Xolkriśgir: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Manifestation) |
m (→Prevalence) |
||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
==Prevalence== | ==Prevalence== | ||
''Xolkriśgir'' is strongest in rural areas of inland [[Great Kirav]], especially the Western Highlands, and in rural [[South Kirav]]. It is also quite pronounced in [[Koskenkorva]]. Its prevalence in overseas territories varies: It is quite uncommon in [[Sarolasta]], even among unmixed [[Kolakoskem|Sea Coscivians]]. In [[Sydona]], where much of the Austral Coscivian community is of Pelian heritage, it is generally weak but quite strong in certain rural pockets of Coscivian settlement dating from the Crusades. In Great Kirav, the prevalence and intensity of ''xolkriśgir'' show a strong positive correlation with distance from the ocean, and a weaker negative correlation with income, education, and population density. | |||
- | Celtic-Kiravians, including long-settled Kiravian Celts, do not experience ''xolkriśgir'', and find Coscivians' susceptibility to it quite humorous. ''Xolkriśgir'' is less intense among [[Ĥeiran Coscivians]] than other Coscivian subgroups, perhaps as a result of prolonged cultural exchange and intermarriage with Celtic peoples. The prevalence of ''xolkriśgir'' among [[Urom]] communities continues to be investigated, and may provide some insight into the origins of the phenomenon. Urom tribes in the considerably Coscivised Xufur-Xafri-Meqav complex do experience ''xolkriśgir'', most likely due to cultural diffusion. The Wawa of Váuadra and the Wisaya of Sixua do not. Many Urom tribes of the West Coast and Western highlands, such as the Wod͡ʒagat, Pungōvak, and Varekthari, do not have colour terms in their native languages and may lack a cultural concept of colour entirely. | ||
===Implications for Public Policy=== | ===Implications for Public Policy=== |