Kasilihngartian

Ti Wikipédia Sunda, énsiklopédi bébas
Loncat ke navigasi Loncat ke pencarian

Dina élmu linguistik, kasilihngartian mangrupa hubungan antara basa-basa atawa dialék-dialék anu panyaturna bisa silih ngarti tanpa kudu diajar heula ngeunaan éta basa sanajan basa atawa dialék éta miboga bébédaan ragam, tapi masih silh patali. Kasilihngartian ilaharna dipaké minangka kritéria pangpentingna pikeun ngabédakeun basa jeung dialék iwal ti faktor-faktor sosiolinguistik séjénna anu mindeng dipaké ogé.

Kasilihngartian antarbasa bisa kajadi sacara asimétris, misalna sabot panyatur basa A leuwih paham basa B tibatan panyatur basa B paham kana basa A. Anapon kapahaman antarbasa anu cukup asimétris miboga ciri "silih ngarti". Fénoména kapahaman antarbasa ieu pecenghul dina mangpirang tingkatan dina basa-basa anu sarungkun atawa padeukeut sacara géografis di dunya, mindeng kapanggih dina kontéks dialék kontinum

Daptar basa anu pasilihngarti[édit | édit sumber]

Di handap ieu mangrupa taratas daptar basa anu silih mikaharti sacara gembleng atawa ngan sawaréh.

Wangun tulis jeung kaucap[édit | édit sumber]

Ngan dina wangun lisan[édit | édit sumber]

Ngan dina wangun tulis[édit | édit sumber]

Dialék atawa laras hiji basa anu sakapeung dianggap papisah[édit | édit sumber]

  • Néo-Aram Asyur: Néo-Aram Khaldea,[40] Lishana Deni,[41] Hértevin,[42] Néo-Aram Bohtan,[43] jeung Senaya[44][45]—wangun luluguna mangrupa hiji basa anu sarua sacara struktural nu matak bisa silih dipikaharti nepi ka undakan tartangtu. Ku sabab éta, basa-basa éta sakapeung dianggap minangka dialék basa Néo-Aram Asyur. Basa-basa éta dianggap kapisah ku sabab alesan géografis jeung agamais.[34]
  • Rumania: Moldova—wangun luluguna mangrupa hiji basa anu sarua sacara struktural nu matak bisa silih dipikaharti. Dua basa éta dianggap papisah ku sabab alesan pulitik.[46]
  • Serbo-Kroasia: Bosnia, Kroasia, Montenegro, jeung Serbia—wangun luluguna mangrupa hiji basa anu sarua sacara struktural nu matak bisa silih mikaharti,[47] boh lisan atawa tulis (lamun pada-pada maké alfabét Latin).[48] Basa-basa éta dianggap papisah ku sabab alesan politik.[49]
    • Dialék-dialék basa Serbo-Kroasia (Kajkavia, Chakavia, Shtokavia, jeung Torlakia) dianggap ku sababaraha urang salaku basa. Wangun lulugu kaopat dialék éta didasarkeun kana wangun lulugu dialék Shtokavia. Kasilihngartian kaopat dialék éta téh variasi pisan, boh antardialék atawa jeung basa deungeun. Dialék Kajkavia mikasilihngartian jeung Slovénia sarta dialék Torlakia (dianggap ku sababaraha urang salaku subdialék Shtokavia) mikasilihngartian sacara signifikan jeung Makédonia jeung Bulgaria.[50]
  • Tagalog: Filipino[51]—minangka basa nasional Filipina, basa Filipino dumasar kana ampir sagemblengna basa Tagalog dialék Luzon.

Rujukan[édit | édit sumber]

