Talk:German language/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

An den Christlichen Adel deutscher Nation

IMO the translation is wrong, should be "To the Christian nobility of German nationality". Otherwise Luther would have written "der deutschen Nation". This use of the Genitiv is rare but still exists (Schüler französischer Sprache, i.e. students who speak French or Einwanderer nordafrikanischer Herkunft, that is immigrants of North African origin. Here you can even see the Genitiv translated with the English of). --217.233.255.205 21:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (Oh, and yes, I belong to Babel: de-m)

He is incorrect on this, it is similar to Heiliges Römisches Reich deutscher Nation, which is roughly Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation in English, as Holy Roman Empire of German Nationality sounds very ackward. Ameise -- chat 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No. IMVHO, that is wrong. (I nearly wrote in all caps...) Heiliges Römisches Reich deutscher Nation does not translate to Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation but to Holy Roman Empire of German Nationality or to The Roman Empire whose citizens are Germans or something like that. Deutscher Nation translates to with German nationality an not to of the German nation. I don't know whether it counts that you are de-2 and I am de-m. However, I do believe that I am right. It does not count that it would sound awkward. To the Christian nobility that have a German nationality also expresses my understanding of the Lutherian expression. However, please wait. That is, again, only my very humble opinion. I might be wrong. I will ask the scholars in the German wikipedia (I am "Benutzer:Gnom") and come back with an answer, okay? 85.176.24.60 12:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we go: To sum it up, Ameise won. The discussion lead to the verdict that it might be more correct to say "To the German Christian nobility". However, they also said that we should also accept translations that are commonly used (commonly used as in Encyclopedia Britannica). The final verdict was "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!". Thank you for the fair discussion, in the German Wiki, there is way too much hack'n'slay-mentality on the talk pages. Cheers, -- 85.176.3.91 21:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yay, I won without ever getting a chance to defend myself! Ameise -- chat 02:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of false image and information. (added by BlueMars)

Image

(False image)

I removed this image because it shows Dutch and Frisian as German dialects, they are and never were dialects of German therefore this map is flawed and should not be displayed on wikipedia.

Here: I have -gasp- fixed the image! Ameise -- chat 16:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(Area of West Germanic languages, Pre-1945)

Text

I removed this text:

Historically, the Dutch language is considered as a German dialect. Over the last few centuries, however, Dutch developed a high degree of autonomy and is considered as a separate and independent language today. Despite this fact, it is counted as a German dialect on various maps, and although its spoken form is hard to understand for a standard German-speaker, written Dutch is comprehensible for most Germans.

Because Dutch is not a dialect and never was, even if it was considered to be a German dialect by some (likewise a number of Dutch 16th/17th century "linguists", claimed that German was a Dutch dialect, note that these are the same people who claimed Dutch was the language of "paradise") it is proven it never was and thus should not be listed as one. As for the "Over the last few centuries" remark. The Netherlands have been an independant country centuries before Germany was. The Dutch language is attested around 490 the Germanlanguage not much later/earlier (margins are extremely small). Do not make it seem as if the Dutch language is a bunch of German dialects with a different name.

As for the maps. You have to make a clear difference in what a map tries to say. The map in question above for example (despite what you named it) shows the dialectal lines of the continental west Germanic languages, not German dialects. Rex 10:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that text. You will notice that it uses both historically and considered, which are both true, even though today the same fact may not hold. The statement historically, many people considered the Earth to be flag would also be true. Ameise -- chat 12:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A false statement of this kind should not be put on wikipedia as if it were true. Rex 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Who were those guys historically considering Dutch as a German dialect???? The statement may be based on a possible confusion between Germanic language (which Dutch is one of) and German language (which Dutch is not a dialect of). The same goes for the map which appears to be showing Germanic languages (including Frisian language (not a Dutch dialect but seperate language) and Dutch language) rather than THE German language. Arnoutf 13:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Who were those guys ... well the Nazis were one of them of course but some respected (often German) linguists of their days also did though most people agree that when they talked about "German dialects" they often meant West Germanic. In the same way that in many Latin text translated in English Germanic peoples is translated with "Germans", no other language known to me does this. Do remember though that there were numerous Dutch linguists as well who were convinced every thing east of the Elbe was degenerated Dutch ;-). Rex 14:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the text passage in question: I do not support its removal. as Ameise already pointed out, it uses historicaly and considered. It does not make any reference concerning dutch being a German dialect in the past or present.

Concerning the "false" map: It should be reimplemented under a new description like "A map depicting the historical spread of German and related Germanic languages in central Europe untiul 1945." --BlueMars 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the passage is just unacceptable. It's already quite a task to explain laymen the basics of the West Germanic dialect continuum alongside German dialects, a map like this with a text confusing people would not be a good thing. Rex 15:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the map showing the current spread of German also includes the Dutch dialects. Someone should sacrifice 5mins in Photoshop, to correct BOTH maps, removing the Dutch-speaking areas from the current AND the historic one, and the implement them BOTH. How about that? --BlueMars 15:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, if you want to creat a map of the historical German language area, then you should leave out Dutch and Frisian. Why would you want to include them? Rex 15:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, stop talking about the map in the text section. Second, just because YOU, User:Rex Germanus do not understand English apparently, does not make that sentence either improper or incorrect. It is a perfectly valid sentence; Dutch WAS considered by mainstream scholars historically to be a German dialect, that sentence makes NO imposition as per it BEING one, only that it was considered as such. Ameise -- chat 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait everybody here comes Antman with notoriously good linguistics skills (apparently Gaelic, Aryan and Dutch have the same root) so now suddenly we change to the mainstream scolars ... unreferenced, invalid, unnecessary. Rex 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Careful, Rex, you wouldn't want to be blocked from editing for another week, would you? Or was it less than a week, I don't remember. Ameise -- chat 23:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind getting blocked for a while for something I believe in. Your original research and unreferenced nonsense will not stand. I removed the text you added. Rex 08:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And I will keep replacing it until you stop being unreasonable and definately stop your random personal attacks against me, they are immature and are quickly getting old. Ameise -- chat 15:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I will not tolerate this nonsense. If you want an edit war believe me you will get it. I've have made countless atempt to explain to everyone why this information is false, unreferenced and unnecesary.

