Kanzler31 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

From the youtube video showing a Ukranian Yiddish speaker vs Standard German I was able to understand much of what the Yiddish speaker said. I would say that the greatest barrier in understanding is not grammar or sounds, but as mentioned above, a lexical barrier. Brianc26 (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Serbian and Montenegrin

I am native speaker of Serbian language and I claim that Serbs and Montenegrins understand each other in both Latin and Cyrillic script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.132.31 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

On the same subject, is it true that Macedonian and/or Bulgarian have mutual intelligibility with Bosnian-Serbian-Croatian-Montenegrin? --99.59.75.144 (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A while back many maps showed that Macedonian and Bulgarian/as well as Montenegrin and Serbian were the same language/people! Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As a native Serbian I can claim that there is a great degree of intelligibility between Serbian and Bulgarian and especially Serbian and Macedonian. This is especially true for speakers of south-eastern Torlakian dialect of Serbian. Intelligibility falls quickly as you move westwards. Speakers of central and western Serbian dialects, Croatian and Bosnian speakers understand less of Macedonian and Bulgarian. Phenomenon is somewhat asymmetric as Macedonians quite often understand Serbian better then Serbs do Macedonian. This is due to recent common history in Yugoslavia where Serbo-Croatian was a dominant language.--Stane (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they're mutually intelligible.Zlaja094 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgive I've forgotten my old handle - Any look at the wikipedia page (i know rules about self reference, but what i'm talking about is itself cited, that research applies here) on Montenegro. Everyone there called what they were speaking 'Serbian', according to the censuses taken, going back to at least the 1950's, again in the 70's - and then a change. In the 80's there was a distinction to call the language Serbo-Croatian. This is what had been called Serbian for hundreds if not thousands of years. Again I am paraphrasing from Serbian language page and Montenegran language page, itself cited. Anyone else interested in pursuing this line of thought can do the work, cite, edit,etc. I just had to get this out there because it was extremely annoying and political this non-scientific (not consistently applied) definition of umbrella, language, dialect, and mutually-intelligible. Using self-evident logic, Irish and American English ought to be considered unintelligble to each other if the standard of mere mutual-intelligibility describes Montenegran and Serbian. It would seem obvious to anyone who allowed themselves to think/argue outside of strict compartmentalization that the rapid and sudden 'invention' of a montenegrian language stinks of politics - it happened immediately and coincidentally with the secession of Montenegro from Serbia-Montenegro less than ten years ago. Can we be real? Are there any sources which demonstrate that Montenegran is a language, or is the Political Act of State itself enough to create Scientific Facts? How can we prove that Serbian and Montenegran are the same language despite the claims of a temporal government? Yes I realize I'm being editorial. This is the comments page. At the very least the debate should be presented as controversy. Really I'm surprised this whole subject doesn't note the subjectivity and political controversy which clearly overshadows this field from the eyes of academics in other actually scientific fields where terms must be defined and used consistently, strategically, and in a limited fashion ("definition" by definition delimits the meaning of a word from what it isn't)and requires a contrast to define it. The Serbo-Croatian issue is really political, not taxonomical in the scientific sense. Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.119.59 (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As a native speaker of Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian from Bosnia I claim that we can understand and read Macedonian (Bosnians and Serbs can read it because we use the Cyrillic script too). My point is that Macedonian should be added to the Serbo-Croatian as a partially intelligible language. If you have any thoughts I'd like to know them. Zlaja094 (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I want to add that as a native Bulgarian speaker I can comunicate very good with Serb, our languages are close so I think this should be noted.

Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian

Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian are all mutually intelligible, both written and spoken. Comparing texts, it's possible that they could be mutually intelligible. Kanzler31 (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect. All the Russians CANNOT understand Ukrainian as well as Belorussian except the ones who learn one of those two languages. The same about understanding of Russian by Ukrainians. For example Canadian Ukrainians don't understand Russian at all. Of course almost all Ukrainians from Ukraine studied Russian so that's why they understand it. --Sergm (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is similar to the case of Portuguese and Spanish. Generally, Portuguese speakers can understand Spanish fairly well because they studied it a lot, while on the other hand Spanish speakers can only partially understand it. Not to mention a Brazilian Portuguese speaker can understand a Mexican Spanish speaker better than a European Spanish Speaker.Kanzler31 (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As a native speaker of Russian I can say that both Belarusian and Ukrainian are at least partially intelligible for most Russians. There are,of course, few Russians who claim they cannot understand anything said in Ukrianian or Belarusian, while there are also some who claim they understand almost everything perfectly; but the majority is probably somewhere in between. The degree of understanding differs very much depending on education of a particular Russian person, cultural background, ability to deduct the meaning of separate unfamiliar words from the context, his or her knowledge of Russian language itself and especially its archaic and otherwise obsolete vocabulary which is not used in modern high-style Russian speech any more but still can be found in Russian classic literature of 18-19th centuries and which might be spared and widely used in Ukrainian or Belarusian (for example "очи", "уразуметь", "середа", "особливо", "зала", "брехать", "абы", "убиец"). It is also important to know that the intelligibility of Ukrainian speech can also depend on how Ukrainians speak themselves and what kind of vocabulary is used. Ukrainian language has a lot of synonym pairs in which one is more "Russian-like" and another more "Polish-like" (e.g. "родина"/"сiм'я" for "family", "дякую"/"спасибi" for "thank you", "голитися"/"бритися" for "to shave" etc.). So, a Ukrainian speaker can conciously adjust his choice of words to make him or her more (or less) understandable to Russians. There is also one interesting thing - spoken Belarusian can be better understood by Russians than spoken Ukrainian, while with written forms it's all exactly the opposite way.Dilas25 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Asymmetric intelligibility

