Languages of Europe Map Draft (feedback request)

[jycee]

After trying to explain language nuances across Europe (specifically Italy) to someone very unfamiliar, I went a little overboard with a side project and ended up drawing this map (it ended up being the first post on my DA account as well). I based this off multiple maps and articles, and at first, I wanted something simple but I got carried away.

I am proud of the map as it is, but I know it is not entirely accurate; it is evident that the further away, you go from northern Italy, the least detail there is on the map. Furthermore, I certainly missed a few languages, several dialects, and multiple nuances here and there. However, I got this far and the hard work is done so why not keep going?

I want to make this as detailed as possible, but I will need help and input from people with a better grasp of dialects and languages.

The color code - it is definitely a mess, at first I tried to code by language families (hence why the Germanic languages are in shades of blue) but I very quickly ran into trouble since I ended up with more languages families when isolates entered the equation.

Coloring rules - I used to distinguish dialects and multilingual borders (whether to use striped sections or just bleeding the color) are not 100% consistent, especially when trying to differentiate across dialects and continuous. And between official and protected languages.

Labels - it tried to use broad endonyms for the most part, but I'm sure I effed it up in more than one place.

Borders - In many cases, I exaggerated how much a language bleeds across borders to show the fact that it does. I'd still like to make it clear but I'd still like to trim it.

I aim to fix these with input from everyone. If you think something should be fixed let me know, point me towards any reliable source (yes a lot of this first draft was based off Wikipedia images) and I’ll fix it.

Again, I aim to make this as detailed as possible someday. So I'd like to know your thoughts and feedback.

 

[Tomislav Addai]

oh man this is impressive

 

[Vuu]

Balkan expert right here: North Kosovo shouldn't be striped - it's almost all Serbs. There are few scattered thorough too. Macedonian has almost no projection into other countries. A piece of Presevo speaks albanian, Bosilegrad Bulgarian. In Bosnia, the internal border is a quite clear demographic one too, but there are Serbs majority in north Livno canton. Romanian speakers also scattered over a much smaller area, as well as Hungarian

 

[jycee]

oh man this is impressive

Thanks!

Balkan expert right here: North Kosovo shouldn't be striped - it's almost all Serbs. There are few scattered thorough too. Macedonian has almost no projection into other countries. A piece of Presevo speaks albanian, Bosilegrad Bulgarian. In Bosnia, the internal border is a quite clear demographic one too, but there are Serbs majority in north Livno canton. Romanian speakers also scattered over a much smaller area, as well as Hungarian

Thanks!

The Macedonian spill-over into Serbia and Greece is actually a mistake, the stripes should be tinted in the darker purple for Bulgarian. And like most, the surface area probably could use some trimming.

For Serbia in general, I was using this wiki map as a base: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Serbia#/media/File:Serbia_Language_Map_2002.png

Do let me know your thoughts on how accurate it is. And I think I might not have aligned the bases that well, hence why Hungarian and Romanian bled a bit more in my map than they do here.

I'll fix this on my next draft, and will try to get more dialect nuance in there as well; would you say Torlak and Gorani could deserve a label?

 

[Vuu]

Hm, possibly - language classification here is nonsensical, so when i need to define, I use ethnologue

 

[LSCatilina]

@jycee

The work done is commendable, really and especially giving the difficulty : but most of the linguistical border and differentiation in France is wrong.
First the borders : they are wrong because I strongly suspect you used administrative borders there, which is really not the way to go. I'd rather recommend something like this which is, while not perfect, really closer to what you have there.

Gascon is essentially a dialect of the Occitan ensemble : either you'd have to depict every other dialectal part of it, or merge them.
Munegasque is generally considered a local speech of Ligurian
Guernesais and Jersiais are local speeches of Norman, part of the Oil ensemble that got integrated into French
Catalan in France isn't much more widely used than other languages, so it probably should be stripped as these. The same for Basque and Corsican and as well for Breton (I suspect you used this map, but it doesn't show much exclusivity and rather understanding of Breton among a largely french-speaking population, monolinguism having disappeared since the 50's)

Personally, I would represent Franco-Provencal as part of the OIl ensemble, but that's more of an opinion than a widely acknowledged fact.

 

[Nephi]

That's really well done.