Dutch isn't and never was a German dialect and even if it was considered to be one (UNREFERENCED) in the past it still should not be noted and absolutely never in the intro. False information should not be listed on wikipedia to confuse and misinform people. Rex 15:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you? It NEVER SAYS ONCE THAT IT IS A GERMAN DIALECT, IT SAYS THAT AT ONE TIME IT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE AS SUCH. Do you not have the capability of reading English? Ameise -- chat 15:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Dutch language was historically considered to be a German dialect. Over the last few centuries, Dutch has come to be seen as an independent language (A standard form of about 400 years but he... ). Despite this fact (Is it a fact it's unreferenced that's what it is), it is still (Still? So it is still accepted) referenced as a German dialect on various maps, and although its spoken form is extremely difficult to understand for a standard German-speaker, written Dutch still retains a high degree of comprehensibility for most Germans (Still retains what?)."

This text is an unreferenced attempt to attack the Dutch language as an independant language and it will not stand. I can read English and I know what this text is really saying so you'd better stop denying it. Rex 15:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's calm down, shall we ?

I believe that we are in a content dispute, so let's look at some Wikipedia rules.

• It's quite clear that disputed text best be referenced with a reputable, verifiable source. WP:V : "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references." Rex is completely right to ask for the deletion of the disputed paragraph, or do it himself, until valid sources are inserted.
• Another WP guideline is the one about undue weight. This article discusses the German language. One or two lines in the article could discuss old theories about Dutch being a German dialect. I really don't see however what could justify the inclusion of this information in the introduction of the article.

--LucVerhelst 15:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the part about mutual comprehensibility should stay, unless Rex here is stating that absolutely no German dialect and absolutely no Dutch dialect share any comprehensibility whatsoever, which is simply false. Ameise -- chat 16:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is talked about in the "Neighbouring languages" section. I really don't see why it should be in the introduction. If you put something about Dutch in the introduction, you make it appear as if the German language is at least partly defined by the Dutch language. --LucVerhelst 16:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again you make an ridiculous claim Antman. I never said there was no degree of mutual comprehensibility, you simply made that up. Your entire last comment is worthless. Watch and see how I make a similar comment about you: "I believe the earth is a sphere, unless Antman is stating that the earth is flat.Which is simply false." You're just filling space on this talk page Antman. Add something with value next time. Rex 17:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Any unsourced information can be removed from an article. There is not a single reference given for any of the claims in the disputed paragraph and therefore alone it should be removed. Furthermore, historically wrong considerations are hardly ever mentioned unless just as detailed a report is given for all historical considerations and even more attention is paid to historical evidence, else it is evidently given undue weight. Furthermore, any mentioned false considerations need to be clearly stated to be false. Such a historical section does not belong in the introduction of an article on a subject about which far more and far more important information is to be passed to the reader. Since Nazi scientists are seemingly the only ones who considered Dutch to be a German dialect, such should rather be mentioned in a historical article about how Nazi experts in non-exact sciences have been and still are being evaluated by contemporary experts. Since this is an article on the German language, the corresponding article on the German Wikipedia, which has a considerable number of knowledgeable contributors, should be expected to give all the relevant information and is unlikely to take a particularly Dutch or an anti-German point of view. I can only see a very different statement with respect to a former mix-up of 'Dutch' in the English language as used for 'Duutsch' and for 'Deutsch', though this does not apply to linguistical comparitative considerations: Dutch would no more have been considered a dialect of German than German would have been considered a dialect of Dutch:

"Anmerkung: Dutch, die englische Bezeichnung für das Niederländische, ist mit dem deutschen Wort deutsch verwandt. In den vergangenen Jahrhunderten wurde zwischen Deutsch und Niederländisch nicht genau unterschieden. Die Niederländer nannten sich und ihre Sprache duutsc oder duutsch, und das wird wohl den englischen Begriff geprägt haben."