It's notorious among linguists that Portuguese speakers often find it easier to understand Spanish than vice versa, and there are presumably other cases, so that there should be some mention or discussion in the article... AnonMoos (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Laos-Thai

As a Thai native speaker, I think Laos and Thai should be mutual intelligible in both speaking and writing. Even we use different scripts, it is still very similar. We can understand each other's scripts without any effort. For me, it's even more like another 'font' than another 'script' 92.229.14.229 (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC) canon

Romance languages

I was just wondering what is the relationship between French, Italian and Spanish? Are any of them mutually intelligble? Bezuidenhout (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not nearly. An Italian studying Spanish will have to study quite hard to speak a decent Spanish (I've seen them struggling). French is even more different, so... There exist dialect continua between these languages, with a number of mutually unintelligible varieties in between: something like French-Occitan(with unintelligible "dialects")-Catalan-Spanish and French-FrancoProvençal-Piedmontese-Western Lombard-Emilian-Italian (~Tuscan). --JorisvS (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked this because according to Lexical similarity, Spanish and Portuguese are 89% similar and Italian and French are 89% similar. I suggest you take an interresting look at the table some down the page, it says that Italian and Sardinian are only at 85% Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why Sardinian is a distinct language, or more accurately, several distinct languages, the count depending on several things, including whether you consider the northernmost languages Sardinian or Corsican. Also note that Ethnologue lists the lexical similarity between these Sardinian languages as distinctly lower than the 85% with Italian. And even then, a lexically similar word (cognate) need not be intelligible, consider e.g. French /o/ and Italian /akːwa/. --JorisvS (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've overheard an Italian and a Spaniard talking to each other, each in his native language and with no more than a rudimentary knowledge of the other's language. It worked quite well, though occasionally one or the other had to translate a word or two into English to be understood. +Angr 15:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How much talking was actually going on? And how much is this 'rudimentary'? --JorisvS (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a full-fledged conversation. In fact, two, because the two guys met on two different occasions (in my presence at least, maybe they've chatted together when I wasn't around, too). "Rudimentary" means, well, rudimentary. A small amount of simple grammar (they weren't thrown off by the fact that one of them made plurals by changing o to i while the other made plurals by changing o to os), a small amount of simple vocabulary. But the similarities were enough that each could recognize the majority of the other's vocabulary when he heard it. But as I said, intelligibility wasn't 100%; they did have to translate into English once in a while. (They didn't simply speak English the whole time because the Italian guy speaks very poor English, and it was much easier for him to passively understand Spanish and answer in Italian than for him to actively speak English.) +Angr 10:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Standard French is mutually intelligible with neither standard (Castilian) Spanish nor standard Italian. There is a dialect continuum around the France-Italy border, but that's not standard. Sure, a French speaker can figure out bits and pieces of Spanish and Italian (particularly written) and even get the general gist, but I've never met any who claims they are mutually intelligible. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As an Italian speaker, I find it very funny that this article doesn't mention Italian-Spanish, Spanish-French, Italian-French and Italian-Romanian. Actually, French is intelligible only on written form, but the rest is very easy on both written and spoken form, for both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.9.4.11 (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There are alien words, but Italian-Spanish are definitely intelligible. French-Italian is only intelligible in written form. 77.213.191.134 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely confirm - Italian-Spanish if spoken slowly are partially mutually intelligible - French-Italian only written - --Itemirus^{Message me!} 17:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaans

If Italian and French are as similar as Dutch and Afrikaans (89/90% according to that list) then surely Afrikaand and Dutch are not mutually intelligle? But then again I guess many differences between Afrikaans and Dutch are just new spellings with the same sound (e.g. ij > y; z > s etc.). Can I please have some Dutch people's opinions on the matter? Like for example can anyone read this article (on Afrik. wiki) or understand listening to this YouTube video? Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that the above video is 'formal Afrikaans' (since it's the news) so can anyone understand this, or this? Bezuidenhout (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Italian and French are definitely less similar than Dutch and Afrikaans. I could make out pretty much all of what was said in the news fragment, especially the second time I listened, though I had to effortly watch it for this. The not-so-formal scenes are more difficult, but it could be due to the noise present. I will typically manage reading Afrikaans, though I must say I had a little more difficulty than I'd expected reading the example you gave. I'd like to note that I can read Portuguese pretty well knowing Spanish far from perfectly. --JorisvS (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

All this would be WP:OR. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if anyone was trying to include it in the article unsourced. But no one is at the moment; right now, we're just chatting about possibilities to be investigated further. +Angr 06:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I could read the Wikipedia article perfectly and I understood 95% of the videos(news 100%, straattaal a little less but was good to understand). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.49.241 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

French and Italian

If ethnolouge states that they share a 89% lexical similarity, they are mutually intelligible. If they are to be mutually intelligible, they must exceed a 85% lexical similarity. Since they do, should we add them to the list?--Kanzler31 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get that cut-off criterion and why would that be a valid one? Oh, and it looks like you're saying "if A then B; we have B, thus A", which is misusing logic. --JorisvS (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just bringing the issue into discussion. And the reason I bring up ethnologue is because they are a world linguistic organization.Kanzler31 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine, really. As you brought up the issue, I critically enquire its aspects. Also, Ethnologue is not infallible, a blatant mistake I spotted was that Ethnologue omits Ossetian completely from Russia (e.g. this map), even though most speakers live there. --JorisvS (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

