File talk:IB-IE FAMILY.PNG
AAHH! It's HUGE! This is so impressive, Dan. A masterpiece. I noticed no Macedonian, presumably because that language is still uncertain and not yet QSS? The one change I'd suggest is adding Latino Sine Flexione below Church Latin, since in the Latin spectrum of IB it's sort of considered a more refined form of Post-Renaissance scientific Latin, if I understand Keith's post about it. Also, Sanskrit seems to be known as Sam̃skrytam *there*, but that may be more formal and academic than what you're going for. Finally, be warned that "Hispano-Anatolian" was my own spur-of-the-moment coinage for the Template:Hellenic template, and therefore comes with the disclaimer that neither Jesse Bangs nor the wider Hellenophone community necessarily endorses it. But again - this is a VERY impressive work of Bethisadology and should probably at least get a mention on Conculture so that everybody can see and appreciate it. Benkarnell 23:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I applaud BoArthur and agree with Ben on the fact that this is a masterpiece of language studies in IB. Way to go, man, way to go! Seth 01:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't stopped stealing glances at it. Some other omissions:
- And I thought Waloon and Wallon were the same language. Could you have meant Lorain?
- Benkarnell 04:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Moghul's Status
- Moghul (somewhere in the Iranian languages, but apparently influenced by Urdu)
- Benkarnell 04:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Moghul is also apparently influenced by Turkic languages, as well as Urdu. Or at least that's what seems to be indicated here, though that description also appears to half believe that it is a full-blooded Turkic language, which it isn't.
- Even with these omissions and questions, though, this is a masterful piece of work. Superb! Geoff 13:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Gents -- I'm drawing a blank as to who came up with Moghul just now -- but we should decide just where it fits into the tree. Let me know what your thoughts are. BoArthur 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Jan II's Comments
ah yeah, really impressive. i have just found two slight discrepancies:
- bohemian should stem in upper german (has same roots as austro-bavarian).
- the ilmenian was a language similar to *here*'s old novgorodian, which one was not present *there*, and if, it was a dialect of nassian.
Jan II. 06:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure where to put Bohemian exactly. I'll make the changes. As for Ilmenian -- what's your take -- should it exist *there* as a sub-dialect of Nassian, or should it just be butterflied away? I'm okay either way. I erred on the side of caution figuring it easier to take away than create anew. And if Ilmenian doesn't exist there, from whence comes Nassian?
BoArthur 14:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- ad ilmenian. ahem, small fuzz was caused by my pathetic english. ilmenian *there* existed as a northern dialect of the last stage of early common slavonic and was precursor of nassian and vozgian, as we agreed with jan I. there was no old novgorodian *there*. i am sorry for the confusion. Jan II. 16:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Pathetic? I think not. Your English is 100% better than most of my languages that I know! I will correct, and thanks for the clarification! BoArthur 18:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Also, Jan I, what's your take on where I should apply Vozgian? BoArthur 14:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
