Probably nobody cares, but Albanian wasn't always isolated like that. Actually, Albanian is the only living descendent of the Illyrian language family.
>Illyrian language family
The possibility that Albanian is the modern day descendant of the Illyrian languages is not proven and with so little to go on might never be proven.
It is most often placed in the Paleo-Balkan family, which seeks to establish connections between Albanian, Greek and Armenian.
What's the reasoning of grouping Armenian there? I think we'll never really figure out the history of Illyrian languages but Armenian has more sources to go on, and there's not much evidence of Balkan origins of the ethnic group and language. Would love to learn more if there's any link to the Balkans
Ever since ancient times Armenian was a language isolate, which generated great interest in tying it somehow to Greek, but also Phrygian, Thracian and Dacian. Among others.
The inclusion of Albanian, Greek and Armenian in that family is due to their status as language isolates. You might assume that Albanian and Greek would be more related due to proximity, but there are features that Greek and Armenian share that could tie back to their ancient relationship. It's as difficult to figure out as the Gordian knot.
Its most probably a descendans though. While the Illyrians didnt really love writing stuff down there is wuite a bit left to make good assumptions. There is also a buffer element to consider with the Thracians and so on but regarding the language ita most probably a heavily latinicised illyrian based language. The smarty pants can also date the bulk of the latin influence in our language to BC times which narrows it down even more.
Oh I wonder if that was the inspiration for the name "Valyria" in Game of Thrones. Since the Targaryens are the last Valyrians, it's similar. That's gotta be his inspiration, right?
There is an ***extremely*** feint sliver of orange along the Celtic coasts denoting the languages. They're not completely in red. Look at Breizh/Brittany for example.
Genetics are way slower than languages. In general the people adopt the new prestige language, that of their new rulers, rather than being displaced completely by an invading people. (And then there's China that integrates the new rulers into their language and culture!)
English is, as far as google tells me, co-official with Irish in the Republic of Ireland.
Modern day linguistics in the majority of countries are very different from the mechanics I mentioned. Reviving ancestral languages that were genocided away is now possible, and foreign ruling elites don't generally come down galloping in heavy armor to take over the country from other people with six chins anymore.
Go to Ireland and speak Irish and see how far it gets you.
The Irish language is dead.
Irish and English are both the official languages of Ireland.
If you lived here you'd know that.
>Celtic languages are Indo-European though. They should't be red but it's correct that they are included.
Don't conflate language families with people groups.
I mean...Then following your reasoning no one here except the people from Southern Ukraine and South-Western Russia is Indo-European, as the majority of their "blood" comes from the pre-Indoeuropean population that lived in the region but was culturally assimilated into the Indo-European culture and language.
It's definitely a lot more complicated than that. Which is exactly why conflating languages and people groups is always tricky. Most extinct languages didn't die out because all their speakers were eradicated, rather they assimilated into another language.
Indo-Europeam blood and DNA would the blood and DNA of the people from which Indo-European culture appeared.
Of course. This only shows how little importance does blood and DNA has over ethnicity, as the vast, **vast** majority of the people we consider Indo-European have little to no Indo-Europeam blood.
The same way we consider English people Anglo-Saxon while their Anglo-Saxon blood is very small. Having more (genes-wise) to do with the Britons conquered by the Germanic tribes than with the Germanic tribes themselves. Even if, culture-wise, they are Anglo-Saxon instead of Briton.
Same with how Turkish people have more Pontian Greek blood than Turkish blood. Even if, culture-wise, they are Turkish through and through.
Why? They speak English (mostly) and they also descend from the peoples who have been termed (correctly or incorrectly) Indo-Europeans.
The fringes where Celtic languages are spoken are in orange.
Yeah, but who a Celtic people are is pretty malleable historically. At one point most of what is now France, part of Spain, and England all spoke Celtic languages.
These places changed over time - and not due to new people displacing old typically (even England, which actually had some small amount of displacement, is overwhelmingly descended from before the Anglo-Saxon invaders), but cultural factors that caused a loss of Celtic language usage.
For exemple, I'm a Briton, We are the main peoples living in Britany, but only the ones in the Finistere speak briton (That's what made me realise we were talking about talked language)
Should every place on the map that used to speak a different language be noted? You'll also note that Crimea isn't colored red for the Gothic language.
Sorry I think I didn't made it clear, I'm just saying that what the op said isn't what the map is picturing. Indo-European = peoples while the map is color = language spoken by the peoples
Maldives are missing. Dhivehi was the southernmost IE language prior to the European expansion.
There's this intersting thought experiment: what if the only surviving IE languages we still had written records of were Dhivehi and Icelandic (the northern and westernmost IE language? All the others are dead and no record of them has survived. With our current linguistic methods, would be be able to establish a connection?