French and Italian are simply not mutually intelligible. This was discussed just a couple days ago. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Chinese

Shouldn't Chinese and a sample of Chinese languages be listed under the "written" section? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. See previous discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lao and Thai (Written forms)

A Thai user said that Laotian and Thai are mutually intelligible, both spoken AND written (The user went as far as to say Lao looks more like a font rather than a separate script). Can any Thai users read the Lao wikipedia and Lao speakers read the Thai wikipedia to see if they are mutually intelligible (written)?Kanzler31 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Italian and Judaeo-Spanish

This source claims that Judaeo-Spanish and Italian are mutually intelligible, although I'm not so sure to add this. Can anyone clarify? Can any speakers of Judaeo-Spanish read the Italian wikipedia and Italians read the Judaeo-Spanish wikipedia to add this to the list? We know Spanish and Italian are only partially intelligible in written form (spoken form is very hard) Thanks. Kanzler31 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought Judaeo-Spanish and Spanish are mutually intelligble. Here is a sample of Judaeo-Spanish and some other in the same text. Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The question was about Judaeo-Spanish and Italian. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know but I thought that Judaeo-Spanish would be more closely related to Spanish than Italian since that is where the language originated. I put down a sample below for any linguists to see in case Judaeo-Spanish would be similar to any languages. Bezuidenhout (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone get a Italian sample? Kanzler31 (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Samples

Comparison with other languages

Judeo-Spanish

El djudeo-espanyol, djudio, djudezmo o ladino es la lingua favlada por los sefardim, djudios ekspulsados de la Espanya enel 1492. Es una lingua derivada del espanyol i favlada por 150.000 personas en komunitas en Israel, la Turkia, antika Yugoslavia, la Gresia, el Maruekos, Mayorka, las Amerikas, entre munchos otros.

Spanish

El judeo-español, djudio, djudezmo o ladino es la lengua hablada por los sefardíes, judíos expulsados de España en 1492. Es una lengua derivada del español y hablada por 150.000 personas en comunidades en Israel, Turquía, la antigua Yugoslavia, Grecia, Marruecos, Mallorca, las Américas, entre muchos otros.

Catalan

El judeocastellà, djudiu, djudezmo o ladino és la llengua parlada pels sefardites, jueus expulsats d'Espanya al 1492. És una llengua derivada de l'espanyol i parlada per 150.000 persones en comunitats a Israel, Turquia, antiga Iugoslàvia, Grècia, el Marroc, Mallorca, les Amèriques, entre moltes altres.

Asturian

El xudeoespañol, djudio, djudezmo o ladino ye la llingua falada polos sefardinos, xudíos expulsados d'España en 1492. Ye una llingua derivada del español y falada por 150.000 persones en comunidaes n'Israel, Turquía, na antigua Yugoslavia, Grecia, Marruecos, Mayorca, nes Amériques, entre munchos otros.

Galician

O xudeo-español, djudio, djudezmo ou ladino é a lingua falada polos sefardís, xudeos expulsados de España en 1492. É unha lingua derivada do español e falada por 150.000 persoas en comunidades en Israel, en Turquía, na antiga Iugoslavia, Grecia, Marrocos, Maiorca, nas Américas, entre moitos outros.

Portuguese

O judeu-espanhol, djudio, djudezmo ou ladino é a língua falada pelos sefarditas, judeus expulsos da Espanha em 1492. É uma língua derivada do espanhol e falada por 150.000 pessoas em comunidades em Israel, na Turquia, na antiga Iugoslávia, Grécia, Marrocos, Maiorca, nas Américas, entre muitos outros.

English

Judeo-Spanish, Djudio, Judezmo, or Ladino is a language spoken by the Sephardi Jews expelled from Spain in 1492. It is a language derived from Spanish and spoken by 150,000 people in communities in Israel, Turkey, the former Yugoslavia, Greece, Morocco, Majorca, the Americas, among many others.

After reading that as an Italian I actually found the Catalan one to be the easiest to understand 77.213.191.134 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Galician and Spanish

I noticed that the Galician and Spanish pair was removed months ago even though there was a source (Previous discussion). I also found ANOTHER source citing mutual intelligibility: [5]. Kanzler31 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Chinese and Japanese?

Shouldn't the written forms of both Chinese and Japanese be here? I have a Chinese friend who comes from Hong Kong and though he don't understand Japanese at all he can still understand the written form so long as there ain't no katakana or hiragana in the text. He understand kanji well. What do you think? Freedom Fighter 1988 (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a stretch. Sure, you can get the gist of a few words here and there because many kanji and hanzi have similar meanings, but this is far from mutual intelligibility. For one thing, the grammar of Japanese is vastly different than that of any Chinese language. For another, Japanese is never (as far as I know) written without kana. For another, even the various Chinese languages are not mutually intelligible with one another, much less with Japanese. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, just wanted to know your opinion. I know what you mean, I've never seen a text written in Japanese without katakana or hiragana either, but I thought it could since my friend had not to much trouble understanding it. And since Kanji originally came from China I thought it could work. My friend always used to say that the Japanese written form was 60% Chinese while the rest was adapted and changed by the Japanese themselves. Freedom Fighter 1988 (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is limited written intelligibility between the two languages, but I don't know how significant it is until I can see an expert source that talks about it. Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. If I find one I'll make sure to post it here. Freedom Fighter 1988 (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, they are not mutually intelligible. Like I said above, speakers of one language might occasionally be able to recognize what a text is broadly about (I can usually find the methods sections in Japanese sciencey articles...), match a few simple familiar constructions, especially when you already know what it's supposed to mean (for instance, it's easy to figure out what 私の1997 means when you already know it's the Japanese release of 我的1997), but they certainly can't understand one another's grammar. Just this afternoon I was at a complicated seminar talk about the Chinese bǎ construction, and the Japanese people were just as confused as all the other non-Chinese speakers. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's okay. Thamks for all the info, I've learned much from you. Thank you.Freedom Fighter 1988 (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the perceived intelligibility between Chinese and Japanese is a property of their writing system, not of the languages. It could be said to be iconographic intelligibility. Chinese and Japanese are as distant as, for example, Icelandic and Turkish. Japanese has even been considered a language isolate by some (or at least the Japonic language group is considered unrelated to other groups). But if Icelanders and Turks by some chance began using a common writing system where a circle means the Sun, speakers of both could immediately understand what that circle stands for without knowing a single word of the other language and without these languages having anything in common. The circle would be an icon for the Sun itself, whereas group of icons consisting "S", "u" and "n" only form the word that means our nearby star in English but you'd have to know that in advance. JJohannes (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaans and German (written)

