Those are of different language trees and are unrelated, though some researchers have tried to claim that Chinese and other Asiatic languages share a common ancestor with these, it’s not widely accepted and nearly impossible to prove.
Sure but it also seems a bit, I dunno, silly. Sure, you could do a whole forest if you wanted to, and the name ‘old world languages’ is kinda dumb, as this is just two language families - but it’s still a neat visualisation. It’s not some conspiracy.
yea depending on how nitpicky you wanna get you can even point out that some language families are intercontinental between eurasia and the americas (not talking about colonialization, theres some related siberian and canadian languages iirc), but its pretty clear that this is supposed to be a general overview and pie languages do well enough for that
Chinese? Japanese? Vietnamese? Hawaiian? Aboriginal Australian? Navajo?
Those are of different language trees and are unrelated, though some researchers have tried to claim that Chinese and other Asiatic languages share a common ancestor with these, it’s not widely accepted and nearly impossible to prove.
These are indo-european languages, I am sure you could do one for sino-tibetan if you feel like it.
considering theres a small uralic bush the inconsistency is reasonable to point out
Sure but it also seems a bit, I dunno, silly. Sure, you could do a whole forest if you wanted to, and the name ‘old world languages’ is kinda dumb, as this is just two language families - but it’s still a neat visualisation. It’s not some conspiracy.
yea depending on how nitpicky you wanna get you can even point out that some language families are intercontinental between eurasia and the americas (not talking about colonialization, theres some related siberian and canadian languages iirc), but its pretty clear that this is supposed to be a general overview and pie languages do well enough for that