Context: Modern Nationalism, as developed especially since the French Revolution, has made the distinction between "language" and "dialect" an issue of great political importance. A group speaking a separate "language" is often seen as having a greater claim to being a separate "people", and thus to be more deserving of its own independent state, while a group speaking a "dialect" tends to be seen not as "a people" in its own right, but as a sub-group, part of a bigger people, which must content itself with regional autonomy.[citation needed] The distinction between language and dialect is thus inevitably made at least as much on a political basis as on a linguistic one, and can lead to great political controversy, or even armed conflict.

Question: What event is regarded as a landmark in the development of modern nationalism?
Answer: the French Revolution

Question: If possessing a language leads to a group being regarded as a separate people, what political arrangement presumably follows?
Answer: its own independent state

Question: What political arrangement is associated with being a dialect-speaking sub-group?
Answer: regional autonomy

Question: Along with political controversy, what can the distinction between a language and dialect sometimes lead to?
Answer: armed conflict

Question: Since which revolution has Ancient Nationalism especially been developed?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: What has failed to make a distinction between the terms language and dialect?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: On which basis is the distinction between language and dialect more often made?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: What can the distinction between regional autonomy and dialect lead to?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: What can the distinction between regional autonomy and the French Revolution lead to?
Answer: Unanswerable