Ameise's remark "I believe that the part about mutual comprehensibility should stay, unless ... absolutely no German dialect and absolutely no Dutch dialect share any comprehensibility whatsoever, which is simply false", logically implies that English and German are to be considered dialects of Dutch (being the one in the middle, possibly having the oldest written samples). Note that he wants the paragraph in the article, based on a present-day comparison and thus does not support mentioning a historically made false claim but considers that falsehood to be a thruth at present. For all the above reasons and for argumentation being invalidated as proven POV, the disputed phrase must get out and not be reinserted, unless and not before proper references are provided and it can be argumented (e.g. by referring to the handling by other encyclopaedia's or equivalent sources) that the importance of any referenced statement is of balanced weight with respect to the depth at which the article is generally treating its topic. — SomeHuman 30 Sep2006 19:30 (UTC)

If you had actually read what I had written, which you obviously did not, you would notice that I NEVER SAID THAT DUTCH WAS A DIALECT OF GERMAN, I SAID THAT OFTENTIMES THEY WERE MUTUALLY INTELLIGIBLE. Do you people NOT READ? If you are going to make baseless remarks against me simply because you refuse to read what I write, then why do you even participate in discussions at all? Ameise -- chat 19:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless, of course, I am misreading what you are saying entirely (it isn't overly clear, sorry) -- I do not even agree with the OLD paragraph, which he deleted and I replaced, it is far too POV, even mine is less than that one. From your text, I cannot tell if you are insulting me, saying I am wrong, saying I am right, or what. Ameise -- chat 19:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Rex 19:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, very mature and constructive.... for a 9 year old. No, that's not an attack, just a general statement that may or may not apply. Ameise -- chat 19:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You apparantly could not make out if the text supported or opposed you, I gave you a simple answer though I advise you to the read the larger text by SomeHuman. The conclusion will be the same though. Rex 19:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Rex, just like you apparently will revert any edit which you disagree with regardless of the consequences, apparently I may have the capability to do the same against you. Let that be a warning, not a threat. Bleiben sie weg, bitte. Ameise -- chat 20:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Be warned Antman, revert warring without references can get you blocked. Rex 20:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And you were the first to revert anything, and it wasn't even something I wrote. Ameise -- chat 21:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do get ridd of that ego of yours. I did not remove the text because it was supposably yours (it wasn't, hence the - added by [...]- as the section header) I removed it because it was POV, unreferenced and a piece of nonsense. Rex 21:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And I agree that the original was biased and unfortunately POVd (and didn't make much sense, switching tenses and all), which is why I replaced it with something that I feel has absolutely no POV, but apparently you disagree but refuse to actually point out why without calling the entire thing rubbish. Ameise -- chat 21:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe you as a selfdeclared German nationalist should ask yourself if what you consider no POV is worth. Furthermore I do not recall seeing an adapted version by you at any time. Rex 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can say the same to you, an obvious Dutch neo-nationalist. If you don't recall seeing an edited version of the paragraph by me, then maybe you should stop hitting the revert button whenever I change anything, and actually read the changes first. Since you are obviously incapable of that, I will do it for you:

Original:

Historically, the Dutch language is considered as a German dialect. Over the last few centuries, however, Dutch developed a high degree of autonomy and is considered as a separate and independent language today. Despite this fact, it is counted as a German dialect on various maps, and although its spoken form is hard to understand for a standard German-speaker, written Dutch is comprehensible for most Germans.

Mine:

The Dutch language was historically considered to be a German dialect. Over the last few centuries, Dutch has come to be seen as an independent language. Despite this fact, it is still referenced as a German dialect on various maps, and although its spoken form is extremely difficult to understand for a standard German-speaker, written Dutch still retains a high degree of comprehensibility for most Germans.

If you still cannot see the difference between them, then I will point them out for you. I am, however, willing to compromise on a dumbed-down version of it. Ameise -- chat 21:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I warn you to tone down on your insults. As for your version; "was considered" and "was historically considered" makes no difference to me. Unreferenced, nonsense. NO COMPROMISE. Rex 21:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not yet insulted you, and your feelings are irrelevant. The fact that they make no difference to you implies that you may want to take more classes in English and learn how to read. Ameise -- chat 21:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, on the contruary. You have insulted me multiple times, and you may count yourself lucky I have a think skin. However I find it amusing (and sad) that you only have insults for me, I'd prefer to see references instead of your opinion. Rex 21:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So I need to back up my claim that German and Dutch are related? Or do I need to back up my claim that there is often mutual intelligibility between the two? Or do I need to back up the claim that Dutch and German were often considered dialects of the same language in the past? Ameise -- chat 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You never claimed the first two (which would be ridiculous as they are already explained) the latter is nonsense and your actual claim is unreferenced nonsense. Rex 21:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And what is my actual claim? So far I have not claimed anything besides the fact that you seem to like starting edit wars with me, even when you are wrong, and you like to antagonize me by speaking Dutch a lot. Ameise -- chat 21:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Let it be clear that you are the one who is trying to start an edit war here. I originally had a dispute with User:Bluemars. Then you joined in, probably because you get a kick out of watching my edits and trying to create a conflict. I'm not the one who is wrong here. You keep posting, repeating your opinion and hurling insults but you provide no references whatsoever. I suggest you cut the insulting crap and go to a library and spend a day looking for referenced that do not exist and give people trying to make wikipedia better a break.Rex 21:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And I would say that you are incorrect. Why don't you go to the library and check out a book on the English language, and give those of us who are trying to make Wikipedia better a break? Ameise -- chat 21:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

See, you have nothing to add. Insults and comments on other people's English but nothing to add to the discussion let alone to your point of view. Sad. Rex 21:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And apparently you have nothing to add either, besides insults and comments on other people, and you have added nothing to this discussion, last of all facts or references! Pathetic. Ameise -- chat 21:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not need to add anything here, my task here is to respond to comments you make to explain your point of view. You fail/refuse to provide them hence I can do little other than trying to convince you to stop your pointless edit warring and insulting people. You are the one trying to add a new and controversial text, not me.

