Mutual intelligibility

In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a relationship between languages or dialects in which speakers of different but related varieties can readily understand each other without prior familiarity or special effort. It is sometimes used as an important criterion for distinguishing languages from dialects, although sociolinguistic factors are often also used.

Intelligibility between languages can be asymmetric, with speakers of one understanding more of the other than speakers of the other understanding the first. When it is relatively symmetric, it is characterized as "mutual". It exists in differing degrees among many related or geographically proximate languages of the world, often in the context of a dialect continuum.

Linguistic distance is the name for the concept of calculating a measurement for how different languages are from one another. The higher the linguistic distance, the lower the mutual intelligibility.

Intelligibility

For individuals to achieve moderate proficiency or understanding in a language (called L2) other than their first language (L1) typically requires considerable time and effort through study and practical application.[1] Advanced speakers of a second language typically aim for intelligibility, especially in situations where they work in their second language and the necessity of being understood is high.[2] However, many groups of languages are partly mutually intelligible, i.e. most speakers of one language find it relatively easy to achieve some degree of understanding in the related language(s). Often the languages are genetically related, and they are likely to be similar to each other in grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, or other features.

Intelligibility among languages can vary between individuals or groups within a language population according to their knowledge of various registers and vocabulary in their own language, their exposure to additional related languages, their interest in or familiarity with other cultures, the domain of discussion, psycho-cognitive traits, the mode of language used (written vs. oral), and other factors.

Mutually intelligible languages or varieties of one language

Some linguists use mutual intelligibility as a primary criterion for determining whether two speech varieties represent the same or different languages.[3][4] In a similar vein, some claim that mutual intelligibility is, ideally at least, the primary criterion separating languages from dialects.[5]

The primary challenge to these positions is that speakers of closely related languages can often communicate with each other effectively if they choose to do so. In the case of transparently cognate languages recognized as distinct such as Spanish and Italian, mutual intelligibility is in principle and in practice not binary (simply yes or no), but occurs in varying degrees, subject to numerous variables specific to individual speakers in the context of the communication.

Classifications may also shift for reasons external to the languages themselves. As an example, in the case of a linear dialect continuum that shades gradually between varieties, where speakers near the center can understand the varieties at both ends with relative ease, but speakers at one end have difficulty understanding the speakers at the other end, the entire chain is often considered a single language. If the central varieties die out and only the varieties at both ends survive, they may then be reclassified as two languages, even though no actual language change has occurred during the time of the loss of the central varieties. In this case, too, however, while mutual intelligibility between speakers of the distant remnant languages may be greatly constrained, it is likely not at the zero level of completely unrelated languages.

In addition, political and social conventions often override considerations of mutual intelligibility in both scientific and non-scientific views. For example, the varieties of Chinese are often considered a single language even though there is usually no mutual intelligibility between geographically separated varieties. Another similar example would be varieties of Arabic. In contrast, there is often significant intelligibility between different Scandinavian languages, but as each of them has its own standard form, they are classified as separate languages.[6] There is also significant intelligibility between Thai languages of different regions of Thailand.

To deal with the conflict in cases such as Arabic, Chinese and German, the term Dachsprache (a sociolinguistic "umbrella language") is sometimes seen: Chinese and German are languages in the sociolinguistic sense even though some speakers cannot understand each other without recourse to a standard or prestige form.

Asymmetric intelligibility

Asymmetric intelligibility refers to two languages that are considered partially mutually intelligible, but where one group of speakers has more difficulty understanding the other language than the other way around. There can be various reasons for this. If, for example, one language is related to another but has simplified its grammar, the speakers of the original language may understand the simplified language, but less vice versa. For example, Dutch speakers tend to find it easier to understand Afrikaans than vice versa as a result of Afrikaans' simplified grammar.[7]

