The three surprises for me: NV/Tagalog, AL/Korean, KY/German.
The first two are presumably recent immigration.
Kentucky in particular surprises me despite my German ancestors settling in Indiana during the 19th Century. I had assumed Kentucky had been English immigrants from colonial Virginia/Carolina.
It would be helpful to show n. speakers of those languages or at least grade based on % of remaining non-English, non-Spanish speakers.
My intuition is that German, for example, is much less active of a language in the US, where immigration peaked long ago, than Chinese, where immigration is active.
This is enough to discredit the whole infographic in my eyes. No matter what the CPC or anybody else may claim, these are distinct languages, and not dialects. Not only that, but in some of these places a lot of Chinese speak other regional Chinese languages, such as Fuzhounese, rather than Mandarin or Cantonese. (I remember a blog from twenty or so years ago by a NYC Chinatown native who mapped his building by language; something like a dozen Chinese languages were spoken by residents of that building's apartments.)
The thing you're complaining about doesn't even mention the word "dialect" and it says underneath: "Some Census categories combine multiple languages or language groups". So they're probably just doing the best they can with the data that is available to them.
I think you're right that Cantonese should be (and usually is) referred to as a "language" but the categories "dialect" and "language" are not mutually exclusive. For example, Dutch is both a language (for most purposes) and a dialect of West Continental Germanic (for some linguistic purposes).
While I land on agreeing that finer language data should be collected anonymously, I think you may be too quick to view the motivations through a modern geopolitical lens. Historically Chinese American have had bigger domestic issues than this. Just a decade ago, Asian Americans in Massachusetts protested bill H3361 out of fear that finer census data would be used improperly.
Cantonese is a language, yes, but mutual intelligibility and similarity to other languages is hardly relevant unless the languages are very similar indeed.
For example, there are spoken varieties of English that are mutually unintelligible, while speakers of different Slavic languages are often capable of having a good conversation by speaking slowly and listening carefully.
In practice the main criterion for being a language as opposed to a continuum of dialects is the degree of standardisation. So an example of something that may or may not be a language might be something like Swiss German (but I'm not an expert so I can't guarantee that's a good example). Another type of borderline case is when you have two standardised languages which differ only slightly, for example US English and GB English, or DE German and AT German.
> For example, there are spoken varieties of English that are mutually unintelligibl
Which? I have travelled to, worked in, or lived in multiple countries with English speaking populations (by which I mean some people speak English as a first language, though it may be a small minority) on five continents and never had a serious problem understanding people. Some slang and idiom and loan words, but thing much.
I have personally been baffled by some Scottish and Indian speakers of English, particularly when I was younger and less experienced. And Singapore English is said to be particularly hard for someone with no previous experience. And I know of a case in which someone from London sat at a table with some in-laws who were speaking a traditional native dialect of southern England to each other and found they understand almost nothing, though that was a few decades ago and the dialect in question is perhaps only spoken by old people today.
When you say you "never had a serious problem understanding people", do you mean you could understand them when you overheard them speaking to each other? Because that, of course, is the real test of how intelligible their language is to you. They may well speak a bit differently when speaking to an outsider. Also, you may be particularly skillful at understanding spoken English. I feel I have got better at understanding British dialects as I got older and gained experience of them. I was terribly confused by some dialects as a child.
With compulsory education almost everyone today has some knowledge of a standard language besides whatever dialects they have learnt. If you want to find someone who only speaks dialect X of language Y you might have to look in places where Y is neither official nor widely taught, or among very old people who never went to school.
I do have the advantage of having grown up speaking two dialects (but they are not THAT different) so I am probably better than average at understanding spoken English. I think the biggest difference is attitude: I am not thrown by hearing an unfamiliar idiom.
I have heard Singaporeans, Indians and others speaking to each other and had no difficulty understanding them.
A problem I have come across in South Asia is people mixing languages. At that point are the speaking English? It can be quite disconcerting when someone changes language mid-conversation.
I have found Geordies and some Scots difficult to understand, but I think "mutually unintelligible" over stating it. There are reasons why Scots is sometimes classified as a different language. Other than that I have had difficulty with any form of British English.
There’s nothing to be reminded of. English has a word to describe North and South America together (“the Americas”). Other languages have different words for the same concept.
It’s like reminding someone they shouldn’t say “bicycle” but should instead say “fahrrad”.
The USAians are largely seemingly already convinced the name of their country starts with an A, those that live elsewhere generally have better geography chops, so you're correct - it's unlikely any minds will change.