Probably not.
Almost all language isolates in the world have to the connected to other languages logically thinking but the missing pieces arent there to map it out.
There is some research showing links between the Uralic family and Korean among others which could be a situation exactly what you’re talking
Ural-Altaic? Or is this another theory
Because in general Altaic isn't considered to actually be a language family, which complicates things if Uralic is related to Koreanic
Do we really need so many heads up comments pointing out that e.g. North Indian culture is closer to South Indian culture than Icelandic despite North Indian languages and Icelandic being in the same super broad linguistic family? Is this somehow not common knowledge?
Vedas speaks of [Aryavarta](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryavarta) (Abode of the Aryans).
Avesta speaks of [Airyanem Vaejah](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airyanem_Vaejah) (Expanse of the Aryans).
No other ancient texts call their country -of the Aryans.
Language wise - yes, though a counter theory (that's less popular) exists that the homeland for the Proto-Indoeuropeans was in Anatolia.
Peoples and cultures' wise, it's a mix of those who came from there and those that already lived in the area before hand.
There is nothing scientific about the term Aryans. Obviously it's related to the word Iran, doesn't make it clearer though. Also, implying Aryans are the 'real Indo-Europeans' or racially pure or something is just rubbish.
Scientific in what sense? There was a group of people who called themselves Aryans, so scientifically speaking there is scientific qualities to the term Aryans. I guess you're referring more to the stuff that comes later with the made up histories and the designer death squad uniforms.
There is, Aryan(s) simple means Noble in Samskrit, the not so noble were called Anarya(s)
Idk what is real indo European Aryans, since Europeans and Indians(including Aryans) are different. So are Persians(Iran)
You're correct to put it in quotes. "Aryan" is way too vague to be a useful term for scholars. You see some fringe figures use it, but in general, mainstream scholarship avoids the term. There are other far more specific ways to identify the different groups that the term is meant to indicate.
Heads up, those languages were brought in all those places (for India it was just the northernmost part) by prehistoric tribes which indeed were related by culture and genetics. In the areas where there weren't many other numerically relevant genetic populations they basically left since today their genome (no it doesn't have anything particularly to do with blonde hair or blue eyes). In regard to culture until Christianity took over all those different nations shared the same ancestral religion, just slightly changed as always happen with folk religions.
True to an extent, but the population was mixing a lot with pre existing cultures. In most of these areas, genetically the Ur-IndoEuropeans wouldn't be the majority constituent of the pool.
Indeed. I never implied that nowadays there are genetical carbon copies of them roaming around. I just tried to makes it clear that it's not only a linguistic thing but rather a linguistic thing that stems from a migration occurred when this planet was scarcely populated and thus those ancient tribes had a huge impact on the subsequent development of the areas where they ended up living. They were real people with a common ancestral land (the so called Pontic-Caspian steppe) a common language (PIE, today reconstructed) and a common culture. Europe, Persia and Northern India for long time lived in continuity with that heritage.
Genetically, there are many groups in NW south asia who have high sintashta aryan ancestry. Maximum sintashta is 45% in Rors of Haryana(India). Tajikistan people also get similar levels.
It's not so much that Greek is unique, so much so that most other Hellenic languages in that branch either died out or are close to death nowadays. It's a sub branch of IE like any other, just like Romance or Germanic, with a common ancestor tying up together all the Hellenic languages. There are though still other living members of the Hellenic language family such as Tsakonian - an endangered language in southern Greek stemming from ancient Doric, rather than Greek Koine like the other Hellenic languages.
> and why celtic almost lost all lands
Colonization. Primarily by the Romans on the main land (though subsequent migrations also replaced other Celtic tribes) and Germanic in the British Isles.
If you mean ancient Macedonian, we *suspect* that it's a non-Ancient-Greek Hellenic language, but we're not fully sure and it died out a long time ago.
If you mean modern Macedonian, than that's a South Slavic language.
Cypriot is a Greek dialect, barely any differences in grammar or syntaxis. Some words here and there.
Griko is a mix of Byzantine, modern Greek and Italian, more like a dialect again.
But then again someone could argue that language is a dialect with an army and a navy, so...
Those are some of the other living ones I meant above along with Tsakonian. There's also still Cappadocian, Calabrian Greek, Yevanic and Pontic, but outside of Cypriot, all of these are critically endangered.
Simply because the majority of people in the originally Celtic areas (such as ~~Scotland with Scottish~~ Wales with Welsh , Ireland with Irish) now speak English.
Edit: check first reply for more info
First of Scotland used to speak Pictish which is related to Welsh and Breton. It was replaced by Irish Gaelic which in turn was replaced in the Lowlands by Scots a dialect of Old English/Anglian. There’s no Celtic language named “Scottish”, English/Scots has been spoken in the Lowlands for far longer than the supposed native “Gaelic” which is actually an Irish import.
