"evropuli qartia saqarTvelo "European Charter for Regional or ...

Zhirmunsky, E. Coseriu), I. Clopeck, J. Hergen, etc. claim that understandability
among dialects is not substantial.
Some believe that, the related linguistic entities must be qualified as
languages in case of phonetic equivalence between them (M. Kurdiani) 280
.
According to G. Belman, W. Konig, etc. it is complicated to draw
a distinct line between a dialect and a language; the dialect-language
transition is easily available.
H. Harman, P. Auer, etc. believe that the status of a linguistic entity
must be defined by the society which is the user of the given entity.
Defining the status of a language and a dialect by the given
speech community itself could give adequate results in case of a language
unit that either has a newly created written language or has no
written culture (self-perception of a people with no written culture is
carried out within the boundaries of a certain unwritten language, based
281
on comprehensibility) (Cf. North Caucasian languages) .
In order to draw a distinct line between language and dialect it
seems practical to use prestigiousness–regularity, the so-called "systemacy"
and the linguistic-ethnic self-perception of a given society;
thought the first one could better characterize a written language and a
dialect but in our opinion, drawing a distinct line between an unwritten
language and a dialect is impossible. Discussion on the basis of a "language
system" is rather relational, since, for instance, according to phonematic,
morphological-syntactic and lexical-semantic structures, Russian,
Belorussian, Ukrainian and Polish languages are more closely re-
280 Globally, there are no languages or dialects qualified according to availability or
non-availability of phonematic correspondence; besides, there is no phonematic
correspondence between various related languages and vice versa: logical and regular
phonematic correspondence is available between the linguistic entities regarded as
dialects (German, Chinese, Japanese, etc.). Moreover, in North Caucasian languages the
phonematic correspondence is documented even in idioms.
281 The very method will face difficulties when addressing a society that has a centuriesold
literary culture because the archaic language and culture, which is native and
comprehensible for well-educated part of the society, could be totally incomprehensible.
For instance, Japanese or a Sinhalese peasant perceives his/her own native dialect as a
native language and unintentionally is deprived of his/her ancient culture: due to the
lack of education (lack of fluency in national culture and a literary language) a group of
people might consider their native dialect as a native language.
232