 

[Wendell]

Nice effort. Don't forget though that there are still small German pockets in Transylvania,

 

[CHKeeley]

Great job here! The Celtic language group looks pretty good in terms of where it’s spoken. The Gaeltacht is solid in terms of where it’s spoken and where it isn’t. Welsh should probably have a solid color in the north and on Anglesey, but get striped until Cardiff where it’s mostly just English. Scots Gaelic as well should perhaps be striped on the Scottish mainland. It is spoken solidly on the Islands off the coast, but the consistency definitely goes down once you hit the mainland.

These are only minor nitpicks and personal choices though, great map I must say, must have taken ages to complete.

 

[jycee]

@jycee

The work done is commendable, really and especially giving the difficulty : but most of the linguistical border and differentiation in France is wrong.
First the borders : they are wrong because I strongly suspect you used administrative borders there, which is really not the way to go. I'd rather recommend something like this which is, while not perfect, really closer to what you have there.

Gascon is essentially a dialect of the Occitan ensemble : either you'd have to depict every other dialectal part of it, or merge them.
Munegasque is generally considered a local speech of Ligurian
Guernesais and Jersiais are local speeches of Norman, part of the Oil ensemble that got integrated into French
Catalan in France isn't much more widely used than other languages, so it probably should be stripped as these. The same for Basque and Corsican and as well for Breton (I suspect you used this map, but it doesn't show much exclusivity and rather understanding of Breton among a largely french-speaking population, monolinguism having disappeared since the 50's)

Personally, I would represent Franco-Provencal as part of the OIl ensemble, but that's more of an opinion than a widely acknowledged fact.

Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, I was mostly using administrative borders… I was having a hard time finding a map of France that depicted the areas in which the languages are spoken more solidly. But you draw up good points and the lenga d'òc should go a bit higher, even if there are very few concentrated speakers anyway. And a smaller area for Breton. I will be fixing the borders on the next draft.

I had opted to only label Gascon since it is arguably the healthiest dialect, but I guess I should label the rest as I did in other languages.

I do however have a harder time deciding how to treat the French d'oïl spectrum since the dialects vary much less than in other languages. I only labeled Walon, to depict the Belgian name. Any suggestions? Aside from aggregating Guernesais and Jersiais into Normand?

The reason I opted to separate Franco-Provençal is because it is actually protected as a minority in Italy.

That's really well done.

Thanks!

Nice effort. Don't forget though that there are still small German pockets in Transylvania,

I won't, I was trying to get some good info on the current status of Transylvanian German, it seems it is only a few border towns, which I might depict in the next draft if I can make it stand out.

Great job here! The Celtic language group looks pretty good in terms of where it’s spoken. The Gaeltacht is solid in terms of where it’s spoken and where it isn’t. Welsh should probably have a solid color in the north and on Anglesey, but get striped until Cardiff where it’s mostly just English. Scots Gaelic as well should perhaps be striped on the Scottish mainland. It is spoken solidly on the Islands off the coast, but the consistency definitely goes down once you hit the mainland.

These are only minor nitpicks and personal choices though, great map I must say, must have taken ages to complete.

Thanks! I went off a very rough map for most of Britain, but I think I'm going to edit Scotland following this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVmgGkrXkAAmDws.jpg

Thoughts on that map or something like it?

 

[LSCatilina]

I was having a hard time finding a map of France that depicted the areas in which the languages are spoken more solidly.

There some, whom reliance is...debatable, considering we're talking of populations that are essentially french-speaking since the 50's at latest.
This for Occitan should clearly point that even in "relatively" conserved parts, it's extremely far from being common, and maybe points rather to a cultural identity?

I had opted to only label Gascon since it is arguably the healthiest dialect, but I guess I should label the rest as I did in other languages.

Frankly, I'd rather think it's better to simplify it as part of the Occitan ensemble : while Gascon is rather distinct among the ensemble, it's really understable with each others. As for wealthiest...meh. Bearnese certainly account a lot for this, due to traditional structuring, but I'm not seeing Gascon being really more used than, say, Auvergnat.

I do however have a harder time deciding how to treat the French d'oïl spectrum since the dialects vary much less than in other languages. I only labeled Walon, to depict the Belgian name. Any suggestions? Aside from aggregating Guernesais and Jersiais into Normand?

Dialectal variety is partly coming from a trompe l'oeil : the early and strong standardization of French made dialects sound quikcly foreign to french spekears since the late XIXth and it continue nowadays (with several people in France unable to really understand French Canadian). For all the claims being wow very different, much language, not French but Oil...I think you'd have a lot more dialectal differenciation including on identity with Italian ensemble.

The reason I opted to separate Franco-Provençal is because it is actually protected as a minority in Italy.

