|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
"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  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)
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. --126.96.36.199 13:39, 26 March 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 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) , 16:16 12 June 2006
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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
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)