Was the manufacture/producing of French "nation" the biggest (politically ordered and controlled) cultural genocide in modern European history?

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
4,901
#11
Is it genocide if no one is killed?

Cultural homogenization would be a more accurate way of describing this fairly common process.
Or even linguistic standardisation, which seems to be a process initiated by printing and the introduction of block type where standardisation of spelling and volcabulary make the process easier. Technology is often a driver of standardisation. Britain in 1800 had time zones from east the west to span 10 minute intervals. Railway time was introduced to ensure a standard and the government switched from the local times to railway times, based on GMT. The Exchange Clock in Bristol, installed in 1822, has two minute hands, one showing Local Time, the other showing London Post Office Time. In 1970, we still didn't have a decimal standard for money, using 12 pence per shilling and 20 shillings per pound. A purchase consisting of 3 items, £3 12s 7d + £2 4s 2d + £7 18s 9d and then add 8% VAT would have been a complex process to work out on a calculator. By 1975 digital calculators were cheap consumer items. The forthcoming technology was driving the standardisation, even though large parts of the population at the time were asking why do we need to change?

Exchange Clock Bristol with its two minute hands.

 
Nov 2017
866
Győr
#12
Or even linguistic standardisation, which seems to be a process initiated by printing and the introduction of block type where standardisation of spelling and volcabulary make the process easier. Technology is often a driver of standardisation. Britain in 1800 had time zones from east the west to span 10 minute intervals. Railway time was introduced to ensure a standard and the government switched from the local times to railway times, based on GMT. The Exchange Clock in Bristol, installed in 1822, has two minute hands, one showing Local Time, the other showing London Post Office Time. In 1970, we still didn't have a decimal stard for money, using 12 pence per shilling and 20 shillings per pound. A purchase consisting of 3 items, £3 12s 7d + £2 4s 2d + £7 18s 9d and then add 8% VAT would have been a complex process to work out on a calculator. By 1975 digital calculators were cheap consumer items. The forthcoming technology was driving the standardisation, even though large parts of the population at the time were asking why do we need to change?
A fantasy example of "linguistic standardization. Netherland must speak German after Adolf occupied it, Adolf says: You already spoke a Germanic language, therefore in the name of standardization you will speak German instead of Dutch in the future! Or nazi Germany invades the UK, and Adolf say to the English: You already speak a Germanic language, in the name of standardization you will speak German(Deutsch) in the future! Of course English or Holland are not diealects of German/Deutsch language despite they are both Germanic languages. So in this case it is not homogenization/standardization within a language, but erase of entirely different languages. These languages in France had not more relationship with each other than the English to the German or the Dutch to the German.

So according to your strange logic: English and Dutch are just dialects of German. (Nonsense)
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
4,901
#13
The View from Lingustics:

Why aren't mutually unintelligible dialects separate languages?

Languages are as much a political entity as they are a communicative entity. In addition, the idea that languages are well-defined masses with lots of open space between neighbors doesn't work very well. In reality, all languages are really made up of a collection of dialects, some of which are mutually intelligible to one another, and some which aren't. Determining where boundaries are drawn should be a clustering problem in theory, but in practice, it usually comes down to political determinations.

One might ask the converse:

Why aren’t mutually intelligible languages dialects of just one language?

It's why linguists use the term dialect continuum. A good article to read; What's a Language Anyway?

Some people in england know that potatoes and turnips, as served with haggis, are the same as tatties and neeps. The latter is not a foreign language, just local terms for the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2017
866
Győr
#17
No, it's not. But the Yiddish for example, was a language of its own that was deliberately eradicated in Israel in the 20th century.

So the conqueror German nazis had right to demand that Netherlanders must speak German in the future, because both are West Germanic languages, so they are just dialects...


1st. level: Indueuropean 2nd level Germanic 3. level: West Germanic. Nazis had such similar weird logic in the past. (Pan Germanicism , not to be confused with Pan-Germanism) in the light of PAn-Germanicism, English is just a dialect....
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,863
Lisbon, Portugal
#18
So the conqueror German nazis had right to demand that Netherlanders must speak German in the future, because both are West Germanic languages, so they are just dialects...


1st. level: Indueuropean 2nd level Germanic 3. level: West Germanic. Nazis had such similar weird logic in the past. (Pan Germanicism , not to be confused with Pan-Germanism)
That's really not what I'm saying....
 
Nov 2017
866
Győr
#19
That's really not what I'm saying....
Than what are you saying? In a comparison with German, the English and Dutch are not mutually intelligible languages, so why do they unite in Deutsch language (According to nazi fantasies)?
Simple fact: The so-called Gallo-Romance category is just a third level cathegory among the IE languages like the "West Germanic" term among the IE languages.
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
4,901
#20
According to your logic, English is a dialect of German (Deutsch) language.
English is non inflected low west germanic. It is a national standard of a dialect. As it dutch. Standard German on the otherhand is not a national standard based on Low German but it dominated, but not exclusively by High German.

Maybe if Hungarian wasn't a uralic language isolated in central europe, you'd have a better understanding of what linguists mean when they talk about dialect continuums.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions