Doesn't American have that as well? For example in your post you use the ebonic American term for negro but there is also the other American variant of the word (nigger).

Because the German language is a social construct.
See, Germans are not one people, but many ethnicities united by force into one entity which can compete with the neighbours (separately they are small and this can be exploited by outside forces). Their languages are so closely related they could make an artificial Standard German which is understood by everyone.

>>42549
Armpit hair is so gross on women. Can't stomach it

>>42549
How old is the lady in OP's picrel?

>>42556
Good question.

gasp woooh

>>42556
14
now tear your eyes out fag

Suggestion to the current BO
Delete OP's pic if possible. Seems that a k*hl poster got lost and posted here

>>42597
This is a good idea. And is probably for the best

>t. kacey pro

>>42550
A broken version of a language is different from how German is. German is a language where the line between a language and dialect is is nearly non-existent. A version of German is low German and the dialects are nearly a whole other language.

>>42551
You know all German dialects that I would be discussing here all came from one language. That one language is low German.

Keep your stuff together man. It's a slow board. This thread could fit here: >>22574 in the first place. Check catalog.

>>42609
American is nearly a whole other language than English.

Y Hawlow thar. Eym Amaricun. Pleaase sand halp to aur Amaricun cuntra. Y we 8nt Ee ven got tha mehtrac systam. We caynt do baasac scyance so al ur peypole r dyan. Ef wee had da mehtrac syteeem thaan we maaght nat haave more daaths than IIndiaaa. Byt unfoorunatly Iindia is mur advaanced thaan uz.

Gaad Bleez.

>>42610
Well, low German is just a collective name for several languages.
The family tree model is flawed and gives the impression that as we going back in time we meet more and more homogeneous languages - which as we go forward in time get differentiated and branch out into several languages.
But this isn't the case, in the past there were even more tongues and with time, as the interaction between the people, with the ease of travel, communication, with the discovery of printing and telecommunication, the spreading of general education, mandatory schools, and most importantly with the official standardization of the languages became those less and less diverse and uniform. Between the "triumphant" emerging languages the separation became sharp, but within them the differences of the original languages (which they are consisting of) vanished, they turned homogeneous.
As we go back in time we just don't know how they called all those individual languages, so the related ones we hold together into groups and we call them like "Germanic" and such.

>>42642
>as we going back in time we meet more and more homogeneous languages - which as we go forward in time get differentiated and branch out into several languages
Which might hold some ground assuming a small, homogeneous population with a single language settling a large area. This assumption kind of works for New World extensions of Old World languages, but the settlers aren't that homogeneous, they come from different places in the Old World and New World regions within the same country have different population-origin makeups. For the Old World languages that were transplanted, this small population is not homogeneous (e.g. migrations by alliances of several tribes), interacted with other languages previously established on the territory and is often too far back in time.

>>42629
oh thanks

>like nigga pick a defined grammer and spelling for your language. Nigga tf is wrong wit yall.

Yes, what's wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_English

Posting mandatory family trees. Seen this one on IBs, and top hit when searched. Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/gallery/2015/jan/23/a-language-family-tree-in-pictures

>>42656
Hah, I know that. Good one.