Central Europe vs Eastern Europe

[azzaman333]

Yes it is Europe. But it means nothing. Cutting off the urals to make the map smaller is just regular practice.

Kinda like cutting off Iceland?

 

[Godwynn]

You don't understand a lot of things.

But

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Slavic_languages

Look at the tree.

The only relationship between Western Slavic and German is in the huge IndoEuropean group.

But the relationship between Western Slavic and Russian fits neatly in the much smaller, and more closely related, Slavic group

Regarding that, I just found this neat map showing the Centum-Satem isogloss!

How convenient.

 

[CheScott]

Let's just pull a Stalin/Hitler, divide it between the two and call it a day?

Geez, it's only been like 12 hours and this is 10 pages? I already answered this. -.-;

 

[TheLastOne36]

You don't understand a lot of things.

But

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Slavic_languages

Look at the tree.

The only relationship between Western Slavic and German is in the huge IndoEuropean group.

But the relationship between Western Slavic and Russian fits neatly in the much smaller, and more closely related, Slavic group

So what? Polish and English aren't that similar, niether is English and German, but there in this family group called "germanic". (sorry, english and german is a bad comparison since Polish and Russian is so much farther away)

It's interesting how your comparing a language that doesn't even uses our alphabet to Polish!

And no, i'm not saying polish is similar to german if that is what you are implying. But Polish isn't much more similar to Russian.

 

[Kraznaya]

So what? Polish and English aren't that similar, niether is English and German, but there in this family group called "germanic". (sorry, english and german is a bad comparison since Polish and Russian is so much farther away)

It's interesting how your comparing a language that doesn't even uses our alphabet to Polish!

And no, i'm not saying polish is similar to german if that is what you are implying. But Polish isn't much more similar to Russian.

Alphabet has nothing at all to do with linguistics

 

[TheLastOne36]

Alphabet has nothing at all to do with linguistics

But there aren't much Linguistics similarities with Russian or Polish!

If yo uthink Russian and Polish languages are close, then please, don't talk to me.

 

[philippe]

But there aren't much Linguistics similarities with Russian or Polish!

If yo uthink Russian and Polish languages are close, then please, don't talk to me.

Ah, so you intend to flee from a discussion who doesn't answer to your narrow view on it? you refuse the UN's view and think you are more knowledgable then most cited sources?

Wow, the wonders of nationalism and denial.

And i'm still waiting on your demonstration of your knowledge of Vlad the impaler.

 

[Kraznaya]

Beyond other Western Slavic languages, the closest languages to Polish are Russian, Ukranian, etc

 

[azzaman333]

TheLastOne36, you seemed to have ignored my post, #181 to be exact.

I would like to hear your explaination.

 

[TheLastOne36]

TheLastOne36, you seemed to have ignored my post, #181 to be exact.

I would like to hear your explaination.

I'm sorry, but i'm argueing against atleast 10 people by myself!

sorry guys, the discussion has to continue tomorow, I have a life to you know! And that life includes going out with Family and Friends for Dinner+pub.

 

[sumit1207]

TheLastOne36, you seemed to have ignored my post, #181 to be exact.

I would like to hear your explaination.

As he's clearly stated before, we're only talking about CONTINENTAL Europe here. Iceland just doesn't cut it for this prestigious Continental Europe status. Of course, neither does the UK or Ireland. Poland does, though.

 

[North King]

Besides Language has not much to do with Culture. Also, English and French is completely different, yet they are both in Western Europe.

What?



No, seriously, what the hell? Have you read any anthropology whatsoever? Because language is theorized and observed to have a massive connection with culture. Try again.

As to the second part, honestly, read a little about the languages before you make assumptions.

French makes up about two fifths of the English vocabulary. English and French have been closely intertwined ever since 1066. Tell me, how much German is in Polish? Yes, there are loanwords, but I'm guessing it's a little under 40%.

Now, as to these silly claims about geography:

If we regard Europe as ending at the Caspian, then I'm pretty sure we ought to include Iceland. How exactly is Kazakhstan more European than Iceland? Sure, you can argue that geographically it's not part of the European peninsula, blah blah blah. In that case, you have quite an argument to make regarding why exactly the Urals are a definitive boundary.

The boundary at the Ural Mountains is fictional. The highest point on the Ural Mountains is approximately 1,900 m. The Carpathian Mountains, as a point of comparison, have a highest point of 2,655 m. Thus, we can say that owing to a height difference of 750 m or so, the Carpathian Mountains are a perfectly legitimate "geographical" boundary, and thus split the Balkans into their own continent. I don't have to mention what happens to Italy with the Alps.

Essentially the Ural Mountains boundary was created by: surprise surprise, overzealous Europeans who wanted to see themselves as something special, something different from their neighbors in Central Asia.

Now, geographically speaking, the tectonic plate of Eurasia runs through Iceland -- specifically, it runs through Iceland from the northeast to the southwest. This means that Iceland's westernmost point is pretty much on the boundary between the Eurasian Plate and the North American Plate; thus, Iceland is fully in the "continent" of Europe by any sense of the word: geographically, culturally, politically, religiously, etc. Thus we can consider Truronian's map to be more or less accurate.