Ps. Because you claim to be a German Nationalist I watch your edits. Hence I know you filed a request for page protection. I hope you know that a page will nearly always be pre-conflict version when protected so your ridiculous text will not be included. Rex 22:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not -added- anything, I replaced something that was obviously nationalistic with something that had actual fact in it, all YOU did was delete it outright, very constructive indeed.

I watch your edits because you claim and ARE a Neo-Nationalistic Dutchman, as I have claimed before before you immaturely blocked me from your talk page. Yes, I did put up a request for protect, and I will do it whenever I see you vandalizing articles, and I use the word vandalizing with it's true meaning; you are a neo-nationalist vandal in my view. Ameise -- chat 22:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you have just blown out every argument you have made so far with that last edit, where you are ASKING ME TO CITE THAT THEY RETAIN A DEGREE OF MUTUAL INTELLIGIBILITY. Ameise -- chat 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You are simply contradicting yourself. Come back when you have arguments and a civil tone. I'm going to bed now. You're tiring.Rex 22:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Good, because all you are doing is putting ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  everywhere for no reason -- I can act like a 12 year old too. Ameise -- chat 22:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I guarantee you that regardless of WHERE I put that, anything about mutual intelligibility or the history of Dutch in the German article will be deleted by Rex as a supposed 'attack on the Dutch'. Ameise -- chat 01:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The degree of mutual intelligibility between Dutch and German is not as big as suggested here, it not much bigger than those of English and German.

Dutch is an extremely diglossic language. German, apart from its Swiss German variant, isn't. This means that a Dutch word might look understandable it isn't while spoken. Then there's the cultural factors; the number of Dutch people who watch a subtitled (all movies in a foreign language are subtitled in the Netherlands and Flanders) a German "krimi" in a week is most likely larger than the number of German people who've ever seen a Dutch movie. Then there's education, Dutch and Flemings learn German at school. Germans don't learn Dutch and people who have a higher education will generally be able to understand more. This is why Dutch-speaking people generally can understand more of German than vice-versa. The text now says that "some" Northern Germans" can "understand some". This will of course be removed as soon as the page is unprotected, if only for the weasel words. Rex 10:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion seems to getting out of hand. I would like to invite the contending parties to carry it out on their own talk pages rather than to cluttered up the discussion page of a broader theme?. Or better yet, write your own page thus inviting all the discussion you want.

Perhaps the following contribution could ease if not resolve the matter. During the evolution of Dutch as well as all west germanic languages there were no "dialects" which would presume the existance of an "official" language from which they could deviate. Except for Latin there just wasn't any single group or language among the germanic speakers strong enough until about the 5th century, long after Dutch had already evolved. Dutch, a typical west germanic language among others (Danish, etc.), eventually developed strongly. Saxon, Fresian, Anglican and the current "Plattdeutsch" (Low German) did not. Although these languages still manage somehow to survive they hardly appear in print thus their days are numbered. The merger of Anglican with Saxish in todays England, for instance, begann dying out in in 1066 by loosing the battle of Hastings to the Normans. The development of a language can easly be confirmed in consulting the history of that language if any. For responses please use my talk page.

Cakeandicecream 11:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the language that came forth from the merger of Old Saxon and Anglican is the 3rd most spoken language on earth and far from dieing out. Furthermore, Danish is not a West Germanic language and dialects of languages have always existed, you do not need a standard language to have dialects.

Rex 12:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"The language that came forth from the merger of Old Saxon and Anglican"??? Um, Old Saxon is the ancestor language of Low German (which incidentally is also not a dialect of German and so should also be removed from the map if Dutch and Frisian are), and Anglican is a kind of church. Angr 13:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, let me get back on that. Merger is the wrong, Old English isn't a real merger. What I meant to say is that the language that came forth from Old English isn't dead or dying. Sure the language before hastings underwent changes but it didn't die out.It evolved. As for Low German, I guess if one would be strict on this article. Thereby purely focussing on the History and features of the German language as we know it today, we should indeed treat Low German as such. I have once proposed this on "history of German" but it was refused because "that's German too". Rex 14:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

When I had simply written that they shared textual intelligibility, and occasionally vocal, that was apparently POV.... so would the only thing that would not be POV be to never, ever mention Dutch and German in the same paragraph? Ameise -- chat 16:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please go and check WP:GA/R. If you really want to work on this article, there seem to be more important thing to be done than the relationship between German and Dutch. --LucVerhelst 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the same reason you need to stop just accusing me of POV edits even when absolutely nothing about some of what I write is POV; nothing gets done that way. Ameise -- chat 17:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

To be more clear, the paragraph which I had added is still there. Try reading it before marking it POV and deleting it, OR, tell me why it is POV instead of just marking it as POV and deleting it. Ameise -- chat 17:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:GA

I've listed this article at WP:GA/R. --LucVerhelst 12:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Phonology

The subsection has the following spelling mistake: "Maria Taslomka". It should be "Marietta Slomka". I would appreciate a possibility to correct this. Cakeandicecream 19:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Source? Ameise -- chat 19:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, he's right. Ameise -- chat 19:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Angr 19:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In case of doubt, see www.zdf.de unter "Heute Jurnal/ Sendungen A - Z/ "H"/ heute-journal/.

