HOME | DD
Arminius1871 β European language tree
#celtic #europe #european #germanic #language #romance #slavic #tree #sprachen
Published: 2017-06-03 10:14:11 +0000 UTC; Views: 11719; Favourites: 118; Downloads: 124
Redirect to original
Description
Just a quick picture for practice, the tree is a mostly but non-exhaustive one.This is not an easy thing, ofc you can also declare every dialect or new oversea dialect its own language, so I had to find some compromises sorry.
The tree only shows european languages of indo-european heritage, no basque, hungaryan, estonian or finnish.
Special thanks to my language master that corrected my tree several times^^
Related content
Comments: 176
Oh thanks^^ Maybe I will do a remake in the future, tho a minimalistic style can be cool too.
π: 0 β©: 1
You have to make a mega giant tree to include everything they want XD
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes so many changes XD I make a mega tree with all languages also the dead ones XD
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah that is a lot of work XD
π: 0 β©: 0
Where are the other Gallo-Italin languages like Liguria, Neapolitan, Sicilian?
π: 0 β©: 2
I grouped them up as Italian, even tho you could indeed make extra "bushes" for them.
π: 0 β©: 0
Please, we need an entirely separate tree to list all of the various Italian dialects
Though, I would make a case for listing Corsican, due to its modern Franco-Italian nature, sure, & Sardinian due to its relative closeness to Latin, even today.
Anything else, eh. Sicilian definitely has an argument going for itself, sure, but the mainland dialects are still Italian, even with the distinct differences in influence between the northern & southern dialects.
π: 0 β©: 1
They are not Italian dialects, they have existed long before Standard Italian did.
It's like an Aragonese-Spanish situation, Aragonese is usually considered a spanish dialect, but it is a separate language but very similar, as they have the same origin
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, Standard Italian is newer (not to mention how it's really just a Tuscan dialect mainstreamed by the Church centuries ago), but even so classifying all of the various languages throughout the peninsula separately is stretching it, as a lot of them really are just dialects of each other (& it also brings up the question of, do you classify based on region, or based on language group, at the expense of individual regions?). If anything, I'd have to go with how linguists usually divide Italian into three major groups;
-Β Italo-Dalmatian which includes but is not limited to Venetian,
- Italo-Tuscan which is the umbrella term for the various dialects of central Italy derived from Tuscan,
-Β & the umbrella term of "southern Italian" which is then sub-divided into Neapolitan + its various localised dialects & Sicilian
Anything more specific than that, we begin entering the territory of what's actually recognised, vs. what isn't & what each thing is recognised as, which becomes entirely subjective. The Italian national government, for instance, barely officially recognises anything, & the regional governments overwhelmingly either don't have the balls or the power to do so themselves, either (sadly we haven't yet succeeded in moving towards a federalised government akin to the Spanish & German ones 
Sure, we can "umbrella group" the various dialects/languages together the way linguists do, absolutely, but beyond that some regions are so sub-divided that they don't even have a standard recognised "official" dialect (ex. Emilia), so it's difficult to decide which is the main, & which are branches of the main, or if they're all just dialects of a bigger main, or whatnot.
Though you're right, I was wrong to dismiss Neapolitan, & I completely forgot about Venetian (oops). Beyond that, however (& the aforementioned in the above post), I'd say Tuscan (if one doesn't want to umbrella all the various Tuscan dialects together under "Italian") & then stop, as otherwise it starts becoming far too local.
π: 0 β©: 0
Nice design and informative (although I knew all this information because of linguistics is a topic I'm interested in too).
Maybe you should have included the Manx , it was extinct but there is a revitalization in recent years. Some hundreds of people speak Manx now...
π: 0 β©: 1
I thought about it, but itΒ΄s a bit tiny to represent here.
π: 0 β©: 1
OK. Although I think not many more people speak Cornish...
π: 0 β©: 1
OK, thanks, you changed your mind...
π: 0 β©: 1
You can always change ur mind^^
π: 0 β©: 0
This is good, but you are missing a few langauges, like Yiddish (Germanic), Scottish Gaelic (Celtic), Rusyn (Slavic), and Aromanian (Romance)
π: 0 β©: 2
Piggybacking onto this; Wallonian French
Also - Luxembourgish &/or Alsatian? Or are you avoiding delving into the various German dialects?