Main article: North Germanic languages § Mutual intelligibility

Northern Germanic languages spoken in Scandinavia form a dialect continuum where two furthermost dialects have almost no mutual intelligibility. As such, spoken Danish and Swedish normally have low mutual intelligibility,[7] but Swedes in the Öresund region (including Malmö and Helsingborg), across a strait from the Danish capital Copenhagen, understand Danish somewhat better, largely due to the proximity of the region to Danish-speaking areas. While Norway was under Danish rule, the Bokmål written standard of Norwegian developed from Dano-Norwegian, a koiné language that evolved among the urban elite in Norwegian cities during the later years of the union. Additionally, Norwegian assimilated a considerable amount of Danish vocabulary as well as traditional Danish expressions.[7] As a consequence, spoken mutual intelligibility is not reciprocal.[7]

List of mutually intelligible languages

Written and spoken forms

Spoken forms mainly

Written forms mainly
  • French: Italian, Portuguese and Spanish. French may have partial intelligibility with Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian in written form. This is possible due to the preservation of the writing from Middle French without any changes. However, French in its spoken form is not mutually intelligible with Spanish, Portuguese and Italian due to the great phonological changes that French has undergone in recent centuries.[46][47][48] According to phonological studies, French is the one that has distanced itself the most from Latin.[49] Also the use of certain Germanic words used in the common lexicon can make it difficult for speakers of other Romance languages to understand. According to Ethnologue, French has 89% lexical similarity with Italian and 75% with Portuguese and Spanish.[50]
  • German: Dutch. Standard Dutch and Standard German show a limited degree of mutual intelligibility when written. One study concluded that when concerning written language, Dutch speakers could translate 50.2% of the provided German words correctly, while the German test subjects were able to translate 41.9% of the Dutch equivalents correctly. Another study showed that while Dutch speakers could correctly translate 71% of German cognates, they could only translate 26.6% of non-cognates correctly, suggesting a widely fluctuating intelligibility.[51] In terms of orthography, 22% of the vocabulary of Dutch and German is identical or near identical. The Levenshtein distance between written Dutch and German is 50.4% as opposed to 61.7% between English and Dutch.[52][53] The spoken languages are much more difficult to understand for both. Studies show Dutch speakers have slightly less difficulty in understanding German speakers than vice versa. It remains unclear whether this asymmetry has to do with prior knowledge of the language (Dutch people are more exposed to German than vice versa), better knowledge of another related language (English) or any other non-linguistic reasons.[52][54]
  • Icelandic: Faroese.[55]

List of mutually intelligible varieties

Below is an incomplete list of fully and partially mutually intelligible varieties sometimes considered languages.

