Posted by NotInOurNames 10/28/2025
Maltese, interestingly, is the only Afro-Asiatic derived language.
Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian are the three Uralic languages.
All the others are Indo-European, Greek being the only Hellenic one, Irish the only Celtic, the rest are Baltic, Slavic, Italic, or Germanic.
(I originally used the term Balto-Slavic, though I was unaware of some of the connotations of that term until just now. Baltic and Slavic do share a common origin, but that was a very very long time ago)
It's Semitic, to be precise.
The family tree model seems to assume that every language has only 1 direct ancestor. It seems to have been inspired by phylogenetic trees in biology. In phylogenetics, single-parent trees work fine because distantly related species can't breed with one other. By contrast, different languages borrow features from one another all the time. It could perhaps be useful for some languages, but not for English. I reckon.
In the Yiddish original: "אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמיי און פֿלאָט", see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_a...
So tough that "siege of Malta" needs a disambiguation page on Wikipedia.
Not in my experience. Not at all actually. My experience with Arabic speakers is that they think they're understanding when you speak Maltese, because it sounds kind of familiar, but in actual fact they're not understanding much at all.
Which is not surprising after a thousand years of divergence.
Linguistically, it does not matter -- there is no objective definition of the difference between a language, a dialect, or whatever -lect.
It's the opposite: "it's a different language" is usually just a nationalistic desire for differentiation of what are essentially dialects/variants of a language.
>Linguistically, it does not matter -- there is no objective definition of the difference between a language, a dialect, or whatever -lect.
That's more because academic linguistics, as developed in the latter half of the 20th century, had to pay lip service into several ideologies, rather than there not actually being good practical ways to discern e.g. arabic as a single basic language with different variants.
> It's the opposite: "it's a different language" is usually just a nationalistic desire for differentiation of what are essentially dialects/variants of a language.
It's both. The idea that Ukrainian is an uneducated farmer's dialect of Russian is a common talking point in the "Greater Russia / Russkiy Mir" narrative. Conversely, asserting the status of the Ukrainian language is a big part of Ukrainian identity in the face of an imperial invasion.
As someone who once studied General Linguistics, I don't understand this remark. I've learned that calling something a language is a political act and often of great significance to the speakers, but is almost never well-defined from a purely linguistic perspective. That's a fact. Although you can sometimes find typological criteria to further argue that a variety is a language on its own, for example there are good grammatical reasons for not counting Swiss German as a variety of German, you will also find examples the other way around where two varieties have large lexical and grammatical differences and still count as the same language.
The strongest criteria for what counts as a language are based on language origins (as opposed to typology), and these do not generally suffice or make meaningful distinctions to varieties (~dialects). Mutual comprehensibility can be very low for speakers of the same language, which is why most research focuses on varieties or on speaker groups that are of particular sociolinguistic interest.
I don't get why you talk about "academic linguistics" as if there was a non-academic one and why you think linguistics "had to pay lip service into several ideologies." What are you talking about?
>As someone who once studied General Linguistics, I don't understand this remark. I've learned that calling something a language is a political act and often of great significance to the speakers, but is almost never well-defined from a purely linguistic perspective. That's a fact.
Yes, this ideologically motivated idea after enough repetitionbecame "a fact" of the field, as if describing some objective physical law, and even non-political students will be taught and stick to the same (and anybody with a dissenting opinion will be getting an earful if not committing career suicide).
This wasn't always the case, it's more so with liberalism prevailing, especially in the latter half of the 20th century.
Best get to retraining those models.
They get certain recognition, but they are not official in Europe. For example, just from Spain there are 13 languages on that list.
Irish is certainly not a robust vigorous language but your 40,000-80,000 numbers downplay it I'd suggest. Here are some statistics from Deepseek
Category Region Number of Speakers Source & Year
Some Ability Republic of Ireland 1,873,997 (40% of population) 2022 Census
Some Ability Northern Ireland 228,600 (12.4% of population) 2021 Census
Daily Speakers Republic of Ireland 71,968 2022 Census
Daily Speakers Northern Ireland 43,557 2021 Census
Native/Fluent Global Estimate ~80,000-170,000 Various Sources
Speakers U.S. United States ~20,000+ EstimateWhereas Irish seems to be heavily promoted but for whatever reason precious few people learn it as their mother tongue, and those who do so are primarily in an area where it’s always been that way. For better or worse, people are preferring to use English at home and Irish is treated like a luxury good.
