Talk:Diglossia: Difference between revisions
imported>Daniel Mietchen m (started) |
imported>John Stephenson (examples (replaced them)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
==Examples== | |||
I have replaced the examples of Norwegian and Arabic with two others that more straightforwardly appear in the literature. I am not aware of any strong claim that the two main varieties of Norwegian exist in a diglossic situation; rather, they are competing standard varieties, used for all purposes in their respective areas. It is not possible to identify 'high' and 'low' forms in this case, so I took it out. As for Arabic: the situations in different Arabic-speaking countries are complex and are often discussed as 'triglossia' rather than diglossia (Classical/Modern Standard/Vernacular Arabic), and there's the complication of other languages being spoken too (e.g. Berber in Morocco). Some scholars count Arabic as diglossic, depending on whether they consider Classical and Modern Standard Arabic to be one variety or two. A discussion of this could appear further down the article. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 14:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:36, 3 November 2010
Examples
I have replaced the examples of Norwegian and Arabic with two others that more straightforwardly appear in the literature. I am not aware of any strong claim that the two main varieties of Norwegian exist in a diglossic situation; rather, they are competing standard varieties, used for all purposes in their respective areas. It is not possible to identify 'high' and 'low' forms in this case, so I took it out. As for Arabic: the situations in different Arabic-speaking countries are complex and are often discussed as 'triglossia' rather than diglossia (Classical/Modern Standard/Vernacular Arabic), and there's the complication of other languages being spoken too (e.g. Berber in Morocco). Some scholars count Arabic as diglossic, depending on whether they consider Classical and Modern Standard Arabic to be one variety or two. A discussion of this could appear further down the article. John Stephenson 14:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)