Dialects or registers of one language sometimes considered separate languages
  • Akan: Twi and Fante.[59]
  • Assyrian Neo-Aramaic: Chaldean Neo-Aramaic,[60] Lishana Deni,[61] Hértevin,[62] Bohtan Neo-Aramaic,[63] and Senaya[64][65] – the standard forms are structurally the same language and thus mutually intelligible to a significant degree. As such, these varieties are occasionally considered dialects of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. They are only considered separate languages for geographical, political and religious reasons.[39]
  • Catalan: Valencian – the standard forms are structurally the same language and share the vast majority of their vocabulary, and hence highly mutually intelligible. They are considered separate languages only for political reasons.[66]
  • Hindustani: Hindi and Urdu[67] – the standard forms are separate registers of structurally the same language (called Hindustani or Hindi-Urdu), with Hindi written in Devanagari and Urdu mainly in a Perso-Arabic script, and with Hindi drawing its vocabulary mainly from Sanskrit and Urdu drawing it mainly from Persian and Arabic.
  • Malay: Indonesian (the standard regulated by Indonesia)[68] and Malaysian (the standard used in Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore). Both varieties are based on the same material basis and hence are generally mutually intelligible, despite the numerous lexical differences.[69] Certain linguistic sources also treat the two standards on equal standing as varieties of the same Malay language.[70] Malaysians tend to assert that Malaysian and Indonesian are merely different normative varieties of the same language, while Indonesians tend to treat them as separate, albeit closely related, languages.[71] However, vernacular or less formal varieties spoken between these two countries share limited intelligibility, evidenced by the fact that Malaysians have difficulties understanding Indonesian sinetron (soap opera) aired on their TV stations, and vice versa.[72]
  • Serbo-Croatian: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian – the national varieties are structurally the same language, all constituting normative varieties of the Shtokavian dialect, and hence mutually intelligible,[4] spoken and written (if the Latin alphabet is used).[73][74] For political reasons, they are sometimes considered distinct languages.[75]
    • However, the non-standard vernacular dialects of Serbo-Croatian (Kajkavian, Chakavian and Torlakian) are considered by some linguists to be separate, albeit closely related languages to Shtokavian Serbo-Croatian, rather than Serbo-Croatian dialects, as Shtokavian has its own set of subdialects. Their mutual intelligibility varies greatly, both between the dialects themselves as well as with other languages. Kajkavian has higher mutual intelligibility with Slovene than the national varieties of Shtokavian, while Chakavian has a low mutual intelligibility with either, in part due to large number of loanwords from Venetian. Torlakian (considered a subdialect of Serbian Old Shtokavian by some) has a significant level of mutual intelligibility with Macedonian and Bulgarian.[76] All South Slavic languages in effect form a large dialect continuum of gradually mutually intelligible varieties depending on distance between the areas where they are spoken.
  • Romanian: Moldovan – the standard forms are structurally the same language, and hence mutually intelligible. They are considered separate languages only for political reasons.[77] Moldovan does, however, have more foreign loanwords from Russian and Ukrainian due to historical East Slavic influence on the region but not to the extent where those would affect mutual intelligibility.
  • Tagalog: Filipino[78] – the national language of the Philippines, Filipino, is based almost entirely on the Luzon dialects of Tagalog.

Dialect continua

Romance

Because of the difficulty of imposing boundaries on a continuum, various counts of the Romance languages are given; in The Linguasphere register of the world’s languages and speech communities David Dalby lists 23 based on mutual intelligibility:[79]

