File talk:Romance languages.png

Galician

In response to the debate implicit in the comments, and acknowledging the obvious close relation of Portuguese and Galician, that relation is in no way equivalent to, say, standard Portuguese and southern Portuguese, or that of Catalan and Valencian:

• First, Galician-Portuguese evolved initially in what is historically Galicia, that is, in the northwestern corner of the Iberian peninsula, from the Bay of Biscay till the Douro river in the South, and from the Atlantic till the Navia river in the East. Galician and northern Portuguese colonists brought “Galician” south during the 11th, 12th and 13th century, and no the other way around. So Galician evolved directly and in situ from Vulgar Latin, while Valencian derives of the Catalan brought there by Catalan colonist in the 13th century. Mutatis mutandis, the same goes to southern Portuguese.

• Galician and Portuguese have diverged and evolved since the 12th century in two different kingdoms, with different monarchs and different projection to the world, as well as with increasingly different laws, customs, and orthography. To the point that most isoglosses in between Galician and Portuguese follow the political frontier established in the 12th century. So, for all of the literary history of both languages (800 years each), both countries have had different laws and monarchs, and very different relation with the rest of the world. In fact, a lot of webs pages and treaties on medieval Portuguese literature don't even mention the Cantigas de Santa Maria nor the prose produced in Galicia in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries (or the 18th, 19th, 20th or 21st). Meanwhile, Valencia and Catalonia have almost always had the same monarchs and a shared literature, and dialectal isoglosses indeed cross the political frontiers, with Valencian being not that different from Western Catalan.

• Galician have a Wikipedia which, at 125,000+ articles and 3,750,000+ editions, is the largest 45th and 43th one, respectively. “Valencian” have not an exclusive Wikipedia (Valencian have the Catalan Wikipedia). Portuguese dialects have not a Wikipedia different from that of standard Portuguese.

• Galician language and culture have a top-level domain: .gal. Valencian or Portuguese dialects don't.

• “Galician language”: 272K hits in Google (+18M without quotes); “Valencian language”: 18K (+420K without quotes).

• You can use Google to translate from/into Galician; you can configure your Google session in Galician; you can have your Windows in Galician; you can have your Android in Galician.

So, I think that there are good encyclopedic reason for Galician to be highlighted in the map.--Froaringus (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Colors ?

Without any explanation regarding the different colors, this map remains mysterious and unuseable. -- Ies (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The overlapping colors was the problem?

You reverted some of the changes I made. They are pretty important to understand the Romanian language, because there are transitional areas. Also, you unified much of north dialects group, and that is not very realistic. I can make a new version using the method agreed. I understand your point if that was the problem. Last, if in this map Aromanian, Meglenoromanian are not dialects of Romanian, what is the point to name the language Daco-Romanian and not Romanian? That term is used in the concept of the single language(it was one language at least in the past), where Romanian from north Danube is just a dialect of Romanian as a whole, so they needed a name, they chose Daco-Romanian for geographical reasons. I would make the version, if you don't see her fit, you can revert it. I also can explain the reasons behind this partitions. Viuser (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)