As I found a source for Dutch and German, I am wondering weather German and Afrikaans are mutually intelligible at least in written form. I am not a speaker of neither of these languages, so I would like some native speakers to comment.Kanzler31 (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitley not, Afrikaans and Dutch are barely mutually intelligible themselves, I have a Dutch family at my house at the moment, and we can only speak English with them. Some words in Afrikaans and German are too distant.

I love you

"Ek is lief vir jou" (Af)
"Ich liebe dich" (De)

I don't eat Potatoes

"Ek eet nie aartappels nie." (Af)
"Ich esse keine Kartoffeln." (De)
If there was some mutual intelligibility, it would only be from the German side, because Afrikaans only has the nominiative case, no genders, and all verbs are held in the infinitive (e.g. Ek is, jy is, ons is: compared to German; Ich bin, du bist, wir sind). Bezuidenhout (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. They're not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree too. A German might decipher some words, maybe on some occasions a sentence, but no more. I can understand some written French, being a Spanish speaker, but I could never call it mutually intelligible. Kanzler31 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Kazakh & Kirgiz

I read on a Russian forum that Kazakh and Kirgiz spoken in Central Asia are mutually intelligible with each other, Is this true or or not? Or is this just the border regions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg polkni (talk • contribs) 06:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Very similar, but not mutually intelligible as far as I know. Someone who has learned one can learn the other very quickly, though. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to dictate your personal opinion here? Kazakh and Kyrgyz are mutually very intelligible with each other. Read academic sources on Turkic languages. Find a Kazakh or Kyrgyz person from facebook, youtube or an internet forum then ask him/her about this topic. Kazakh is also mutually intelligible with Nogay, Karachay, Tatar, Kumyk as well. Besides, there is intelligibility of various degrees between all Turkic languages except for Chuvash and Yakut. Because, they began to separate from one another very lately (500-600 years ago) compared to Germanic or Romance/Latin languages which separated from one another 1500-1600 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.157.166 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I never "dictated my personal opinion"; I said as far as I know. All I have to go on is personal experience with other Turkic languages. If you can provide a source verifying mutual intelligibility, these languages can be added to the article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Xhosa and Zulu

What to these languages have in common? I'm considering expanding the list but with more African languages. Thanks. Kanzler31 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is much mutual intelligibility between Xhosa and Zulu. They say the difference between the African languages in South Africa is much similar to the languages of Europe, such as between German/French etc. In South Africa there are two language groups:

The Nguni language:

• Zulu
• Xhosa
• Swazi
• Southern Ndebele

And the Sotho-Tswana languages

• Tswana
• S. Sotho
• N. Sotho

Even though Xhosa and Zulu are in the same family, if we simply compare the word "Republic of South Africa", it comes to be iRiphabhuliki yaseNingizimu Afrika in Zulu and iRiphabliki yomZantsi Afrika. Although this is a bad example, I believe Xhosa and Zulu are too far apart. However there are two mutual intelligbilities I am wanting to know, and that is between Zulu and Swazi, and between Norther Sotho and Southern Sotho. I have heard at some points in time that they have been mutual intelligble, all I need now is a source? :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just to further add: The Nguni people are also separated into Northern Nguni people and Southern Nguni people. Xhosa are Southern, while Swazi and Zulu are northern. Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I found this source, which states that SeSotho (Southern Sotho), SeTswana (Tswana) and SePedi (Northern Sotho) are mutually intelliglbe. Could we maybe add this? Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like some samples of these languages to check if they actually are Mutually intelligible.

I found some phrases/words with can go together:

• Free State
• Fuleyistata (swazi)
• IFleyistata (zulu)
• Freyistata (xhosa)
• Freistata (southern sotho)

• Capital City
• Inhlokodolobha (swazi)
• Isiqongo (zulu)
• iKhapitali (xhosa)
• Motsemoholo (southern sotho)
• Musanda (venda)

There is definitley no correlation between Nguni languages and Sotho-Tswana languages, but it's the matter of inside these language groups where there can be some mutual intelligbility. Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Mutually intelligible languages in ancient times.

I will try to find sources to expand this section. Here are some possible examples:

• Norn and Faroese (living) (written)
• Middle English and Middle Dutch
• Phoenician and Biblical Hebrew

Kanzler31 (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Slovene?

