File talk:IndoEuropeanTreeA.svg

Medieval Yiddish is indeed a Germanic language, however, there is some controversy regarding the Yiddish of today. You cannot consider these two Yiddishes to be the same language. While modern Yiddish has its roots in Medieval German Yiddish, it is heavily influenced by Polish and my understanding is that it has absorbed some slavic grammatical features. The Medieval (Germanic) Yiddish box should be white, as it is a dead language.

While we're on Jewish languages, where is Ladino?

I think the [ANATOLIAN] box has to be white, given that it implies the Hittite Language. 203.181.27.227 09:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, the Romani Language is missing (belongs to the Central-Indic group). -- megA (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my friend Romani is semitic! Maybee you are thinking abuot Romanian (which is latin) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.242.101 (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that MegA is in fact referring to Romani, which is an Indic (and therefore Indo-European) language. (And yes, it should be there as a living language.) DBowie (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Spanish missing from the Romance language section of this chart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.30.41 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish is castillian. --212.247.27.185 (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such as Manx, Cornish and Sanskrit. These languages are extinct according to any reasonable set of criteria. Bws2002 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, somebody explain to me why Sanskrit is "extant" (ha!) while Late Latin and Ecclesiastical Latin don't even make the chart. Of course, this is excessive detail, but so is including Classical Latin on the tree. Where is Old Prussian, Old Serbian, etc? Btw, there are still Latin-speaking conventions in Finnland, and there are still scientific journals and Catholic Church documents published in Latin (meaning new works written in this language) although there are no native Latin speakers and haven't been for centuries, meaning we can fairly call it dead. My point is that there doesn't seem to be a uniform set of criteria applied in identifying separate languages and putting them on the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.207.215 (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are ~450 live Indo-European languages, so this image represents only some small part of them. But there are some mistakes, that some people could take as truth and use it as source. It is fact, that Curonian language belongs to western branch(together with Prussians) of Baltic languages. (Though, as a native to this region I wildly image how this classification was made, because of many similarities and distinctions among close and far regions, like late Galindian colonization of lands east of Lithuanians, that survived till the arrival of the slavs under the name of Goleds, that in reality made eastern part of Baltic branch in the middle of western... also there are some closer ties between Letts and Lithuanians, with apparently initially distinct Sellonians in the middle of them both... but anyway...) Well, it is also worth to note, that there exist theory not only of Balto-slavic languages, but also Greek-Roman languages. Besides, even today Greek language has some distinct language varieties, like modern Attic Greek and Doric branch Tsakonians, that according to ethnologue.com has even some speakers. And searching in wikipedia also gives some results about Tsakonian use in today - there's image of dual Greek-Tsakonian language sign. Also Anatolian languages are long dead - there's no speaker of Anatolian languages(there were like 6 different groups, with possibility, that initially greek was one of them, before they arrived in Greece) - Anatolians were hellenized in the times of Alexander. And, yes, I must agree with other comment, that Celtic languages were not correct. Cornish is extinct in 18th century, and Manx also is officially dead - at least in this century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.245.196.240 (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]