Talk:Dialect

message: I think it's obvious from the discussion so far that the polysemy of 'dialect' and 'language' causes some confusion, and will certainly do so for non-specialist readers of the article. I suggest that the article should begin with a discussion of the various uses of the terms 'dialect' and 'language'. Both are defined in linguistics in terms of mutual-intelligibility, but are also commonly used in a political sense to show unity or diversity. The classic example of this is Chinese, which is described politically as one language with a number of dialects, whereas on linguistic grounds these 'dialects' would be considered distinct languages. - Dougg 04:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polysemy of 'dialect/language' 

message: Please add :Category:Dialects to your favorite articles about dialects MPS 16:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dialects

message: I am trying to compile a table with a subjective assessment of the degree of divergence (in vocabulary, pronunciation, spelling and/or grammar) between so-called "New World" varieties of major European languages and their source languages. For each New World language, I considered 3 modalities, respectively the standard written language, the educated colloquial spoken language, and the popular (substandard) vernacular. The degree of divergence between each of the 3 modalities and  the standard variety of the respective European source language was then classified as "negligible", "low", "medium", "high" or "very high" according to the criteria explained below. I call the comparison "subjective" because it is based on somewhat impressionistic criteria as opposed to hard quantitative metrics such as correlation coefficients and so on. Here is what I could come up with so far (since it is a purely subjective comparison, please feel free to disagree/criticize it).
</center>
Source Language	Regional Variants              	Standard Written Language	Educated Colloquial Spoken Language	Substandard Vernacular
Portuguese     	Brazil x Portugal              	Low                      	Medium                             	High
English        	United States x United Kingdom 	Low                      	Low                                	Medium/High (*)
French         	Québec x France                	Negligible               	Low/Medium                         	Medium/High (**)
Spanish        	Mexico x Spain                 	Negligible               	Low                                	Low
Spanish        	Argentina x Spain              	Low                      	Low/Medium                         	Medium/High (***)
German         	Switzerland x Germany          	Negligible               	Very High                          	Very High
Dutch          	South Africa  x The Netherlands	Very High                	Very High                          	Very High
</center>
(*) Includes  African American vernacular English.
(**) Includes Joual.
(***) Includes Lunfardo.
Criteria for Classification:
#Negligible: identical in both countries with the same spelling and grammar and a mostly common lexicon. 
#Low: minor differences in spelling, vocabulary and grammar; in the case of spoken varieties, pronunciation may differ greatly, but differences do not preclude mutual intelligibility.
#Medium: broader differences in grammar and/or differences in pronunciation and/or vocabulary that might (occasionally) preclude mutual intelligibility.
#High: major differences in grammar and/or differences in vocabulary and pronunciation that often preclude mutual intelligibility.
#Very High: varieties under consideration are normally considered separate languages (e.g. spoken Swiss German in Switzerland versus standard German, or Afrikaans in South Africa versus standard Dutch).
PS: Switzerland of course is not a "New World" country, but it was included on the table
out of linguistic relevance.
: Argentina x Spain: High? I disagree. I've never heard of a single encounter where mutual intelligibility was precluded. I'm from Argentina and currently live in Spain and am in touch with the local "expat" community of all ways of life. User:Ejrrjs  says What? 18:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Divergence between national varieties of the same language 

message: Sociolect is stated to be distinct from dialect, yet the article mentions diglossia as concept within dialectology.  Both seem to be about language varieties spoken by different social classes.  Is there a contradiction or just a need for some clarification? --InfoCan 18:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sociolect vs. diglossia 

message: Can't dialect also be influenced/determined by ethnicity? For example, American Black English (aka AAE, AAVE, etc.) is a consistent variety spoken in many locations. As is Hispanic English (aka Border English, Spanglish). It seems this definition is working from the notion of a dialect developed by 19th century German linguists and drawn upon by early-mid 20th century American dialectologists. However, sociolinguists and linguistic anthropologists have moved beyond this simple dialect to neatly-bounded geographical location equation.
I happen to speak English, German (also regional dialects), French, Latin and Greek (both ancient and modern) . But I have noticed that in Wikipedia, even though noone ever questions that Bavarian, Saxon and Swabian are simply dialects of the same language, even though they are not mutually intelligible, several modern Greek dialects, such as Pontic, Cypriot, Cretan, are speculated to be, not dialects, but languages, due to regional differences in their vocabulary and pronuntiation. It seems to me that this is done rather for simple political that scientific reasons, and also stated by persons who don't have a personal knowledge of the dialects, but have only heard or read about them .
REPLY: Well, there seems to be a real agenda for some people to cling onto the 19th Century notion of language versus dialect for reason of national pride or the notion of language = prestige and dialect = inferior as a matter of personal psychology. In reality, ther eis no real distinction between a language and a dialect... especially when you think that all lost most likely have a common ancestor.
The denomination of language, only really has any use when you wish to study and plot the currents of historical development... and some sociolinguistic stuff. As a paradigm for grammar, lexis and phonology etc. there is no mechanical difference. 89.168.168.209 (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dialect" is determined solely by geography? 