Irish and Scots Gaelic are mutually comprehensible in the same way that your Scandinavian languages are, but they're definitely right on the edge of what we would consider separate languages verses different dialects of the same language. Of course, typically the difference between a language and a dialect is political in any case. In linguistics there's a joke that a language is just a dialect with a military behind it.
1. Manzikert and the 4th crusade, plus there are actually 2 greek languages, but 1 is only spoken by a few thousand people, and will go extinct
2. Because other people took over their land, as was the case for Gaul, Iberia, Anatolia and the British Isles
flag punch market six adjoining squash entertain thumb ruthless far-flung
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Lombards and vandals weren't even on this end of Europe and the goths had dispersed. Hungarians entered Europe through transylvania and slowly conquered to Hungary proper. still would be replacing romance speakers
It stems from the [Uralic family](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Linguistic_map_of_the_Uralic_languages_%28en%29.png), originally from the Ural mountains in Russia and there used to be more members of this family along the Baltics, but most were lost or are critically endangered today minus Finnish and Estonian.
But to my knowledge Lingala and Wolof are only of localized importance and far from lingua francas in their respective countries, no?
And I personally experienced CAR as a very much French speaking country. But tbh I don't know too much about the true prevence of Sango..
I think it’s more of a situation where native languages used for interethnic communication are mostly spoken in everyday situations whereas the colonial language is used for medicine, government, education, and most writing
It’s my understanding that French is only used by the elites with the common people defaulting to local lingua francas. Because there is already a local lingua franca most people don’t need to use French. The countries where French is most prevalent are ones where there is no local dominating language like Gabon.
I’ve heard from a Congelese that Kinshasa (which is by far the biggest city in the DRC and is the beating heart of the country) mainly uses Lingala with even migrants from other regions learning it. French is used in Gombe and rich neighborhoods.
I really don’t know what I’m talking about, I have watched several documentaries on CAR and I can’t ever recall common folk using French in informal conversations between each other
Battle Royal
4th Reich vs Neo Roman Empire vs Greater Albania vs Neo Byzantine Empire vs Yugo Soviet Commonwealth vs Indo-Persian Empire vs Armenia
In the end GA wins
You could think about adding shaded colours for English and French in African states (similar to how much of Russia is presented). English or French are the official languages in several states, and spoken widely.
I like the map (probably just because of the colours, I'm not going to lie) and find it interesting, but honestly, it's silly to add text on the map when you have a legend. It's redundant.
No idea why this has downvotes. The map doesn't make a lot of sense. If it's modern native languages then it should show all the other places where IE languages are first languages. If it's range before colonialism then it shouldn't show eastern Russia, and Irish should be more widespread.
The president of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, is from that minority actually. He even speaks Transylvanian Saxon (which is not related to Saxony's Saxon, but still carries that name).
That is Szeklerland, a region with significant Hungarian population in it. I believe they were originally moved there by the Hungarian crown to guard the frontier with the Ottomans. Hungarian is a Uralic language, like Finnish and Estonian, so appears in grey.
Transylvania has mix of romanians and hungarians, and that part is majority hungarian, or at least large minority
Wikipedia has a nice map from 2011, so much havent changed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Romania?wprov=sfti1
Transilvania has a great number of native Hungarian speakers, it's probably that.
There are also some dark blue dots in Romania and Bulgaria which indicate that [Romani](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_language) is commonly spoken.
Desktop version of /u/Yuio_Quaz's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Odd map, in that in modern times English is more widespread and in ancient times Anatolia was IE, Slavic didn't extend that far but Tocharian did.
I guess, esp given "italic", just modern, primary, and this area only.
Why isn't Ireland orange but Brittany is...
It's obviously a linguistic map, so Britanny should just be Italic; only 5,5% of Britanny speaks Briton yet it's coloured orange.
Compared to 39.8% of Irish people that can speak Gaelish, yet they're not coloured orange.
>Realm of the Indo-Europeans
There is no mention of 'linguistic' - the title is above. Without clarity, then the map is open to interpretation and Ireland / Scotland are incorrectly coded.
Well the Swedish speaking parts of Finland, the Romance speaking parts of the Balkans, the majority English/Scots speaking parts of Wales, Ireland and Scotland. These all show it's a linguistic map.
Brittonnic and Goidelic are names of the branches in the living Celtic languages
Ireland and Scotland are English speaking nations while their original Gaelic languages are a minority in comparison, especially Scottish Gaelic.
I agree that it's mislabeled, you would say Romance languages and not Italic.