We have a similar thing on this side of the Atlantic where people argue about whether it is acceptable to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as "Britain". I feel it is, as an abbreviation, and it is my preferred abbreviation, along with "GB", because I like to look forward to the time when we won't have a monarchy any more and I therefore don't like the abbreviation "UK", and also, despite not having any strong Irish connections, I tend to feel that Ireland ought to be reunited. This may seem like the opposite of my opinion on the US/America question, where I prefer "US", and I suppose it is, but I have my reasons!
I am quite surprised no one is bothered by the fact that the name is that of a colonialist and slave trader (he personally took part is slave raiding).
Apart from The Economist, I don't know anyone who says "the Americas".
If you asked a random person what Columbus discovered, what would they answer? Round here I think most people would say that Columbus discovered America. By landing in San Salvador and then Cuba.
By the way, I don't strongly object to people using "America" as an abbreviation for "The United States of America" in contexts in which it is obvious that a country is being referred to, and "American" is even less objectionable in an appropriate context. At the same time, "American" obviously doesn't mean "of or pertaining to the USA" if someone is talking about "American species of conifer" or "American dialects of Spanish" or "American tortilla recipes".
> If you asked a random person what Columbus discovered, what would they answer? Round here I think most people would say that Columbus discovered America. By landing in San Salvador and then Cuba.
Do they actually know where he landed? I think that other than your Columbus example it would be very rare for people to say "America" to mean either or both continents.
Most people I know would say America for the US, North America, South America, or the Americas as appropriate. when referring to the continents.
Other than The Economist's usage, "The Americas" is used by other publications and books, its the name of a TV series, its the title of most wikipedia articles relating to the two continents.
The three surprises for me: NV/Tagalog, AL/Korean, KY/German.
The first two are presumably recent immigration.
Kentucky in particular surprises me despite my German ancestors settling in Indiana during the 19th Century. I had assumed Kentucky had been English immigrants from colonial Virginia/Carolina.
It would be helpful to show n. speakers of those languages or at least grade based on % of remaining non-English, non-Spanish speakers.
My intuition is that German, for example, is much less active of a language in the US, where immigration peaked long ago, than Chinese, where immigration is active.
[flagged]
> Chinese (Mandarin/Cantonese)
This is enough to discredit the whole infographic in my eyes. No matter what the CPC or anybody else may claim, these are distinct languages, and not dialects. Not only that, but in some of these places a lot of Chinese speak other regional Chinese languages, such as Fuzhounese, rather than Mandarin or Cantonese. (I remember a blog from twenty or so years ago by a NYC Chinatown native who mapped his building by language; something like a dozen Chinese languages were spoken by residents of that building's apartments.)
The thing you're complaining about doesn't even mention the word "dialect" and it says underneath: "Some Census categories combine multiple languages or language groups". So they're probably just doing the best they can with the data that is available to them.
I think you're right that Cantonese should be (and usually is) referred to as a "language" but the categories "dialect" and "language" are not mutually exclusive. For example, Dutch is both a language (for most purposes) and a dialect of West Continental Germanic (for some linguistic purposes).
While I land on agreeing that finer language data should be collected anonymously, I think you may be too quick to view the motivations through a modern geopolitical lens. Historically Chinese American have had bigger domestic issues than this. Just a decade ago, Asian Americans in Massachusetts protested bill H3361 out of fear that finer census data would be used improperly.
the point is to give an idea of the approximate region that people come from, not to give a professionally accurate linguistic picture
Mandarin and Cantonese are distinct, mutually unintelligible languages that sound as different to each other as Spanish and French.
Cantonese is a language, yes, but mutual intelligibility and similarity to other languages is hardly relevant unless the languages are very similar indeed.
For example, there are spoken varieties of English that are mutually unintelligible, while speakers of different Slavic languages are often capable of having a good conversation by speaking slowly and listening carefully.
In practice the main criterion for being a language as opposed to a continuum of dialects is the degree of standardisation. So an example of something that may or may not be a language might be something like Swiss German (but I'm not an expert so I can't guarantee that's a good example). Another type of borderline case is when you have two standardised languages which differ only slightly, for example US English and GB English, or DE German and AT German.
> For example, there are spoken varieties of English that are mutually unintelligibl
Which? I have travelled to, worked in, or lived in multiple countries with English speaking populations (by which I mean some people speak English as a first language, though it may be a small minority) on five continents and never had a serious problem understanding people. Some slang and idiom and loan words, but thing much.
