Talk:Pluricentric language

message: What about French and Spanish?  While some might dispute it, I think many people (and academics) consider the French of France and that of Quebec to both be types of "standard French", and Spanish has several "standard" forms as well. --[[User:#REDIRECT Delirium 08:12, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
:Hear, hear!--Jondel 06:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Spanish as an international language is generally speaking far more homogeneous than English, French and Portuguese. The only major exception I can think of is Rioplatense Spanish which differs significantly from standard Spanish. 201.52.32.9 00:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you have a reliable source for this? I believe you are substantially incorrect. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

text: At least where I am in the US, a "generic" Latin American variety of Spanish is usually taught, with variations from Spain mentioned primarily as asides. Joe Garrick (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish, French

message: Which side does African Portuguese adhere to? --Dpr 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese 

message: I have removed Tagalog from the "others" list since it does not belong there. It is not pluricentric in that it has one written standard used in one country. Boreanesia 06:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagalog

message: "...Québecois French also makes a conscious effort not to borrow foreign vocabulary..."
This statement, in my view, is very erroneous...as the Canadian French always randomly takes from English, or distorts original French words into a new meaning. Le Anh-Huy (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quebecois and not borrowing?!

message: Is there a pattern to the order of the sections on this page?  To me, it seems there is not.  I would anticipate either an alphabetical list (perhaps with English at the top), a list organized by families, or a list by rough degrees of…uh…pluricentricity (each subdivided into lists organized alphabetically or genetically).
Current list:
*English
*German
*Portuguese
*Galician
*Catalan-Valencian-Balearic
*Spanish
*Chinese
*French
*Hindi and Hindi-influenced languages
*Others (Arabic, Danish, Dutch, Korean, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian/Macedonian, Romansh, Swedish, Persian)
— ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order on page 

message: I propose that the content in diasystem be moved here.  The two cover the same ground and I have yet to find any instance of diasystem being used with the meaning given in that article.  Moreover, diasystem is a term used in dialectology with a completely different meaning and I'd like to free up that namespace for some content that I've prepared.
Conversely, if the community decides that this merge would be a bad idea (my search wasn't exhaustive, after all), we could have a disambiguation page though I'm not sure what the parentheticals involved would be (diaphone (dialectology) is out since both pertain to dialectology). — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 06:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the merge is a good idea. --Jotamar (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've completed the merger, including a search and destroy mission through what links to diasystem.  For thoroughness, I have also corrected the wiktionary entry but I haven't checked the foreign language Wikipedia articles, so I don't know which ones have a correct version and which ones don't. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 00:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the merge fail? It looks like 2 separate articles still exist...--达伟 (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not merge. The term pluricentric language is a very important concept, which is for example very much promoted by the Austrialian linguist Michael Clyne. Readers here come from all over the world and you should not only view on the situation of the English language. So please keep it. --El bes (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge proposal was for the content that was at diasystem (check the history).  There was no actual merging of articles, but it's a significant enough change that I thought I'd at least bring it up before I did it.  It seems, El bes, that you don't oppose designating pluricentric language as the primary article on the concept if diasystem turns out to be used occasionally as a synonym. Am I correct? — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 07:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think they are seperate concepts, or at least with a seperate aim. Weinreich aimed his concept on creating a unified written standard for the different Yiddish dialects. Hence the hebrew writing system is very different from our latin alphabet, this could be done, without larger discriminations of one Yiddish dialect over the other. The standardized codification of Weinreich was the same for all forms of written Yiddish, but they readers could still pronounce it in their regional way. --El bes (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Ahh, after reading twice, I realized it was Uriel Weinreich who coined the term diasystem. I think he wanted to scientifically explain what his father Max Weinreich had already done a generation before. --El bes (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did he coin it? I wasn't sure about that.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 02:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: The section is strange as it speaks only of the official language. There are more dialects that are the de facto languages of different parts of China, particularly in spoken form. For example, if you look at the page for Wu, there is a discussion of which local subdialect is the "prestige dialect", which I suppose would be the "standard version". Does the government have to use the language in order for a standard version to exist, even if there is commonly accepted spelling, dictionaries, etc?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.32.34 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese 

message: Macedonian is presented as one of the three dialects of Bulgarian. I am certain that this is inaccurate in every sense. I accept that the region's population has a history of having identified as Bulgarian at least in part if not whole, but never was there a standard established there whose speakers referred to it as "Macedonian region Bulgarian". Since the standardisation of Macedonian it has been referred to as Macedonian alone. If at the time there were those who referred to it as Bulgarian then the term needs to be rephrased to explain that Macedonian is historically considered a standard of Bulgarian. In Pirin Macedonia, standard Bulgarian is the language and there is no autonomous status for the local speech. In the bordering republic, it is now called Macedonian by just about everyone. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian and mention of Macedonian 

message: Finnish is standardised in Finland, but Sweden and Norway have separate standards for the local Finnish dialects in the form of Mëankieli and Kven. Does that make Finnish pluricentric? CodeCat (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For those reasons no. But one can argue that Finnish is a pluricentric language because Finnish is a recognised minority language in Sweden with its own language planning in Sweden as well as it is one of the official languages in Finland with its own language planning there Bitkif (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Finnish pluricentric? 

message: Is Russian a pluricentric language? It's also spoken in Ukraine and it's an official language in Belarus along with Belarusian.--2.236.134.146 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is no distinct Russian standard for Russian spoken there. CodeCat (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian 

message: I respectfully dispute this. British received pronunciation and the eastern USA standard do dominate. Do others agree?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.84.178 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: English: "there is no clear cultural dominance of one variety over others"

message: The current lead paragraph of the article states:
:"A pluricentric language or polycentric language is a language with several interacting codified standard versions, often corresponding to different countries. Examples include English, French,  Portuguese, German, Korean, Spanish, Swedish, Armenian and Chinese. A language that has only one formally standardized version is monocentric. Examples include Russian and Japanese."
I think this definition, as formulated, is narrower than warranted by the actual use of the term "pluralistic language"; it can only apply to relatively recent historical situations. The article itself uses pre-Islamic Arabic as an example. But I do not believe that in the pre-Islamic period any standard version of Arabic was codified or formally standardized. Likewise, our article on Ancient Greek phonology calls Ancient Greek a pluricentric language, consisting of many dialects; however, these were not codified or formally standardized. To the extent that these dialects had standard versions, these were all de facto standards.
Also for the present day the formulation is too strict. Yoruba is often cited as an example of a pluricentric language, but only Standard Yoruba has been codified. Obviously, a language area can have several power centres each imposing its own de facto standard version without official codification or formalization.
I don't know how to phrase the definition in the lead better, but I think it needs to be relaxed to cover the actual linguistic use.  --Lambiam 11:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The above definition fits with the literature, which seems to fairly consistently link the concept with standardization, with interaction between the standards.  (Abd-el-Jawad's remark on pre-Islamic Arabic seems a bit of an outlier.)  To extend the concept to any language with many dialects would render it useless.  Kanguole 16:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codified? ''Formally'' standardized? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Pluricentric language. 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/20160305081116/http://ec.europa.eu/translation/german/guidelines/documents/austrian_expressions_de.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/translation/german/guidelines/documents/austrian_expressions_de.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/475567.Jezik_i_nacionalizam.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/426566.NATIONALE_VARIETATEN_DER.PDF
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/slave_0080-2557_2004_num_75_1_6860
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/426269.POLICENTRICNI_STANDARDNI.PDF
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) 02:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The discussion of English is very biased towards a US viewpoint. The diversity within English is mainly to do with its wide dispersal within the British Empire over a century and a half ago, not more recent globalisation. The differences in Australian, Jamaican, South African and Indian English all date back to the colonial period and the pre-existing indigenous languages which they interacted with (or west African languages in the case of Jamaican English).
If anything American English is levelling variety within world Englishes through Hollywood etc, rather than increasing their diversity.
-2A01:4C8:141E:BF4E:1:2:CF55:966A (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: *The paragraph about modern hebrew is mostly BS, Ashkenazi Pronunciation is practically dead in israel outside of prayer. Same with Tamani (There is no mizrahi pronounciation). Modern hebrew is pronounced according to the Sephardic pronunciation as interpreted and influenced by Ashkenazim. There are two consonants in the Sephardic pronunciation- /ħ/ (ח) and /ʕ/ (ע) that only some (mostly older) Temanim and Mizrahim are able to distinguish. that's the only difference that is noticeable along background lines, and it's not fully consistent on those.--Nngnna (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern hebrew 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Plucentric language should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Plucentric language until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.  Utopes (talk / cont) 19:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Plucentric language" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: From my understanding, written Malayalam is fairly close to the spoken dialect, and there is not a case of severe diglossia as is with Tamil. Can someone confirm this? - SourceIsOpen (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Diglossia is a different thing from being pluricentric (multiple interacting standards). The Tamil section focusses on the wrong thing – Tamil is pluricentric because Indian and Sri Lankan Tamil have different standards, not because of diglossia. So Malayalam would not be pluricentric. Kanguole 17:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Malayalam really pluricentric? 

message: :
Eh?  I'd expect it to make them easier.  Is this a mistranslation? —Tamfang (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbo-Croatian