• Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You don’t know from context what the actual language situation there is with that method. For informative maps that’d be bad. That’s why shading makes more sense.

    • MudMan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If your map is about where every language is spoken, then you shade where every language is spoken.

      If your map is about how a word is said on different languages, then you place words for unique languages, context takes care of bilingual areas.

      It seems pretty obvious, really.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And what’s wrong from a more correct representation that also shows the words, as in, shading?

        To me that seems obvious. You don’t mislead but also get the information through.

        • MudMan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, because you’d have to put two words in very tiny spaces of the map. Repeating “peace” in Wales seems superfluous, since England is right there. You’ll notice you don’t get béke rewritten in Transilvania, either.

          It just seems like a weird hangup.

          Anyway, moving on here. We’ve derailed the kind, warm, little dorky message of this thread enough.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure why you’d have to repeat the word.

            It just seems like a weird hangup.

            It’s just an unfortunate and misleading trend. But if you’ve ever been to MapPorn on Reddit, then yeah it’s not the most egregious example of those hah.