Talk:List of Indo-European languages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

All of these languages seem to be living languages, we shouldn't include notable extinct IE languages?

romance languages[edit]

i don't see the romance languages in this list - french, italian, romanian and so on. how so? Geb80 07:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they're right there, listed as "romance", under "italic". --SameerKhan 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ah yes, hidden in full view, thanks! Geb80 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why the individual Romance languages are not listed? Does it have something to do with the controversy about whether or not they are part of the Italic branch or a separate branch? Just seems weird that mutually intelligible varieties like Western Armenian/Homshetsi and Bokmål/Nynorsk get separate entries while an entire branch is lumped into one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VonPeterhof (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Romance Languages be listed under Vulgar Latin, from which they all came from? FlavianusEP (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Church Slavonic[edit]

Old Church Slavonic is not subgroup of Slovene. But I don't know its position in classification. --Čikić Dragan (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Church Slavonic says it's also known as Old Bulgarian or Old Macedonian. Should it be put under Bulgarian? (Should Macedonian be put under Bulgarian?) I moved it 'up' one level, and above its younger siblings. —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scythian?[edit]

Scythian is still missing and should be classified under Eastern-Iranian, although I am not sure where exactly. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.187.30 (talk • contribs) 2017-09-18T13:32:20 (UTC)

Indo-Atlantic, Indo-Pacific, Pacific, Boreal-Papuan[edit]

Where were these 4 sourced from? The only site I could find that discussed them was a ripoff Wikipedia that was very sketchy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealyt (talk • contribs) 05:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreadable on mobile[edit]

Make more subsections because there are alot of parts where the text is one letter wide. AmazinglyLifelike (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classifications[edit]

High and Low German[edit]

  1. German and Brazilian German contain High and Low German varieties.
  2. First it's High German, Old High German, Middle High German, New High German, then it's Old Low German, Middle Low German, Low German (Modern Low German). That doesn't look good.

--Naramaru (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hunsrückisch[edit]

Hunsrückisch dialect explains that Hunsrückisch is partly Rhine-Franconian and partly Moselle-Franconian. --Naramaru (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable, unsourced dialect classifications[edit]

This has been flagged on the top of the article, and I've made a talk section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, but I just want to raise attention to this issue here. This article's listings go quite deep into dialect classifications on certain languages. A page on Indo-European languages obviously should mention English as an Indo-European language, but I don't see why it should dive deep into the classification of English dialects. A lot of this stuff could go on other pages. So there are two problems - one, I'm not sure these narrow dialect classifications really fall under the scope of this article, and two, many of these classifications are dubious, and almost all of them are unsourced. I'm not sure what to do about most of them.

@Bird Vision: I know you've contributed most of this page, I know you've worked hard on it and done a lot of research, but please please cite your sources and stick to what the sources say when you're contributing to Wikipedia. You obviously have read a lot on this stuff - and you should automatically qualify for access to The Wikipedia Library where you can get access to a ton of sources for free. I know from my own experience that sticking to sources and avoiding speculation and OR really does improve the quality of your contributions. Erinius (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Erinius for your message and help. You are right, this article has to be improved. When I will have more time, I will improve this artcle. How can I qualify for access to The Wikipedia Library?
Best regards! Bird Vision (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just click this link. The requirements for automatic access are 500+ edits, 6+ months editing, 10 or more edits in the past month, and no active blocks. You may not have made 10 edits in the past month, I'm not sure. If you're in school or university your school library probably gives you access to a bunch of like online sources as well.
And when it comes to improving this article - don't add anything else that's unsourced to this article, please! You won't have much right to complain if it gets deleted. And you shouldn't add anything about classifications of varieties that are obviously dialects of a single language, either, since that doesn't belong in this article. So, the kind of improvement that would help the most would be sources on the classification of different languages.
You may want to create and maintain a listing of all dialects and sociolects of every Indo-European language, and it's fine to do so, but that does not belong as a Wikipedia article. Erinius (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue when it comes to classifying dialects and sociolects on here is that this article's structure, with all the bullet points, shows a tree model of linguistic diversification - but the tree model just doesn't work when it comes to showing the relationships between different dialects of a single language. It's also severely flawed, at best, when it comes to dialect continua and clusters of closely related languages that are still in heavy contact with each other. I can recommend some articles and readings about this if you want.
This is also why the internal classification of some (sub)-families, such as the Romance languages, is disputed, and on Wikipedia it's probably better to leave that to be handled at different pages (which you can still contribute to). Same goes with large, widely spoken IE languages, like English, Spanish, and Portuguese, which all have their own respective pages about dialectal variation. Erinius (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The map is wrong[edit]

Danish and English is wildly used in Greenland, but it is not on the map. Felixsj (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High German[edit]

Classifiation from the article:

That's bad in so many ways:

  • West Central German is a sub-form of Central German (and hence also of High German).
  • Such a list (with both descendancy and language-families, sub-dialects) doesn't work here (cp. Friedrich Maurer (linguist)#Work):
    Elbe Germanic lead to Upper German; Weser-Rhine Germanic to West Central German and Low Franconian; High German is both Upper and Central German, so descending from both Germanic branches.

--09:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.40.167 (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Indo-European_languages&oldid=1208248985"