Sorry, but it is.
Fun fact: villages, towns, and cities in Frisia often have names which differ in Frisian and Dutch. In those cases the signs at the place limits will have both names listed; the official one on top (which in some cases is the Dutch name (e.g., Leeuwarden/Ljouwert) and in some cases the Frisian (e.g., Gytsjerk/Giekerk)).
And huh interesting, I didn't know that for some places with bilingual names, the Dutch name is official and for others the Frysian is? Who gets to decide that, the municipality?
In a number of cases originally Frisian names actually supplanted older Dutch names (e.g., Burgum, Grou, Eastermar, etc.), so those places have just one name in both languages (except on the Dutch language Wikipedia because of weird reasoning about allowable sources and apparently a hatred of Frisianised Dutch names).
But "official" means exactly what it means, and when I'm saying "Frysian is an official language of the Netherlands", it means that it's recognized as an official language of Netherlands, by the Dutch government. And if it was up to the provinces I dunno, but it's not. Frysian is the one that's considered one of the official languages of the Netherlands.
I also don't think comparing to Italy makes sense at all because countries are different and decide what are their official languages for very different historical reasons. For instance you can look up what Dutch government body is responsible for deciding the Frysian language is an official one in the Netherlands and why, and you will very likely find no Italian equivalent of that.
Then there are other, regionally-rocognized language that local governments use alongside the national one (West Frysian in Friesland, German in South Tyrol, etc.), and may even enjoy a majority of speakers within those regions, but they are not "an official language OF" the wider country.
Which is exactly what it says for German in Italy, mutatis mutandis.
Deepseek answers with, “The Constitution of the Netherlands is written in Dutch.
Dutch is the official language of the Netherlands and the language used for all primary government and legal documents, including the Constitution (Grondwet). Official Language: Dutch is the sole official language for national governance.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands: It's worth noting that the Kingdom of the Netherlands also includes the Caribbean countries of Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten. While they have their own official languages (Papiamento and English), the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which governs the relationship between these countries, is also originally written in Dutch.
No Multilingual Version: Unlike some countries (e.g., Canada, Belgium, or Switzerland), the Netherlands does not have an official, legally equivalent version of its Constitution in any other language.
Therefore, the authoritative and legally binding text of the Constitution exists only in Dutch.”
The Constitution of Ireland is written in Irish and English and to the best of my knowledge where differences arise the Irish one takes precedence.
“Brea, bûter en griene tsiis is goed Ingelsk en goed Frysk”
I’m sure everyone is aware that English comes from Anglish, i.e., the Angles as in the Germanic tribe.
Deutsch is derived from proto-germanic (as best we can tell) þiudiskaz, meaning “the people” i.e., the group of the different self associating tribes. It gets far more interesting in that it seems many of the strong dialects of especially southern Germany, Austria, and England have in fact retained some very old words and pronunciations that were lost in more standardized, conformed, and perverted dialects.
> Some of these [Old Saxon] speakers took part in the Germanic conquest of England in the fifth century AD. While it is not true that English and Plattdeutsch derive completely from the same source, the Old Saxon input into Anglo-Saxon was of primary importance and this linguistic group contributed greatly to the Anglo-Saxon dialects which our English forefathers spoke.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170530232902/https://blogs.bl....
> Whoever preserved this story was also curious about Ohthere’s descriptions of where the Angles had lived ‘before they came into this land’ (England). Members of Alfred's court remembered that their ancestors came from mainland Europe, and they wanted to learn more about the lands which they identified as their own places of origin.
The scribe explicitly wrote things like "he said krán which we call crein" showing they were speaking in their own languages. It's even clearer if you consider our standard Old English is West Saxon from 850 and our standard Old Norse is from 1250 in Iceland (more different than the Danish variety of most Scandinavians in England). At the same time point,they would have more similarities (8th century Danish had wír before w turned to v).
Latin would have been spoken in towns and cities but as Roman rule collapsed it was replaced by Brittonic (ancestor of Welsh), unlike in the continent where it developed into various Latin derived Romance languages.
The cadence and general way it sounds is much closer to English than any other language
https://www.politico.eu/article/catalan-basque-galician-boos...
It was the de facto language, but not the official language. What was baffling.
EDIT: It's worth noting that this is mostly a spoken thing, AIUI - most formal/semi-formal writing would be in Hochdetusch rather than a local dialect.
