Talk:German language/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

"Spoken in [...]"

Currently the infobox of the German language says the following: "Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Italy, France, Luxembourg, Argentina, Brazil, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Denmark, Namibia, South Africa, Mexico, Canada, USA and 35 other countries.".

I think we should edit this and go with the way the English language article does it. ie listing the countries where it is official, not dying and not a minority language + "and other countries".

So that would mean: "Austria, - Belgium (official, but also minority) -, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland and other countries."

Are there any objections? Rex 14:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections, but if you do it I will make the same changes to the Dutch language article, as well as every other European language article which does the same thing. Ameise -- chat 14:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't care if you did that. Seems kind of fair. (Sorry to disappoint you, Mike.) Rex 14:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why purge valuable information? Ulritz 16:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because infoboxes should be kept short. I'd say any language's infobox should only list the countries where the language in question really predominates (in this case, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg, plus maybe Belgium because of having official status there) with an "and other countries" if necessary, while more detail can be given in the body of the text. —Angr 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit taken back by this whole Luxembourg as a German speaking language bit. If you define Dutch as an independant language, so is Luxembourgish. There are so many non-german words used in Luxembourgish and time has made it develop in its very own way. It may have been a german dialect once but that was way back in the days of Low German. By the way, Luxembourg is officially a French speaking country and all of the people in Luxembourg are speaking French, whereas Luxembourgish is only used by a very small majority. Besides, there are strong political feelings involved in making us a german-speaking country. No real Luxembourger will accept that.

Well, you're sure you're from Luxembourg? That does not sound like the Luxembourg I know... German IS official language (with French and Luxembourgish), additionally Luxembourgish is the national language. Moreover, in contrast to Dutch, Luxembourgish cannot be considered a fully independent language. French might be a prefered language of the government (dating back to the code civil), which is why most street signs are French, but German on the other hand has a stronger presence throughout the print media, the church, the elementary and professional schools and others. I've visited Luxembourg numerous times and every single time I realised that this small country is much larger concerning lagnuages and is truly trilingual. The citizens are randomly mixing German, French and Luxembourgish, even within one single newspaper, shop window or discussion and nearly everbody is able to speak all three of them more or less fluently. At last, I want to add, that the German dialects of Baden, South Tyrol, Holstein etc. all feature "non-german words" in their specific vocabularies, which, however, does not render them "less German". --BlueMars 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, you wrote "By the way, Luxembourg is officially a French speaking country and all of the people in Luxembourg are speaking French, whereas Luxembourgish is only used by a very small majority."

Now, is it possible that somewhere on this globe there is (hidden away in some secret corner) a second country that is also called Luxemburg/Luxembourg/Letzebuerg? The Luxemburg I know has the official languages French, German and Luxemburgish (in alphabetical order) and practically all natives of Luxemburg speak Luxemburgish as their first language. Many Luxemburgers have a limited knowledge of French and High German (Standard German). When speaking German (Standard German) the very close relationship between Luxemburgish and German gives them the advantage of being ablet to express themselves effortlessly, though not necessarily always correctly. In the worst case, a word-to-word translation of Luxemburgish into Standard German will do.

Furthermore, the number of French loanwords in Luxemburgish is not so high as to hamper mutual intelligibility with Standard German. Many of those loanwords exist in German as well, though most of them are obsolete or dialectal.Unoffensive text or character 13:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, I am a native "Letzeburger". There is, however, a very very large minority of foreigners living in Luxembourg, thankfully so, that do not speak Luxemburgish at all. The problem most of us DO have with being assembled to German (again) lies very much deeper, though.

As for being trilingual, it has its drawbacks, too. Most of the Luxembourgers are not fluent in German (as they do a literal translation from their native language most of the time) and their French is not really perfect, either. As for being a French speaking country, we belong officially to the "pays francophones" and you won't be able to manage for long in Luxembourg without French (try to buy something in Luxemburgish or German and you know what I mean)

Sorry for being anonymous in my first posting. It was largely an emotional reaction more than any logical reasoning. I made my studies at a university in Austria, so I might be more friendly toward German as a language than most of the "Letzeburgers".