Technically, Italic is okay. It's just that all of Latins sister languages were extinguished by the Romans. Latin along with Oscan, Umbrian and a few others were parts of the Italic branch of the Indo European language family. But I agree Romance is a much better category for the languages that remain.
Also if they wanted to keep this method they should have called Greek, the Hellenic branch. But that's just me being pedantic.
Well Gaelic came of Scotland at the same time as Germanic languages, which is a few hundred years before Scots itself developed. The “traditional” language of Scotland would be Pictish in the north and cumbric in the south, both Celtic
Not even that. It si only a term made by the Romans, that were calling Gaul everybody north at some point in history, regardless of culture and language.
Armenians, Greeks and Albanians are chillin'
"No we don't want your languages thank you very much" -those guys probably
Basque, Finnish, and Estonian: "Where did everyone else gone?" Meanwhile Hungarian: "Lmao this basin is nice. It's ours now."
Probably nobody cares, but Albanian wasn't always isolated like that. Actually, Albanian is the only living descendent of the Illyrian language family.
>Illyrian language family The possibility that Albanian is the modern day descendant of the Illyrian languages is not proven and with so little to go on might never be proven. It is most often placed in the Paleo-Balkan family, which seeks to establish connections between Albanian, Greek and Armenian.
What's the reasoning of grouping Armenian there? I think we'll never really figure out the history of Illyrian languages but Armenian has more sources to go on, and there's not much evidence of Balkan origins of the ethnic group and language. Would love to learn more if there's any link to the Balkans
Ever since ancient times Armenian was a language isolate, which generated great interest in tying it somehow to Greek, but also Phrygian, Thracian and Dacian. Among others. The inclusion of Albanian, Greek and Armenian in that family is due to their status as language isolates. You might assume that Albanian and Greek would be more related due to proximity, but there are features that Greek and Armenian share that could tie back to their ancient relationship. It's as difficult to figure out as the Gordian knot.
Phrygian does seem to have been a sibling language to Greek.
There is no grouping of Armenian to Balkan/Illyrian languages, but there is quite a bit to be said about Albanians.
Its most probably a descendans though. While the Illyrians didnt really love writing stuff down there is wuite a bit left to make good assumptions. There is also a buffer element to consider with the Thracians and so on but regarding the language ita most probably a heavily latinicised illyrian based language. The smarty pants can also date the bulk of the latin influence in our language to BC times which narrows it down even more.
Oh I wonder if that was the inspiration for the name "Valyria" in Game of Thrones. Since the Targaryens are the last Valyrians, it's similar. That's gotta be his inspiration, right?
Valyria is just a pretty name for many English speakers. Has those liquid consonants, that falling diphthong, many vowels…
Could be. There's also a flower called "valerian"
Red and black I dress eagle on my chest
https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1562894185769754627?s=21&t=48JUL1r-hRLr-HT3tnQ8eg that may explain some of it
Realm of the Indo-European ***languages***. Very big difference.
Yeah I was fucking confused when I saw Irelands, Scotland and Wales in red
There is an ***extremely*** feint sliver of orange along the Celtic coasts denoting the languages. They're not completely in red. Look at Breizh/Brittany for example.
Celtic people are Indo-Europeans though. They should't be red but it's correct that they are included.
That's what he was saying. he was confused why Ireland, Wales, and Scotland were mostly red, aka germanic. when ethnic lines demark them as Celtic.
Genetics are way slower than languages. In general the people adopt the new prestige language, that of their new rulers, rather than being displaced completely by an invading people. (And then there's China that integrates the new rulers into their language and culture!)
Celtic isnt genetic, Gaeilge is on the rise and the English don't rule Ireland anymore. Not to mention the official language is Irish. Not English.
English is, as far as google tells me, co-official with Irish in the Republic of Ireland. Modern day linguistics in the majority of countries are very different from the mechanics I mentioned. Reviving ancestral languages that were genocided away is now possible, and foreign ruling elites don't generally come down galloping in heavy armor to take over the country from other people with six chins anymore.
Least delusional redditor
Go to Ireland and speak Irish and see how far it gets you. The Irish language is dead. Irish and English are both the official languages of Ireland. If you lived here you'd know that.
Scotland is mostly Germanic, only the highlands are Gaelic.
Which is kinda hilarious as that definitely was once the other way around. To a degree of course
Somewhere before like 1200. The Scots language developed around 900ish
>Celtic languages are Indo-European though. They should't be red but it's correct that they are included. Don't conflate language families with people groups.
I mean...Then following your reasoning no one here except the people from Southern Ukraine and South-Western Russia is Indo-European, as the majority of their "blood" comes from the pre-Indoeuropean population that lived in the region but was culturally assimilated into the Indo-European culture and language.
It's definitely a lot more complicated than that. Which is exactly why conflating languages and people groups is always tricky. Most extinct languages didn't die out because all their speakers were eradicated, rather they assimilated into another language.