π: 0 β©: 0
I will fix it later thx!
π: 0 β©: 0
wird das noch signifikant in Europa gesprochen?
π: 0 β©: 0
That's a nice graphic! Didn't you forget Macedonian, though?
π: 0 β©: 2
Someone told me itΒ΄s the same as Bulgarian XD Kinda like Germany and Austria
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, so it's kinda like Romanian and Moldovan
π: 0 β©: 2
Well,Β Moldovan is basically tandem to Austro-Bavarian German, yeah, what with the Moldavian dialect even being spoken in Romania proper, much like Austro-Bavarian is prevalent in Bavaria proper, but Macedonian itself is a far trickier question, really, as it depends on what viewpoint you ascribe to; that it's just a Serbian-influenced dialect of Bulgarian, or that it's its own language unto itself, drawing strongly from both Serbian & Bulgarian.
And that question becomes even more complicated once you realise that Eastern Macedonia is home to actual Bulgarian dialects, whereas Northern Macedonia is home to actual Serbian dialects....... >.<
π: 0 β©: 1
And western Macedonia is home to Albanian dialects and a greek is probably comming here to say that's not Macedonia
π: 0 β©: 1
Lol'd ^^
Well, to be fair, there are Aromanian & Macedonian Greek dialect speakers in the South, as well
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes but some make a difference indeed.
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't think because technically, Macedonian is Bulgarian for some people. ^^Β
π: 0 β©: 0
The idea you had is really really nice! Maybe thought it is not very appropriate to separate Indo-Europeans languages at different heights. In fact there are many theories that sort of contradict one another, for example someone say that Romance branch was in common with Celtic branch and some other say that actually Germanics were closer to Slavics, but others also assert the opposite...there is lot of uncertainty, so after all it could be better if they started all from a central point ^^'
π: 0 β©: 2
Ja the tree is not meant to symbolize any order tbh, just rough groups^^
π: 0 β©: 1
"The tree is not meant to symbolize ANY order"? It actually does! If it didn't every single language would be put random somewhere on it.
To be fair it is a little bit confusing because at a certain point the branches actually begin to follow the genealogy of modern language family, but when the branch gets in the trunk this order is gone...that's like if once genealogical tree was correct until once parents and grand parents and then it was totally mixed up and he or she gets grand grand parents which are not theirs own, I mean this example is probably not the best (because couples of two are needed to generate a human being whereas language just evolve and "reproduce" autonomously) but it might give an idea...
π: 0 β©: 1
Not the tree....I mean the stem. I didnΒ΄t want to group up that slavic and germanic were closer etc.
π: 0 β©: 1
To be fair, they're branches of a tree. Height is unimportant. It merely denotes diversification from a common point, not how much more or less derived or important the language is.
π: 0 β©: 1
that's what I mean, the common point from where different Indo-European branches diversified is uncertain and strongly discussed. Thus it would be better to put in a general central position...
π: 0 β©: 1
The central position is the trunk. A tree is not a ladder.
π: 0 β©: 1
Truth be said, branches of a tree actually develops gradually one from another when the tree grows, and that's actually why trees are chosen for genealogical stuff (not only languages), but here, apart for original Proto-Indo-European, we don't know exactly who developed from who or was together until it separated, for what we know they could have separated all just at the same time (apart for some exceptions like Baltic and Slavic branches that we know having the same origin)
π: 0 β©: 1
Anglo-Germanic imperialism at work!
Those damn 4th Reich (EU) overlords!
;D
π: 0 β©: 0
Beautiful and informative ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
So there are twice as many German-speakers as French-speakers and French is as spoken as Dutch?
π: 0 β©: 1
You are right I have to fix this later! Thx.
π: 0 β©: 0
Turkey and Azerbaijan Dude Where?
π: 0 β©: 2
On the turkish language tree^^
π: 0 β©: 0
Not Indo-European, those are Turkic languages
π: 0 β©: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>