How intelligible are Turkish and Azeri? I know they are close enough, but I wonder if it similar to Scottish English vs. American English or farther, more like Spanish vs. Portuguese?

cc @nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

  • my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    They’re not wrong in this case though, Scottish English is the dialect of English spoken in Scotland and the separate Anglic language is known as Scots. The line between the two can be blurry in places, but the terms do specifically refer to the dialect and language respectively.

    Not to be confused with Scots Gaelic, an entirely separate Goidelic language spoken in parts of Scotland.

    • Jojo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m aware, but even there the line between Scots and Scottish English is a pretty blurry distinction. It almost means “Scottish where I can only usually figure out what word that was” more than anything. Serbian and Croatian from my example are even closer than that, very much like Scottish and British or American English, with the main distinction that separates them being just whether it’s written with Latin letters or Cyrillic.

      It’s a bit like if there was no Scots language, and the people in Scotland just still used runes to write but spoke the same language, except with even more old animosity fueled by previous governments.

      • my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make. You’re objectively wrong about “Scottish where I can only usually figure out what word that was”, and the most obvious point against that is that people living here regularly code-switch between Scots and Scottish English and understand both.

        The phrase “naw A’m urnae” is undoubtedly Scots and wouldn’t make grammatical sense in a word-for-word English translation (“no I’m aren’t” or “no I’m are not”), the phrase “dialects used outwith Scotland” is clearly Scottish English. These are very distinctly different, the blurriness I mentioned before is simply from the fact most people speaking Scots also speak Scottish English and code-switch. The fact you seem to be unable to place the line does not mean one does not exist. That’s like claiming blue and green are the same because you can’t identify the exact crossover where blue becomes green.

        Scottish English is the dialect of English spoken in Scotland. Scots is a distinct Anglic language which evolved in Scotland. Being unable to draw the line between them does not make them the same thing, and being able to figure out what a word is definitely doesn’t change what language it’s part of.

        • Jojo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          The point I was trying to make was just that linguistic distance doesn’t necessarily correlate with whether two things are considered distinct languages or merely dialects. There are languages less distinct from each other than Scottish and American English that are considered separate languages, and there are languages more distinct that Scots and English that are considered one language. “It’s the exact same language” isn’t always a useful ruler.

          When I said

          It’s a bit like if there was no Scots language, and the people in Scotland just still used runes to write but spoke the same language, except with even more old animosity fueled by previous governments.

          I was referring to the state of serbo-croatian being similar to that imaginary situation. I understand that Scots is quite different from English, I wasn’t trying to erase the line between them, just to clarify that the amount of difference isn’t as straightforward as it sometimes seems.