message: Unfortunately, linguists have taken the common word "dialect" with a hitherto popular meaning (deviation from a standard speech ) to apply to an entire language within a geographical area. To tell someone in Oxford speaking Oxford English that he's speaking a dialect or a German in Hannover, a Swiss in Zürich or an Austrian in Vienna is tantamount to an insult.
Wikipedia is not concieved exclusively for a segment of a population trained in a certain field like linguistics. Taking this into consideration I propose to alter the definition in the article about as follows:
A significant deviation of a language is popularly known as a dialect, for example Low German is considered a dialect of High German. Since many languages simply do not have a single standard, linguists have extended this common definition to include any language in a particular geographic area which may well contain subareas.  A good example is English. This means that all Americans speak a dialect and all Englishmen also speak a dialect but a different one.
Please comment.
Cakeandicecream 11:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be surprised if the Greek-derived learned word "dialect" had made its way from popular usage into linguistic usage. Au contraire, surely? As for "deviation": deviation from what? And as for Americans or English people each speaking "a dialect", which one might that be? Man vyi 17:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I disagree with some of the claims above.  It is certainly not tantamount to an insult to tell a speaker of RP (which I suppose is what you mean by Oxford English) that he's speaking a dialect.  I'd be very surprised to find such a person insulted at all.  And Low German is  not a dialect of High German. High and Low German are what one might call dialect groups.  And do we have a source for the claim made in the article that, "In popular usage, the word "dialect" is sometimes used to refer to a lesser-known language"?  If not, it'll have to be removed. garik 08:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "Dialect" 

message: Editors of this article may be interested in the proposal for closing the Siberian Wikipedia, on which a vote is currently being held in Meta. Please, take the "Addressing sockpuppetry" warning into consideration. - Best regards,  Evv 04:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a dead issue, and I'm glad. Cyrillic is a script, not a language or language group at all. --Thnidu (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:ru-sib:|Soviet/Cyrillic Dialects]] 

message: The reality of the situation is completely avoided by the article Moldovan language, which deals almost exclusively with the official language. More details about colloquial Moldavian speech and the history of language standardisation in the area have either been deleted or moved to the separate article on the history of the aforementioned language (viz Romanizators vs Originalists).
Similar examples of colloquial Moldavian speech can be found at sites such as faces.MD (roughly the Moldavian equivalent to MySpace) or certain jocular comments on jurnal.MD (some comments here for example), albeit usually without the important diacritics. This variety has many linguistic features (grammatical, syntactical, vocabulary) that are not shared with Standard Romanian, and a certain (albeit smaller) number of features which are not shared with the dialect of Romanian spoken in neighbouring areas of Romania.
Given the huge Rusophone population in Metro Chişinîu, it is not surprising that the linguistic situation in the area is very much fluid. Research does not seem to exist on the language usage of youths in the area although I have been told such research is currently in progress.
In fact, prior to Soviet control over Bessarabia, there was in fact a debate over the standardisation and valorisation of the local language, with some advocating using Standard Romanian and others advocating the usage of the local dialect with original (rather than French and Italian) words for technical terms. Although it did not succeed (with both sides being suppressed by Soviets), there was certainly a move for a Moldavian standard which would have been very different. --70.59.236.184 04:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moldavian situation more complex than it may appear 

message: Your explanation on how the politics can be in some extent 'a factor' about the dialects being dialects or 'standard' languages, hits the point. The comparison of the 2 english with the 2 serbocroatian main dialects respectively is an excelent example of how these languages are treated by some politicians on one, and what's the the real state of the things on the other side. The good thing is that the real side of the things (english and serbocroatian being each respectivelly just 1 language with 2 main dialects) is always what's accepted as a fact and treated as a fact in all the scientific circles...and also between the majority ordinary and normal people who speak those languages as well..Regards, and cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent article about the politics being a dialect factor in English and SerboCroatian language 