Cakeandicecream 22:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing the article: "(Ex. Hof = yard pronounced like the o in the English word "hope")" — This is obviously a load of bullshit. The "o" in the German word is just a long "o", whereas the "o" in the English word "hope" clearly cahnges in color, sounding like a diphthong [ɔʊ].

Garrulus carelicus 11:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this passage was written by a Scotsman.Unoffensive text or character 12:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Conversely, and realy just for discussion's sake, pronunciation changes greatly depending on on the area where the word is said. For example, the way that people of the American west coast pronounce the O in the word "hope" and the people of Franken, Bayern, and Schwaben pronounce the O in the word "hof" are very similar. Obviously, the accent is somewhat different, but for a novice's general pronunciation purposes this is correct. If they intend to pursue any higher German, they'll hopefully pick up a correct accent. I guess what it comes down to is that if I were to drop my American accent and say "hope", I would pronounce the O like the one in "hof"...

Xeinart 19:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dutch as German dialect

General linguist consensus is, that Low German is nearer to the Dutch standard language than to the German standard language. Whether Dutch dialects and Low German dialects form a dialect continuum, depends on the relationship between Low German and Low Franconian. And at this point scholarly opinion diverges:

Sometimes, Low Franconian is grouped together with Low German. However, since this grouping is not based on common linguistic innovations, but rather on the absence of the High German consonant shift and Anglo-Frisian features, there are linguistic reference books that do not group them together.

Pjacobi 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wether or not Low Franconian and Low Saxon are grouped together or not does not matter for a dialect continuum. For example in Dutch Limburg there once was and at some places still is a line where Central German and Dutch almost merge ... but no one would group them together.

Rex 19:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If we look at shared innovations, standard Dutch and standard German are closer to each other than either is to Low German. Standard Dutch and standard German both have diphthongization of old ī, ū, and ǖ (Eis/ijs, haus/huis, deutsch/duits), raising of old ē and ō (hier/hier, Fuß/voet), and a high vowel resulting from old io (bieten/bieden). Low German has no diphthongization, no raising, and a mid vowel (Ies, Huus, düütsch, heer, Foot, beden). Angr 19:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that were true (I mean the "standard Dutch and standard German are closer to each other than either is to Low German" comment, not the shared innovations listed by you) it would make no sense that Low Saxon speakers are able to guess more Dutch words than speakers of High German dialects.

Rex 19:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mechelen is in the middle of present-day Flanders and rather to the east in historical Brabant. The dialect has no diphthongs, only in equivalents of Dutch words as 'leien', 'looien', 'loeien', 'laaien', 'luie'... does a vowel sound slide into another one. Standard Dutch and standard German both have diphthongization. Thus if I understand the 'Low German has no diphthongization' phrase correctly, I would have to conclude that my Mechlinian is a Low German dialect instead of a Dutch one. I do not assume anyone to accept such, so some assertion must have been false. — SomeHuman 1 Oct2006 23:12 (UTC)

Not at all. I said Low German has no diphthongization of old ī, ū, and ǖ, not all dialects without diphthongization of old ī, ū, and ǖ are Low German. Swiss German has no diphthongization of old ī, ū, and ǖ either. That's why it's called Schwyzertüütsch, just like Plattdüütsch. Angr 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Switzerland is not quite in the heartland of German speech. Mechelen is situated in the heartland of the Duchy of Brabant, together with Holland one of the regions that historically are supposed to have had the largest influence on standard Dutch. Since Mechlinian(*) does not have diphthongization, that characteristic is useless for classification as Dutch, High German, Low German: it is not a rule but merely a characteristic of each dialect regardless the latter's origin and as such is only noteworthy in a detailed description of a particular dialect or of standard Dutch regarded on a dialect level, not for a comparison between languages or regional languages.
(*) Burgermechels, the one of the city's two dialects that survives; the (all but) extinct Platmechels ['plat' here refers to vulgar, low-class and does not mean flat] has diphthongization. As for most vowels, old ī, ū, and ǖ in standard Dutch words are pronounced with a different vowel in Mechlinian, while some of the vowels that resemble those Standard Dutch sounds do occur in Mechlinian words that do not have such vowel in standard Dutch; this is true for both Mechlinian dialects in an – apart from diphthongization – almost identical way. — SomeHuman 2 Oct2006 09:17 (UTC)

Phonology

Sorry to have to bother you again. There's another error of mine in the beginning of the above subsection:

"According to the rule the e in the name Mecklenburg, for example, should be pronounced short somewhat like the English "a" in MacDonalds"..."

should read:

According to the rule the e in the name Mecklenburg, for example, should be pronounced short somewhat like the English "e" in egg ...

Cakeandicecream 06:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, though I used IPA and also changed the examples a bit. I used "bet" rather than "egg" because in some accents of English the word "egg" actually has the "long a" sound. And for the long [e:] I specified a Scottish English accent because Scottish English, like German, has a long monophthong, while most other major accents (RP, General American, General Australian) have a diphthongs for the "face" vowel. Angr 07:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again also for the improvements. Could you give me a link to getting "IPA" on my computer? Instead of characters I get a lot of question marks.

