File talk:Slavic languages.png

Big omissions:

• Hungarians in Voivodina are missing, Slovaks are overrepresented.
• Area of Croatian in B&H is augmented (Glamoc, Grahovo is mostly Serbian area). Serbian is spoken in Bratunac, and Bosniak in Gorazde.
• There are no displayed Serbian speaking areas in Croatia
• Croatian enclave in the south of Italy numbers 3000 people
• There is no Slovak in Transilvania
• Some Bulgarians in the far east od Serbia
• Slavic area near Vienna speaks Croatian, not Slovenian
• In Crimea, Russian is by far the first language

(the preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:47, 18 December 2008 by an anonymous user)

Great to see all the fixes people have made. It does seem to me, however, that perhaps there should be more porous borders between Poland, Belarus, and the Ukraine? In particular aren't there still pockets of Polish speakers in northwest Belarus and the Ukraine, particularly around L'viv/Lvov? Also, I wonder if Russian is really so equally distributed throughout Belarus, is it not concentrated more in the east? Brianski (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what's with the pocket of Rusyn in SW Poland? Brianski (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, feel free to correct the map. Reverting to an even more incorrect version is hardly the solution. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 23:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. AFAICS, most of these comments are fully valid, but the current version of the map is the one that should be corrected . I'm completely retarded when it comes to image editing, so Brianski perheps you're willing to do it yourself, or guide Hexagon1 who did the recent changes to it? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic Silesian has been recognized as a language by the academic community. It needs to be added to Upper Silesia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.212.68.23 (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German is also spoken in Upper Silesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.80.115.113 (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the last time anyone has heard of Czechia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.153.31 (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not affiliated with Kosovo in any way, shape or form, but this png should have Kosovo as a country, at least with dispute borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.53.7.110 (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell what is wrong with this map ?

Vast areas of Russia or Central to North Europe with many different official and minority languages are covered at best with checked colourations with general sense of language divergence, while small (really small) territory of Bosnia-H. and Montenegro is differentiated pixel by pixel !? Is that really necessary, are we really such a tribal maniacs ?

Not to mention that is completely incorrect ! --Santasa99 (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a suggestion - these two small territories of B-H and MN (with Croatia and Kosovo) should be coloured with checked patterns, since we know that all three languages are official and more-less evenly spread through out of state territory, at least not in a manner depicted on current map. --Santasa99 (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On this Wikipedia hard to offend some people and their national languages​​, ignoring the facts and international documents. The fact that the Serbian and Croatian two different standard languages, here it does not matter how big the difference is, it deals with linguistics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.227.18.219 (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure (Standard) Serbian and and (Standard) Croatian and two different/distinct standard languages. They are, however, not different enough from each other to make them (part of) distinct languages altogether. The latter is what the map is about, not the former. Some very distinct languages may have no standard form, whereas some languages have multiple standard forms (e.g. Serbo-Croatian, English). --JorisvS (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true Mr. JorisvS !

My name is Mark Mreza, I'm a linguist, I'll explain why you're wrong:

1. Serbo-Croatian is not language, it's dialect system. It dialect system consisting of four languages: Serbian language, Croatian language, Bosnian language and Montenegrin language. Dialectal system and language are not the same concepts. These are the different languages ​​that were closer together politically, after disintegration of Yugoslavia they are again politically distancing.

The younger generation have significant communication problems, these languages ​​are as different as the Scandinavian languages​​, Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian.

1. English language has spread from the UK to the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and there has developed in different variants.

--95.168.98.98 (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Serbo-Croatian was never one language. This is a group of similar Slavic languages.
• English language existed before the expansion in America and Australia. English is the new areas developed variants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.98.98 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a linguist, you should know the following: Most, if not all, languages are collections mutually intelligible dialects or "dialect systems". The four 'languages' you give are all based on subdialect of a collection of speech varieties or "dialect" that is called Shtokavian. Collections of speech varieties (dialects) that are less closely related to those are called Chakavian, Kajkavian, and Torlakian. Together these four dialects are called "Serbo-Croatian". You should also be familiar with the typical rate languages change and how quickly they could change: two decades is not enough to create separate languages. You should also understand that languages are not political things and hence politics are irrelevant.

Moreover, you should be familiar with the bunch of words that are different in (some of) these standardized speeches called "Serbian", "Croatian", "Bosnian", and "Montenegrin", the myriad of words that are identical in all of them. You should also be familiar with their near-identical grammars and that the differences that do exist are marginal. --JorisvS (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied this case and I thought like you, but trust me that much more to find the differences between these languages ​​than it was thought at first sight, when we talk about the standards we see a similar basis, not the same, but their construction is very different, each of them has its own vocabulary, grammar, spelling, writing, culture, and literature. Also according dialects structure Kaykavian, Chakavian, Shtokavian and Torlakian developed properties 4 special dialect system. This situation is not similar to the variants of English.

It is important to know that all these languages ​​are independent, they are codified and internationally recognized, regardless of their genetic similarity are not entitled to your map to ignore their legal existence and mutual differentiation.

I and my colleagues from Harvard write a book about it.--31.45.151.127 (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Codification and political recognition have no effect on a language's structure, which is what the question of distinctness of speech varieties is about. This map is about the latter, not the former. Also culture and literature are not part of a language. Instead, culture is associated with a people and literature uses a language. Writing systems are associated with language: they are used to represent a language. Using distinct writing systems does not change a language, it just means it is represented differently.

The four Serbo-Croatian dialects are quite distinct, but this has no bearing on what is called "Croatian", "Serbian", etc., because all of the latter are standardized languages based on only one of them. If you include Kaykavian, Chakavian, and parts of Shtokavian and Torlakian under the label "Croatian", you're making an ethnicity-based paraphyletic grouping of dialects. This does not mean much because this makes it an essentially random grouping (i.e. not based on characteristics of the speech varieties). --JorisvS (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues, I think that I have not well understood. The structure is not controversial, I and my colleagues think that your map is not correct. If these national languages ​​into a single language group, though the map has to be labeled usage areas Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.105.164 (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. The problem is that you're either 1) not a native speaker, having a distorted perception of reality 2) deliberately lying (which some nationalist often do here in other to present their case). To claim that younger generations have "communication problems" (where exactly the opposite is true, with Serbian shows shown on Croatian TV channels and vice versa, Cyrillic script going extinct, Internet leveling any artificially introduced communication obstacles via FB, IM, fora etc.), and that BCSM standards are as different as Scandinavian languages (the same phonology, inflection, 98% of derivational morphology - even two forms of Norwegian have much more internal differences) can claim only somebody fitting in these two categories. That book you're writing will be a really nasty bit of propaganda. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your map is nonsense, this opinion has the most people, you need to know.

By expert Professor Wayles Browne of Cornell University Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin languages area

--Wayles Browne

This map has no sense - contains errors, lacks of many border transitional areas etc. Good candidate to nomination for deletation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.150.224.186 (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]