Historically, Germany used to be divided into countless small fiefdoms and each of them used to speak unique barely intelligible languages.
Hochdeutsch is in opposition to Niederdeutsch which Dutch and arguably English are a variety of.
The dialects are a whole other thing though.
Any literate German can read the NZZ easily, but they cannot have a colloquial conversation with an average person from Zürich, unless the latter switches to standard German (which is a foreign language for them, though one they have to learn from age 6).
I presume they also pick up a lot of standard German in the media: there's lots of German movies, and Germany has the biggest movie dubbing industry in the world, too. There's some Swiss German media, but not nearly as much as there's on offer in standard German.
As a native french speaker, no other language gives me that "why don't I understand what they say... oh, right, that's not my language!" feeling. Something with frequencies used, I suppose, but it always puzzles me.
Eg it does a passable impression of Singapore's Singlish.
Also, English remains one of the main working languages of the EU bureaucracy, because for many EU states (especially in Eastern Europe) it is a more popular foreign language than the other two (French and German)-when Czech diplomats need to talk to Spanish diplomats, English is the language they choose.
This idea people have here that “each country gets to nominate a language” isn’t how it actually works. The treaties just contain a list of languages, and which languages are in the list is down to diplomatic negotiations not any coherent principle.
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2003/act/32/enacted/en/p...
It says that each country can only request ONE language. And Ireland requested Irish.
(In fact to strengthen that probability, if it had been say French, when and why would it have switched go English? Just because the UK joined?)
https://www.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/1fivtob/no...
People closer to the issue are better-placed to gather the necessary information, but again: strong feeling. Most people find it hard to get past that. The most informed person I know is so biased that I don't at all trust their conclusions.
Does modern English read like historical English?
> Native speakers have complained that official documents and signage in Ulster-Scots are incomprehensible to them.
Sure, there are tonnes of issues with the "officialisation" of any language but the fact that there are "native speakers" involved in the debate strongly suggests it wasn't all just made up for political reasons, which was the point I was responding to.
If you can read and understand text from the 18th century, then yes. We're not talking about Middle English or Old English.
>but the fact that there are "native speakers" involved in the debate
I should have put native speakers in quotes as well. What counts as a native Ulster Scots speaker is someone who speaks English with an NI accent with some localisms thrown in.
Nobody speaks the official Ulster Scots that was invented because the Irish language was getting support and political leaders on the other side of the community felt they deserved something as well. The Protestant community in NI see it as a bit of an embarrassment.
Yes, and I can read and understand historical Ulster Scots as well, but you were making a different point about codification/drift, no? The English I would find in those historical writings is quite different from what is being taught in schools today or recommended in style guides.
> What counts as a native Ulster Scots speaker is someone who speaks English with an NI accent with some localisms thrown in.
Then by your definition I am a native speaker. So how can we square it that you're telling me native speakers feel one way while I feel another way?
> Nobody speaks the official Ulster Scots
That's the nature of any newly codified minority language.
> The Protestant community in NI see it as a bit of an embarrassment.
There is no "protestant community" in Northern Ireland. A Dungannon farmer, an East Belfast loyalist and a BT9 lecturer will all give you very different views despite being of protestant background.
I'm not entertaining the notion that I have to pretend you're a native speaker when you've made clear you're only identifying as such for the purpose of making an argument.
>There is no "protestant community" in Northern Ireland.
Anyone who applies for a job in NI fills out a form where they are asked if they are a member of "the Protestant community", "the Roman Catholic community" or neither. You're denying the factual existence of the different communities in NI for the purpose of winning an argument on the internet.
Could you outline the key ways in which it differs? And say why that suggests the language was later "fabricated?"
> I'm not entertaining the notion that I have to pretend you're a native speaker when you've made clear you're only identifying as such for the purpose of making an argument.
If you won't entertain the notion that I'm a native speaker could you amend your definition of "native speaker" or explain what differentiates me from the native speakers whose complaints you referenced previously? And could you let us know where we can read about their complaints?
> Anyone who applies for a job in NI fills out a form where they are asked if they are a member of "the Protestant community", "the Roman Catholic community" or neither.
Of course you understand that the "protestant community" is not an homogenous group with shared views and opinions on these things. The reason that question is on the forms is because of historical discrimination against Catholics and the need to quantify heritage issues in order to avoid such discrimination forwards.