I'm wondering how Slovene differs from it's Serbo-Croatian cousins. As a native speaker of Spanish, I can read Portuguese and Galician flawlessly and read much Italian and Catalan fairly well. And for the Slavic languages, it seems that speakers of the Serbo-Croatian languages can generally read each other's languages well, but nobody seems to understand Slovene. Can anyone answer why Slovene is so different from it's Serbo-Croatian cousins? Can a Serb, Croat, Bosnian or Slovene have a say? --Kanzler31 (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are (structurally) one and the same language, even though they would have us believe otherwise. The differences between them are marginal (cf. American and British English). Slovene, however, is a separate language. As the written forms of closely related languages often have a higher level of mutual intelligibility than their spoken counterparts (as you've illustrated, I can't say anything about written Slovene and written Serbo-Croatian. --JorisvS (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How about Slovene and Slovakian? Just a quiery? Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The name. Slovene is South Slavic, Slovak West Slavic. --JorisvS (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I have heard, many Slavs consider Slovene the most difficult language to learn (possibly next to Bulgarian, due to Bulgarian's phonology) although in the previous discussion archives a Serb commented and said it only took him 30 minutes to learn written Slovene. Any other comments? BTW, I extremely doubt any Slovakian is able to understand Slovene without major troubles.

This is most probably correct. I - as a Czech - find Slovenian as the most difficult Slavic language for me to understand. It may not be so difficult for Serbs, but it is really very difficult for other Slavs. When reading Slovenian, I can understand some passages easily, but others look like words from some strange non-Indoeuropean language. Centrum99 (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Slovene is highly understandable for most speakers of northern Croatian (kajkavian) dialect (spoken by about 31% of population of Croatia). Otherwise, for most of other speakers of Serbo-Croatian it's not simple at all. Slovenians, on the other hand, may have more contact with Serbo-Croatian then vice versa (through popular culture, vacations in Croatia etc.), but many don't understand it, especially younger people who went to school after Yugoslavia broke up, so they didn't have to learn it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.55.50 (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Norweigen"

Can we make sure about Norweigen as either being Bokmal or Nynorsk? I heard that Bokmal is very closely related to Danish while Nynorsk was an attempt to create a new norweigen language different from Danish. Please can someone else confirm this and add to the list "Bokmal" either completely or in brackets? Bezuidenhout (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It is correct that Norwegian Bokmål is mutually intelligible with Danish whereas Nynorsk is slightly more difficult for a Dane to understand and may only qualify for a partial mutual intelligibility. However, to my knowledge a Norwegian who speaks mostly in Nynorks won't have any more trouble understanding Danish than a Norwegian who speaks mainly Bokmål-esque (I am aware that you can't exactly speak Bokmål but some dialects are more like it than others) as all Norwegians master most dialects and both written forms, naturally. So it really only goes the one way. The reason for this is, as you mentioned, that Bokmål essentially is a sort of Dano-norwegian that existed due to the Danish domination of Norway and Nynorsk was an attempt to make Norwegian more dinstinguished and make the spelling fit the phonetics of the language better.

Polish-Ukrainian-Belarusian?

I read somewhere, not sure where, that Ukrainian and Polish have 72% similar vocabulary, while Ukrainian and Russian have only 60% similar vocabulary. It also stated that Ukrainian and Belarusian have 85% similar vocabulary. Now I, being Ukrainian, understand over half of what i hear in Polish. It should also be noted that Ukrainian and Belarusian (previously known as one language: Ruthenian) were heavily influenced by Polish. So my question is, are these three languages (Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian) mutually intelligble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.104.180.211 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not mutual intelligible. Only Ukrainian and Belorussian are mainly mutual intelligible. Similarity of the vocabulary of Polish/Ukrainian/Belorussian languages primarily is due to their common root (as all Slavs) and neighborhood, and not the "heavily" influence one by another. This is all politics. In the same article stated both of Mutual Intelligibility of Ukrainian and Russian and Ukrainian and Polish. But then Russian and Polish must be Mutual Intelligible too! And true is that both poles and russians DO NOT UNDERSTAND the Ukrainian without learning it. А якщо ти українець, то я скажу тобі українською. Взаємнозрозумілі - це коли без всякої підготовки дві людини носія двох мов садовлять побалакати, то вони без проблем один одного зрозуміють. Ані поляк який ніколи не чув української мови, ані росіянин, не зрозуміють мову бабусі ані з Тернопільської області, ані з глибокого поліського села. Яка в дідька взаємозрозумілість? Її тут оцінюють по тому що мовляв українці і росіяни "недавно" розділились, українці балакають на суміші укр. і рос. мов. і таке інше. Але ж це чисте політиканство. Що значить "недавно", хто це виміряв що вони взагалі розділились, і врешіт решт мова йде про порівняння мов на предмет взаємозрозумілости чи суржику, який утворився як наслдіок асиміляції? А якже з урахуванням факту шо всі українці і білоруси вчили і вчать росмову, а за Польщі польску? Це оцінка взаємозрозумілости мов чи мовних політик і ситуацій? Чи цитувальники брітанських вчоних не розрізняють одне від іншого? Все це дуже "науково". Як і все що повязано з цим питанням. Що значить хевілі інфлуенсед? Тобто ти хочеш сказати, шо вся схожість української і польської обумовлена впливами останньої? Це ж маячня рівня імперських шовіністів. Дві сусідні словянські мови просто і не могли не бути схожими. Невже ми запозичили в поляків спільнословянські слова? Реальний пласт польських запозичень абсолютно не грає ролі в розглянутому питанні. Бо він перекривається значно вагомішим спорідненням. Просто дивно, що румини не приповзли зі своєю мячнею. Агов, ми і звами mutual intelligible?... 92.112.156.191 (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Яфігєю