Now, onto culture and "shared history", and whatnot.

"Western Europe", as defined by most sensible people, has a long history of its own. We can go back to Roman times, and we will find that there is indeed a division between Western and Eastern Europe -- the use of Latin as opposed to the use of Greek. Certainly, this would push the divisor between East and West more East than we are comfortable with, so if this were the only history between us and the ancient era, we could say that yes, your definition of East vs. West is correct.

But things happened. Golly gee.

Charlemagne's empire is probably the most poignant entity in history that defines East v. West, encompassing parts of all countries we associate with Western Europe except for Portugal, England, Ireland, and Iceland (even England, though, was generally in the same sphere, doing quite a bit of intellectual and cultural exchange, not to mention economic).

As the Empire split up into France, Germany, Burgundy, and Italy, Poland, Czechia, Austria, and so on were entirely outside of this orbit. Not uncivilized, of course, but they were not part of the "Western community", so to speak. These same trends continued through the centuries. Both East and West came under attack by the Vikings -- but the East primarily by Swedes, and the West primarily by Danes and Norwegians.

And so on through a bunch of history you doubtless know yourself -- the point is that the West and Poland were never very connected, and when they were, contemporaries thought it remarkable -- note their reaction to Jan Sobieski's ride, for one thing.

Now, you may argue that this places Poland in Central Europe, but still has it distinct from Russian Eastern Europe. I would dispute that assertion as well -- Poland and Lithuania mainly interacted with each other, the Mongol states, Russia, Sweden, Hungary, and the easternmost bits of Germany. They all fought, traded, and yes, had cultural interchanges. And while you may claim that Poland is very distinct from Russia, I would simply say that this is no more than the typical divide between two nationalities; it's simply that Russia is so enormous that a separate nationality gets magnified many times over.

 

[TheLastOne36]

^no time now. I'll deal with that Tomorow, but from reading the first few para's, Why isn't Western Slavic important enough to be a Cultural Identity?

 

[North King]

^no time now. I'll deal with that Tomorow, but from reading the first few para's, Why isn't Western Slavic important enough to be a Cultural Identity?

Sure it is, but that doesn't mean giving yourself a whole geographic region (in which, for the record, you seem content including non-Slavic speaking nations like Hungary, Germany, Austria, and so on). Let me put it this way: it would be like insisting Northern India isn't part of South Asia because it speaks an unrelated tongue (Hindi) to the nations more south of it (Dravidian). Or that the Thais and Vietnamese shouldn't be together in a geographic region.

As another aside: the United Nations has this definition of Northern/Western/Southern/Eastern Europe.

 

[Kraznaya]

^no time now. I'll deal with that Tomorow, but from reading the first few para's, Why isn't Western Slavic important enough to be a Cultural Identity?

It is one- just one more related to Russian and Eastern Europe as a whole than German or the West

 

[TheLastOne36]

Now, you may argue that this places Poland in Central Europe, but still has it distinct from Russian Eastern Europe. I would dispute that assertion as well -- Poland and Lithuania mainly interacted with each other, the Mongol states, Russia, Sweden, Hungary, and the easternmost bits of Germany. They all fought, traded, and yes, had cultural interchanges. And while you may claim that Poland is very distinct from Russia, I would simply say that this is no more than the typical divide between two nationalities; it's simply that Russia is so enormous that a separate nationality gets magnified many times over.

I'll answer this though, Polish and Russian barely interchanged culture at all. Yes Poland did with Ukraine, and Polish Lithuania (but not modern Lithuania), but not with Russia.

But you are still wrong, Poland is in Central Europe with Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Germany, and Austria.

Why is it so hard for you to replace Eastern with Central? Do you like being mean?

 

[azzaman333]

Because Germany is in the west, Poland is in the east. What makes it so difficult to understand?

 

[TheLastOne36]

Sure it is, but that doesn't mean giving yourself a whole geographic region (in which, for the record, you seem content including non-Slavic speaking nations like Hungary, Germany, Austria, and so on). Let me put it this way: it would be like insisting Northern India isn't part of South Asia because it speaks an unrelated tongue (Hindi) to the nations more south of it (Dravidian). Or that the Thais and Vietnamese shouldn't be together in a geographic region.

As another aside: the United Nations has this definition of Northern/Western/Southern/Eastern Europe.

Why is it so hard to accept a Central European definition? Your ancestors used it. Hungary is Culturally in Central Europe, They are a special case in terms of language, like Finland is for Nordic Europe.

the Germanic Countries are also Culturally Central European. It's hard to describe our culture, but we know it includes them. We are very close to Bavaria, Which is very close to Austria.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Because Germany is in the west, Poland is in the east. What makes it so difficult to understand?

Are we in 1960?

 

[azzaman333]

Are we in 1960?

Had a look at a map recently?