One protestant might feel embarrassment, another might feel pride, and another might not care at all. Suggesting there's a unified view from "the protestant community' is disingenuous.
This will answer all your queries.
>Suggesting there's a unified view from "the protestant community' is disingenuous.
I've yet to meet a member of that community in person (now you've decided they exist) who has any interest in Ulster Scots as a language, (even people who are quite opinionated and argumentative on other NI topics). This is evident in the lack of Ulster Scots language classes. There are more Irish classes running in East Belfast than for Ulster Scots.
Outside of the political class (who are only interested in it as a means to stifle support for the Irish language) Ulster Scots advocates are exclusively found online.
It doesn't. It's just an opinion piece about the use of neologisms in certain publications. It makes the same claim about incomprehensibility for native speakers but also fails to reference the voices of any actual native speakers. Who are they? Do they really complain about this as you said?
> I've yet to meet a member of that community in person who has any interest in Ulster Scots as a language
Well? I have met them. I've met lecturers at Queens such as Ivan Herbison studying the thing, I've met artists like Willie Drennan touring the country sharing contemporary poetry and song in Ulster Scots. I've met people in the countryside of Antrim not only with an interest in it, but speaking it day to day. Just because you haven't personally encountered these people doesn't mean they don't exist.
> now you've decided they exist
This is quite unfriendly. I made a clear distinction between what you were claiming--a single protestant community who are collectively embarrassed by Ulster Scots--and the collection of people with a shared background who identify as protestants for the sake of anti-discrimination laws, but who are otherwise diverse in their beliefs and opinions. To say that in so doing I somehow conceded your original claim is again disingenuous. It also seems absurd in relation to your broader point to now insist that just because some politician decided a form should say "protestant community" that that is necessarily reflective of an on-the-ground reality.
> There are more Irish classes running in East Belfast than for Ulster Scots.
By your definition of native speakers everyone in East Belfast is already brought up speaking Ulster Scots at home, so of course there's more interest in other languages. There are more people from East Belfast attending Irish classes than English classes too, it doesn't mean no one is interested in English.
>By your definition of native speakers everyone in East Belfast is already brought up speaking Ulster Scots at home
But reading and writing in it? And would they agree they're speaking Ulster Scots or would they say it's English?
>There are more people from East Belfast attending Irish classes than English classes too
Did you not learn English in school? I find it hard to believe English isn't taught in East Belfast schools. And that's not counting English as a second language classes for immigrant communities. What language is the signage in in East Belfast?
Simply put, Ulster Scots prominence in legislation is merely a reflection of bad-faith political negotiations by Unionists to degrade the status of the Irish Language Act by proxy. Anyone on the ground knows it for the dog-whistle that it is, used simply to curry favour with a particularly sectarian unionist base in as a counter to the Irish Language provisions outlined and agreed to in the Good Friday Agreement.
And that's 'curry favour' - not 'curry my yoghurt' by the way. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-29895593
This has more or less been the case ever since the forced Ulster plantations lead to the development of Ulster Scots as a defined community with resilient Protestant and unionist ties. It'd be far more credible if Fingal tried to secede from Dublin and the Republic tomorrow morning using Yola as a justification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yola_dialect
In short, the ILA and promotion of Gaeilge in the north is about trying to make some small reparation at a state level for a cultural genocide perpetrated by our Colonists, and to help re-establish the oldest written vernacular language in western Europe, dating back over 2,500 years.
The promotion of Ulster Scots however... well the Commissioner is literally called 'Commissioner for Ulster Scots and Ulster British Tradition'. This is after DUP members removed themselves from the equality and good relations group after basically fillibustering for 5 years of discussions on bi-lingual signs to force a stalemate.
https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/dup-stor...
Ah right, I get you now! The point you're making is fair enough, apologies for drawing the labour from your to explain it so fully.
Specifically, the link says two things:
1. That 2 parties want to add *limburgish* to the list, not frisian. That's the bottom-right part of The Netherlands, about as far removed from Friesland as you can get (which is the top part of the Netherlands).
2. That one party wants to add Frisian, but, that is a one-day fly party that will cease to exist in a few hours as they will get 0 seats in this election and will presumably call it a day right after. It was a party founded to support one person and that person has quit due to workstress, and is highly unlikely to return as this _was_ his return. Their opinion used to be relevant as they had 13.3% of the seats this past session (and didn't exist before it). But, it isn't here.
can arabic people understand maltese?