I have personally been baffled by some Scottish and Indian speakers of English, particularly when I was younger and less experienced. And Singapore English is said to be particularly hard for someone with no previous experience. And I know of a case in which someone from London sat at a table with some in-laws who were speaking a traditional native dialect of southern England to each other and found they understand almost nothing, though that was a few decades ago and the dialect in question is perhaps only spoken by old people today.
When you say you "never had a serious problem understanding people", do you mean you could understand them when you overheard them speaking to each other? Because that, of course, is the real test of how intelligible their language is to you. They may well speak a bit differently when speaking to an outsider. Also, you may be particularly skillful at understanding spoken English. I feel I have got better at understanding British dialects as I got older and gained experience of them. I was terribly confused by some dialects as a child.
With compulsory education almost everyone today has some knowledge of a standard language besides whatever dialects they have learnt. If you want to find someone who only speaks dialect X of language Y you might have to look in places where Y is neither official nor widely taught, or among very old people who never went to school.
I do have the advantage of having grown up speaking two dialects (but they are not THAT different) so I am probably better than average at understanding spoken English. I think the biggest difference is attitude: I am not thrown by hearing an unfamiliar idiom.
I have heard Singaporeans, Indians and others speaking to each other and had no difficulty understanding them.
A problem I have come across in South Asia is people mixing languages. At that point are the speaking English? It can be quite disconcerting when someone changes language mid-conversation.
I have found Geordies and some Scots difficult to understand, but I think "mutually unintelligible" over stating it. There are reasons why Scots is sometimes classified as a different language. Other than that I have had difficulty with any form of British English.
it's about cultural relatedness from a Western centric pov, not language
Surprised to see no Indian languages (India the country, not American Indians)
What in the world is “other native” supposed to mean? Those languages don’t have names?
creole?
You know there are 34 countries in America other than the United States.
You are welcome to remind people of this, but don’t expect that you’ll change anyone’s habits on an English-speaking USA-based forum.
There’s nothing to be reminded of. English has a word to describe North and South America together (“the Americas”). Other languages have different words for the same concept.
It’s like reminding someone they shouldn’t say “bicycle” but should instead say “fahrrad”.
The USAians are largely seemingly already convinced the name of their country starts with an A, those that live elsewhere generally have better geography chops, so you're correct - it's unlikely any minds will change.
It's possible for a name to refer to both a country and a continent (or two). Just as "New York" could mean the state or the city.
We have a similar thing on this side of the Atlantic where people argue about whether it is acceptable to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as "Britain". I feel it is, as an abbreviation, and it is my preferred abbreviation, along with "GB", because I like to look forward to the time when we won't have a monarchy any more and I therefore don't like the abbreviation "UK", and also, despite not having any strong Irish connections, I tend to feel that Ireland ought to be reunited. This may seem like the opposite of my opinion on the US/America question, where I prefer "US", and I suppose it is, but I have my reasons!
Are there any countries named after continents though? Aside from Australia?
I was taught that the continent is Oceania, not Australia
Of course - most HN users live in the United States’ northern neighbor (which just so happens to also be called the United States).
In English that would be "the Americas".
I am quite surprised no one is bothered by the fact that the name is that of a colonialist and slave trader (he personally took part is slave raiding).
Apart from The Economist, I don't know anyone who says "the Americas".
If you asked a random person what Columbus discovered, what would they answer? Round here I think most people would say that Columbus discovered America. By landing in San Salvador and then Cuba.
By the way, I don't strongly object to people using "America" as an abbreviation for "The United States of America" in contexts in which it is obvious that a country is being referred to, and "American" is even less objectionable in an appropriate context. At the same time, "American" obviously doesn't mean "of or pertaining to the USA" if someone is talking about "American species of conifer" or "American dialects of Spanish" or "American tortilla recipes".
> If you asked a random person what Columbus discovered, what would they answer? Round here I think most people would say that Columbus discovered America. By landing in San Salvador and then Cuba.
Do they actually know where he landed? I think that other than your Columbus example it would be very rare for people to say "America" to mean either or both continents.
Most people I know would say America for the US, North America, South America, or the Americas as appropriate. when referring to the continents.
Other than The Economist's usage, "The Americas" is used by other publications and books, its the name of a TV series, its the title of most wikipedia articles relating to the two continents.
It appears to be "open to uncertainties" but is the commoner usage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#cite_note-oxfordc-3
Very surprised Navajo is so strong.
Makes sense considering the Navajo Nation in those states though
that's a lot more German than I would have guessed