Cakeandicecream 08:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first make sure you have a font installed that includes the "IPA extensions" part of Unicode. Then make sure you're using a real browser, not Internet Explorer. See International Phonetic Alphabet#Technical note for more info and for a list of fonts that include IPA. Angr 08:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Neighbouring languages

During a recent dispute, a few minor remarks had been relevant for the phrase that is still in the protected article:

"Frisian, (...), and Dutch, the closest related living language to German (after Yiddish), are not commonly mutually intelligible with German, although Dutch can be understood by some northern Germans, and written Dutch can often be read by Germans in general."

The parts here above italicized definitely need to be sourced:

1. Though slightly less often than is the case for English, common words in Dutch are far more often derived from Latin or French than is the case for German (e.g. tabula - table -> tafel versus Tisch; economie versus Wirtschaft) and even only this aspect makes it hard to understand one another. Some words do not obviously appear related, such as English 'ant', French 'fourmi', Dutch 'mier', German 'Ameise' and even knowledge of other languages will not help for those. The phrase should say can be partially understood or at the very most can for a significant part be understood.
   
2. It seems rather unlikely that for instance 'stoel' will be more easily read and correctly understood than if the word is heard: the German 'Stuhl''e' does not clearly resemble the Dutch orthography but is pronounced identically with just the initial sound being [ ʃ ], not [s] an extra schwa at the end. [better illustrated in my edit at 13:21 (UTC)]
   

Stating, immediately behind 'not commonly mutually intelligible with German', that [some] Germans can understand Dutch, suggests that Dutch-speaking people will not as easily or as little problematically understand German. This is WP:POV: there is no apparent reason for such suggestion – especially as it may well be the other way around, because since decades Dutch and Flemish television are often broadcasting subtitled popular German series (mainly 'Crimis', seemingly realistical police series) in the original audible language; there is no analogy on German TV. Furthermore, most people in the Netherlands and in Flanders had German taught at school, generally as third or fourth language; Dutch has only a very minor place in the German educational system.
— SomeHuman 2 Oct2006 11:27 (UTC)

Minor point: the German word for "chair" is Stuhl, not Stuhle, and the only significant pronunciation difference from Dutch stoel is that the initial sound is [ʃ], not [s]. Angr 11:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[Your minor point but my major mistake. For others to read the message correctly, I modified the text without any cover-up. Thanks. — SomeHuman 2 Oct2006 12:22 (UTC)]

May I ask how that violates WP:POV? Many Germans, particularly near the border, can understand Dutch as a result of the dialect continuum that exists... and I have no trouble reading stoel or Stuhl, as they are very similar in pronunciation, as User:Angr pointed out. Ameise -- chat 12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume the text speaks of the standard Dutch language, not on the language spoken in the few rural villages near the German border. Also note that these people generally only understand each others dialect, not the Standard language.

The comments are unreferenced and I would suggest to remove them untill sources are found.

Rex 12:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Then the old comment that said that Dutch and German were entirely unintelligible in mutuality should also be removed as it was also not cited. Ameise -- chat 12:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The correction Angr pointed out, makes my example not very well chosen. I should have used for instance 'ijver' (especially when pronounced by Dutch, as Flemings pronounce 'v' more softly) versus 'Eifer', or 'rond' versus 'rund' (English 'round') while Dutch 'rund' is pronounced differently and is 'Rind' in German (English 'bovine animal').
For other words, both orthography and sound require getting used to the other language before one becomes able to derive meaning by reading or hearing, e.g. 'zwoel' versus 'schwül', 'ik sluit' versus 'ich schließ'. That will be the case for people living near the border for hearing, but hardly for reading. That even emphasizes that particular point I made: the phrase implies that written Dutch is more easy to understand than spoken Dutch for Germans in general, while this is far from obvious and it is likely to be the opposite for people near the border. Thus I ask for sources regarding this written versus spoken itelligibility or at least improving the text by consensus.
Ameise, what exactly is POV is clear thus please read carefully from "Stating" till "understand German" and think about it and then about what follows, instead of risking another pointlessly eternal dispute: I do not write here as a form of social contact and would rather do something else. ;-) — SomeHuman 2 Oct2006 13:21 (UTC)

Suggestion: Replace the current phrase with:

"Frisian, which after Scots is the closest related living language to English, and Dutch, the closest related living language to German (after Yiddish), are not commonly mutually intelligible with German, although most speakers of one language can rather quickly become used to the other language well enough so as to usually understand the general meaning."

This is put general enough to be correct, and vague enough to avoid incorrectness; it does not need to specify 'Northern Germans' of other regional aspects, and it seems best not to emphasize reading versus hearing as this may be very different according to an individual's experience and precise origin in his/her language area. It does however clearly suggests that mutual understanding is easier than between English and German. There is however one aspect that had remained out of the picture so far: Also about Frysian, the original phrase states that it is not mutually intelligible with German, nothing more. The suggested phrase does say exactly the same for Frysian as for Dutch –- I assume this to be correct but rather see this confirmed — SomeHuman 2 Oct2006 15:55-16:24 (UTC)

The suggestion by Somehuman certainly is an improvement, but I'm afraid the " although most speakers of one language can rather quickly become used to the other language well enough so as to usually understand the general meaning" -part is also unsourced and unreferenced.

My solution would be the following:

"Frisian, which after Scots is the closest related living language to English, and Dutch, the closest related living language to German (after Yiddish), are not mutually intelligible with German"

These are facts, viewers can read about the mutual intelligiblity on a dialectal level in an other section.

