Talk:Diasystem/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why Remove?

"Within English, we are seeing the same thing happening as America increasingly moves away from standard English to form its own standard, which might possibly be considered a separate language at some point in the future."
User:Darrien removed this paragraph, calling it dubious. It seems like a reasonable explanation to me, and gives english speakers a decent example. I think the sentence should go back, although without the speculation in the second half. Maybe add a sentence like "they have not yet diverged enough to consider them a diasystem. - Key45 04:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed it for several reasons. There is no standard version of English; the specultation was just that, speculation; wikipedia policy [1] says that wikipedia is not a vehicle for primary research; and finally, there were obvious anti-American overtones to it, violating the NPOV rule.
Darrien 05:04, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Genetic language

I think a definition of the term "(one single) genetic language" is necessary here, because the link doesn't lead to an explanation. The article on "language" only mentions genetic classification of languages, but not "genetic language" per se. --85.187.44.128 13:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dari

Shouldn't Dari (Afghanistan) be added here to Tajik-Persian part? I'm not an expert in Persian linguistics, expert opinion would be appreciated. --Amir E. Aharoni 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I have heard, standard Dari and standard Farsi are pretty much the same. --Node 08:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What about this?

Why does the "Dano-Norwegian" diasystem not contain Swedish? I know that Swedish speakers find it difficult to understand Danish, but they do understand Norwegian, and are also able to read Danish. Also what about the Western Slavic languages, i.e. Czech, Slovak, Polish. I have heard from Poles that Ukranian and Polish are also mutually understandable at a certain level. As for third the article should mention Finnish and Estonian as a diasystem, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.162.52 (talkcontribs) , 16:16 12 June 2006

Diasystem names

We should change same names here, that are compromised.
See my message to user Tar-Elenion [2]. Kubura 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


We should replace "Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian" with "Central South Slavic". See this link [3]. Kubura 08:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Romanian-Moldova

I removed Romanian-Moldovan, because their standard forms are identical, and a diasystem is defined as a language with more standards. --Danutz

Use of the word "diasystem"

There are several Wikipedia entries relating to Cumbria that seem to use the word "diasystem" in a different way from what is suggested in this article. The ones I've found are Shap, Kendal, Keswick, Appleby-in-Westmorland, Carlisle, Penrith. Is that usage correct (I suspect not) or can anyone suggest an alternative? Northernhenge (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now replaced it with variant. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion?

This article seems to define the term "pluricentric language" more than it defines "diasystem" as such (in its original technical linguistic meaning). AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

For diasystem in Linguistics, see http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/4/4-1014.html -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, the Diaphone_(linguistics) article should be coordinated, because the terms are related. AnonMoos (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

what despite?

Other possible differences between languages include vocabulary, such as Occitan being affected by French and Catalan by Spanish words, and writing systems, such as Hindi in Devanagari and Urdu in the Arabic script, despite being mutually intelligible.

One understands what's meant here but the sentence's grammatic structure is a head-scratcher: the subject of being intelligible appears to be differences! —Tamfang (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Scandinavian

Is someone confusing diasystem with dialect continuum? Danish and Swedish are not alternate standard forms of Norwegian, are they? —Tamfang (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the difference between them? Both articles are undersourced and seem to use the same examples... BalkanFever 05:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Would Faroese and Icelandic be considered a candidate for this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.245.18 (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yiddish and German

Do Yiddish and German really form a diasystem? From the Yiddish language article:

``Yiddish (ייִדיש yidish or אידיש idish, literally "Jewish") is a High German language of Ashkenazi Jewish origin, spoken throughout the world. It developed as a fusion of German dialects with Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavic languages and traces of Romance languages.´´ panglossa (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
My impression is that the word diasystem is used by different authors in different ways. So... whatever. --Jotamar (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)