File talk:Old norse, ca 900.PNG

message: What are the sources for the information on this map? Two things mainly puzzle me; that the Viken area (present-day eastern Norway) is classified as West Norse, and that southwestern Finland is not colored at all. Not sure about this, though. Jørgen 18:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I consulted a number of sources for this map, in order to make it as accurate as possible. Viken was at the time West Norse, but its dialect was later influenced by Swedish and Danish. AFAIK, the Finnish coastland was depopulated at the time due to Swedish raids.--Wiglaf 18:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sounds good. I am not convinced, however, I do not have time to check my sources right now... :-). And the map is nice, and I only doubt small parts of it, so I'm quite happy anyway. Jørgen 20:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  I would like to see, in particular, sources regarding Finland, because it is claimed in Swedish-speaking Finns that the First Swedish Crusade brought the language into the country, or else occupation by the 1250s, still within the time of Old Norse. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I second that, and I think that the choice of colours is not optimal, too. I'm only slightly colourblind, but I cannot distinguish any "pink" and "orange" areas in this image at all. It might be better to use totally different colours, instead of various shades of red. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 10:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, Crimean Gothic surviving in the Crimea is popular, but not altogether non-spurious. Otherwise, this map is actually very good. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Crimean Gothic was an East Germanic language not a North Germanic (Scandinavian) language.
The name "Goths" (as well as their oral history) seems to establish that they did originate in the Baltic -- but this origin was during the 1st Millenium B.C., prior to the split of Germanic into 3 branches.
See Wulfila's Bible, written in Visigothic.
So Crimean Gothic should appear on this map as "Other Germanic" -- probably with a note on its East Germanic status for clarity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.18.181 (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimean Gothic was Not North Germanic 

message: What is the source for the linguistic borders of West Germanic on the map?
Was southern Schleswig-Holstein really Slavic speaking (or whatever) at that time?
Had the Kingdom of Burgundy already adopted French?
I'm not sure -- just asking for fact checks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.245.38 (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Border of West Germanic? 

message: Was Old Gutnish ever spoken in Hordaland or any other part of Norway? According to this map it was, but I highly doubt that.Inge 14:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Gutnish in Hordaland? 

message: what language(s) does the yellow color over most of britain correspond to?  - Metanoid (talk, email) 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: found it, duh :p  - Metanoid (talk, email) 04:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow? 

message: Do we really need to be distinguishing "East Norse" and "West Norse", two totally modern constructs based largely on certainly elements within the modern Norwegian nationalist movement? These terms are unattested and anachronistic, and come up badly when placed in northern England which had settlers from both Norway and Denmark who all mixed together and no comment on language difference was ever made. BTW, there is no evidence English was the language of Wigtownshire or even Kirkcudbrightshire in 900; the color should be removed from these areas. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? The linguistic distinction between East and West Norse is generally accepted. (its usefulness as a description of the modern languages is another matter). It has nothing to do with Norwegian nationalism - Were you thinking of Bokmål vs Nynorsk? That's another story. "Unattested and anachronistic"? It's a linguistic distinction. Nobody claimed it was a contemporary one. None of the terms in the image were used at that time. Also, the article Old Norse makes it quite clear that they didn't make that distinction. Of course no comment on linguistic differences was made. There were no linguists back then, and written sources are scarce enough in themselves. Nor would there have been much reason to comment - the languages were still completely mutually intelligible to them. (and largely still are a thousand years later). Nevertheless, differences between East and West Norse were quite real. --Pykk (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, there were linguists back then... ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map