  1. a b c d e f g h Gooskens, Charlotte (2007). "The Contribution of Linguistic Factors to the Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages". Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development (Universitas Groningen) 28 (6): 445. doi:10.2167/jmmd511.0. http://www.let.rug.nl/gooskens/pdf/publ_JMMD_2007.pdf. Diakses pada 2010-05-19. 
  2. a b c d e "Language Materials Project: Turkish". UCLA International Institute, Center for World Languages. Februari 2007. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2007-10-11. Diakses tanggal 2007-04-26. 
  3. a b c d e f g h i j The Internal Classification & Migration of Turkic Languages
  4. a b c d e Kasapoğlu Çengel, Hülya (2004). Ukrayna'daki Urum Türkleri ve Folkloru. Milli Folklor, 2004, Yıl. 16, S. 16, s. 59
  5. a b c d e Sinor, Denis (1969). Inner Asia. History-Civilization-Languages. A syllabus. Bloomington. pp. 71–96. ISBN 0-87750-081-9. 
  6. http://www.let.rug.nl/~gooskens/pdf/publ_litlingcomp_2006b.pdf
  7. a b http://www.let.rug.nl/gooskens/pdf/publ_ZDL_2009b.pdf
  8. a b http://www.let.rug.nl/gooskens/pdf/pres_exapp2010a_2010.pdf
  9. a b c Alexander M. Schenker. 1993. "Proto-Slavonic," The Slavonic Languages. (Routledge), hlm. 60–121. Hlm. 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). Hlm. 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). Hlm. 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...
  10. a b Language profile Macedonian Archived 2009-03-11 di Wayback Machine, UCLA International Institute
  11. a b c d e f g Robert Lindsay. "Mutual Intelligibility of Languages in the Slavic Family". Academia.edu. Diakses tanggal 2 Maret 2014. Citakan:Unreliable source?
  12. a b Trudgill, Peter (2004). "Glocalisation and the Ausbau sociolinguistics of modern Europe". Di Duszak, Anna; Okulska, Urszula. Speaking from the Margin: Global English from a European Perspective. Polish Studies in English Language and Literature 11. Peter Lang. ISBN 0-8204-7328-6. 
  13. a b c d e Dari/Persian/Tajik languages
  14. a b c Bø, I (1976). "Ungdom od nabolad. En undersøkelse av skolens og fjernsynets betydning for nabrospråksforstålen". Rogalandsforskning 4. 
  15. a b Katzner, Kenneth (2002). The languages of the world. Routledge. p. 105. ISBN 0-415-25003-X. 
  16. Taagepera, Rein (1999). The Finno-Ugric republics and the Russian state. Routledge. p. 100. ISBN 0-415-91977-0. 
  17. a b Wright, Sue (1996). Monolingualism and bilingualism: Lessons from Canada and Spain. Multilingual Matters Ltd. p. 80. ISBN 1-85359-354-0. 
  18. a b Beswick, Jaine (2005). "Linguistic homogeneity in Galician and Portuguese borderland communities". Estudios de Sociolingüística 6 (1): 39–64. 
  19. Kaufmann, Manuel. "English in Scotland — a phonological approach". GRIN.
  20. a b Voigt, Stefanie (2014年). "Mutual Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages within the Romance language family". p. 113. http://www.linguistics.fi/contact/Book_of_abstracts_10.7.2014.pdf#page=114 
  21. a b Kirundi Language
  22. Basa Makedonia Archived 2009-03-11 di Wayback Machine di UCLA
  23. Aramaic (Assyrian/Syriac) Dictionary and Phrasebook – Nicholas Awde, Nineb Lamassu, Nicholas Al-Jeloo. Google Books. 2007-06-30. Diakses tanggal 2012-08-17. 
  24. 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.
  25. Gavilanes Laso, J.L. (1996) Algunas consideraciones sobre la inteligibilidad mutua hispano-portuguesaCitakan:Citation broken In: Actas del Congreso Internacional Luso-Español de Lengua y Cultura en la Frontera, Cáceres, Universidad de Extremadura, 175–187.
  26. Comparação Português e Castelhano
  27. Algumas observações sobre a noção de língua portuguesa
  28. a b "UCLA Language Materials Project: Language Profile". UCLA LMP. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2011-11-09. Diakses tanggal 2013-09-04. 
  29. a b "Basa Tokelau". Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2012-11-08. Diakses tanggal 2015-09-30. 
  30. Sibanda, Ethelia. "Degree of mutual intelligibility between Ndebele and Zulu". Wudpecker Journal of Educational Research. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2013-10-20. Diakses tanggal 30 September 2013. 
  31. a b c Angogo, Rachel. "Language and Politics in South Africa". Studies in African Linguistics Volume 9, Number 2. elanguage.net. Diakses tanggal 30 September 2013. 
  32. a b 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. 
  33. a b Basa-basa Ausbau dan Abstand
  34. a b Heinrichs, Wolfhart (ed.) (1990). Studies in Neo-Aramaic. Scholars Press: Atlanta, Georgia. ISBN 1-55540-430-8.
  35. Beyer, Klaus; John F. Healey (terj.) (1986). The Aramaic Language: Its Distribution and Subdivisions. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, hlm. 44.
  36. Łabowicz, Ludmiła. "Gdzie "sicz", a gdzie "porohy"?! (ст. 15), Part II". Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2013-05-01. Diakses tanggal 19 Juli 2014. 
  37. Barbour, Stephen (2000). Language and Nationalism in Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 106. ISBN 978-0-19-925085-1. 
  38. Gumperz, John J. (Februari 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. https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-asian-studies_1957-02_16_2/page/251. 
  39. 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. 
  40. Remarks on the Historical Background of the Modern Assyrian Language, Geoffrey Khan, University of Cambridge
  41. 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. Cambridge University Press, London.
  42. Jastrow, Otto (1990). Personal and Demonstrative pronouns in Central Neo-Aramaic. In Wolfhart Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic, hlm. 89–103. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. ISBN 1-55540-430-8.
  43. Fox, Samuel. 2002. "A Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Bohtan", dalam W. Arnold dan H. Bobzin, "Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!" 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 165–180.
  44. Takashina, Yoshiyuki.1990. "Some Remarks on Modern Aramaic of Hertevin." Journal of Asian and African Studies 40: 85–132
  45. Greenfield, Jonas. 1978. "The Dialects of Early Aramaic". Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Colloquium on Aramaic Studies 37: 93–99
  46. "Moldovan (limba moldovenească / лимба молдовеняскэ)". 
  47. Kordić, Snježana (2010). Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and Nationalism] (PDF). Rotulus Universitas (dalam Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Durieux. pp. 101–108. ISBN 978-953-188-311-5. LCCN 2011520778. OCLC 729837512. OL 15270636W. Diarsipkan (PDF) dari versi asli tanggal 2012-07-08. Diakses tanggal 3 Agustus 2014. 
  48. Kordić, Snježana (2004). "Pro und kontra: "Serbokroatisch" heute" [Pro and contra: "Serbo-Croatian" nowadays] (PDF). Di Krause, Marion; Sappok, Christian. Slavistische Linguistik 2002: Referate des XXVIII. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens, Bochum 10-12 September 2002. Slavistishe Beiträge ; vol. 434 (dalam German). Munich: Otto Sagner. pp. 110–114. ISBN 3-87690-885-X. OCLC 56198470. Diarsipkan (PDF) dari versi asli tanggal 2012-08-04. Diakses tanggal 23 Januari 2015. 
  49. 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. 
  50. Българският език през ХХ век (Basa Bulgaria pada Abad XX)
  51. "Salinan arsip". Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2013-01-27. Diakses tanggal 2015-09-30. 
Linguistics stub.svg