.
‘latin’ –>
dialectus, dialectos,
.
‘ancient greek’ –>
διάλεκτος / diálektos / “discourse”
διά (/ diá) –> “through”
λέγω (/ légō) –> “i speak”
.
(the term “dialect” is used in 2 distinct ways to refer to 2 different types of ‘linguistic phenomena’)
.
(one usage (the more common among ‘linguists’) refers to a variety of a ‘language’ that is a characteristic of a particular ‘group’ of the language’s ‘speakers’)
(“grouped” according to…?”)
(“location”?)
(“level of education”?)
(despite their differences, these varieties known as ‘dialects’ are ‘closely related’ and most often ‘mutually intelligible’, especially if close to one another on the ‘dialect continuum’)
(the term is applied most often to ‘regional speech patterns’, but a ‘dialect’ may also be defined by other ‘factors’, such as ‘social class’ or ‘ethnicity’)
(a ‘dialect’ that is associated with a particular social class can be termed a ‘sociolect’, a ‘dialect’ that is associated with a particular ‘ethnic group’ can be termed as ‘ethnolect’, and a ‘regional dialect’ may be termed a ‘regiolect’)
(according to this definition, any variety of a given language constitutes “a dialect”, including any ‘standard varieties’)
(in this case, the distinction between the “standard language,” or the “standard” dialect of a particular ‘language’, and the “nonstandard” dialects of the same ‘language’ is often ‘arbitrary’ and based on ‘social’, ‘political’, ‘cultural’, or ‘historical’ considerations)
(in a similar way, the definition of the terms “language” and “dialect” may also ‘overlap’ and are often subject to ‘debate’, with the differentiation between the 2 ‘classifications’ often grounded in ‘arbitrary’ and/or ‘sociopolitical’ motives)
(the other usage of the term “dialect”, often deployed in ‘colloquial’ or ‘sociolinguistic’ settings, refers to a ‘language’ that is ‘socially subordinated’ to a ‘regional’ or ‘national’ standard language, often ‘historically cognate’ or ‘genetically related’ to the ‘standard language’, but not actually derived from the ‘standard language’)
(in other words, it is not an actual variety of the ‘standard language’ (or ‘dominant language’), but rather a ‘separate’ + ‘independently evolved’ but often ‘distantly related’ language)
(in this sense (unlike in the first usage), the ‘standard language’ would not itself be considered a “dialect,” as it is the ‘dominant language’ in a particular ‘state’ or ‘region’, whether in terms of ‘linguistic prestige’, ‘social’ or ‘political’ status, ‘official status’, ‘predominance’ or ‘prevalence’, or ‘all of the above’)
(meanwhile, under this usage, the “dialects” subordinate to the ‘standard language’ are generally not ‘variations’ on the ‘standard language’ but rather ‘separate’ (but often ‘distantly related’) ‘languages’ in and of themselves)
(thus, these “dialects” are not ‘dialects’ (or ‘varieties’) of a ‘particular language’ in the same sense as in the ‘first usage’; though they may share roots in the same ‘family’ or ‘subfamily’ as the ‘standard language’ and may even (to varying degrees), share some ‘mutual intelligibility’ with the ‘standard language’, they often did not ‘evolve’ closely with the ‘standard language’ or within the same ‘linguistic subgroup’ or ‘speech community’ as the ‘standard language’ and instead may better fit the criteria of a ‘separate language’)
(for example, most of the various regional ‘romance languages’ of ‘italy’, often colloquially referred to as italian “dialects,” are, in fact, not actually derived from ‘modern standard italian’, but rather evolved from ‘vulgar latin’ ‘separately’ and individually from one another and independently of ‘standard italian’, long prior to the diffusion of a ‘national standardized language’ throughout what is now ‘italy’)
(‘languages’ evolved much like “human beings” themselves)
(when considered ‘missing links’ between ‘anatomically modern humans’ and other ‘primate species’)
(these various ‘latin-derived regional languages’ are therefore, in a ‘linguistic sense’, not truly “dialects” of the ‘standard italian language’, but are instead better defined as their own separate ‘languages’)
(conversely, with the spread of ‘standard italian’ throughout ‘italy’ in the ’20th century’ and the increase in ‘dialect leveling’, various regional ‘versions’ or ‘varieties’ of ‘standard italian’ developed, generally as a mix of the ‘national standard italian’ with local ‘regional languages’ and local ‘accents’)
(these variations on ‘standard italian’, known as ‘regional italian’, would more appropriately be called “dialects” in accordance with the first linguistic definition of “dialect,” as they are in fact derived partially or mostly from “standard italian”)
(a ‘dialect’ is distinguished by its ‘vocabulary’, ‘grammar’, and ‘pronunciation’ (‘phonology’, including ‘prosody’))
(where a distinction can be made only in terms of ‘pronunciation’ (including ‘prosody’, or just ‘prosody’ itself), the term accent may be preferred over dialect)
(other types of ‘speech varieties’ include ‘jargons’, which are characterized by differences in ‘lexicon’ (aka ‘vocabulary’); ‘slang’; ‘patois’; ‘pidgins’; and ‘argots’)
.
(the particular ‘speech patterns’ used by an individual are termed an “idiolect”)
.
.
.
.
.
.
💕💝💖💓🖤💙🖤💙🖤💙🖤❤️💚💛🧡❣️💞💔💘❣️🧡💛💚❤️🖤💜🖤💙🖤💙🖤💗💖💝💘
.
.
*🌈✨ *TABLE OF CONTENTS* ✨🌷*
.
.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥*we won the war* 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