message: The article says: "erroneous belief that the minority language is lacking in vocabulary, grammar, or importance.
"  While the notion that a minority language is lacking in vocabulary or grammar is definitely erroneous, I'm not so sure about the inclusion of importance here.  The sentence is ambiguous: importance to whom?  To its speakers?  Well, then it definitely is important, but taken overall, there's little question in my mind that Scots is not nearly as important as standard written English.  I think there should be some sort of qualifier inserted, or maybe importance should just be removed. Punning (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: I cleaned up the external links section, see also WP:EL. I removed the following links:
* Language or dialect? (Terralingua) - broken link
* Incorporating Dialect Study into the Language Arts Class - arbitrary essay
* Vernacular Dialects in U.S. Schools - another arbitrary essay
* Fishermen's Dialect on the South-East Coast of Scotland. - although it's a thorough web site, it's too specific for this article. Better suited for inclusion in an article on Scottish dialects.
* Yorkshireisms The Yorkshire Dialect - this is not an external link anyway.
* Black Country Dialect of Central England — The dialect of the Black Country area remains perhaps one of the last examples of early English still spoken today. - also too specific. 
* Dialectometry.com - this is a software package, no information that is useful to the general reader here.
* Discovering Chinese dialects - this is a blog.
Han-Kwang (t) 12:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Like a hobo with a British accent.
I don't quite get the logic of illustrating an article about dialects with an example referring to accents. Besides, there is no such thing as a 'British accent'. There are English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish accents, and regional accents within each nationality, but no one speaks with a 'British' accent. So I thought the safest thing do with this sentence was to delete it. R Lowry (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: "Anthropological linguists define dialect as the specific form of a language used by a speech community. In other words, the difference between language and dialect is the difference between the abstract or general and the concrete and particular. From this perspective, no one speaks a "language," everyone speaks a dialect of a language. Those who identify a particular dialect as the "standard" or "proper" version of a language are in fact using these terms to express a social distinction."
I can't get my head around this one now. 
'In other words, the difference between language and dialect is the difference between the abstract or general and the concrete and particular. From this perspective, no one speaks a "language," everyone speaks a dialect of a language.'... This seems to imply a notion that all dialects extend from a common source ('specific language')... which would be complete tripe in the face of dialect continuum.
In fact it is THIS that really makes that resonate with me: 'the difference between language and dialect'... is there anyone left who makes such a distinction in anything other than broad shorthand reference to mutual intelligibility or historical linguistics?
But...
"Those who identify a particular dialect as the "standard" or "proper" version of a language are in fact using these terms to express a social distinction.""
... seems to suggest the opposite and something more inline with current siociolinguistics!
Am I the only person that can't make head not tail of this? Could this not be written more clearly, as it seems to say nothing distinct.
89.168.168.209 (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fancy that! 

message: "A dialect that is associated with a particular social class can be termed a sociolect. Other speech varieties include: standard languages, which are standardized for public performance (for example, a written standard); jargons, which are characterized by differences in lexicon (vocabulary); slang; patois; pidgins or argots. The particular speech patterns used by an individual are termed an idiolect."
This section makes patois/pidgins and argots sound like something to do with sociolects. They need to be flagged up in their own group,a s there are very clear issues to do with crystallisation of grammar (and the lack of it) that make them very distinct to a straight dialect. 
Aren't jargon sociolects???
At the very least the paragraph needs breaking.
No? 
This whole article needs to be reviewed by a subject matter expert lol! It's a mess of gibberish and rubbish!
89.168.168.209 (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sociolect 

message: "Southwestern    * /s/ instead of /z/ in six" is teh wrong way around. Fixed it with another typo.
HOWEVER THIS IS NOT DIALECT!!! This is phonology! It is pronunciation, not dialect!
This whole section should go! 88.111.109.25 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialects of English (in Great Britain & Ireland) 