See also

References
  1. Tweedie, Gregory; Johnson, Robert. "Listening instruction and patient safety: Exploring medical English as a lingua franca (MELF) for nursing education". Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  2. Tweedie, Gregory; Johnson, Robert. "Listening instruction and patient safety: Exploring medical English as a lingua franca (MELF) for nursing education". Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  3. Gröschel, Bernhard (2009). Das Serbokroatische zwischen Linguistik und Politik: mit einer Bibliographie zum postjugoslavischen Sprachenstreit [Serbo-Croatian Between Linguistics and Politics: With a Bibliography of the Post-Yugoslav Language Dispute]. Lincom Studies in Slavic Linguistics ; vol 34 (in German). Munich: Lincom Europa. pp. 132–136. ISBN 978-3-929075-79-3. LCCN 2009473660. OCLC 428012015. OL 15295665W.
  4. Kordić, Snježana (2010). Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and Nationalism] (PDF). Rotulus Universitas (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Durieux. pp. 101–108. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3467646. ISBN 978-953-188-311-5. LCCN 2011520778. OCLC 729837512. OL 15270636W. CROSBI 475567. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
  5. See e.g. P.H. Matthews, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, OUP 2007, p. 103.
  6. Chambers, J.K.; Trudgill, Peter (1998). Dialectology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-0-521-59646-6.
  7. Gooskens, Charlotte (2007). "The Contribution of Linguistic Factors to the Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages" (PDF). Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 28 (6): 445. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.414.7645. doi:10.2167/jmmd511.0. S2CID 18875358. Retrieved 2010-05-19.
  8. Awde, Nicholas; Lamassu, Nineb; Al-Jeloo, Nicholas (2007-06-30). Aramaic (Assyrian/Syriac) Dictionary and Phrasebook – Nicholas Awde, Nineb Lamassu, Nicholas Al-Jeloo – Google Boeken. ISBN 9780781810876. Retrieved 2012-08-17.
  9. Tezel, Aziz (2003). Comparative Etymological Studies in the Western Neo-Syriac (Ṭūrōyo) Lexicon: with special reference to homonyms, related words and borrowings with cultural signification. Uppsala Universitet. ISBN 91-554-5555-7.
  10. "Language Materials Project: Turkish". UCLA International Institute, Center for World Languages. February 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-10-11. Retrieved 2007-04-26.
  11. G (2012). "çuvaşlar: The Internal Classification & Migration of Turkic Languages".
  12. Kasapoğlu Çengel, Hülya (2004). Ukrayna'daki Urum Türkleri ve Folkloru. Milli Folklor, 2004, Yıl. 16, S. 16, s. 59
  13. Sinor, Denis (1969). Inner Asia. History-Civilization-Languages. A syllabus. Bloomington. pp. 71–96. ISBN 978-0-87750-081-0.
  14. Alexander M. Schenker. 1993. "Proto-Slavonic," The Slavonic Languages. (Routledge). Pp. 60–121. Pg. 60: "[The] distinction between dialect and language being blurred, there can be no unanimity on this issue in all instances..."
    C.F. Voegelin and F.M. Voegelin. 1977. Classification and Index of the World's Languages (Elsevier). Pg. 311, "In terms of immediate mutual intelligibility, the East Slavic zone is a single language."
    Bernard Comrie. 1981. The Languages of the Soviet Union (Cambridge). Pg. 145–146: "The three East Slavonic languages are very close to one another, with very high rates of mutual intelligibility...The separation of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian as distinct languages is relatively recent...Many Ukrainians in fact speak a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian, finding it difficult to keep the two languages apart...
  15. Language profile Macedonian Archived 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine, UCLA International Institute
  16. Trudgill, Peter (2004). "Glocalisation and the Ausbau sociolinguistics of modern Europe". In Duszak, Anna; Okulska, Urszula (eds.). Speaking from the Margin: Global English from a European Perspective. Polish Studies in English Language and Literature 11. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-0-8204-7328-4.
  17. E. K. Brown, R. E. Asher, J. M. Y. Simpson (2006). Encyclopedia of language & linguistics. Elsevier. p. 647. ISBN 978-0-08-044299-0.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. Bø, I (1976). "Ungdom od nabolad. En undersøkelse av skolens og fjernsynets betydning for nabrospråksforstålen". Rogalandsforskning. 4.
  19. Gooskens, C.; Van Bezooijen, R. (2006). "Mutual Comprehensibility of Written Afrikaans and Dutch: Symmetrical or Asymmetrical?" (PDF). Literary and Linguistic Computing. 21 (4): 543–557. doi:10.1093/llc/fql036.
