The difference between a language and a dialect is often based on political and social power, not linguistic criteria.
Here's a breakdown of the statement:
* Dialect: A variety of a language spoken by a particular group of people, often with distinctive vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation.
* Army and navy: Representing the power and influence of a nation or state.
The statement implies that:
* Political influence: A dialect can become recognized as a distinct language if the group speaking it has enough political power, as seen in the example of the standard language of a country being generally the language of the ruling class.
* Social prestige: Languages with greater social prestige and widespread use are often considered "real languages," even if they share significant similarities with other dialects.
However, the statement is oversimplification:
* Linguistic criteria do matter: There are linguistic criteria that can help distinguish languages from dialects, such as mutual intelligibility (whether speakers can understand each other), grammar, and vocabulary.
* Power dynamics are complex: The relationship between language and power is not always straightforward. Sometimes, dialects with less political power can still retain their identity and be considered distinct languages.
In summary: While there's truth to the idea that political and social factors influence language recognition, it's important to remember that linguistic criteria also play a role. The statement is a fun way to spark discussion but should not be taken as a definitive explanation of the language-dialect distinction.