I understand, but Aranese being considered as the third language of Catalonia doesn't make it anything else, linguistically, than a variant of Gascon dialect of Occitan.
Now, I wholly admit differenciation of Franco-Provencal, on a linguistical basis, is clearly much based than Aranese and the situation is a bit more murky. But personally, I'd rather see it as a particular part of northern ensemble, than a clearly established language : there's a lot of difference with Middle-French in the XVIth but to the point being labelled as a language?
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoprovençal#Littérature
I don't want to provoke a debate on this, and I'll sleep all the same if you decide to represent it as a separate group, but I'd just wanted to point that some caution should be considered, especially giving the modern use of Francoprovencal is closer to Oil speeches than even use of Occitan.

 

[CHKeeley]

Thoughts on that map or something like it?

Even though I’m no expert on Scots Gaelic, I found the whole map including Wales and Ireland on twitter and it seems pretty solid and well researched, so yeah I would go ahead and use it!

 

[jycee]

There some, whom reliance is...debatable, considering we're talking of populations that are essentially french-speaking since the 50's at latest.
This for Occitan should clearly point that even in "relatively" conserved parts, it's extremely far from being common, and maybe points rather to a cultural identity?

This map is perfect! Thanks. I will edit accordingly, probably remove the striped version from the areas marked as low usage.

Frankly, I'd rather think it's better to simplify it as part of the Occitan ensemble : while Gascon is rather distinct among the ensemble, it's really understable with each others. As for wealthiest...meh. Bearnese certainly account a lot for this, due to traditional structuring, but I'm not seeing Gascon being really more used than, say, Auvergnat.

I might go with two versions of the map, one simplified (for all language groups) and one with more dialects labeled.

Dialectal variety is partly coming from a trompe l'oeil : the early and strong standardization of French made dialects sound quikcly foreign to french spekears since the late XIXth and it continue nowadays (with several people in France unable to really understand French Canadian). For all the claims being wow very different, much language, not French but Oil...I think you'd have a lot more dialectal differenciation including on identity with Italian ensemble.

Same here I might use the two map solution to see what feels right. All grouped in one as simply French and another with more nuance dialects.

I understand, but Aranese being considered as the third language of Catalonia doesn't make it anything else, linguistically, than a variant of Gascon dialect of Occitan.
Now, I wholly admit differenciation of Franco-Provencal, on a linguistical basis, is clearly much based than Aranese and the situation is a bit more murky. But personally, I'd rather see it as a particular part of northern ensemble, than a clearly established language : there's a lot of difference with Middle-French in the XVIth but to the point being labelled as a language?
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoprovençal#Littérature
I don't want to provoke a debate on this, and I'll sleep all the same if you decide to represent it as a separate group, but I'd just wanted to point that some caution should be considered, especially giving the modern use of Francoprovencal is closer to Oil speeches than even use of Occitan.

Thanks for all the advice. Not really trying to debate, just to learn.

 

[Skallagrim]

As others have noted, this is very impressive. I always like linguistic maps! One thing I can personally see that could do with some improvement here is the represetation of Fleming in France. It has declined a lot, and the actualy situation nowadays is more like this. So the areas should both be smaller and striped, since French is edging out Flemish throughout French-Flanders.

Another thing, although I'm far less certain about that, is that Franco-Provencal variations seem to have historically predominated in a somewhat different area than the one you place them in. That is, you seem to extend the region a little to far south, and don't include French Switzerland and some more north-western areas. A search in google easily shows what the area where these dialects historically prevailed looks like. (But as I said, I'm far less sure about the current situation. For all I know, those dialects could be all but extinct in the areas I mention...)

 

[Clandango]