Rex 16:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That is also the weak point of your suggestion, Rex: The statement goes for the standard languages. I assume that you might find sources for this more easily than I would. My argument to leave out specifics is, that dialectical influences cause variations in how easy and well one may understand one another. Note: the last remark in my former comment should be read as: Even though closer related to English than Dutch is, the suggested phrase does say exactly the same for Frisian as for Dutch, regarding to German. – I assume this to be correct but rather see this confirmed. — SomeHuman 2 Oct2006 16:49 (UTC)

I don't see that an encyclopedia article about German should be speculating about the mutual intelligibility or lack thereof between German and its neighbors in the first place. Angr 18:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely.Rex 18:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

'Neighbouring languages' is a subsection of 'Classification and related languages'. No need to speculate, proper sources exist, though in fact the present paragraph seems rather too close to German 101 and may need rewriting if only to avoid authorship problems. Perhaps see also Dutch 101.

• Tagalog and Filipino (revisited), interesting because it cites sources relevant to the relativity of 'mutually intelligible' and to such about German and Dutch, stating exactly the opposite of what Rex claims: "Dutch and German are not only mutually intelligible, they..." ... but also about dialects of other separate languages: "local varieties form a continuum from Portugal through Spain and halfway through Belgium and then through France and down to the southern tip of Italy."; also "...comparisons force us to acknowledge that linguistic criteria alone are not enough to distinguish dialects from languages. Also important are cultural, political and historical factors, the two most important of which are autonomy and heteronomy. Languages are autonomous in that they are independent, standardised varieties with a life of their own. This applies to both German and Dutch. Dialects, on the other hand, are heteronomous, or subordinate to another variety. So different dialect users of German will nevertheless look to German as their standard language and will write in German. Similarly, Dutch speakers of whatever dialect will look to Dutch, not German, as the source of authoritative usage." ... and much more.
• Cambridge University Press, 0521593786 - Dialectology, Second Edition, by J. K. Chambers and Peter Trudgill certainly to be read. Just one quote: "... certain varieties on the West Germanic dialect continuum are dialects of Dutch while others are dialects of German because of the relationship these dialects bear to the respective standard languages."
• Dictionary by LaborLawTalk - Low Saxon seem to have lots of interesting links. One may like to search on other terms at the top of the page.
• European languages - A comparative analysis : Germanic Languages interesting article by Jennifer Wagner, still a student getting her master degree, who may have a crystal ball though: "Dutch has combined the three genders into common and neuter, common being the former masculine and feminine." At present, in the Flemish region in correct standard Dutch and unless one happens to know the specimen's true gender, while meaning 'Give it its food, it is hungry', one still says about a dog: 'Geef hem zijn voedsel, hij heeft honger'; about a cat: 'Geef haar haar voedsel, zij heeft honger'; about a horse: 'Geef het zijn voedsel, het heeft honger'. Also the words for 'door', 'closet', 'table'... are still feminin in Flanders. Though it is true that fewer words retained a feminin character in the Netherlands, the three gender forms are absolutely necessary for animals and people of whom the physical gender is known.
• Minority Languages - site map (see under Germany Frysk, Plattdeutsch)
• A Short History Of The German Language by Helmut Richter (author's credentials unknown)
• Language and communication in border areas by Thomas Lundén, Department of Human Geography, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm Sweden e.g. intro, "The official and spoken languages are similar and mutually intelligible (German-Netherlands, Norway-Sweden)", "Language has a spatial impact through communication much overlooked by social scientists and linguists alike, and this is particularly evident in the border situation."

— SomeHuman 2 Oct2006 23:27-23:33 (UTC)

I'm still troubled by this section. By saying that Frisian and Dutch are the only West Germanic languages that border German, and by saying that Dutch is (after Yiddish) the language most closely related to German, it implicitly suggests that Low German, Limburgish, and Luxembourgish aren't "real" languages, which is non-NPOV. I just think the whole section should be deleted; besides being extremely awkward to write in a non-NPOV way, it doesn't really add any encyclopedically useful information to the article at all. Angr 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I also can see little value in this section. And closeness is hardly a well-defined concept here in any case, particularly in the absence of citations from reputable studies. "Closeness" of 2 languages in some generic sense (as opposed to closeness in phonology, or case system etc) is something that is of no interest to professional linguists, so it would be hard to find any acceptable sources --Pfold 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

German Creoles and Pidgins

There are two languages that derive from the German language that should be mentioned in this article. One is the pidgin Unserdeutsch or Rabaul Creole German in Papua New Guinea, the other is Küchendeutsch in Namibia. --217.232.90.76 08:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?

If I unprotect the page now, will the edit war resume? No one's discussed the issues in like four days. Angr 12:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be unlikely. Rex 12:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose User:Rex Germanus is referring to the fact that he submitted like 2 3RR reports on me within 2 days trying to get me banned -- luckily for him (I was going to file a harassment report) my basement flooded. Ameise -- chat 02:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

GA dispute

The GA dispute for this article has ended, with what I think was a two to zero vote, I wasn't really sure what the "wait for us to fix it if you keep it as a GA" comment counted for as a vote, but even if it was two to one, this article still seems to have but one reference concerning demographics. Even if the dispute wasn't a good majority, most reviwers probably would of just delisted this article immedietly when they came across it anyway, there really must be good references to have a Good Article. Dispute archived at: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 7. Homestarmy 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Phonology Section

...is, nicely put, full of inaccuracies.

