1. Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, East Asia, and South East Asia.
2.I have never thought about that. What did you use for your WorldA Map?
Linguistic Map Thread
- Thread starter Beedok
- Start date
- Status
1. Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, East Asia, and South East Asia.
2.I have never thought about that. What did you use for your WorldA Map?
I thought you would grab Turkey.
Right, I'll take Canada, Japan, Korea and the USA for now.
I hadn't gotten around to finalising that. I think less than 1 person/square kilometre might be good.
Also, we will be going to the language level with this right?
1. I thought you would grab Turkey.
2. Right, I'll take Canada, Japan, Korea and the USA for now.
I hadn't gotten around to finalising that. I think less than 1 person/square kilometre might be good.
Also, we will be going to the language level with this right?
1. I can if you want me to. I will do it right now!
2. Okay.
3. That works.
4. Yes.
If I can propose something :
-Use outline for "traditional linguistic aera", by exemple Highlands for scottish gaelic and colouring only where it's still spoken
-When we have a situation of bilinguism or dyglossia, using mixed colours
-When we have a quite particular dialect, or dialect historically distinct, using "dominion" colour.
-If possible, using the UCS colour of countries adapted with languages (Blue=French, Pink = English, etc.)
-In worlda, not representating dialects (except particular ones), that's for the Q-BAM
If you agree, I'll take Romance and Germanic languages.
-Use outline for "traditional linguistic aera", by exemple Highlands for scottish gaelic and colouring only where it's still spoken
-When we have a situation of bilinguism or dyglossia, using mixed colours
-When we have a quite particular dialect, or dialect historically distinct, using "dominion" colour.
-If possible, using the UCS colour of countries adapted with languages (Blue=French, Pink = English, etc.)
-In worlda, not representating dialects (except particular ones), that's for the Q-BAM
If you agree, I'll take Romance and Germanic languages.
Well I made a map covering the slavic peoples in europe (without Russia) some time ago:
Add some minor changes and you have a linguistic map.
Oh, and if you agree I'd like to do Russia.
Last edited:
Very good indeed.
Maybe merging Croats, Muslims and Serbs, Czech and Slovak (maybe by putting one in darker variant) and replacing Belarusian by an outline fill with Russian.
Probably Pomak and Bulgarian as well.
I agree with merging Croat and Serb (I also made a map showing the dialects), Pomak and Bulgarian. Czech and Slovak are too distinct to be shown as a single language.
Half of the Ukraine would need an outline fill too.
Yeah, Iran is hard to show since the Ethni minority groups are all bilingual, however I'd show it with the minroity language areas striped te minority language and Farsi.
Merge Croat and Serbian def., since they are the same language, however Czech and Slovak are more seperate languages, comparable to the differences between Spanish, Portuguese and Italian.
As for Belarus I'd say just fill the whole thing Russian and color the small areas Belursian is spoken as a first language.
Also, here are links to the two language maps I've done;
Official Language by Country
Primary Language by Country
Official Language by Country
Primary Language by Country
Native Languages in Belarus: green is Belarusian, blue is Russian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BelarusNativeLanguages2009.PNG
Spoken Languages in Belarus: green is Belarusian, blue is Russian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BelarusHomeLanguages2009.PNG
I heard about the differences being minor, as the Czech and SLovak are inter-understable including everyday language.
Maybe we should keep an outline in order to show "traditional aera of this language".
The older generation that lived in Czechoslovakia can understand it without a problem, but the younger people are not used to hear czech and slovak everyday, so it is more difficult for them to understand.
I speak czech and I can assure you that the differences are quite significant.
I'd do it.
But having differences and troubles to understand what someone is telling you doesn't make a language.
By exemple, Bearnès sub-dialect is kind of particular and use quite distinct features at the point the average occitan-speaker can have troubles to understanding it. Still, it is an occitan sub-dialect of Gascon.
Or, french canadian or french cajun are really specific and a french metropolitan speaker could have troubles as well.
Alex Richards
Donor
So effectively it's more a case that pre-dissolution most people were functionally billingual rather than the languages being that similar.
Mutual-inteligibility dont necessarily mean things are the same language, for instance Polish has some (though not a great deal) degree of it with Czech and Slovak, but we'd never consider them all the same language, likewise Spanish and Portuguese are very similar but they're seperate languages.
Just look at former Yugoslavia, the Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins and Bosnian Muslims use one and the same language and have five (yes, five) different names for it and really claim they are different.
When two peoples manage to understand their respective languages without systematical education of these, it's probably more because they are closely related at the point of not being distinct as languages (but most probably as dialects) than a situation of bilinguism.
I claim to be emperor of Mars. That doesn't make me such.
What we have is two people with supposedly two different languages managing to understand themselves good enough to not pass by translation.
Usually, that means we have a sole languages divided in dialects (as dialects are a linguistic form fitting "inter-understability with really distinct features"). So, we could represent the two dialectal features by putting SLovak in darker variant.
So we can group the west-slavic languages and the eastern and the southern ones and every group will get similar color shades.
- Status