>dialects>sound completely fucking differentAre they actually chinese or conquered ethnic minorities that got sinicized?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znmgQ-C9zTo
>>18479278No such thing as "american". They were mixed peoples.
>>18479254Were francophone Louisiana cajuns “really Americans” or ethnic minorities who got Americanized?
>>18479293They were fr*nch instead of anglos like the dutch and the english
>>18479293They're Canadians who got BTFO'd by Britishers.
They're only "dialects" for sociopolitical reasons, in any reasonable respect they're separate languages entirely.
>>18479440They use the same words. They just sound different because theres only 1 syllable per word so if you get a little bit of an accent it becomes a different language.
>>18479254The reason for the vast dialects is mostly due to Chinas geography; the divergence was driven by extreme geographic isolation due to their mountainous terrain and centuries of political fragmentation, preserved under a single unified writing system
>>18479622Doesnt look that isolated to me
>>18479673If you compere the terrain and the dialect map you see a correlation; the places which don't have any hard terrain to cross over is the result of my second pointIf you use this map here, you can see clearly that more mountainous regions have way a larger amount of dialects
>>18479254>Are they actually conquered ethnic minorities that got sinicizedYes. They were called southern barbarians for a reason.
>>18479254They're the same language in the sense that English is the same language as German or French is the same language as Latin. Most of Chinese history is completely bunk because the Chinese did not respect historiography the same way the west does/