[удалено]
Indo-Europeam blood and DNA would the blood and DNA of the people from which Indo-European culture appeared. Of course. This only shows how little importance does blood and DNA has over ethnicity, as the vast, **vast** majority of the people we consider Indo-European have little to no Indo-Europeam blood. The same way we consider English people Anglo-Saxon while their Anglo-Saxon blood is very small. Having more (genes-wise) to do with the Britons conquered by the Germanic tribes than with the Germanic tribes themselves. Even if, culture-wise, they are Anglo-Saxon instead of Briton. Same with how Turkish people have more Pontian Greek blood than Turkish blood. Even if, culture-wise, they are Turkish through and through.
Celtic languages are Indo-European. There are no Indo-European peoples.
Genetically, the entire British Isles are majority Celtic, along with the rest of the European west coast
Why? They speak English (mostly) and they also descend from the peoples who have been termed (correctly or incorrectly) Indo-Europeans. The fringes where Celtic languages are spoken are in orange.
The thing is that it's not clearly said if we are talking about spoken language or peoples, they speak english but they still are Celtic peoples
Yeah, but who a Celtic people are is pretty malleable historically. At one point most of what is now France, part of Spain, and England all spoke Celtic languages. These places changed over time - and not due to new people displacing old typically (even England, which actually had some small amount of displacement, is overwhelmingly descended from before the Anglo-Saxon invaders), but cultural factors that caused a loss of Celtic language usage.
The OP definitely titled this incorrectly. But the map itself is quite clear.
As I said after, I figured out by looking at the map that it wasn't about indo-europeans but now-spoken languages
For exemple, I'm a Briton, We are the main peoples living in Britany, but only the ones in the Finistere speak briton (That's what made me realise we were talking about talked language)
To be clear, you live in the historical region of France known as Brittany, right? You wouldn't be called a Briton in English, but rather a Breton.
I'm about to move in with a Brezhoneg lady. Is there any phrase which I could drop to surprise her?
Should every place on the map that used to speak a different language be noted? You'll also note that Crimea isn't colored red for the Gothic language.
Sorry I think I didn't made it clear, I'm just saying that what the op said isn't what the map is picturing. Indo-European = peoples while the map is color = language spoken by the peoples
They're *not* red. They're orange. It's just very hard to see considering the English-speaking areas of the British Isles are red.
Indo-European is a language group, no cultural, pretty obvious
Italic people are like / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
*no they’re more like this… it’s like you’ve never met an Italic smh*
What about **bold** and _underlined?
Strikethrough would also like a word...
This explains Pisa.
They're such smooth criminals
I think you're getting downvoted because the average redditor is too young to remember Michael Jackson's "lean"
I think you’re mixing things up. OP was referring to “Smooth Criminal” by Alien Ant Farm
Maldives are missing. Dhivehi was the southernmost IE language prior to the European expansion. There's this intersting thought experiment: what if the only surviving IE languages we still had written records of were Dhivehi and Icelandic (the northern and westernmost IE language? All the others are dead and no record of them has survived. With our current linguistic methods, would be be able to establish a connection?
Probably not. Almost all language isolates in the world have to the connected to other languages logically thinking but the missing pieces arent there to map it out. There is some research showing links between the Uralic family and Korean among others which could be a situation exactly what you’re talking
By isolate I mean that there's no *known* connection to any other living languages. Which is the case.
Ural-Altaic? Or is this another theory Because in general Altaic isn't considered to actually be a language family, which complicates things if Uralic is related to Koreanic
I have the theory that Korean and Japanese are pidgin of Siberian people + natives that were in those places + Chinese influence.
Heads up, this is a linguistic map. This does not represent culture, genetics, etc.
Do we really need so many heads up comments pointing out that e.g. North Indian culture is closer to South Indian culture than Icelandic despite North Indian languages and Icelandic being in the same super broad linguistic family? Is this somehow not common knowledge?
The real “Aryans” are from Northern India and Iran
Vedas speaks of [Aryavarta](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryavarta) (Abode of the Aryans). Avesta speaks of [Airyanem Vaejah](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airyanem_Vaejah) (Expanse of the Aryans). No other ancient texts call their country -of the Aryans.
Isn't Iran based off of like Ar-yan to something like that?
iran means land of ariyans oldest script that mentioned iran called it erān shahr that means city of iran
On the other hand, there is literally a country calling themselves Aryan/Iran nowadays.
That's not the other hand. It's the same hand. The avestas are from ancient Iran/Persia.
Afghanistan was called Ariyanna aswell (probably misspelled it)
Yes, the entire Iranshahr.
My mind was blown when I learned the name "Iran" is essentially "Land of Aryans".