Blue Mars, why do you say: "Moreover, in contrast to Dutch, Luxembourgish cannot be considered a fully independent language." Now this is something someone has to explain. I am not sure about the "mutual intelligibility" between German and Luxemburgish either. I guess you may be right for the regions located geographically near our country, but other Germans won't understand a word of what we are talking about. Exactly the same is true for Dutch :). Luxembourgish is a very independant language with it's own literature, folk songs, poetry and everything else you may expect in a language.Mtravellerh 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thats kind of a modern problem, 100 years ago most Luxemburgians, Austrians, Bohemians, Swiss and many other people (sometimes even Dutch and Yiddsih people) considerd themselves "Deutsch" because they spoke a German language. German is not only standard (High) German but a whole system of Dialects which form a dialect-continuum reaching from Vienna to Amsterdam. Nowadays, after Bismark unified and monopolized his definition of "Germany" and after the Nazi aera everybody is eager to emphasize he is not German. Comming from the region of Frankfurt I certainly better understand Luxemburgish than many dialects like of Kiel or Vienna. And in Trier they speak almost Lexeburgish and nobody consider it to be a proper language.

I think english simply lacks the right vocabulary to denote this dialect continuum, "German" is a wrong translation, since Danes, Suedes and English themselves are not less Germanic than Germans... lanx --217.224.5.152 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mtravellerh, In contrast to Blue Mars, I do not dispute the status of modern Luxemburgish as an independent language. Yet, I consider Luxemburgish and German to be mutually intelligible, at least in their written forms. Spoken Luxemburgish is certainly unintelligible for most Germans who do not come from the Eifel region.

However, my friends in Luxemburg told me that the knowledge of French may range from "a few words and phrases" to "near perfect" and that many natives, especially those who never use French at work, feel uneasy when speaking to the omnipresent French or Belgian shop assistants in Luxemburg City. And one of my friends, who teaches French at a Lycée, usually speaks Luxemburgish when entering a shop and is occasionally taken aback by shop assistants who tell him things like "parlez Francais" (no "Monsieur", no "s'il vous plait", just plain "parlez Francais").

Anyway, I hope you do not feel offended when I say that, to the best of my knowledge, German is very closely related to Luxemburgish, there is a great degree of mutual intelligibility of the written standard languages and that most (or many?) Luxemburgers are more at ease with some form of Standard German than with French.

The literal word-to-word translations from Luxemburgish to Standard German you mention, do achieve a satisfactory result. You must keep in mind that in many parts of Germany, Germans do the same thing when speaking Standard German. I have never witnessed a Luxemburger groping for words or stumbling helplessly through Standard German grammar, but the Standard German they speak sound (to us Germans) funny but quite alright. I would call this fluencyUnoffensive text or character 10:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Luxemburgish language is a High German language. However, Alsatian, Yiddish and Pennsylvania Dutch are high German languages, too, so it may be up to the reader to decide whether being a "high German language" makes a language a "German dialect". Although I don't have any close friends or relatives in Luxemburg, I've visited the country numerous times. I've been in Esch, Luxemburg, Wasserbillig and other towns and cities. So my afore posted comments do indeed have some reference. In Esch (close to the French border) the vendor of a bakery greeted me in Luxemburgish and I would estimate I've spotted nearly as much signs written in French as in Luxemburgish or High German (Not only private/commercial signs, but also road sings, e.g. "emplacement d'arrêt d'urgence - Nothaltebucht") In Wasserbillig (close to the German border) I've heard no one speaking French. The guy at the gas station, the sales-woman in the supermarket, everyone spoke High German and some Luxemburgish (and there was nothing which could have indicated me being German, at least nothing that I know of;-) Perhaps the smell? :p ). Due to the lower taxes however, there are a lot of Germans buying their alcohol in Luxemburg, which surely contributes to the fact that High German is quite dominant in supermarkets, especially those near the German border. --BlueMars 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Trier (12 Kilometers from Lux.) and I think BlueMars is dead-on with his description of Luxemburg. Anonym 24 July 2007

Speakers ...