That’s a really interesting question — and the answer is: *partially, but not easily.*
Here’s why:
### Linguistic roots
Maltese is a *Semitic language*, and its *core grammar and basic vocabulary* come from *Arabic*, specifically from *Siculo-Arabic*, the dialect of Arabic spoken in Sicily and Malta about 1,000 years ago. Because of that, *many Maltese words sound familiar* to Arabic speakers — especially from the *Maghrebi (North African)* or *Levantine* dialects.
For example:
| Maltese | Meaning | Similar in Arabic | | ------- | ------- | ----------------- | | Dar | house | دار (dar) | | Kelb | dog | كلب (kalb) | | Seba | seven | سبعة (sabʿa) | | Xemx | sun | شمس (shams) |
### Influence from Italian and English
However, over the centuries, Maltese absorbed *a lot of Italian (especially Sicilian)* and *English* vocabulary — so modern Maltese is *a hybrid*. Roughly:
* 30–40% of its vocabulary is Semitic (Arabic origin), * 40–50% is Romance (mostly Italian/Sicilian), * and the rest is English and other sources.
That means Arabic speakers might *recognize some words and structures*, but they’ll *struggle to understand full sentences*, especially because:
* Pronunciation has changed, * Grammar evolved differently, * Many everyday words are not Arabic anymore.
### Summary
So:
* *Yes*, Maltese and Arabic share a deep connection — like cousins. * *No*, they’re *not mutually intelligible* today. An Arabic speaker might catch words here and there, but a real conversation would be hard without studying Maltese.
The above is exactly my experience with Arabic speakers by the way. Again, not surprising after 1k years of divergence.
I do wonder what natives think and feel about the longevity of their language? What is taught in schools at what ages (assuming English is in the mix somewhere). Is there enough media in Maltese for Malti to go about the moderns at fully in Maltese? It’s shockingly hard to find any information on Maltese, and even harder to find content.
I’m not sure if’s dying out, or in danger thereof; if there are preservation efforts, or if there is no need.
Businesses do work in Maltese and English. Both are official languages. Its quite rare to encounter a business that deals near exclusively in Maltese. Many prefer Maltese but will fall back to english where necessary.
Regarding monolignual speakers, I think theres a lot of stereotypes for maltese only, english only and code switchers. I think its all a bit silly... So as long as communication can happen I don't fuss.
On Maltese music... There's a lot of low ish quality music then there's a few absolute gems. Look up The Travellers, Lapes, Jon Mallia on YouTube/Spotify.
I was surprised to hear Maltese radio stations played in taxis, while visiting Malta just a few weeks back
There was a point about 7 years ago when the overton window shifted to "speak english to strangers first" because of a large influx of foreigners who did not know the language. Since then I've met foreigners who have better Maltese than some natives.
Older folks & geriatrics will sometimes be surprised when they assume someone is foreign and they turn out to be Maltese. "int Malti??" is a statement I get often because I don't look Mediterranean despite being born here.
Source: I'm also Maltese.
Arabic (language): al-‘arabiyyah (الْعَرَبِيَّة).
How much do you consider Maltese its own language (as opposed to a dialect of Arabic)?
Maltese is definitely its own language. Arabic roots are there (theres a Semitic joke in there ) but it isn't arabic anymore. Its written left to right with a variant of the english alphabet.
Hindi and Urdu are 90% the exact same language, and are mutually inteligible (Urdu speaker and Hindi speaker can have complete full conversation with each other) but each is written differently (one LTR the other RTL) and with different alphabets
In my books, the distinction between languages and dialects are so arbitrary that the best method is simply to ask the people that speak those languages/dialects. If they consider them to be different language (which Maltese speakers seemingly do) I call them different languages.
I don't buy the argument of just asking the speakers. There are cultural, political, etc. reasons people may think things which don't conform with reality. Many Hindi-Urdu speakers get insulted by the reality that the languages are pretty much the same because they don't want to identify with people from another country their country is constantly at war with.
I don't think anyone would seriously consider it a dialect of Arabic though with its completely different alphabet and half the vocabulary and morphology coming from Italian languages/dialects, even if Malta hadn't spent the best part of a millennium trying very hard not to become part of the Arab world
I updated my original comment, and learned a good amount about that dispute as a result, so thanks for calling it out.