  20. Kaufmann, Manuel (2006). "English in Scotland — a phonological approach". GRIN: 21. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  21. Katzner, Kenneth (2002). The languages of the world. Routledge. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-415-25003-0.
  22. Taagepera, Rein (1999). The Finno-Ugric republics and the Russian state. Routledge. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-415-91977-7.
  23. Christina Bratt Paulston (1988). International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. p. 110. ISBN 9780313244841.
  24. Voigt, Stefanie (2014). "Mutual Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages within the Romance language family" (PDF). p. 113.
  25. "Limburgish".
  26. Macedonian language Archived 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine on UCLA
  27. Borg, Albert J.; Azzopardi-Alexander, Marie (1997). Maltese. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-02243-6.
  28. Gordon 2005, Xibe
  29. Kevin Hannan (1996). Borders of Language and Identity in Teschen Silesia. Peter Lang. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-8204-3365-3.
  30. Beswick, Jaine (2005). "Linguistic homogeneity in Galician and Portuguese borderland communities". Estudios de Sociolingüística. 6 (1): 39–64.
  31. GAVILANES LASO, J. L. (1996) Algunas consideraciones sobre la inteligibilidad mutua hispano-portuguesa In: Actas del Congreso Internacional Luso-Español de Lengua y Cultura en la Frontera, Cáceres, Universidad de Extremadura, 175–187.
  32. "Comparação Português e Castelhano". www.omniglot.com.
  33. "Algumas observações sobre a noção de língua portuguesa" (PDF).
  34. Robert Lindsay, Mutual Intelligibility of Languages in the Slavic Family in Last Voices/Son Sesler; 2016 DOI: https://www.academia.edu/4080349/Mutual_Intelligibility_of_Languages_in_the_Slavic_Family.
  35. "UCLA Language Materials Project: Language Profile". Lmp.ucla.edu. Archived from the original on 2011-11-09. Retrieved 2013-09-04.
  36. Sayahi, Lotfi (24 April 2014). Diglossia and Language Contact: Language Variation and Change in North Africa. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-86707-8.
  37. Angogo, Rachel. "LANGUAGE AND POLITICS IN SOUTH AFRICA". Studies in African Linguistics Volume 9, Number 2. elanguage.net. Retrieved 30 September 2013.
  38. Katsura, M. (1973). "Phonemes of the Alu Dialect of Akha". Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No.3. 3 (3): 35–54.
  39. Heinrichs, Wolfhart (ed.) (1990). Studies in Neo-Aramaic. Scholars Press: Atlanta, Georgia. ISBN 1-55540-430-8.
  40. Beyer, Klaus; John F. Healey (trans.) (1986). The Aramaic Language: its distribution and subdivisions. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. p. 44.
  41. Rimsky-Korsakoff Dyer, Svetlana (1977). "Soviet Dungan nationalism: a few comments on their origin and language". Monumenta Serica. 33: 349–362. doi:10.1080/02549948.1977.11745054. Retrieved 2011-02-15. p. 351.
  42. Avrum Ehrlich, Mark (2009). Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: origins, experience and culture, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 192. ISBN 978-1-85109-873-6.
  43. Łabowicz, Ludmiła. "Gdzie "sicz", a gdzie "porohy"?! (ст. 15), Part II". Archived from the original on 2013-05-01. Retrieved 19 July 2014.
  44. "Glottolog 3.3 – Ladino".
  45. "Ausbau and Abstand languages". ccat.sas.upenn.edu.
  46. Price, Glanville (1971), French Language: Present and Past, Jameson Books
  47. Pope, Mildred K. From Latin to French, with Especial Consideration of Anglo-Norman. Page 183 section 481
  48. Huchon, Mireille, Histoire de la langue française, pages 214 and 223.
  49. Pei Mario (1949). "A New Methodology for Romance Classification". WORD. 5 (2): 135–146.
  50. "French".
  51. Gooskens, C.; et al. (2011). "Intelligibility of standard German and Low German to speakers of Dutch" (PDF). Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  52. Gooskens; et al. (2009). "Cross-Border Intelligibility on the Intelligibility of Low German among Speakers of Danish and Dutch" (PDF). Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  53. Gooskens & Heeringa (2004). "Perceptive evaluation of Levenshtein dialect distance measurements using Norwegian dialect data". Language Variation and Change. 16 (3): 189–207. doi:10.1017/S0954394504163023.
  54. Vincent J. van Heuven; Charlotte Gooskens; Renée van Bezooijen (12 November 2010). "Mutual intelligibility of Dutch-German cognates by humans and computers" (PDF).
  55. Barbour, Stephen (2000). Language and nationalism in Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 106. ISBN 978-0-19-925085-1.
  56. "Dari/Persian/Tajik languages" (PDF).
  57. "Kirundi language, alphabet and pronunciation". www.omniglot.com.
  58. "Tokelauan – Language Information & Resources". www.alsintl.com. Archived from the original on 2012-11-08. Retrieved 2010-05-31.
