theres no southamerica and northamerica -_-

Honestly, I could see it going either way; that is you could add the Americas if you want, or you could leave it as is. But either way, I like the concept. Now to answer some of your other questions:

2.) Just split it up. Call it "west Russian," "central Russian," etc. Another thing you could do, is do some research on the various regions of Russia, and try looking for some major native languages spoken there.

3.) Hindi is fine in my opinion, but you could just split it into north and south if its size bugs you.

4.) It's slightly confusing from a distance, but yes I like it.

5.) It shouldn't really matter, I doubt many people will even notice.

Hope this helps you :)

Yeah split the Americas up by the various English & Spanish dialects, throw in some Ceczua and Nahuatl and Cherokee and other fairly widely spoken native American/Pidgin languages and it should be fine.. Give it some thousands of years and the American English dialects will be full fledged languages in their own right anyways, unless the dramatically increased social interconnectivity we have today leads to convergence, which I guess might happen!

I have to say that this is perhaps the most innovative map I have seen. Awesome idea and I have already learned some things I did not know. I have no idea about the playability, but I love love love love the idea. Love it. My two cents is to just change the name of this map and make a second map of the Americas with native languages instead of the European languages.

Also you can break up Bangladesh's dialect up even more, the whole region speaks bengali but in different dialects.

[Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_dialects)

First, I like the idea and find the map very pretty. But.

I think here is a serious conflict between two opposite viewpoint: grammatical correctness vs. warlight playability. If the first point become more accurate, the second lose its value, and if you want to make it more playable, then you have to hurt the accuracy. So what do you want exactly? A correct language map, either a balanced warlight map, or something between these?

I could say many grammatical tips, but it would make worst the gameplay, and I think that is the stronger point of view in here. Maybe you can make a more detailed language map just for edification and an other one, a little bit less correct one for playing.

In fact the two viewpoint cant be perfect at once. Or the third way if you try to achieve a harmonic mean between the two way, if you want this I can only say good luck to you :)

To everyone:

1) My feeling tells me to leave this map as it is and make a second one later on.
2) Russia clearly needs to be split up. i'll look at it later. Another option would be to expand Siberia to the south, cutting russia of from mongolian and everything east of it. Downside: japan and korea get totally isolated. Splitting upwould be better
3) unclear what to do with hindi
4) ok
5) For playability it's better to make it a double border => to do list

A new one:

6th Q: What do you think about Urdu?

Changes i'll certainly make: Italy-Sicilia, Italy-Tunisia, Dutch-Afrikaans, think abour colours, assign bonuses

Something I'll perhaps do: madagascar-indonesia (don't know how i'll do this exactly)

Any comments, mistakes, ideas ... are welcome
thanks for answering

---


@ **Blue Galaxy**: As said, I still have to assign bonus values. Probably *SinoTibet...* will have bonus value 0 or 1.

@ **Francisco ville**:
* I already split up bantu and indo-aryan. Now every decent bonus has 7-15 territories in it (and there are a few smaller ones). Of course the idea of the map isn't to conquer the entire indo-european bonus.
*i prefer leaving it out as well
*urdu might be a problem indeed. one possible solution (i don't really like) is the following: create some space between pakistan and the other territories so i can add a colored line in between.
*I'll think about Russia
*thanks

@ **RvW**
*You seem to be able to read my mind
*about dholuo: because i've done such a things all over the map & because there is 1 other nilo-saharian language on the map.
*about lake victoria: i'll consider it
*about igbo-kongo: that was my imagination gone wild. If it's clearer to go around, i'll just go around
*about colors: it's on my to do list
*about sicliy: I see i forget to do sardinia-tunsia as well => to do list
*about serbocroatian: Ethnologue lists them as 2 separate languages. Then again, Flemish and Dutch appear to be 2 different languages as well. I'v decided to stick to my source for these matters
*about the long name: to do list (i was a little tired yesterday evening)
*about baltica: the problem is there indeed. the biggest problem to me is that i know europe is wrong but i have no idea how the rest of the world is. If i knew the entire world, i could solve all "problems". Perhaps for this one very clear example i could rename it *Finnish and Estonian*?
*about australia: I'd like to keep it as it is. Perhaps I'll also add Dutch-Afrikaans. This will give the map a unique cross-map connection system thing.
*i like them as well
*they indeed are only part of the indo-europ. bonus, just as lithuania and armenia.
Thanks for watching the map in detail!


@ **Moros**
* A map "languages fo the americas" could be another project. I think i'll just rename it.
*i'll think about russia
*Hindi is in central india (and it's quite big) look again.
*ok
*i didn't do it because the result is ugly.
*Afrikaans-dutch is coming up

@ **ironheart**: thanks

@ **world dominator**:
*English seems pretty much a national languages. i think i'll leave america out
*probably, but which langauge doesn't have dialects? Ethnologue lists it as a single language while splitting up others. I'll stick to my source. But if you have a very good argument, please tell me.