I think some people get touchy about them being lumped together if their last period of commonality (per the article) was 1400 BCE. For comparison, I believe all the Slavic languages were mutually intelligible around 1200 AD. But much more recently than this, in the last few centuries, there have been notable attempts by east slavs to absorb the Baltic language cultures and deny them.
I doubt West and East Slavic were. But inside those geographic groups they probably were (Czech and Polish AFAIR were around that time).
It is an example I think of often, about how quickly languages can change. In the scale of 1000 years, a lot changes. Most of the diversity in Romance languages is from around that timescale too, it really started to diverge substantially around 900ad-1100ad.
I was in Crimea for about 2 weeks (in 2012) they split me Russian there. I couldn't understand a word they said. And I didn't learn to understand than for 2 weeks of travel there.
I could understand some words from Ukrainian (I traveled by train from Lviv).
Another example is Croatian, I've been there on vacation and renting a room. I couldn't understand a word they said and didn't learn any.
TlI can understand some Czech (because this is the closest language together with Slovakian to Polish) but that's it.
I wouldn't mix Slavs from different groups together. They evolved separately and are as close as English and German.
The fact they they are the closest surviving relatives on it own doesn't mean it makes sense to group them together (i.e. Italo-Celtic is also a theorized subgroup in a similar way but nobody is disputing that Celtic and Italic languages evolved into distinct groups).
Then there is a huge amount of missing links and unknown unknowns. e.g. Thracian and Dacian probably were also pretty close to Baltic or Slavic (maybe even closer to Baltic than Slavic is but we don't know enough about them to make any conclusive claims at all... but we at least know these languages existed)
Well, that and Romanian. And Hungarian. And outside the EU, Albanian. And Georgian, Azeri and Armenian if you consider those Eastern Europe.
In my mind, I was thinking of the belt of countries between Russia and Central Europe, starting from the Baltics down to the Balkan (excluding Greece).
Some of my fellow Romanians will also claim they're Central European, but in my mind, all the ones I listed are Eastern European countries. I'd even include Turkey and Kazakhstan in there, part of the latter is to the West of the Urals, which is what we normally consider the border between Europe and Asia.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382295560/figure/fi...
https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w960-q80/upload/03/90/9b/countr...
Albania is clearly south east europe.
And, I don't care about your random Romanian friend's anecdote.
Yes, it is clearly south east Europe. East.
> And, I don't care about your random Romanian friend's anecdote.
Who's my friend?
There is a branch that contains both Baltic and Slavic languages, but there's also one that contains Albanian and Greek.
There have been some attempts to tie Albanian to Germanic, or Greek, or other branches, but they all have failed.
At some point they all are Indo_european, but they split a way ago.
I never said it wasn't.
and
> only Estonian is not a Slavic language.
So following this logic saying "in Eastern Europe, only Estonian is not a Baltic language" would make as much sense?
Are there really any other Hellenic languages besides Greek?
> as well as some additional relevant languages (Arabic, Catalan, Chinese, Galician, Hindi, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Russian, Turkish, and Ukrainian).
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.16235
The paper also goes into detail on training set sources, which I feel like a curation thereof might be considered the main contribution of this publication?
What about Basque? Is that too controversial?
Now, being from Belgium, even within that small part of the country where everybody is supposed to speak Dutch, I genuinely don't understand people from near the coast, which was about 150 miles from where I used to live.
What I find interesting is that the differences in Flemish dialects make them much more distinct than what would normally call dialects. There are significant grammatical difference beyond the usual vocabulary differences. For instance, coastal Flemish conjugates yes and no[1], Limburgisch is a tonal language.
So for instance, Basque is not an official language of any country (only French in France and Spanish/Castilian in Spain). Belgium's official languages are French, Dutch, and German, "Flemish" is only a local variant of Dutch (Belgian French is also only a local variant of French).
In the US, people will resort to fisticuffs, over variants of Spanish. I usually translate into Castilian Spanish, because that seems to be the equivalent of "Vanilla" Spanish. No one is really happy (except the Spaniards), but I'm not accused of favoritism.
Section 3
(1) Castilian is the official Spanish language of the State. All Spaniards have the duty to know it and the right to use it.
(2) The other Spanish languages shall also be official in the respective Autonomous Communities in accordance with their Statutes.