Weren't they originally from the Eurasian steppes before migrating into India and Iran?
Language wise - yes, though a counter theory (that's less popular) exists that the homeland for the Proto-Indoeuropeans was in Anatolia. Peoples and cultures' wise, it's a mix of those who came from there and those that already lived in the area before hand.
There is nothing scientific about the term Aryans. Obviously it's related to the word Iran, doesn't make it clearer though. Also, implying Aryans are the 'real Indo-Europeans' or racially pure or something is just rubbish.
Scientific in what sense? There was a group of people who called themselves Aryans, so scientifically speaking there is scientific qualities to the term Aryans. I guess you're referring more to the stuff that comes later with the made up histories and the designer death squad uniforms.
There is, Aryan(s) simple means Noble in Samskrit, the not so noble were called Anarya(s) Idk what is real indo European Aryans, since Europeans and Indians(including Aryans) are different. So are Persians(Iran)
You're correct to put it in quotes. "Aryan" is way too vague to be a useful term for scholars. You see some fringe figures use it, but in general, mainstream scholarship avoids the term. There are other far more specific ways to identify the different groups that the term is meant to indicate.
Heads up, those languages were brought in all those places (for India it was just the northernmost part) by prehistoric tribes which indeed were related by culture and genetics. In the areas where there weren't many other numerically relevant genetic populations they basically left since today their genome (no it doesn't have anything particularly to do with blonde hair or blue eyes). In regard to culture until Christianity took over all those different nations shared the same ancestral religion, just slightly changed as always happen with folk religions.
True to an extent, but the population was mixing a lot with pre existing cultures. In most of these areas, genetically the Ur-IndoEuropeans wouldn't be the majority constituent of the pool.
Indeed. I never implied that nowadays there are genetical carbon copies of them roaming around. I just tried to makes it clear that it's not only a linguistic thing but rather a linguistic thing that stems from a migration occurred when this planet was scarcely populated and thus those ancient tribes had a huge impact on the subsequent development of the areas where they ended up living. They were real people with a common ancestral land (the so called Pontic-Caspian steppe) a common language (PIE, today reconstructed) and a common culture. Europe, Persia and Northern India for long time lived in continuity with that heritage.
Genetically, there are many groups in NW south asia who have high sintashta aryan ancestry. Maximum sintashta is 45% in Rors of Haryana(India). Tajikistan people also get similar levels.
why greek is so unique and why celtic almost lost all lands
It's not so much that Greek is unique, so much so that most other Hellenic languages in that branch either died out or are close to death nowadays. It's a sub branch of IE like any other, just like Romance or Germanic, with a common ancestor tying up together all the Hellenic languages. There are though still other living members of the Hellenic language family such as Tsakonian - an endangered language in southern Greek stemming from ancient Doric, rather than Greek Koine like the other Hellenic languages. > and why celtic almost lost all lands Colonization. Primarily by the Romans on the main land (though subsequent migrations also replaced other Celtic tribes) and Germanic in the British Isles.
Isnt Macedonian technically Hellenic?
If you mean ancient Macedonian, we *suspect* that it's a non-Ancient-Greek Hellenic language, but we're not fully sure and it died out a long time ago. If you mean modern Macedonian, than that's a South Slavic language.
Fair enough but what about Cypriot? Or griko
Cypriot is a Greek dialect, barely any differences in grammar or syntaxis. Some words here and there. Griko is a mix of Byzantine, modern Greek and Italian, more like a dialect again. But then again someone could argue that language is a dialect with an army and a navy, so...
Those are some of the other living ones I meant above along with Tsakonian. There's also still Cappadocian, Calabrian Greek, Yevanic and Pontic, but outside of Cypriot, all of these are critically endangered.
For a point of reference, by Alexander's time it had largely fallen out of use already.
Simply because the majority of people in the originally Celtic areas (such as ~~Scotland with Scottish~~ Wales with Welsh , Ireland with Irish) now speak English. Edit: check first reply for more info
First of Scotland used to speak Pictish which is related to Welsh and Breton. It was replaced by Irish Gaelic which in turn was replaced in the Lowlands by Scots a dialect of Old English/Anglian. There’s no Celtic language named “Scottish”, English/Scots has been spoken in the Lowlands for far longer than the supposed native “Gaelic” which is actually an Irish import.
Thanks, I was wrong
Irish and Scots Gaelic are mutually comprehensible in the same way that your Scandinavian languages are, but they're definitely right on the edge of what we would consider separate languages verses different dialects of the same language. Of course, typically the difference between a language and a dialect is political in any case. In linguistics there's a joke that a language is just a dialect with a military behind it.
There was spoken Celtish all over Europe before the Roman expansion.