What is the reason for the above emotional response? Yes, I would say they are mutually intelligible - I'm Polish, and I can easily watch both Belorussian and Ukrainian television and follow along. Truth be told - yes, I studied <a little Russian> and maybe because of that, some missing vocabulary is filled in - but that's all.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.88.187 (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As a native Russian I could understand perfecty that emotional and heavily politicized responce written in Ukrainian (which had even some stances mentioning "imperial chauvinism"). It reminded me the reaction of West-Ukrainian nationalists when someone tells them that Russian and Ukrainian are truly very closely related to each other and have common roots. Somehow they feel a threat in this purely linguistic fact to their "незалежнiсть" (i.e. independence), some of them are in a phase of denial and want to exaggerate their "difference from Russians" and absence of everything in common. The same phenomenon can be observed in case of Serbians/Bosnians/Croatians/Montenegrins who will all try to convince us that they all speak "fundamentally" different languages while in fact we are simply having a bunch of dialects. This is all just politics!Dilas25 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Many Russian speakers claim to be able to understand a south slavic language, Bulgarian . I have noticed that there are many lexical similarities between the two, maybe because of Church Slavonic borrowings. Linguists often seem to dodge the issue of mutual intelligibility across branches; in another section Spanish vs Itallian, users who speak Spanish an Ibero-Romance Language, are claiming to be able to understand Itallian, an Italo-Western Romance Language while at the same time speakers of another Ibero-Romance Language Porteguese, are claiming to not understand Spanish! A similar thing is happening here, where Ukrainians are claiming that Russian and Ukrainian are not mutually intelligible, but a Polish speaker, Polish being a Western Slavic Language, is claiming to be able to understand Ukrainian, an Eastern Slavic language. Is it possible that some languages within a branch are less mutually intelligible to members of their own branch, but are mutually intelligible with some languages of different branches due to lexical borrowings, or more similar Phonology (many Ukrainians use [w] whereas Russians and Bulgarians use [v] (see Bulgarian Language and Russian Language))? Brianc26 (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC) The Spanish vs Itallian section also has places where "knowledgeable users" delete sources which say that Spanish and Itallian are mutually intelligible! Brianc26 (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

English and Norfuk

As a Native English speaker I literally have no trouble reading Norfuk texts. I really think that this should be added to the list. Scottiessoulja (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems credible (I tried reading http://pih.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfuk), but we need a reliable source before we can add it to the article. There is longstanding agreement at this article not to add examples to the list based only on anecdotal/personal evidence. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

German and some others

The article says that German is (albeit partially) mutually intelligible with Dutch. Being a German I wouldn't have dared to suggest that, though the similarity is, of course, clear and I think we understand written Dutch if it isn't too difficult and not too much of it at a time. But be that as it may, it is way easier to understand Luxembourgish or Low German than Dutch, the latter being a different language than German (just as the Langue d'oc is different from French). At least if you know a dialect of German, not necessarily closely related, since Standard German is somewhat remote from the developped language anywhere. (I also doubt the oral intelligibility of Schwyzerdytsch for Germans.) (That is not a source but a suggestion.) --91.34.228.200 (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I heard that the dialects of people living close to the border are sufficiently close to Dutch so that they understand it well. Of course one may then ask if they can really be considered as dialects of standard German, rather than Low German, and one can also suspect that the exposure to Dutch plays a role. Hans Adler 14:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Being a native Dutch I wouldn't have 'suggested' it either, so I critically looked in the source and found that it actually said something like 'mutually intelligible to some extent', so unless you happen to know a reliable source that specifically says that this is not the case, I'm afraid we're stuck with it. Actually, I'd say the best thing would be to have the intelligibility quantified, but I don't expect there to be many studies like this at our disposal. Also, do note that Luxemburgish/Moselle Franconian, Low German, the Alemannic Germans and Austro-Bavarian are actually divergent enough to be considered distinct languages. As with German-Dutch, there will, of course (since we're dealing with a big dialect continuum), be transitional varieties that could have higher levels of intelligibility with varieties they bridge. --JorisvS (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's indeed incorrect. If you do a google book search for Dutch German mutually unintelligible or intelligible you will find dozens that clearly state the two languages aren't mutual intelligible with each other (except in the border area perhaps). We could add this, but it would be the first in the list to expand on this, so I suggest to remove it from the list. Machinarium (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This may be another example of a-symmetric. German vs. Dutch. Several German people I have talked to told me that Dutch sounds like a "German dialect" to them, but "one they couldn't understand". The asymmetry, however, may stem from the fact that Germany is a much bigger country than the Netherlands and that a lot of people in the Netherlands take (or even HAVE to take) German in school. While that is not the same the other way around. Most Dutch people, in my experience, can understand German to some degree, maybe even understand it fluently, because of TV and school and such. The Netherlands is a tiny country. "We" have to learn English, German, French, because there is no way most of the people from those much bigger countries are going to learn Dutch. That may be to "our" advantage, too, though. In my years in highschool, at one point or another, I took 6 languages. Not very likely that someone in a school in Germany, France, Britain, Spain, Italy, and so on, would do the same... 68.200.97.152 (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

