Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 December 4

= December 4 =

Thinking in one language while speaking another
Imagine you live in a region of a country where a minority language (A) is spoken at home, but people use the national language (B) for most other purposes (work, official communication, writing). Because of the dependence on language B, the speakers of language A gradually begin to speak it slightly differently, using grammar and syntax and vocabulary from language B, which is not used in language A, meaning that the two languages start to become intelligible, even if they weren't before. Is there a word for this phenomenon? - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   00:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems to be happening in my country!--Jondel (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Language convergence Marco polo (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, Dialect levelling is closer to the mark. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't remember the details, but there was a semi-classic paper published in the 1960s or 1970s examining an area near the boundary between Indic and Dravidian languages. The local village Indic and Dravidian dialects spoken in the area showed strong mutual structural convergence, and were quite different from the "standard" written languages based on forms of speech spoken away from the linguistic boundary. AnonMoos (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Had less trouble than I thought I would Googling it; apparently it's "Convergence and Creolization: A Case from the Indo-Dravidian Border" by John J. Gumperz... AnonMoos (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, thanks! I wasn't sure if "dialect levelling" would be correct to talk of a whole distinct language being "levelled". Like English and Scots, which were historically far less intelligible than they are now, but the fact that English influence has made a lot of Scots features archaic now leads to people thinking it's a dialect of English. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   10:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean something like Llanito, which is a mixture of Spanish and English used on Gibraltar? Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, that seems to be almost a pidgin ("almost" in the sense that it doesn't seem to be simplified). I mean something more like the recent evolution of the Silesian language as described here - towards the end of this comment, that "literary Silesian" is becoming archaic, because "people have started to think in Polish and translate literally into Silesian. That's why some grammatical structures are disappearing." - filelake shoe   &#xF0F6;   14:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That was exactly the example I was going to use. By far most younger "Silesian" speakers use Standard Polish as their primary language, and when speaking "Silesian" (usually to their grandparents), actually speak a modified form of standard Polish rather than a Polonized form of Silesian. As you say, they think in Polish, and basically change the pronunciation and throw in a few Silesian words and phrases for flavor. The literary language is essentially dead. There is a small, but determined, movement to preserve the dialect, but at this point it's pretty much a lost cause. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dominus Vobisdu -- in your scenario of a young person talking to grandparents, he or she is what linguists call a Semi-speaker... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That article and the article on Language death linked to in it were very helpful. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Filelakeshoe, while there is some merging in practice, Scots language and Scottish English at least have separate articles. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  18:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ... and Scots was not less intelligible to those of us in Northern England in the past, since Lallans was just a dialect of Northern English, so this is not really an example of convergence, though I agree that Scottish English, like all English dialects, is moving in the direction of standard English.   D b f i r s   20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition to the terms mentioned above I would add "stratum". Gabbe (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the first answer, language convergence, answers the original poster's request best, as it's the most generally applicable term, and includes cases where the languages in question are not dialects of the same language. If anybody wants to read up on it, standard introductions about these kinds of issues are Don Winford (2005), An introduction to contact linguistics; Sarah Thomason (2001), Contact linguistics, or Yaron Matras (2009), Language contact. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Medieval Latin inscription from Belgium
This is a stone commemorating the Perpetual Edict. It looks like "PHS : DEI GRATIA HIS PZ : REX DUX LUXẼMB:". So far, I have "? by the grace of God ? king duke of Luxembourg". Anyone know what those other abbreviations mean? Lesgles (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe PHS would be "Philippus", and HISPZ (with a crossed Z) would be an abbreviation of "Hispaniae"; so "King of Spain and Duke of Luxembourg". Deor (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Philippus Dei Gratia Hispaniarum Rex Dux Luxemburgiae (commemorates the Edict of 1577, although the image description has 1611). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if that is also using the Spanish era, as mentioned in another question recently? It's pretty late for that though, and doesn't quite match. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all. There was a perpetual edict in 1611, which seems to have dealt with judicial reform., but this clearly seems to be the Edict of 1577, which was signed in Marche-en-Famenne by Philip II, who died in 1598. I'll change the description page. Lesgles (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe this redundant: Philippus Dei Gratia Hispaniarum Rex Dux Luxemburgiae : Phillip, by God's Grace, King of Spain,Leader of Luxembourg.--Jondel (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But he was specifically Duke of Luxembourg. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

HIS PZ : is this really Hispaniarum? Hispaniarum (posse vi ve plural)means of the Spanish (lands--plural-- ?).--Jondel (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Latin title of the King of Spain happened to be literally "King of the Spains", ie the parts that were united under Ferdinand and Isabella in the 15th century. ("King of the Spanish" would be "Rex Hispanorum".) The abbreviation in this image could also signify "Hispaniae", but we know the king's title usually used the plural. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Only a guess: King of the Spains = Spain and New Spain. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cf. Tsar of All the Russias. (Not to be confused with Walter Mycroft, who was known as "Czar of the Rushes". )  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was singular: the title from Ivan III to Alexis contained only the formula Всея Руси "all of Russia". In 1654/1655-1721 it was replaced by "the Great, the Little, and the White Russia" (singular also). From Peter I to Nicolas II this also was in turn replaced by Император Всероссийский "All-Russian Emperor". The article should be clarified (supposedly this will be done by me :))--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be in too much of a hurry to "correct" the title. Whatever its Russian original may have been, the expression is very well established in English, judging by these 2 million ghits.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  03:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think "of all the Russias" is the usual, if imprecise, translation of всероссийский, though maybe not of всея руси. The article does need work, so adding more on both Russian and English usages would be good. Note that there's a separate article on Emperor of All Russia, which should maybe be moved to Emperor of all the Russias. Lesgles (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Indies" and the rest of the colonies were a separate part of the title. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially after 1590. Before 1590 the Indies were either omitted or subsumed under "The Spains". Difficult, discussed here (German) or here (Spanish). The Latin and Spanish titles were "Hispaniarum (et Indiarum) Rex" and "Rey de las Españas (y las Indias)". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)