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.
Old World likely referring to Europe. Except they had to include Middle East and South Asia, because it’s the same language tree.
Notably there’s no Georgian, because it’s also it’s own language tree but is not in Europe. But the Caucasus is part of the old world. And Georgia is a candidate country for the EU.
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.
Why is there Uralic then?
Old World likely referring to Europe. Except they had to include Middle East and South Asia, because it’s the same language tree.
Notably there’s no Georgian, because it’s also it’s own language tree but is not in Europe. But the Caucasus is part of the old world. And Georgia is a candidate country for the EU.
You know what, it doesn’t make sense either way.
“Old world” because this is from a post-apocalyptic webcomic. It’s taking place somewhere in Scandinavia.
These are indo-european languages, I am sure you could do one for sino-tibetan if you feel like it.
Then where’s Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam. Thought I’d see it around Sinhalese but they’re missing. No south india representation :(
They’re not missing, they just belong to an entirely different family. These are Dravidian languages, not Indo-European.
Fascinating, and what about Basque?
Basque is a language isolate and is thought to be unrelated to the Indo-European languages in this graphic.
Should be with the celtic languages I believe.
I would guess that none of those are “old world languages”. Those would be on a completely separate tree.
Old world == afroeurasia