(3) The richness of the different linguistic modalities of Spain is a cultural heritage which shall be specially respected and protected. [1]
[1] https://www.senado.es/web/conocersenado/normas/constitucion/...
From https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor... we can find an excerpt relating to the policy and its purpose:
>One of the EU’s founding principles is multilingualism.
>This policy aims to:
>communicating with its citizens in their own languages
>protecting Europe’s rich linguistic diversity
>promoting language learning in Europe
With this in mind, the first intention fails by an enormous margin, given that 95%+ of Spain doesn't speak an iota of Basque, the second is met handily, given the long history of the language, and I'm not sure what to think about the third, any language whatsoever would serve that purpose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_a...
It's mostly true, though, even if it's a somewhat simplified view.
It's all Greek, to me...
Old-fashioned one.
Get off my lawn...
I have often joked that Norwegian is just a dialect of Swedish, but I never expected to get official validation like this!
That being said, the Scandinavian languages all come from old Norse, and modern national constructs aside, most of the people in the those areas descend from the same mix of Germanic tribes. There's no denying that modern-day Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are very similar.
[0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01...
Using flags alone is already poor UI since there are many languages which spill across the borders into multiple member states and non-member states, and some member states with multiple official and commonly spoken languages.
But a menu item that reads: [Irish flag] (English) like one that reads [Swedish flag] (Svenska) does not seem worse than the legacy use of the UK flag or the popular use of the US one.
PS: Gaelic is a more general term for Irish and Scottish. Ireland brings specifically Irish(Gaeilge in Irish) language.
Arabic, Catalan, Chinese, Galician, Hindi, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Russian, Turkish, and Ukrainian.
>Europe is the only continent in the world to have a large public network of supercomputers that are managed by the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking (EuroHPC JU). As soon as we received the EuroHPC JU access to the supercomputer, we were ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work. We developed the small model right away and in less than 6 months the second model was ready.
[1] https://www.eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/eurohpc-success-story-speak...
Repurposing some of that physics sim compute
Who would have thought that Europe is the only continent to have a network of supercomputers managed by Europe⸮
But they were not trained on government-sanctioned homegrown EU data.
Karpathy repeated this in a recent interview [0], that if you'd look at random samples in the pretraining set you'd mostly see a lot of garbage text. And that it's very surprising it works at all.
The labs have focused a lot more on finetuning (posttraining) and RL lately, and from my understanding that's where all the desirable properties of an LLM are trained into it. Pretraining just teaches the LLM the semantic relations it needs as the foundation for finetuning to work.
Pretraining teaches LLMs everything. SFT and RL is about putting that "everything" into useful configurations and gluing it together so that it works better.
How would they curate it on that scale? Does page ranking (popularity) produce interesting pages for this purpose? I'm skeptical.
ok what are you implying on this
If none of the LLM makers used the very big corpus of EU multilingual data I have an EU regulation bridge to sell it to you
There is no necessary correlation between language and the correct set of laws to reference. The language of the question (or the answer, if for some reason they are not the same) is an orthogonal issue to the intended scope. There is no reason US laws couldn't be the relevant to a question asked in German (and, conversely, no reason US laws couldn't be wrong for a question asked in English, even if it was specifically and distinguishably US English.)
For most questions it does this pretty well (e.g. asking for the legal age to drink). However once the answer becomes more complex it starts to halucinate very quickly. The fact that some of the hallucinations are just translated US laws makes me think that the knowledge transfer between languages is probably not helping in instances like this.
In recent LLMs, filtered internet text is at the low end of the quality spectrum. The higher end is curated scientific papers, synthetic and rephrased text, RLHF conversations, reasoning CoTs, etc. English/Chinese/Python/JavaScript dominate here.
The issue is that when there's a difference in training data quality between languages, LLMs likely associate that difference with the languages if not explicitly compensated for.
IMO it would be far more impactful to generate and publish high-quality data for minority languages for current model trainers, than to train new models that are simply enriched with a higher percentage of low-quality internet scrapings for the languages.
I have to admit I have not encountered significant mistokenization issues in Japanese, but I'm not using it on a daily basis LLMs. I'm somewhat dobutful this can be a major issue, since frontier LLMs are absolutely in love with Emoji, and Emoji requires at least 4 UTF-8 bytes, while most Japanese characters are happy with just 3 bytes.
Plus all your T&S/AI Safety is not solved with translation, you need lexicons and data sets of examples.
