Wait, hold on, a fairly accurate map instead of just countries?
Who’s the linguistics nerd that wanted to make a point about peace and empathy and the absolutely tragic loss of human life, but couldn’t resisit also making a little bit of a point about language diversity? Whoever you are, I see you.
I take little bit of issue having south part of Finland having swedish there.
Edit: ok, the projection is bit funky here, that is not southern Finland (Uusimaa), but south west Finland (Varsinais-Suomi) which is conquered by Swedish Finns
As opposed to? I mean, yeah, a lot of the places marked here are bilingual and share a language with the surrounding environment, but it’s not like Spanish, Romanian or English aren’t captured here.
It depends. I think if both languages are exclusive to that area then yeah, flag it. If one is a larger language and the other a minority language exclusive to a region is fine to only show the minority one. Context solves the issue just fine.
You don’t know from context what the actual language situation there is with that method. For informative maps that’d be bad. That’s why shading makes more sense.
Well, because you’d have to put two words in very tiny spaces of the map. Repeating “peace” in Wales seems superfluous, since England is right there. You’ll notice you don’t get béke rewritten in Transilvania, either.
It just seems like a weird hangup.
Anyway, moving on here. We’ve derailed the kind, warm, little dorky message of this thread enough.
Wait, hold on, a fairly accurate map instead of just countries?
Who’s the linguistics nerd that wanted to make a point about peace and empathy and the absolutely tragic loss of human life, but couldn’t resisit also making a little bit of a point about language diversity? Whoever you are, I see you.
It’s a lot better than most such maps, but still, there’s way too many languages missing in my opinion :)
I take little bit of issue having south part of Finland having swedish there.
Edit: ok, the projection is bit funky here, that is not southern Finland (Uusimaa), but south west Finland (Varsinais-Suomi) which is conquered by Swedish Finns
Conquered? I would personally say inhabited.
JK
I did say “a little bit of a point”.
That’s the problem with giving it a fair shake, I suppose. You end up with nitpicking the remainder instead. It’s a natural impulse.
Yes, you’re right of course, but HOW COULD THEY EVEN MISS FRISIAN WHEN THEY EVEN INCLUDED SAMI pounds fist
:P
These often way overrepresent minority language in my experience
As opposed to? I mean, yeah, a lot of the places marked here are bilingual and share a language with the surrounding environment, but it’s not like Spanish, Romanian or English aren’t captured here.
Well showing area that has only minority of some speakers as the colour of that language is quite misleading. Should be shaded or something
It depends. I think if both languages are exclusive to that area then yeah, flag it. If one is a larger language and the other a minority language exclusive to a region is fine to only show the minority one. Context solves the issue just fine.
You don’t know from context what the actual language situation there is with that method. For informative maps that’d be bad. That’s why shading makes more sense.
If your map is about where every language is spoken, then you shade where every language is spoken.
If your map is about how a word is said on different languages, then you place words for unique languages, context takes care of bilingual areas.
It seems pretty obvious, really.
And what’s wrong from a more correct representation that also shows the words, as in, shading?
To me that seems obvious. You don’t mislead but also get the information through.
Well, because you’d have to put two words in very tiny spaces of the map. Repeating “peace” in Wales seems superfluous, since England is right there. You’ll notice you don’t get béke rewritten in Transilvania, either.
It just seems like a weird hangup.
Anyway, moving on here. We’ve derailed the kind, warm, little dorky message of this thread enough.