Democratic Communist Federation wrote:Cekoviu wrote:The category doesn't make any sense, though. I could maayybe see Japanese and Chinese grouped together due to Japanese using the hanzi/kanji from Chinese, and if we're okay with archaic forms, Vietnamese could be included as well. Thai and Korean should be miscellaneous, though, because they don't have many similarities with the others apart from some loanwords and being in a similar wide-ranging geographic region.
The Sinosphere doesn't make sense? According to whom? We use that term in the social sciences all the time (along with the Indosphere). As I said, I was not trying to place the languages into linguistic categories (unless that was appropriate), just into categories which made sense to me.If accuracy can be improved at the expense of nearly nothing, I'd say it's a better idea to improve the accuracy, but whatever floats your linguistically vague boat.
The categorization is useful for my purposes. You keep on bringing up linguistic. As I said, I was not always using linguistic categories.
Well, it might be slightly less confusing if you included the languages of all the countries in this proposed "Sinosphere," which I presume would include Cambodia with Khmer, Burma with Burmese, Laos with Lao, and perhaps Hong Kong's Cantonese Chinese. As it stands, you appear to have sprinkled a random assortment of East and Southeast Asian languages and called it good. You have said that you chose the languages that you could find, but it still seems rather arbitrary to an observer unaware of this. Additionally, you used linguistic categories like Germanic and Uralic (under the name Finnic-Uralic, which doesn't make sense either), so you're being rather inconsistent.