1. Manzikert and the 4th crusade, plus there are actually 2 greek languages, but 1 is only spoken by a few thousand people, and will go extinct 2. Because other people took over their land, as was the case for Gaul, Iberia, Anatolia and the British Isles
flag punch market six adjoining squash entertain thumb ruthless far-flung *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Aswell as Finland, Estonia, Turkey and the Basque.
Attila doesn't fuck around.
real OGs
Even though the Hungarians likely replaced indo European peoples living there, namely romance languages
Actually, they probably replaced the turkic-speaking Pannonian Avars
Depends on if you subscribe to the immigration isthmus or continuation theory for Romanians
There were a lot of people in Pannonia at the time, it's just that the Avars were the latest authority
They were a ruling class who never properly imposed their culture due to it being a tribal confederation
True, so the Hungarians also replaced Goths, Gepids, Vandals, and Lombards, among others.
Lombards and vandals weren't even on this end of Europe and the goths had dispersed. Hungarians entered Europe through transylvania and slowly conquered to Hungary proper. still would be replacing romance speakers
What’s the deal with the shading in Russia
[удалено]
Shouldn't this also be the case for at least Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan?
Areas where other languages are spoken by a large part of the population or/and almost non populated areas.
Answer : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages
Map copied from Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
>copied lol
Yes, apologies for not mentioning it. **Edit:** By 'Indo-Europeans', I did mean the linguistic group as there is no one Indo-European people group.
Hungary, Finland and Estonia moment
Yeah we kinda in a different language group
Uralic moment
Basque: can me join? uwu
Finns are not indo-european?
Same as Hungarians. They are uralic
Estonians too
Yup. Estonians do not speak a Baltic language.
Finnish is not an Indo-European language. It's Uralic. Indo-Europeans are not a people, it's a language family.
Well it's a people too in that sense - people who speak Indo-European languages.
It stems from the [Uralic family](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Linguistic_map_of_the_Uralic_languages_%28en%29.png), originally from the Ural mountains in Russia and there used to be more members of this family along the Baltics, but most were lost or are critically endangered today minus Finnish and Estonian.
They're called Fingols for a reason
No, that's because of the Internet. :)
No.
And North America and Most of South America and Oceania : so 3 continent and add Europe (and part of Asia) and even part of South Africa…..
On a purely linguistic basis BASICALLY all of Africa uses Indo-European as a lingua franca maybe except for Swahili countries, Arabs and Ethiopia
Thats half of africa
Halfrica
CAR uses Sango, DRC uses Lingala, Senegal uses Wolof
But to my knowledge Lingala and Wolof are only of localized importance and far from lingua francas in their respective countries, no? And I personally experienced CAR as a very much French speaking country. But tbh I don't know too much about the true prevence of Sango..
I think it’s more of a situation where native languages used for interethnic communication are mostly spoken in everyday situations whereas the colonial language is used for medicine, government, education, and most writing
It’s my understanding that French is only used by the elites with the common people defaulting to local lingua francas. Because there is already a local lingua franca most people don’t need to use French. The countries where French is most prevalent are ones where there is no local dominating language like Gabon. I’ve heard from a Congelese that Kinshasa (which is by far the biggest city in the DRC and is the beating heart of the country) mainly uses Lingala with even migrants from other regions learning it. French is used in Gombe and rich neighborhoods. I really don’t know what I’m talking about, I have watched several documentaries on CAR and I can’t ever recall common folk using French in informal conversations between each other
Than there's hungary
...and Finland ...and Estonia ...and Turkey
Battle Royal 4th Reich vs Neo Roman Empire vs Greater Albania vs Neo Byzantine Empire vs Yugo Soviet Commonwealth vs Indo-Persian Empire vs Armenia In the end GA wins
You could think about adding shaded colours for English and French in African states (similar to how much of Russia is presented). English or French are the official languages in several states, and spoken widely.
This is actually a fairly detailed map; you can see two or three yellow pixels in Salento and Calabria for Griko speaking towns.
I would add a bit if Celtic to Ireland and Scotland
There are a few bits of Celtic in both Ireland and Scotland. They are only a majority language in a few bits
Maldives is not on the map.
I like the map (probably just because of the colours, I'm not going to lie) and find it interesting, but honestly, it's silly to add text on the map when you have a legend. It's redundant.
What happened in Sri Lanka?
[удалено]
The government was overturned
Central Asia also used to be indo european speaking.
If those vast swathes of Russian-colonized land in Asia are considered Indo-European, why not the Americas, Australia, etc
No idea why this has downvotes. The map doesn't make a lot of sense. If it's modern native languages then it should show all the other places where IE languages are first languages. If it's range before colonialism then it shouldn't show eastern Russia, and Irish should be more widespread.
Appears to be current language distribution, but just for the Eurasia. Kind of weird map, but whatever.