At a German conversation table (I am a native speaker of English who has studied German in college)I was able to somewhat understand Dutch (there are some native Dutch speakers who know German and go to our table). That is probably not news to anyone, but the strangest thing was that a Dutch speaker claimed to partially be able to understand the North Germanic languages... I have found very little research into inteligibility across branches of the Germanic family, it would make some sense however. The north Germanic languages, like Dutch and the low Germanic languages, did not go through the high German consonant shift. Consider Ny Norsk: Eg heter Amy vs Dutch: Ik heet Amy. (Forgive me if the verb conjugations are off, I only know English, German, Russian, and a little bit of Swedish) Is it possible that there is not just partial mutual intelligibility between West Germanic languages, but also North? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianc26 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Brianc26 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if this is a stupid question but what about German and Swiss German? While they are both written the same, they seem to be two separate languages when spoken, rather than different dialects. According to my own research, a German would not necessarily by able to understand a Swiss in their version of the language and it takes education in standard German for a Swiss to understand Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.194.177.7 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Italian and Spanish

I've only been studying Spanish for 2 months and I've tried talking to an Italian person in chat and we understood each other quite well. I've also heard similar experiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.10 (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's true that there are similarities, especially in writing and when two people are able to cooperate with one another. But they are not mutually intelligible. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag i noticed you removed my edit regarding mutual intelligibility between spanish and italian - you arbitrarily decided that the sources are not reliable; also you claim that a discussion in the talk page concluded they are not mutually intelligible (m.i.) - well, that is not true since, from what i read, most readers agree they are m.i. ; also i checked your user page, where you state you barely know spanish and do not know italian - i wonder then how could you be so sure about your claims; my mother language is italian and i've lived in central america for about one year, and i assure you that the two languages are at least partially m.i. ; with little cooperation both parts can develop a simple conversation on most topics, so i strongly disagree with your edits and i am going to revert them.--Itemirus^{Message me!} 07:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said "a discussion in the talk page concluded they are not mutually intelligible", I said this blog post is not a reliable source and it has been removed from the article before, by editors other than me. I didn't "arbitrarily" decide the blog post isn't a reliable source; please review Wikipedia's guidelines regarding reliable sources.

The fact that you are a native speaker of Italian, or that I am not, does not matter, because Wikipedia does not accept personal experience as a source for article content. You can only add content that's supported by a reliable source, not by your personal opinions.

Please refrain from edit warring, and limit your contributions to this discussion until a consensus is reached. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states that once a disagreement has arisen over article content, you shouldn't just keep on restoring your disputed edit, but should wait until a consensus is reached before continuing to edit. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I only just now noticed that your addition included two sources, not one. I have some comments about both of them.

• http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/letchfoa/comparison/comparison.htm Again, this is a personal website, not a reliable source. Furthermore, from what I can tell, it never explicitly argues that the two languages are mutually intelligible; it's just a long list of various similarities and differences between the two languages.
• http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/mutual-intelligibility-in-the-romance-languages/ This is a personal blog, not a reliable source, like I said. Furthermore, it only contains one line that can be remotely construed as arguing that Spanish and Italian are mutually intelligible:

  What is interesting is that everyone accepts that Spanish, Portuguese and Italian are separate languages, despite 54% intelligibility for Spanish and Portuguese and even higher for Spanish and Italian.

  The author of the blog post does not indicate where any of these numbers came from. The rest of the post is comparing different languages (the only academic paper he cites is one comparing Spanish and Portuguese), or only talking about lexical similarity (which is not the same thing as mutual intelligibility).

I am not arguing that there is absolutely no degree of mutual intelligibility between the languages. I am just pointing out that you have not provided acceptable sources to add these languages to the list in any way. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We could start a debate as to where a strict application of the reliable sources rule is to be applied and where common sense is a more reasonable approach , but this would result in a lengthy and off-topic discussion. I just think sometimes a rigid application of some rules is doing more harm than good as it results in stripping an article of a contribution which most people knowledgeable about the subject matter would consider agreeable even without citing sources. I am here listing some sources that support my point of view regarding italian/spanish intelligibility - let's see if the community considers them reliable on the premise that Wikipedia policies state that "the reliability of a source depends on context." It seems that no one has already seriously delved into the matter; in fact most of these links point to amateur linguists blogs and forum discussions, nonetheless I would consider them a dependable source.

I don't understand why Italian and Spanish are not listed as mutually intelligible. As a native Spanish speaker I can say that I can partially understand Italian with no problem, even more than Portuguese. Calin99 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.yearlyglot.com/2010/12/italian-and-spanish-compared/
• http://lapipetua.com/?p=22
• http://mypage.iu.edu/~shetter/miniatures/mutual.htm
• http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1323495

--Itemirus^{Message me!} 15:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've twice come across Italian speakers who did not speak English (one of them a Russian), and I used Spanish with them to decent effect. But I at least partially agree about sourcing: although the politics of Spanish vs. Italian are probably just about nonexistent, that is not true for other languages, where claims of mutual intelligibility or lack thereof are motivated by national identity rather than actual comprehension. Also, sources saying things like "they are 50% intelligible" doesn't really tell us much: does that mean you can hold a conversation or not? How about after spending a couple days together? If we're going to accept amateur sources, they should discuss the issue in enough depth that we can actually draw a conclusion from it, and not be politically motivated. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Arabic and ivrit?

