Moderator: Forum Administrators
księżycowy wrote:Maybe we could call it "Australian, Papuan and Oceanic languages"?
Not sure how to fit all three into one nice sounding title.
Is Papua New Guinea considered a part of Oceania, by the way?
Or maybe "Indigenous languages of the Pacific Islands"?
księżycowy wrote:If we go that route, I'd suggest "Aboriginal" instead of "Indigenous." That seems to be the preferred term in Australia.
"Australian Aboriginal, Papuan and Oceanic Languages"?
I could get behind that, I suppose.
Here's a question, what about the Formosan languages? Would they be included in this?
dEhiN wrote:But would the term "Oceanian" be self-explanatory? That is, would people know to look there for the Australian Indigenous and Papuan languages?
księżycowy wrote:As for the Formosan languages, we have Neo-Aramaic in "Ancient, Classical and Extinct Languages." I don't find that any less intuitive.
I don't think I'd concider them "Southeast Asian" and I don't think I'd put them with Indonesian/Malay.
vijayjohn wrote:I don't see why not. It's not any less intuitive than including Neo-Aramaic under "Ancient, Classical and Extinct Languages."
księżycowy wrote:vijayjohn wrote:I don't see why not. It's not any less intuitive than including Neo-Aramaic under "Ancient, Classical and Extinct Languages."
I'm kinda with dEhiN on this one. I didn't even know Oceanian was a thing until I googled it after you brought it up. It does work, but who the hell knows what it means?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest