Why are languages so discrete? Shouldn't they be more of a gradual gradient?
But they're not discrete. They blend together, and a given language varies both in time and space.
>>1180453
there is a gradient when there are similar languages in a large area
see: Chinese languages, Scandinavian languages, German dialects, South Slavic dialects, Arabic dialects, West Slavic dialects, Italian languages, Spanish languages, etc.
but very different languages like Polish and German have a much harder time blending and mixing
>>1180453
There is, in a way. It's just a lot easier to classify languages by what ancestors they came from, much like it's a lot easier to classify your surname by who your parents were instead of by all the random experiences you've had throughout your life that have contributed to your identity.
>>1180473
Not really, there are tons of german loanwords used in polish
>Ratusz - Rathaus
>Bruk (cobblestone) - Brück
>Rycerz - Ritter
>Dach - Dach
>Handel - Handel
>Plac - Platz
>Mistrz - Meister
>Szyld - Schild
>Cukier - Zucker
>Kartofle - Kartoffeln
>Cegła - Ziegel
Not to mention Silesian and Yiddish loanwords, such as geszeft, hica, ejnladować and so on. Most of these I listed are used on a daily basis and in the whole country.
The gradients go backwards in time.
>>1180453
Languages aren't discrete; it's modern mass media that's making them discrete.
>>1180453
it's not like that map of yours was super accurate or anything. dialects exists though the standardisation of education tends to erase them.
>>1180698
yea but loanwords are pretty superficial, the languages won't blend to any real degree
>>1180453
Political borders, geographical borders, migration and conquest cutting off a language area that was formerly a gradient, etc.
>>1181300
Loanwords are parts of dialects. The dialects that come in contact with foreign languages (usually on the language borders) borrow the most words.
>>1185900
>>1181300
>>1180453
Basically this >>1180476. The common way of classifying languages into families is about finding out which languages have common ancestors and not necessarily about how similar they are to each other. it completely ignores language contact through which not only loanwords are exchanged between languages but also grammatical structures. on karkar island off papua new guinea there two unrelated languages (one austronesian, one papuan) that nonetheless have an identical grammar that formed through the close contact of the speaker communities over the years
also loanwords are sometimes borrowed on a massive scale completely altering the lexicon of a language, an example would be english which has a large romance vocabulary influence despite being a germanic language. it is also grammatically quite different to closely related languages like german as a result of extensive language contact. another example are east asian languages in the sinosphere (Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese) that are genetically unrelated to Chinese and probably to each other, but have a huge shared sinitic set of vocabulary from language contact.
creoles and pidgins can't even be classified in the usual genetic system since they arose entirely through language contact and have no clear ancestors.
>>1180453
Resettlement following wars/conquests accounts for much of why modern languages can be so easily traced on a map.
>>1189499
And o yeh: genocide and forced assimilation.
>>1180453
Good God, South America looks like a Jackson Pollock.
>>1187644
>another example are east asian languages in the sinosphere (Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese) that are genetically unrelated to Chinese and probably to each other, but have a huge shared sinitic set of vocabulary from language contact.
Japanese and Korean are also grammatically very similar despite being "unrelated". Also Vietnamese become tonal thanks to Chinese influence (I think).