message: This article has some GRAVE fundamental errors:
It persistently confuses the lay terminology and scientific definitions of 'dialect', willy nilly.
In linguistics, there is NO difference between a language and a dialect. In linguistics, ALL divergent modes of speech which effect variation on a scale also encompassing mutual unintelligibility are DIALECTS. (oversimplified I know, but I'm keeping it plain).
The demarcation of 'languages' is not especially useful for the classification of dialects. 'Language', in the sense it is used here, is a political status not a linguistic status. At best language is an inelegant shorthand for many different aspects of linguistics.
There is no natural parent/child  status between 'standard languages' and 'regional or social variations'.
In linguistics, pronunciation is not generally considered in itself to constitute 'dialect' (as usually native speakers can adapt to extremes in phonology ... much better than they can in extremes of grammar and lexis')
Dialect concerns itself with  mainly grammar and lexis.
Standardised language spoken with a regional or social accent is still NOT dialect.
"In popular usage, the word "dialect" is sometimes used to refer to a lesser-known language (most commonly a regional language), especially one that is unwritten or not standardized.[3] This use of the word dialect is often taken as pejorative by the speakers of the languages referred to since it is often accompanied by the belief that the minority language is lacking in vocabulary, grammar, or importance.""
THIS is complete tosh in the sense of linguistics; it sounds like it has been written by a primary school teacher. There isn't a true statement in the whole paragraph! 
Someone needs to pour kerosene on this mess and torch it, then start afresh!
Please unless you have some good scholarly knowledge of teh linguistics of regional & social variations leave this article alone.
88.111.109.25 (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While intemperately presented, most of these observations are clearly correct, and 8.5 years later have not been even slightly resolved. I've proposed a split, below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Now make that 15 years later. Perhaps the most salient problem is that there are two working definitions of dialect even among linguists -- very roughly variety of [language x] and "minor(ity) local language...", and one of them is inaccurately explained here. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''SERIOUS''' problems with this article. PLEASE READ BEFORE MAKING EDITS! 

message: "In popular usage, the word "dialect" is sometimes used to refer to a lesser-known language (most commonly a regional language), especially one that is unwritten or not standardized.Note, for example, the use of "dialect" in the following sentence from a biographical portrait of Theodore Roosevelt (The river of doubt: Theodore Roosevelt's darkest journey (2005) by Candice Millard, Doubleday), "... and Rondon, although he knew ten different Indian dialects..." (p. 80). A perusal of current newspaper columns shows the same usage. This use of the word dialect is often taken as pejorative by the speakers of the languages referred to since it is often accompanied by the belief that the minority language is lacking in vocabulary, grammar, or importance.
The number of speakers, and the geographical area covered by them, can be of arbitrary size, and a dialect might contain several sub-dialects. A dialect is a complete system of verbal communication (oral or signed, but not necessarily written) with its own vocabulary and grammar. "
I think that signing should be given some mention, but if the non-scientific semantics of the word dialect is to be examined, it should be as an after thought AND it should be explained better and indicated HOW it diverges from the scientific definition. The lay version is very woolly and amorphous and without anything approaching a single theme, and will vary from language to language. What Germans understand by 'Dialekt' is not what the English would necessarily recognise as 'dialect'.
As it stood. This was giving too much prominence to a loose definition that is too wide of the scientific mark. 88.111.37.94 (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed innacuarate & irrelevant gibberish 

message: The specific issues discussed in this section are in the subfield of dialectology, so wouldn't it be better to move the content to that article in order to make this article a little more conveniently arranged? Solejheyen (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Concepts in dialectology

message: I've made some rearrangements to the hierarchy of sections in the article as it seemed to me to read as more of a magazine article than an enclopedic one and had become hard to reference.  This reorganisation has not changed the content.  
I've also added the reference into the intro to the article on Ausbausprache, Abstandsprache and Dachsprache which seems to me to be central.  
I propose deletion of the Interlingua section as it does not seem relevant.
LookingGlass (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrangement 

message: I suggest that the first thing needed is a simple reordering of the sentences in the opening para so that the opening sentence, which states there are two distinct uses for the word dialect, is then immediately followed by a statement of what those two uses are.  At present there are a number of sentences in between referring to topolects etc etc etc.  Looking at this further I note that this second usage has no citation.  One is required.  If it has none then reference to two distinct uses of the word should be scrapped as it is OR.  LookingGlass (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference added.75.134.23.211 (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening para is a mess and OR 

message: The section regarding the Balkans lacks citations and as a speaker of English and Croatian (Serbo-Croatian if you prefer... I do not intend this to be a political statement), I do not feel that the comparisons of Serbian and Croatian to British and American English are accurate, even if the overall point is true (they are mutually intelligible).  The differences between Croatian and Serbian are more like the differences between Norwegian and Danish (i.e., there is a little more depth than you give credit).  I would also argue that Makedonian would be like Swedish in this comparison.184.149.5.3 (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balkans 

message: Dialect group redirects here, dialect cluster to dialect continuum. My understanding is that a dialect cluster is a group of related dialects, though not necessarily a continuum, and thus essentially the same as a dialect group. Am I mistaken? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialect group and dialect cluster 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dialect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131014062414/http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50063104?query_type=word&queryword=dialect&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=tFGd-Bh8USU-18775&hilite=50063104 to http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50063104?query_type=word&queryword=dialect&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=tFGd-Bh8USU-18775&hilite=50063104
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is it ok if I apply the  style with short footnotes (since footnotes are already in use, but style in them is not homogeneous) throughout the article? --SynConlanger (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a major contributer to this article, but I think it would be a good idea.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Harv and short notes 

message: The second definition of "dialect" in the lede goes to great pains to continue emphasizing that what is called a "dialect" in this sense is "not actually derived from the standard language". While this is true, it seems to me that it's misleading to dwell on it so much in the second definition specifically: dialects according to the first definition (i.e., any variety of a language mutually intelligible with other varieties) are also not necessarily or typically derived from the standard. Is there any way to salvage this? AJD (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is well taken. Perhaps "...not a variety of nor derived from the standard language" would suffice. Unfortunately, the notion 'variety of', which implies possibility of 'derived from', is reinforced right at the top of the page in the disambiguation note. That can be repaired, then next step is re-constituting description of the second usage, which has been diluted down to a mushy notion of colloquial speech. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "not derived from the standard language" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dialect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060814204450/http://www.interlingua.fi/ialagr45.htm to http://www.interlingua.fi/ialagr45.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One part of the article states there is no clear definition that can distinguish between a language and a dialect, and experts can disagree, depending on context.  This is my understanding, as well.  But in the Dialect or language section, the entirely unsourced second paragraph of the section intro makes a claim that "mutual intelligibility" is the deciding factor linguistically speaking between language and dialect, and says,   I dispute that. For one reason, that would make the mutually unintelligible varieties in England "languages". This definition also seems to have affected the definition in the guideline at WP:DIALECT, and it seems problematic to me that an unreferenced section in this article may have influenced a guideline. (Or, is it the other way round?  Either way, not good.) This section badly needs some sourcing. 
The subsections after the section intro contain a more nuanced approach, including discussion of the completely non-linguistic (i.e., political, social, and other) factors, and do mention that many linguists refuse to be pinned down on the question.  Given that, besides being unsourced, to the extent that the section intro is like an article lead, it does not properly summarize the remainder of the section.
There is an additional problem with the quoted definition, namely that it assumes that "mutual intelligibility" is a symmetric relation, when it is not.  Spanish is far more intelligible to monolingual native speakers of Portuguese, than vice versa. Does this make Spanish and Portuguese "dialects" for the Portuguese linguist, and "languages" for the Spanish linguist?  I'm sure many other (and better) examples exist. Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed intelligibility is not a symmetric relation – that's the reason for adding the qualifier "mutual".  Kanguole 14:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

text: However, mutual intelligibility is not a transitive relation, so it does not yield a well-defined notion of "same language".  It is also difficult to measure objectively.  Kanguole 16:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutual intelligibility 

message: I've been trying to trace this through the tortured history of this article, but have so far failed. Given the vast number of publications by linguists using dialect (or its apparent equivalent in languages other than English) to refer to minor(ity), "regional", local (etc.) languages (dialect usage 2 in what were once the lead definitions), can someone explain why this usage is described as colloquial? TIA Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whence "Colloquial" meaning of dialect?  

message: This entire section of the article seems completely erroneous to its message. Why is Interlingua brought up, and not any other European IAL? Why not any other IAL for that matter? Plus, even the idea of bringing up IALs seems irrelevant. This article is about dialects, and while it is true that "Interlingua was developed so that the languages of Western civilization would act as its dialects," what purpose does it actually serve here?
Interlingua, and honestly the entire concept of IALs, deserves to be a "See Also" rather than taking up a whole paragraph in an already contentious article. 2601:404:D781:EE00:B5D9:ABBD:C29A:8603 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Interlingua"