Actually Finno-urgic languages include Finnish and Hungarian; but also include others like Estonian, and many others besides in Russia, northern Norway, Sweden, etc.
Celtic languages (Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Manx, Welsh, Cornish, and Breton) are all distantly related to Latin, and probably closer to Latin than other branches of Indo-European.
Basque is a language isolate spoken in parts of Spain and France. There's also Turkish - part of Turkey is in Europe, but not in the EU.
What is the explanation for part of Turkey being in Europe and part in Asia? AFAIK, that is not common, right, for a country to be part of two continents?
An bhfuil Gaeilge agaibh? I was correcting someone who didn't think that the Celtic languages and Latin were in any way related. That is not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Celtic explains this, even if the similarities are no longer obvious. Hungarian is unrelated to Latin.
No, I'm Brazilian/Hungarian. I've been here for months and still can't even figure out the structure of sentences, much less their meaning (unless it's obvious from external clues). I've always thought of myself as having a knack for languages, but Ireland humbled me. I can write Klingon, but I wouldn't be able to read safety warnings on the train were they not also written in English below.
Which makes me want to put up some bilingual fake warnings with jokes written in Irish and innocent information written in English as if it were a translation from the text above.
It'll be fun to learn Irish from my daughter as she starts school in the next months.
That does not mean that English is a Latin descendant.
English sits on Germanic/West Germanic/Anglo-Frisian branch of the language tree. The Germanic branched together with Romance, Slavic, Celtic, Baltic, Helenic from the Indo-European/European branch, but Latin belongs to Romance, not Germanic.
Perhaps that is because the language tree does not effectively express multiple inheritance.
Multiple invasions of Britain by different ethnic groups have patched together so many language roots into English that the conjugation of the core existence verb "to be" is just an aggregation of the same verb from seven or eight different languages, pasted together in one etymological mishmash.
At some point, English started stealing vocabulary from any language used in international trade, and simply invented any new words that needed saying, using whatever etymological root that was convenient or marketable.
At some point, the Normans and Picards hammered enough French words into Middle English that there should be at least a second root extending into the Romance branch from English.
How else would you get "milk" from a "cow" (Germanic), but get "beef" from "cattle" (Norman), and refer to them all as "bovine" (Latin)?
Those trees are not a terribly good metaphor, though. English is more "descended" from its Germanic roots, but it also has enough in common with Romantic languages that I think it is reasonable to say that it descended from both.
Some significant portion of English is descended from French (which is descendant from Latin).
Edit: But taking some vocabulary from language does not mean being descendant. Half of the world uses the term "e-mail", but they still are not English.
What about Greek, the family of the Slavic languages like Polish, Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Kroatian, the family of Finno-Ugric languages Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian, the isolated language Basque and finally the big share of the Germanic languages: English, German, Dutch, Swedish and Danish?
If we want to define language as a common value for the European Countries, then it might be some Indo-European proto-language (even then it's not clear where Basque comes from).
I agree that Latin had a huge influence in most of the European languages, but this mostly through the Roman Empire and later through the Catholic Church.