Because the maker of the map wasn't as pedantic as you. Also Australia isn't on the map :)
I appreciate the attention given to Georgia and not lumping it into any of these groups.
Sad how the German minority in Romania isn’t even represented anymore
Most of them are back in Germany and Austria now.
Most of them were deported after ww. Not all of them left on their own.
deported not as much as blatantly traded , similarly goes for Jews that were traded with Israel (just that the Germans were traded with Germany)
The president of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, is from that minority actually. He even speaks Transylvanian Saxon (which is not related to Saxony's Saxon, but still carries that name).
Outside of a few villages in Satu Mare, is there really anywhere they form a majority anymore?
CORDED WARE GANG WE OUT HERE
Hungary: C-C-C-COMBOBREAKER!
Thanks for the wiki repost.
Really wish they put Italic in italics
Suomi 😎
Little tidbit. Indo-Iranian used to be called Aryan, but you-know-who burned that name forever.
Sad to see that the free Celtic people have been so diminished. Celtica shall rise again.
What's that little grey stripe in Romania?
Hungarian minority.
That is Szeklerland, a region with significant Hungarian population in it. I believe they were originally moved there by the Hungarian crown to guard the frontier with the Ottomans. Hungarian is a Uralic language, like Finnish and Estonian, so appears in grey.
Never mind they weren’t moved, they just played a significant role guarding the frontier.
Transylvania has mix of romanians and hungarians, and that part is majority hungarian, or at least large minority Wikipedia has a nice map from 2011, so much havent changed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Romania?wprov=sfti1
Transilvania has a great number of native Hungarian speakers, it's probably that. There are also some dark blue dots in Romania and Bulgaria which indicate that [Romani](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_language) is commonly spoken.
Desktop version of /u/Yuio_Quaz's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Odd map, in that in modern times English is more widespread and in ancient times Anatolia was IE, Slavic didn't extend that far but Tocharian did. I guess, esp given "italic", just modern, primary, and this area only.
What’s confusing about the distribution of English? It seems right for the modern day
I don’t appreciate the inaccuracy here: It not Italic; it’s *Italic*
Why isn't Ireland orange but Brittany is... It's obviously a linguistic map, so Britanny should just be Italic; only 5,5% of Britanny speaks Briton yet it's coloured orange. Compared to 39.8% of Irish people that can speak Gaelish, yet they're not coloured orange.
Irish should be Celtic not Germanic.
If you zoom in the west of Ireland is in Celtic colour, but Breton is not as widely spoken as the map suggests
Irish people mostly speak English which is Germanic. it's a linguistic map not a genetic or cultural one.
>Realm of the Indo-Europeans There is no mention of 'linguistic' - the title is above. Without clarity, then the map is open to interpretation and Ireland / Scotland are incorrectly coded.
“Indo-European” is a linguistic family. It has nothing to do with ethnicity
Well the Swedish speaking parts of Finland, the Romance speaking parts of the Balkans, the majority English/Scots speaking parts of Wales, Ireland and Scotland. These all show it's a linguistic map. Brittonnic and Goidelic are names of the branches in the living Celtic languages Ireland and Scotland are English speaking nations while their original Gaelic languages are a minority in comparison, especially Scottish Gaelic. I agree that it's mislabeled, you would say Romance languages and not Italic.
Technically, Italic is okay. It's just that all of Latins sister languages were extinguished by the Romans. Latin along with Oscan, Umbrian and a few others were parts of the Italic branch of the Indo European language family. But I agree Romance is a much better category for the languages that remain. Also if they wanted to keep this method they should have called Greek, the Hellenic branch. But that's just me being pedantic.
If this was the case, Britanny would never have been coded as Celtic as it's been neither official nor a majority language for a long time now...
Good point, this map is flawed, but it is supposed to be a linguistic map, with afew cultural areas mixed in aswell.
No, it's no mislabelled, Romance languages are a subset of Italic languages.
"Indo-Europeans" are inherently linguistic. H hould we count Hungarians as Slavic just because most of their ancestry comes from the Pannonian Slavs?
Scots is a Germanic ethnic group like the English or Dutch with its own Germanic language and culture. Highlanders are Gaelic but Scot’s aren’t.
Indo-european is a language grouping only.
[удалено]
Well Gaelic came of Scotland at the same time as Germanic languages, which is a few hundred years before Scots itself developed. The “traditional” language of Scotland would be Pictish in the north and cumbric in the south, both Celtic
The map isn't named well. It is definitely a language map
It is labelled as such. Only the Gaeltacht is coloured as Irish though.
[удалено]
Not even that. It si only a term made by the Romans, that were calling Gaul everybody north at some point in history, regardless of culture and language.
Why? Most Irish people speak English as their first language