Editor for this issue: <>
It is not correct to identify political power with prestige of language variety. An article by Laura Nader on Arabic in Fishman's sociolinguistics reader a few decades back discusses this issue, as does more recent work of Trudgill. A definition of standard should not pre-suppose this identity. Susan Ervin-TrippMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
With regard to a language being a dialect with its own army and navy: when I first heard this, about 20 years ago, it was attributed to Paul Kiparsky by a student. Somehow, though, I suspect Kiparsky could have got it from Roman Jakobson, whose quips have received pretty wide currency (like his response to the suggestion that Harvard's linguistics department should hire Vladimir Nabokov as a linguist: "I have nothing against elephants, but I wouldn't hire one as a zoologist." -- Rick RussomMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
>Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 17:12:11 CST >From: txsil!huttarMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuedallas
utafll.uta.edu >Subject: language & dialect > > Who first said when and where the oft-repeated "A language is a dialect > with its own army and navy."? > Thanks. > George Huttar (huttar
txsil.sil.org) my understanding is that max weinreich said it, but i don't have a reference. if anyone has, i'd appreciate hearing it. thanks.
<EVERAERTMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuehutruu59.bitnet> In reply to A. Dench's question. The following two articles might contain interesting discussion of the latin example you gave: Bertocchi, A. & C. Casadio (1980) Conditions on Anaphora: An Analysis of reflexive in Latin, in G. Calboli (ed.) Papers on Grammar, Bologna. Bertocchi, A. & C. Casadio (1983) Anaphoric Relations, pronouns and Latin Complementation, in H. Pinkster (ed.) Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Martin Everaert