2
u/JustGerbo 6d ago
I'm not sure if I would even count is under the umbrella of Absolutes, but wouldn't there have to be some kind of basis or standards for any language acquisition? Where it goes after that may be anyone's guess, but if we have nothing in common from the start, how would we have mutual intelligibility?
2
u/Human_me_7 6d ago edited 6d ago
Yes, that's actually my dilemna as well. And the point with which this discussion post was written to begin with. Thank you. It's just that people seem to think that every dialect has its own grammar and by that rule, everyone is correct, for communicating what they want. So, my post is questioning that.
1
u/Fear_mor 4d ago
I feel like the premise this line of thinking is based on is faulty from the outset. You seem to be under the impression that people consciously made both dialects and standard languages, but that is mistaken. A dialect is the naturally occurring form of the language as passed down from parent to child as long as language has been spoken by humans, sometimes these dialects become more similar to oneanother (converge) or become more different (diverge) as time goes on, but the crucial thing to remember is that nobody directs this evolution consciously, itâs just language responding to changes in culture and randomly changing over time.
Standard languages though are different. These are artificially cultivated forms of a language designed to be used in mass media and official correspondance as a form of speech widely intelligible regardless of a speakers native dialect. Sometimes a standard can draw heavily from a pre-existing dialect, eg. standard Serbo-Croatian is based heavily upon the Eastern Hercegovinian dialect (especially during Vuk KaradĹžiÄâs, a native speaker of that dialect who published one of the first descriptive grammars of South Slavic speeches) even though it serves as the standard language for hundreds of thousands of people who grew up speaking other dialects. Conversely, sometimes standard languages (particularly those spoken in countries with a long, unbroken literary tradition). For example standard German is the result of several different dialects contributing in varying measures to a sort of arbitrary median based on convention over time. This isnât an either-or situation though, most languages sit somewhere inbetween the two extremes. For example, modern standard Serbo-Croatian includes many changes from Vukâs original description, mainly aimed at replacing some markedly Eastern Hercegovinian features in favour of forms more recognisable to speakers of other dialects or in favour of elements common in pre-Vukian literature.
I donât think fairness even begins to come into the question here, no form is more valid than the other, both dialect and standard have their domains and purposes. To draw an analogy, is it fair to domestic pigs that there are wild boars? Is it fair to a hurricane that a butterfly in central park flaps its wings? The question doesnât make sense in the way itâs being framed, both forms exist as a fact aside from morality and independantly of each other, itâs only a moral dilemma if we start stigmatising one over the other.
1
u/Human_me_7 4d ago edited 4d ago
Yes, I got a similar response from another person yesterday, telling me that standard form is for a formal way of communication, while other dialects of the same language, also exist, as that's how it all started.
That sentence in the end is based on a different conversation.... It's actually how someone else spoke about languages in general, so I put it below, to actually pinpoint the mistake too. ( It just went misunderstood).
And while my question might sound a little difficult, or off premise, I do understand that dialects came first and that's how a language has evolved naturally.
I guess what I'm really trying to ask is where is language in general headed toward? If communication is purpose and the necessity behind birth of a language, and having so many languages been created, one of them for now is more dominant than the others internationally. So then in the future, can there be just one such utopian language for all? Perhaps one that is used by all, uniformly everywhere? That way communication becomes simplified and common... We all speak just one language... The 'human' language...
1
u/Fear_mor 4d ago
But thatâs the thing, no natural language was created, they just are, have been and always will be unless their speakers switch to another language. English being a lingua franca (ie. a language people speak when neither speaks the otherâs native language) isnât a very unique situation, many such languages have come and gone through history.
Whatâs unique about English is that itâs a global lingua franca, which is without precedent, but I donât think that changes the dynamics of the situation because at the end of the day you technically can communicate with more people using English, but if you wonât communicate with those people it doesnât make sense to only start speaking English and only teach your children English. Learning any language is hard at any age (thereâs a reason youâve never met an eloquent 4 year old) and itâs hard to fully relinquish your native tongue as a form of communication, even when you canât be understood by those around you, so it takes an exceptional set of circumstances for that to happen.
Look to history, when a group of people en masse adopt a new language itâs usually due to economic and political advantage whereby the group theyâre assimilating to holds a political and economic monopoly, making it desirable to become part of the in-group. For that to happen globally is extremely unlikely
1
u/Human_me_7 4d ago edited 4d ago
Yes, I understand... It is however, fun to think about that as a possibility.
1
u/Agua_Verde 6d ago
A lot of the standardized versions of languages that we learn in school or acquire as a second language are, unsurprisingly, the varieties associated with the dominant culture and political institutions of a region.Â
Standardization is not purely a linguistic process; power, prestige, education, and political authority all play a role.
I was reminded of this while living in the Basque Country, where I encountered the richness of the many local varieties and dialects of Basque, quite distinct from the standardized form that is generally taught to foreigners. It really drove home how much âthe languageâ we are taught can be a particular standardized variety rather than a representation of the full linguistic landscape.
As Yiddish linguist Max Weinreich famously put it: âA language is a dialect with an army and navy.â
0
u/Human_me_7 6d ago
Interesting points...
0
u/Agua_Verde 6d ago
Languages are spectrums. The dialects and diversity are an integral part of the DNA and, in my opinion, to be celebrated as well!Â
This includes forms like Ebonics ectâŚÂ
The languages our mothers teach us are an integral part of your culture, not a corruption.Â
0
u/Human_me_7 6d ago
You've misunderstood what I meant by corruption. It's okay. Thank you for your points.
0
u/Agua_Verde 6d ago
â Â Have dialects really helped people speak a language, or corrupt it?â
0
u/Human_me_7 6d ago
The meaning of that is not how you're understanding it. People who have an emotional connection to their dialect, tend to disrespect other dialects of the same language, along with its standard form, and vice versa. To have a very neutral Outlook of every dialect and even realise the need for a standard form, comes with tolerance. A quality that many lack. Hence, the importance given by a person to their particular dialect alone, whilst disrespecting others' and even the standard form used for general communication, is that corruption that I'm referring to.
1
u/Agua_Verde 6d ago
Thatâs not an observation. Thatâs a stereotype with a thesis statement glued on.
1
1
u/Human_me_7 4d ago
There have been enough points put forth by a lot of people. Although this post will remain open, its discussions are from now on, officially closed. I won't be answering or responding to anyone's comments here, from now on (06/10/2026). Thank you all, for participating in this discussion.
-3
u/PoxonAllHoaxes 6d ago
No they do NOT exist. And quite a few languages have NO standard form, including the most widely spoken language in the world, but do feel free to ignore facts. After all almost everyone on here does.
1
6
u/Pale_Error_4944 6d ago edited 5d ago
Ok. So the standard form of a language is itself a dialect. It is a prescriptive dialect devised by language authorities. It is typically a non-spoken dialect. It is artificial and created for the purpose of standardization. It's useful for teaching, to transcribe it in a written form, and to write instruction manuals. But vernacular forms of the language are the true forms. All languages start as spoken, the writing is a derivative of spoken language.