Visualising Infinity: The Trouble With Languages : Everything depends on source

» GroundhogDave - Everything depends on source

There are people who can make an excellent argument that the entire German language is really a "dialect" of ancient Sanskrit because of word similarities. It's also feasible that one could argue a link between Persian, Aramaic, and Sanskrit, for the same reason.

The question is what the distinction is. French is a language, according to most. But what is French? Is is the tongue used in France? In Quebec? In Cajun country? In Africa? Which one is French? Who's English is correct? Canadians? Americans? Irish? Scottish? Welsh? British? Speakers of English often assume that English is one tongue, but there are probably more different "dialects" of English than of French. There are at least two different "dialects" of Spanish spoken in Spain. Are we to assume one is Spanish, and the other a "dialect" of Spanish?

Presuming dialects and languages presumes that one is right and the other "wrong". Hitler could have claimed England based on the fact that his belief in his perfect Aryan race involved physical as well as linguistic categories. Hitler's ideal "race" looked a certain way, had a certain style, was an approximate height, had a certain kind of religious belief, they even had a certain familial lineage. And yes, he even believed that they spoke a certain language (or derivation of it). Hitler believed that there were many people who were part of his "master race", which included people in the Americas, people in England, people in Scandinavian countries, and a number of German citizens. (Not all. Some.) He believed these people were descendants of the ancient race of nomads who had travelled through Persia, Greece, India, and Egypt, leaving two primary "gifts" for those to come after them -- the idea of a single monotheistic God, and Hinduism in it's most basic origins.

-- posted by GroundhogDave