The intro says 110 million, the infobox says 100 and the German wikipedia says 120 million native speakers. Who's right? Rex 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the number is around 96 million. You can find this at this site: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=deu

which in turn cites Raymond Gordon as a source. Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International

I believe that the source is fairly reputable, but it should be double-checked

Traditionally, the number of speakers is given between 100 and 120 million. But if you look at that figure, it seems somewhat exaggerated. There are (according to Ethnologue) about 75 million first language speakers in Germany. This figure is reliable, as the population is around 80 million, but this includes at least 5 million foreigners who have German as a second language, if at all. There are (again according to Ethnologue) about 7.5 million first language speakers in Austria. And there are (according to the Swiss Census Bureau) some 4.6 milliion speakers in Switzerland. This makes a total of 87 million, approximately. The big question is, then: Where do the remaining 9 million speakers live (Ethnologue says there are some 96 million)? There may be a couple of million Germans and descendants of Germans scattered all over the world, but they will hardly add up to 9 million. Most traditionally German speaking communities in the USA, Russia, Kazakhstan, Brazil and Argentina are rapidly assimilating to the surrounding majorities. So, if I had to put forward a figure, I would make it some 90 million worldwide.Unoffensive text or character 09:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, now that I come to think of it: There is another problem with Ethnologue's figures. Ethnologue lists a number of languages for Germany, Austria and Switzerland: Bavarian (the number of speakers in Germany given as 246,050, which is ridiculously low), Franconian, Saxonian, Alemannisch, etc. Practically all German-speaking Swiss and an overwhelming majority of the Austrians are being classified as "Alemannisch" or "Bavarian". That, to my mind, means that they cannot at the same time be first-language speakers of German. To make it short: I would not rely on the Ethnologue, as the figures it gives for Central European languages seem largely to be made up and, what is worse, made up by uninformed people.Unoffensive text or character 09:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we put in a range of speakers. For instance, we may say that there are between 90 - 100 million speakers, for example. 69.109.174.162 03:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of changing the number of first language speakers to 95 to 110 million and the number of second language speakers to 20 million. This should be within the range of most serious estimates and it should make the article more consistent with respect to this point. Rex, how about removing the tag now? Unoffensive text or character 09:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You forgot those native speakers in Northern Italy, Western France etc.

You are right there, but how many speakers are we talking about? Some 500,000 in Alsace and Lorraine, some 300,000 in Italy, and probably less than 50,000 in Hungary and Romania. Numbers in Belgium and Denmark are low as well.Unoffensive text or character 09:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there figures available for some of the listed minority language countries? Brazil and Argentina are listed ahead of Canada, which may be perfectly accurate, but looking at the 2001 Census in Canada http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo11a.htm there are more than 400,000 German first-language speakers. US Census bureau reports some 1.4 million, http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf. Can we get figures and references for those other countries?

I dont know any numbers of speakers for Brazil, i've seen numbers between 3 and 6 million. judging by the number of people with the name 'weber' in germany and brazil, it would be between 5 and 6 million people with german surnames (i couldnt say how many confounders thare might be in such statistics...). of course thare ar certainly a few million peeple with mixd descendence that dont carry a german name anymor. still it would be quite hard to say how many still speek german. i guess proportionally mor than in canada, becaus the tendency of peeple to adopt the new language is much grater wen the new language is similar to the old, original language. in brazil italians quikly merge into the mass and speek portuguese with an italian accent, wile germans tend to speek german for a longer time. stil, very few german descendants speek realy german, it is usualy a mix of thare own german dialect or a very simplified hi german with brazilian portuguese, especialy in the nouns and verbs. and the less strong the contact with the language is (especialy in the big cities), the mor brazilian words wil be in the vocabulary. so ware do yu draw the line? and then menny german decendents mite start thare lives with german (becaus of thare famlies), but hav forgotten it after a few yeers in scool (thare wer thousands of scools that taut evrything in german exept the portuguese language, until the guvverment forbade it in the late 30s). to make a real comparison of german speekers in cuntrys like canada, brazil and argentina, they'd hav to uze the same criteeria for all the studdys. ennyway brazil mite hav mor german decendents than canada in absolute numbers, but certanly not in rellativ numbers, since brazil has a much bigger population. it has much mor german decendents than argentina, ennyway, but the proportion of stil-german-speekers in argentina should be bigger, becauz the german imigration thare started by the end of the 19th century, wile in brazil it started just after independense, in 1824, so menny german desendents in brazil hav been too long in the cuntry to remember the language of thare ansestors. 83.189.69.243 (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)zé do rock