Like, people use someone in Malaysia, to label the Arabic spoken by someone playing a video game in Doha - the cultural context is missing.
The best proxy to show the degree of lopsidedness was from this : https://cdt.org/insights/lost-in-translation-large-language-...
Which in turn had to base it on this: https://stats.aclrollingreview.org/submissions/linguistic-di...
From what I am aware of, LLM capability degrades once you move out of English, and many nation states are either building, or considering the option of building their own LLMs.
Chat GPT for example tends to start emails with "ich hoffe, es geht dir gut!", which means "I hope you are well!". In English (especially American) corporate emails this is a really common way to start an email. In German it is not as "how are you" isn't a common phrase used here.
But also European culture could maybe make a difference? You can already see big differences between Grok and ChatGPT in terms of values.
European culture is already embedded in all the models, unless the people involved in this project have some hidden trove of private data that they're training on which diverges drastically from things Europeans have published publicly (I'm 99.9% positive they don't...especially given Europe's alarmist attitude around anything related to data).
I think people don't understand a huge percentage of the employees at OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. are non-US born.
Comparison with similar EU models + 600 other highlights:
I think LLMs may be on the whole very positive for endangered languages such as Irish, but before it becomes positive I think there's an amount of danger to be navigated (see Scots Gaelic wikipedia drama for example)
In any case I think this is a great initiative.
Europe has about 1.3 times the population of the USA and about 75% of the GDP yet EU tech output is a very small percentage of US tech output. We are not talking about 70, 50, 30, or even 20%. It's a drop in the bucket.
>The seven largest U.S. tech companies, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla, are 20 times bigger than Europe’s seven largest, and generate 10 times more revenue.
https://eqtgroup.com/thinq/technology/why-is-europes-tech-in...
"Why" is a good question, but I definitely wouldnt expect significant competition in LLMs from Europe based on the giant tech disparity. Having 1 non-cutting edge model that isn't really competitive is pretty much what I would expect.
I'm going to guess that this part is intentional. Europe tends to be more aggressive in enforcing antitrust laws. Economically, Europe's goal isn't to have the biggest companies but to have more smaller companies.
So you're not going to get companies like Google, but you will get companies like Proton, Spotify, Tuta, Hetzner, Mistral, Threema, Filen, Babbel, Nextcloud, CryptPad, DeepL, Vivaldi, and so on.
So is your hypothesis that the total market cap of EU tech companies is something like 50,60,70, etc. % of total US tech marketcap? Something significantly different than the ~10% implied by that figure (largest us companies 10x largest EU companies). And it's just more broadly distributed?
Hard to find data on this but this is showing EU tech market cap at 3.2T. https://www.stateofeuropeantech.com/chapters/outcomes
Whereas this is saying the US "megacaps" ($200B+) are at 21T. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/05/tech-megacaps-worth-market-c...
Which puts the entire EU tech market at 15% of the US megacaps. Not even the entire market.
I don't see any sense in which the EU has fewer capabilities. It has, say, a smaller number of businesses with smaller market dominance.
It isnt clear to me what capability the EU would gain by having a monopolist social network, a monopolist search engine, a monopolist advertising trader
I only use open source LLMs for writing (Qwen 32b from Groq) and open source editor of course, Emacs.
If some people can write better using commercial LLMs (and commercial editors), by all means, but they put themselves at a disadvantage.
Next step for me, is to use something open source for translation, I use Claude for the moment, and open source for programming, I use GPT curently. In less than a year I will find a satisfying solution to both of these problems. I haven't looked deep enough.
llama-3.1-70b-versatile is pretty good at translating though
i predict at some point countries will get CIA'ed when they publish plans to build a large data center.
Similar to the time when they got CIA'ed when announcing plans for new nuclear plants.
This AI law is a clear example of that. Pencil pushers creating more obstacles for the sake of creating more obstacles rather than actually taking a pragmatic approach.
Still two month earlier 19 European language model with 30B parameters got almost no mention:
https://huggingface.co/TildeAI/TildeOpen-30b
Mind you that is another open model that is begging for fine-tuning (it is not very good out of box).
You would never hear it, though, as European IT press only promotes SV startups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8QFiLhnuFg&feature=youtu.be
Disclaimer, i work at Hopsworks.
>You need to agree to share your contact information to access this model
Is this common? I've never seen it on the site before, and it isn't on the smaller model. What are they collecting this information for?