Is there any degree of mutual understanding of spoken text among jews (either liturgical hebrew and ivrit) and arabs (say saudi arabs), both being semitic languages? 87.97.98.49 (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) No. I am an Arabic speaker and Hebrew isn't understandable to me, even though many, if not most, words are very similar, and sentence structures are also similar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM6lzHE4DXs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.202.182.226 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Danish and Norwegian

In the article it says that Danish and Norwegian are only partially mutually intelligible. It should be noted that Danish and Norwegian are fully mutually intelligible when Norwegian is written in Bokmål - it is simply not possible to write anything in Bokmål that a Dane wouldn't fully understand - and vice versa - apart from a few faux amis. However, Spoken Norwegian and spoken Danish are not very similar and therefore only partially mutually intelligible. I therefore suggest that it is noted in the article that there is a great difference between spoken and written in terms of intelligibility.

Danish and Swedish

According to the "reliable sources" policy should we consider reference nr 6 reliable? Bø, I (1976). "Ungdom od nabolad. En undersøkelse av skolens og fjernsynets betydning for nabrospråksforstålen.". Rogalandsforskning // Google translates that as "Young od nabolad. A survey of the school and the importance of television for nabrospråksforstålen." - Shall we delete the entry? --Itemirus^{Message me!} 17:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It actually translates to: "Youth and neighboring countries. A study/survey of the school's and the television's significance in terms of language understanding between the neighboring countries (Scandinavian countries)." It seems perfectly legitimate/reliable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.145.177.104 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok - is there an ISBN? Searching on Google for the title of the book yields no results except for those that link to this Wikipedia article. Also, the author is totally unknown. Rjanag, do you consider this source perfectly legitimate and reliable as well??--Itemirus^{Message me!} 07:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be published in a journal, which is all I can say about it. Since I don't read Norwegian, I'm not in a position to comment on it.

Nor am I interested in picking fights with editors who are just out to make a point. I know what you're trying to do here. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: even if the reference is bad, the presence of a bad reference somewhere else doesn't give you the right to add your own bad references. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing personal Rjanag, i have never put up fights with anyone here and i will not begin now - also i acknowledge you are a more expert editor than me - yet i wonder what is the use of listing a reference if no one (not only you) is in a position to comment on it since it either does not exist or it is impossible to retrieve - i might as well list a misleading reference such as Studio statistico sull'intelligibilità della lingua spagnola parlata dai turisti in visita a Roma (Statistical report over the intelligibility of the spanish language as spoken by tourists visiting Rome) , G.F. Rossi, 1973 - page 46 and claim it is reliable and legitimate; now go prove it is not. It is evident that the source i am challenging is not only questionable, but totally unverifiable since it is not retrievable, besides lacking a proper translation into english. I will open a discussion at WP:RSN - Much ado about nothing? Probably, but still...--Itemirus^{Message me!} 17:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

After 30 seconds on Google I found this speech transcription (http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kd/aktuelt/taler_artikler/politisk_ledelse/statssekretar-lisbet-rugtvedt/2007/nasjonal-oppfolging-av-den-nordiske-spra.html?id=487159) on the Norwegian government's official website mentioning the study from 1976. So there's a reference. However, there are hundreds of studies on this topic so finding a newer study in English that can be used as a reference for the Danish-Swedish partial mutual intelligibility should not be a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.145.177.104 (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Danish and Swedish are partially intelligible is already in the article with a good source. --JorisvS (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Measurement

How is mutual intelligibility measured systematically? -- Beland (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There aren't formal, agreed-upon methods, although the article and the discussions above cite some papers which discuss this. Lexical similarity is measured systematically, although mutual intelligibility consists of more than just lexical similarity. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"separate languages only for political reasons"

this remark stands for "Serbo-Croatian" language. how come that other mutually intelligible languages dont have seuch remark? Norwegian language is also called that way because of political reasons. (just an example).

it should be removed, because it is obvious. if the languages really are mutual intelligible, right?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.70.51 (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Norwegian, there is at least a dialectical difference. It's a matter of whether you want to call s.t. a dialect or a language. Same for Russian and Belarussian. There would be some difference even without standardization, and the standards were based on different varieties. But SCB are all based on the same dialect. It's really an exceptional case. It would be as if American English were based on the same dialect of London English as RP, but spelled some words differently, used 'billion' for 'milliard' and 'baby carriage' for 'pram', etc., and therefore claimed to be a different language. — kwami (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that Norwegian, etc. are down as only partially mutually intelligible - I seem to recall reading somewhere that younger generations don't find them mutually intelligible, although I can't cite a source off the top of my head.Allens (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Different dialects of Norwegian are not fully intelligible with each other. I'm not sure if the international differences are really of a different order than the intra-national differences, except perhaps for the leveling effect of the national standard. — kwami (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Psycho-cognitive traits?

What in the world is this meaning? (Linguistic/verbal) intelligence? If so, please state it (and link appropriately). Allens (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

UCLA source

I'm not so sure about that source. I've skim-read a few other pages and it's full of little errors (like stating there are 3 Basque languages and that Alvan (rather than Alavan) is a dialect - which it may have been except it's been dead for so long that we have not data really) and a bloomer about Chinese writing. Thoughts? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Romanian / Moldovan

needs adding 82.46.109.233 (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source needs citing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

those two are actually considered the same language nowadays... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Maximum mutual intelligibility with Latin?

I am curious as to whether there is any data as to what language is maximally compatible with each of the various varieties (in terms of times and, for the spoken forms, pronunciations) of Latin. A modern-day test case might be the interaction between Vatican City and (the rest of) Italy, for those in the Vatican who didn't learn Italian before coming there, but do know Latin fluently. IIRC, Sardinian is sometimes considered the closest to Latin in at least some regards? Thanks! Allens (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Intercomprehension

Please, check the voice in the subject, because maybe this one and Mutual intelligibility are redundant. --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 23:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)