The placing of the language for the Kven might give the wrong impression, and connect the Sami areas to it. I do like that there isn't some big blob like I see on many maps about independent groups though, showing a massive Lapland despite the Sami being a minority almost everywhere. And doing well enough for themselves, all things considered. I would say have the French in Romandy (French Switzerland) its own color or to relate it more to Provence, as they haven't had a century and a half of Paris trying to wipe out alternative forms of the language group. By that same token, sad to say, but perhaps Walloon should be removed, as the French and then the Belgians kings did a good job in usurping and wiping out Walloon. Might want to do somethign about the Low Coutries, as you give Limburg a rather large area, despite linguistic maps referring to it as one of the subgroups for what you have as Dutch and Flemish. Going with Hollandic rather than Nederlandist might fit better. And perhaps something showing Flemish as separate. You should also consider splitting the South German into two parts, as the Swabian, Wurtenburgers, and Voralburgers are more closely related to German Swiss than they are to Austria and Bavaria. Maybe also change the letters to black when they are above water. Seems there is also a minor issue where you show the Angolan Heights as Israeli and the Gaza Strip as Egyptian. Ossetian looks a bit blotchy, but that comes when trying to show groups in the Caucaus, considering the amount of unpopulated mountains, such as those separating Georgia from Russia. Ahh, and you have Bornholm as Swedish, though it was only non-Danish for maybe a decade over the past six hundred years. If you are going with dialects you should also consider multiple Norwegians. Most speak the Danish derived Bokmal, but in Western Norway they create Nynorsk based upon local dialects, and those form those areas are often able to understand people from Iceland and the Faroes Islands, who have their own languages based mostly in unchanged old Norse. May also want to consider special dialects for the South of Sweden, which had been Danish for centuries and still have many dialect similarities to their close neighbor. Ahh, and is Bosnian/Bosniac/Bosniak the striped areas in B-H? Oh, and you gave Iran the small bit of Azerbaijan unattached to the rest.

 

[LSCatilina]

y that same token, sad to say, but perhaps Walloon should be removed, as the French and then the Belgians kings did a good job in usurping and wiping out Walloon.

And the feat shouldn't be underestimated, giving that French kings never had control longer than one decade on this part of Belgium.

On the other hand, federal and republican Switzerland dealt more or less the same way with Francoprovencal in practically the same way than what happened in France or Belgium : there's no real reason to depict dialectal situation as anything more than a diglossy at best there as well.

I'm all for pointing out the big issues of XIXth century linguistical policies (which are far more coming from neo-jacobin* policies than kings, even if the diglossy comes back from the Late Middle Ages) and its consequences (although mass-media was really the nail in the coffin, comparatively), but maybe a less manichean perspective would be preferable IMO.

Speaking of Belgium, if @jycee wants to make a dialectal map in addition of a broader one,, let's remember that Picard (and much more superficially Lorrain and Champenois) were deprived of the semi-identitarian promotion of Wallon (which doesn't mean it's widely used as well).
The map is a bit crude, but can be helpful.

*Which are to Jacobin policies, what expired margarine is to butter, but that's another debate

 

[Clandango]

And the feat shouldn't be underestimated, giving that French kings never had control longer than one decade on this part of Belgium.

I meant French, as in Revolutionary and Imperial France, followed by Belgian Kings, who pushed for French and got the throne partially because of France basically invading the Netherlands during the Belgian Revolution, so that the Dutch would have to open fire on them if they wanted to suppress it. I am usually more careful with my wording, but see I messed up a bit this time.

 

[BryanIII]

As others have noted, this is very impressive. I always like linguistic maps! One thing I can personally see that could do with some improvement here is the represetation of Fleming in France. It has declined a lot, and the actualy situation nowadays is more like this. So the areas should both be smaller and striped, since French is edging out Flemish throughout French-Flanders.

*Flemish not Fleming..
but yeah you're right here.

By that same token, sad to say, but perhaps Walloon should be removed, as the French and then the Belgians kings did a good job in usurping and wiping out Walloon. Might want to do somethign about the Low Coutries, as you give Limburg a rather large area, despite linguistic maps referring to it as one of the subgroups for what you have as Dutch and Flemish.

Also true, Walloon is all but gone. The Walloons now speak French with a slightly different vocabulary but basically it's the same thing. as for Limburgish I think @jycee has just misidentified the Meuse-Rhenish Dialectgroup.

let's remember that Picard (and much more superficially Lorrain and Champenois) were deprived of the semi-identitarian promotion of Wallon (which doesn't mean it's widely used as well).

Actually, Picard is probably used more than Walloon.

 

[Skallagrim]

*Flemish not Fleming..
but yeah you're right here.

I remain quite dyslexic. The weirdest errors pop up in stuff I write.

 

[kark]

You put Asturllionés and Estremeñu separate, but they are the same language, in addition the Asturllionés is also spoken in a small part of Portugal under the name of Mirandés
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Língua_mirandesa

Also, you miss Fala de Xàlima in Extremadura, a very small language of the same family of Galego and Portuguese:https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fala_(valle_de_Jálama)

Also, in the corner of Catalonia is spoken Occitan: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aranés

In the Balkans, there are more latin languages, even if various are in very bad health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Romance_languages, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istriot_language

Very interesting and complete map