Re: A language by any other name
David Starner <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > if french and spanish were actually dialects of italian, then
> > probably. but they're not, so it's a moot point. all three are
> > distant derivatives of latin, not derivatives of
> > italian. portugese is different enough that it really shouldn't be
> > lumped in with french, spanish, or italian.
> Huh? From what I've read, Italian, Spanish and Portugese are so
> close that you can speak Spanish or Italian to Portugese speakers
> and be understood without much problem.
Sort of, but not really - not without speaking quite slowly. Reading
is a different matter - it's possible to read Spanish if you speak
Italian. Portuguse is a bit more difficult, but still legible.
> A language is just a dialect with an army.
> Why is Spain's Spanish the original "real" version? It's just one of
> a series of dialects deviating from the first Latin dialect spoken
> in Spain that was different enough from Latin to be a distinct
> language. What makes one dialect of medieval Spanish more
> "original", more "real" than the next?
A lot of people in Latin America seem to refer to Spanish as Castillan
- I'm not sure why.
David N. Welton
Free Software: http://people.debian.org/~davidw/
Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/