It is difficult for us in the US, to relate to these extreme differences in language, in villages only miles apart. One village retains a dialect different from the neighboring town. Much of this has to do with the evolution of language, before the advent of modern transportation.
For this reason, it is extremely important that theologians study the source languages of the Bible, AND the audience + time frame in which information was delivered. For the very same reason, it is most interesting to note that with the Qu'uran, it is now understood that the source languages were the various dialects of the Bedouins. Each community had a different 'dialect'; hence christians who tried to proselitize them, resorted to their own linguistic terms. In the process, the Qu'uran was born - a 'bastardized' version of the Bible. Sadly, today, the Imams have condensed and translated everything into Arabic. In the process many of the word meanings were improperly translated, resulting in the mess we see today.
For a greater understanding of this, refer to this link:
The Virgins and the Grapes: the Christian Origins of the Koran
A couple of former coworkers (both bilingual) were discussing differences in dialect. One had been born in Puerto Rico, the other in Nebraska. The word one of them used for the calf of the leg meant potato to the other. :')
Most interesting post.
A friend of mine is an engineer from one of the minority tribes of Burma, three generations out of the stone age. There are perhaps 500 people who speak his native language. "You walk five miles down the road, and no one understands you anymore," he told me once.
(i know it is a bit late for the thread but came across both this thread these links while googling)
here is an updated link as the one in your post is out of date:
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7025&eng=y
also, it appears to have been posted right here on fr too:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1119114/posts