  59. Chuka Obiorah. "Twi Language – Akan's Popular Dialect". Buzz Ghana. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  60. Geoffrey Khan. "Remarks on the Historical Background of the Modern Assyrian Language". University of Cambridge.
  61. Maclean, Arthur John (1895). Grammar of the dialects of vernacular Syriac: as spoken by the Eastern Syrians of Kurdistan, north-west Persia, and the Plain of Mosul: with notices of the vernacular of the Jews of Azerbaijan and of Zakhu near Mosul. London: Cambridge University Press. OCLC 20038728.
  62. Jastrow, Otto (1990). "Personal and Demonstrative pronouns in Central Neo-Aramaic". In Heinrichs, Wolfhart (ed.). Studies in Neo-Aramaic. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. pp. 89–103. ISBN 1-55540-430-8.
  63. Fox, Samuel (2002). "A Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Bohtan". In Arnold, W.; Bobzin, H. (eds.). 'Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!' 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. pp. 165–180. ISBN 3-447-04491-8.
  64. Takashina, Yoshiyuki (1990). "Some Remarks on Modern Aramaic of Hertevin" (PDF). Journal of Asian and African Studies. 40: 85–132.
  65. Greenfield, Jonas (1978). "The Dialects of Early Aramaic". Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Colloquium on Aramaic Studies. 37 (2): 93–99. doi:10.1086/372636. S2CID 162305101.
  66. "Dictamen de l'Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua sobre els principis i criteris per a la defensa de la denominació i l'entitat del valencià" Archived 2008-12-17 at the Wayback Machine. Report from Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua about denomination and identity of Valencian.
  67. Gumperz, John J. (February 1957). "Language Problems in the Rural Development of North India". The Journal of Asian Studies. 16 (2): 251–259. doi:10.2307/2941382. JSTOR 2941382.
  68. Swan, Michael (2001). Learner English: a teacher's guide to interference and other problems. Cambridge University Press. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-521-77939-5.
  69. Adelaar, K. Alexander; Himmelmann, Nikolaus (2013-03-07). The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. Routledge. ISBN 9781136755095.
  70. An example of equal treatment of Malaysian and Indonesian: the Pusat Rujukan Persuratan Melayu database from the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka has a "Istilah MABBIM" section dedicated to documenting Malaysian, Indonesian and Bruneian official terminologies: see example
  71. "Who is Malay?". July 2005. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016.
  72. Sugiharto, Setiono (25 October 2008). "Indonesian-Malay mutual intelligibility?". Retrieved 6 December 2019.(registration required)
  73. Šipka, Danko (2019). Lexical layers of identity: words, meaning, and culture in the Slavic languages. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 166. doi:10.1017/9781108685795. ISBN 978-953-313-086-6. LCCN 2018048005. OCLC 1061308790. lexical differences between the ethnic variants are extremely limited, even when compared with those between closely related Slavic languages (such as standard Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian), and grammatical differences are even less pronounced. More importantly, complete understanding between the ethnic variants of the standard language makes translation and second language teaching impossible
  74. Kordić, Snježana (2004). "Pro und kontra: "Serbokroatisch" heute" [Pro and contra: "Serbo-Croatian" nowadays] (PDF). In Krause, Marion; Sappok, Christian (eds.). Slavistische Linguistik 2002: Referate des XXVIII. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens, Bochum 10.-12. September 2002 (PDF). Slavistishe Beiträge ; vol. 434 (in German). Munich: Otto Sagner. pp. 110–114. ISBN 978-3-87690-885-4. OCLC 56198470. SSRN 3434516. CROSBI 430499. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. (ÖNB).
  75. Greenberg, Robert David (2004). Language and identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its disintegration. Oxford University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-19-925815-4.
  76. Радева, Василка (15 July 2018). Българският език през ХХ век. Pensoft Publishers. ISBN 9789546421135 – via Google Books.
  77. "Moldovan (limba moldovenească / лимба молдовеняскэ)".
  78. "Santiago Villafania | Pangasinan Poet". archive.ph. 2012-12-06. Retrieved 2019-12-04.
  79. David Dalby, 1999/2000, The Linguasphere register of the world’s languages and speech communities. Observatoire Linguistique, Linguasphere Press. Volume 2, p. 390-410 (zone 51). Oxford. Archived 2014-08-27 at the Wayback Machine

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.