If this author is full of it, please do let me know, but… This was a fascinating read.
Linguists in the age of nationalism had real influence in a way that’s nearly unimaginable today, because the accompanying standardization handed people useful tools they had a reason to wield. It reminds me of the Korean alphabet. See also the creation of modern Hebrew. What are the conditions today that could use new tools? This wiki points to some grassroots innovation around the digital world and Cyrillic…
deleted by creator
There’s an often quoted saying from Yiddish scholar Max Weinreich that applies here full force:
A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
In other words, how people “split” varieties (“they’re the same language”, or “they’re different languages”) is less about their intrinsic attributes, and more about the power dynamics behind their linguistic communities.
(That’s why linguists often avoid defining what’s a language altogether, and instead use the word “variety” in its place. “Variety” doesn’t imply that you’re dealing with a language or a dialect.)
As such, this whole mess regarding Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian etc. is the result of historical factors creating a situation where the communities were in conflict, prompting them to label their respective varieties by different names, but still desire some sort of intercommunication today.
I skimmed through the article and the premise is right. I also think the starting analogy comparing American and British English is a fairly good one. It’s happened in multiple parts of the world that national politics have gotten people in different countries who speak the same language to claim that they speak a different language.
