I am currently doimg course on both of these topics.
Yes, there is a continuum between these concepts, but there is a much better case for the idea that all ibero-romance languages are actually one language than for the “Chinese Macrolanguage”.
Hakka for example is not mutually intelligible with any of the other branches of the family, yet it is still considered to be a dialect of Chinese. Why? Because it shares the script?
The political reason, imho, far outweigh the linguistical reasons for considering Chinese to be a language rather than a family.
I am currently doimg course on both of these topics.
Yes, there is a continuum between these concepts, but there is a much better case for the idea that all ibero-romance languages are actually one language than for the “Chinese Macrolanguage”.
Hakka for example is not mutually intelligible with any of the other branches of the family, yet it is still considered to be a dialect of Chinese. Why? Because it shares the script?
The political reason, imho, far outweigh the linguistical reasons for considering Chinese to be a language rather than a family.