* Ä: In its short form comes close to the e of the English word bed.

That would make it [eː], whereas in fact it's [ɛ]

Its long form has no equivalent in English [...]

Take American "bad" [ɛː]or [æː]

* Ö: In its long form comes close to the ir sound in the English word "bird". (Ex. Brötchen = roll (to eat)).

This is correct for the Rhine region, whereas in standard German it's [øː]

* Ü: In its long form comes close to the yu sound in the English words "mule" or "music".

You can hear this pronounciation [juː] only from Russian immigrants, actually.

[...] [Ü] is pronounced similarly to the French "u".

That's closer. [y:]

* C standing alone is not a germanic letter. It never occurs at the beginning of a germanic word. In borrowed words together with "h"...

which makes it "Ch", as follows.

...there is no single agreement on the pronunciation. It's pronounced either as the English "sh" [...]

This, again, is Rhine or Hessian dialect. The correct pronunciation is [ç]

* Ch occurs most often but has no equivalent in English. There are two slightly different ways of pronunciation in High German: After e and i it sounds a bit like the "h" in "huge", but is pronounced more sharply and strongly (Ex. mich = me). After a, o and u (dark vowels) it is as if you tried to pronounce k without cutting off the air above the tongue. (Ex. Rache = revenge).

Suggestion: as in Scottish "ach".

In western Germany (Rheinland) it is in any position pronounced as sch equivalent to the English sh in the word shoe. In this area distinguishing between such words as Kirchen (Churches) and Kirschen (cherries) is left up to the context.

Yes, but "Rache" remains [ˈʀaχɘ], so it is not "in any position"

*S is pronounced as /z/ as in "Zebra" (Ex. Sonne = Sun)

only if a vowel follows. before a consonant, it's [s]

• It should be mentioned that all voiceless plosives (p, t, k) are aspirated [pʰ tʰ kʰ]

Since I am not a phonologist, it would be great if anyone else with sufficient knowledge of phonetics AND the German language could rewrite the section...

-- megA 15:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"The word Städte (= cities), for example, is pronounced with a short vowel ([ˈʃtɛtə]) by some (Jan Hofer, ARD Television) and with a long vowel ([ˈʃtɛːtə]) by others (Marietta Slomka, ZDF Television)." There are three ways to pronounce "Städte" in Standard German. The vowel may be /ɛ/, /ɛː/ or /eː/. I have listened to Marietta Slomka and paid special attention to the word "Städte". I have the impression that she almost exclusively uses the /eː/. In fact, the long version of ä may vary between /ɛː/ and /eː/. Though most dictionaries only use /ɛː/, my impression is that this pronunciation is used by a minority of speakers only. (But I admit that this is original research or an anecdote and cannot be used for the article). Furthermore, the short version of ä is pronounced exactly the same as the short version of e in German. "Wände" and "Wende" are homophones. A look in any dictionary will show that.Unoffensive text or character 11:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the old problem. German is not really standardized. Almost everybody speaks with at least a slight dialectal accent, also increasingly on tv. It seems to me that [ˈʃtɛtə] is correct according to Deutsche Bühnenaussprache, since ä is followed by two consonants. I myself (trained with Bühnenaussprache) am torn between [ɛ] and [ɛː]. But my birtplace is in southern Germany, where [ɛː] is used. Slomka's [eː] is clearly influenced by her Rhenanian upbringing (birthplace: Cologne, and ZDF Television in Mainz). --megA 21:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Duden's Das Aussprachewörterbuch comes pretty close to reflecting a widely accepted standard, doesn't it? That's what I use when I as a nonnative speaker am unsure how to pronounce a word. For Städte it gives "[ˈʃtɛ:tə], auch: [ˈʃtɛtə]", which I take to mean the short vowel is acceptable but less standard than the long vowel. As for [ˈʃte:tə], it's presumably only used by people who always replace [ɛ:] with [e:] (those for whom Bären and Beeren are homophones). When I first came to Germany I said [ˈʃtɛtə], reasoning that since Stadt has a short vowel, its plural has one too, but then I noticed a lot of people using a long vowel, so I looked it up in Duden, and sure enough Duden prefers the long vowel. So I trained myself to switch to [ˈʃtɛ:tə] instead. —Angr 09:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The real problem here is not the detail, but the claim that this section deals with phonology. The idea that letters have pronunciations is not what any serious linguist would call phonology. Pronunciation and spelling perhaps. My view is that this section needs rewriting from scratch starting fom the sounds and not the spellings associated with them. --Pfold 10:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's true too. Actually, German phonology is a pretty good article, dealing with real phonology, not "the sounds letters make". The phonology section of this article should just be a brief summary of that article. —Angr 14:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

EU

How did "eu" end up sounding like "oy"?

The real question is, how did /oy/ end up getting spelled "eu"? —Angr 06:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Must have had something to do with those strong abbey beers of the time ;-) ... Rex 07:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Rex could partly be correct, but it's also because this sound developed from the Middle High German [y:], which was written "iu". See German_orthography#Typical_letters. --Dave ~ (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was only joking, I doubt (even the German) monks at the time would be stupid enough to work on books while drunk ... considering the sheer amount of work. Rex 08:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)