

Tree of Indo-European Languages (image) - vinnyglennon
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/IndoEuropeanTree.svg

======
ommunist
An obvious mistake on a map. There is no such "language" \- Latvian. Latvian
is a modern mix of Latgalian and German, less than 700 yrs old (some say
Kuronian also was there). Semigallian is a hoax. Bishop Albert in "Chronicles"
called tribal cultures "Semigalls" \- half galls! They probably spoke balto-
slavic proto-language, closer to some proto-Russian, than modern Latgalian.
Their rulers were actually russian counts, mentioned by the same Albert in
XIII cent. So the actual branch is Kuronian, Latgalian, Galindan, Prussian.
Not sure about Selonian. Sudovian - recent Polish invention, never existed.
(suudi in Latvian means sh#t). Add modern chimeroid langs as Lithuanian and
Latvian and pic is complete. I suspect Indian branch has the same problems.

Edit: forgot vod people, also called krevingi, they still existed in the end
of the 19th cent, few families.

~~~
mdturnerphys
If Latvian isn't a language, what would you call it? A creole? A dialect of
Latgalian? Just because a language draws from languages outside its immediate
language family doesn't mean it's not a language (or else you'd have to take
English off the map as well).

Defining what makes a language a language is a very political issue, but there
are some standard ways to judge. The half-joking criteria is whether it has an
army and navy. Another is mutual intelligiblity—can speakers of a different
"language" understand it and be understood by native speakers?

~~~
ommunist
Oh yeah, man. Latvians defy Latgalian being a language. Despite the very fact
the word "Latvian" never existed before XVII century.