@ **atomik duke**: indeed. Only 6 (important) languages spoken there + a few european ones. problems: (a) unnecessary extra complexity in mainland Europe (example: english-spanish connection) (b) Half of the map is "wasted" you'd 'constantly' be playing on the right half, but each turn you'd have to check the left half to see if your coastal areas aren't under attack (c) This way the rest of the world could be enlarged, allowing me to add some really small territories (Bali for example)

@ **pkthunda**:
*i'll think abour russia
*I wouldn't split it up, but i would delete the northern part (beteen awadhi and kanauji) and expand the adjacent languages to fill in the hole.
*ok
*just what i thougt - but i know the map and i know that tatar isn't slavic. If you happen to have "the wrong map", it's not clear. So perhaps i'll change it anyway

@ **devilnis** : i can't afford to look 1000 years forward. I think i'll just rename it.

@ **Dr type...** : thank you! however don't try to learn to much from this map, because it's not entirely correct.

@ **Urfang** : The aim of the map was to make a playable map that is relative correct (= without huge errors). If you think you spotted a huge or a big mistake, please tell me.

Could you please tell me what's exactly wrong with Hindi and Urdu?
---

you don't have to shout it out that loud!

Hindi: nothing really, except for being big in a region where other territories are small. This means that "oriya" is closer to "eastern panjabi" than "dhundari" is to "eastern panjabi"

Urdu: Connections might not seem clear (especially while you're playing)

hope it helps

sry for double post. oriya:SE of hindi, panjabi: NE of hindi, dhundari:right in the middle of that cluster in the central indo-aryan bonus (relativly big)

sry for te doubledouble post: panjabi is N **W**

I must say your source is pretty flawed if it lists the nearly identical Dutch and Flemish as different languages and the unintelligible Lithuanian and Latvian as one. It'd be like splitting English and Irish English - between which there are more differences than between Dutch and Flemish - and naming Italian and Romanian one language.
Especially this addition of Flemish and the omission of Walloon worry me.

Oh, and sorry for the double post, but Danish is, by alphabet, more connected to Nor**w**egian than to Swedish.

|> Especially this addition of Flemish and the omission of Walloon worry me.

That actually makes sense; from what I've heard (from both Flemish and Walloon Belgians) is that, while there is such a thing as "Belgian Dutch" (Flemish) there's no such thing as "Belgian French" (in Walloon they just speak standard-French).

I thought there were differences. My French teacher told me that, although 60, 70, 80 and 90 in standard French are soixante, soixante-dix, quatre-vingts and quatre-vingts-dix (literally translated: 60, 60+10, 4×20, 4×20+10), in Wallonia they say soixante, septante, octante, neuvante which is way more logical.

@ **Domenico**: I started from a list that shows only languages with over 3 million speakers. Latvian has only 1,5 million and thus didn't made it to the list and thus didn't made it to the map. Furthermore, the source (ethnologue) specifies that flemish is a variant of dutch spoken in belgium, while it keeps lithuanian and latvian as 2 separate languages. Note that these kind of mistakes/problems/errors are widespread all over the map (and often bigger than here), but to us Europeans these errors are the most clear. I'm sure that anyone from West-Africa looking at this map would think "What have you done? There are far more languages spoken here". However I can't add each language in the world and have to put a limit somewhere. Around 200 territories seems fine to me.


Fixed spelling mistake

danish-norwegian connection on to do list


@ **RVW** Once again, you're correct: Walloon was widely spoken in the past, but nowadays everyone speaks standard French and there are only 500 000 to 1 million people left that can speak or understand walloon (mainly elderly people).

@ **Moros** that's true, but now you're talking about Belgian French-which is different from Walloon. The problem is that Flemish on the map refers to Belgian Dutch and not to the dialects spoken in the western half of flanders. I have no idea why ethnologue doen't lists belgian french as a separate language while it does so with flemish. I guess belgian french looks more like french than flemish looks like dutch.

Ooh, this thread makes me want to learn Chinese.
No declensions, no conjugations, no tenses, no grammatical gender, woohoo!

thng i hate most about some languages grammatical gender.Why would do you make a word male or female.Seems very sexist.

Well, hundreds of languages have it, I think more do than don't.

IronHeart, you should learn gangsta-English, just calling everyone "yo dude", irrespective of gender (or age, for that matter), very egalitarian!

ps. Having different words for "man" and "woman", or having different pronouns (??) for "him" and "her", or "his" and "her" has nothing to do with sexism (having words such as "male" and "female" even less so). For something to be sexist it has to involve stereotypes, prejudices, discrimination or outright hatred of a gender. None of that is the case with grammatical gender. (I still agree with you it would be a lot easier if it didn't exist, but that's a completely different matter.)