Is it true the standardization of languages is an artificial

>>2208838
>Is it true the standardization of languages is an artificial 19th century construction rooted in nationalism
To a large extent, yes for spoken languages, but literary (written) standards definitely did exist before
>barely mutually intelligible
not really

That is sort of what happened with the German language, at least.

>>2208838
stop posting pictures of a pondering nigger every time you start a thread

>>2208838
Standardization of language was definitely a nationalist project, but it wouldn't be possible if it wasn't done for dialects of the same base language.

>>2208838
Standardi-S-ation is inevitable once you reach a critical mass of connectivity. It's ok if some muppet from Cornwall speaks and writes completely differently from some wanker Dublin, but when they start interacting with each other regularly, and a whole load other people too, one requires a base standard of language in order to convey meaning. Slang persists, but the underlying rules become increasingly necessary.

> the standardization of languages is an artificial 19th century construction rooted in nationalism

This is only particularly prominent in Italy. Other ones like English just had a bunch of nerds sitting in Oxford being autists.

>>2208869
Save for Switzerland and Austria, they still talk local idioms. Germany has lost most of its language diversity, but more likely due to unified writing system and national tv and radio.

File: sadas.png (317KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1366x768px

>>2208838
This is a map that shows how, up to nowadays, different areas of Switzerland refer to the core of an apple (the part you don't eat), in different regions
I am a swis from the italian speaking part, cannot absolutely understand a single word of my own local dialect when old people speak it, and can recognise dialects from at least 10 different regions of Italy
This is a stupid question only a New Worlder would actually pose

File: sdasdasd.jpg (415KB, 1500x1510px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 1500x1510px

>>2208922
>>2208838
wrong image fug

language standardization is about as artificial as orange juice...yeah it didn't arise organically but it still depends on a "natural" base to exist...that natural base being that the pre standardized versions of say German were still fundamentally German

>>2208924
Bütschgi master race reporting in, Güürbsi is for plebs!

>>2208838
Is it true the standardization of languages is an artificial 19th century construction rooted in nationalism.

Generally.

On the other hand look at Yugoslavia.
Everyone suddnely has their own (((((((language)))))))

>>2208851
>but literary (written) standards definitely did exist before
That didn't become relevant in tell standardized spelling late in human history.

>>2208940
In Yugoslavia things went about the same as, say, Germany or Italy in the 19th century. Everyone published lots of books arguing about how to best standardize the language, then met up and agreed on how they would do it in 1850 (the Vienna Literary Agreement). And it all worked pretty well, the Eastern Herzegovinian Dialect became the basis of the standardized language across Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, etc. and the old dialects started dying out.

All the bullshit about separate """""languages""""" really only took off in the mid-20th century. But they all come from the same 19th-century standardization project, and are all based on the same dialect.

Erosion of dialects happened earlier with the printing press. Region with a strong printing industry had a monopoly on the dialect they went with. That being said erosion wasn't removal, just that is what started the trend for standardization.

>>2208922
That is a map of yyrop, not Switzerland

>>2208944
>That didn't become relevant in tell standardized spelling late in human history.
In English, yes. But not in all other languages. For example, Middle Egyptian was being used as the literary standard of ancient Egypt long after everyone had stopped speaking like that. Old Church Slavonic was used as a standard written language by all Slavs, even though it was based on a South Slavic dialect of Late Proto-Slavic. And so on.

>>2208966
I thought this board was smart
>>2208922
>>2208924

Most of these are right but I think France is an exception to that.
There was a desire to unify the language since the 11 century.

It was even one of the motive behind the crusade agaisnt the Cathars.

>>2208873
Not cool anon she's a Ghostbuster now.

>>2208838
Differ from language to language. It's not like you can understand people from all over your country anyway, in a lot of countries.

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-11 at 10.53.37 AM.png (119KB, 630x696px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 630x696px

>>2208979
desire is not the same thing as execution
see pic related

File: mock7.jpg (108KB, 1198x568px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1198x568px

>>2208974
>I thought this board was smart

>>2208838
Written standards usually have little affect on spoken language.

Dialectal diversity was reduced not by standardization but by the massive migration from the rural countryside to the cities that came with industrialization in the 19th and 20th centuries which caused the dialects to coalesce together.

>>2209022
How come the Swiss kept their diversity when they where one of the earliest industrialized nations on the continent then?

>>2209039
Strong particularism rooted in culture, which is also why we are a confederation and not part of the EU and many other things

t. swiss

Despite the small size, the Netherlands had a very large variety of dialects that still exist today. But the common dialect was more a thing that existed out of necessity to trade with the main national hub of Amsterdam, starting around the 17th century when its influence spread. People began to learn "standard" along with their local dialect. However, the goverment did enforce its citizens to speak "proper" from the 19th century untill the 60s. As in, you were considered an unwashed hillbilly if you spoke anything other than the standard. So it was a mixture of organic synthesis and expectation enforced by the goverment.

>>2208838
My understanding Finland did this too back then. Though they could talk to each other mostly fine as far as im aware, at least usually. Some of them were pretty isolated for a time so could have gone into crazy directions too. Some of them also had holes in more modern words that was also a problem.

Im not that familiar with africa but arent their languages still really scattered? Like you can find multiple dialects of each other and they have no attempt to actually combine.