ETHNOLOGUE.COM ---- I do not think that ethnologue.com is a reliable source for today's number of speakers, because they sometimes rely on really outdated data. I surfed their website reading a lot of entries on variouse languages and sometimes I had absolutely no clue where and how they made up with some figures. The most reliable source would be recent census data, given the condition that the census was completely democratic and free. --El bes 22:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the negative view of Ethnologue. It is terribly inaccurate in many ways. Thus, i really wish that Wikipedia would give up on using it as the primary reference for languages. Data is available to some extent with the UN based on national censuses submitted by different countries. While the UN notes that there are many problems in comparison between countries because of different methodologies, extent, and scope of their census questions, the available fiugres certainly don't compare well with Ethnologue. IMHO we should put more confidence in the UN. See partial list at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dybcensus/V2_table5.pdf

Definition of dialect?

I hate to interrupt a really good edit war, but may I ask whether there is a mutually agreed upon definition of the term "Dialect"? Thx (joel johnson)

You're not interrupting anything, the edit war has been over for a month and a half. And the answer to your question is no. —Angr 05:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, Angr, I think there is a more or less generally agreed upon definition of the term, but it's a very broad one: Dialect.

I've read Dialect, and it completely skirts the issue of the polysemous nature of the word. —Angr 16:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we aren't going to find a really good answer for this. The problem is their really isn't a clear distinction between a dialect and a language. For example, in Chinese, Cantonese and Mandarin are not really that close, yet the entire world is convinced that Chinese is one "language." The same is the case for German. Standard German is quite different from say Schwäbisch. Compare "Sie machen unser Schiff kaputt! Wir gehen unter!" to "Dia machat onser Schiffle he! Mir gangat onter!" Yet German is also considered one language. Comparitively, Swedish, Danish, and Norweigan are much closer and a Dane can, on a good day, understand a Swede quite well. In Swedish schools they even expect students to read Danish without any instruction. Communication is not perfect here either, though. Anyway, it seems as if the definition is merely political. The Russians have for years been trying to convince everyone that Moldovan is a seperate "language" when it really differs from standard Romanian no more than other non-standard dialects. What makes something the standard dialect? Usually the one from the largest most economically self-sufficient city. Sorry, for making this so long. Much of the previous information was obtained from a book "The Power of Babel" by John McWhorter.Deman7001 07:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Examples like Swabian are one definition of dialect, roughly "a linguistic variety that is genetically related to a standard language, and whose speakers are usually educated in the local standard, but that is distinct enough from the standard as to be difficult or impossible for other speakers of the standard language to understand". Scots and Neapolitan would be other examples following this definition; this is the definition whose border to the term "language" is usually more political than linguistic. The other definition of dialect is any set of idiolects that share some common feature or features. This definition is used by theoretical linguists (syntacticians, phonologists), and is also the usual meaning in the U.S., which doesn't have "dialects" by the first definition. This page shows examples of the sort of differences found between dialects of American English: very little here deviates from the standard enough to impede intelligibility, and no variety of American English is distinct enough that a reasonable person could entertain the idea of calling it a different language. —Angr 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not even within Germany a agreed upon definition of the term 'dialect'. In some regions modern Standard German has extinguished the original local variants and is now the first language for most people (especially in northern Germany). There the local variants of Standard German are called dialects. In southern Germany, Austria and Switzerland the original dialects still exist and also the so called 'Umgangssprache' (~ everyday language) which is a mixture of the dialect and Standard German. The term 'Umgangssprache' and the term 'dialect' is often incorrectly used synonymously. Furthermore the term 'Mundart' is sometimes used as synonyme for 'dialect', sometimes used with a slightly different meaning - causing additional irritation. But those southern ("real") dialects (or languages) are not really intelligeable to people who only speak Standard German. --El bes 22:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this discussion on the topic "What is a dialect?" appears to be quite futile. So just let us refer to Max Weinreich's sarcastic but nontheless true statement: "Language is a dialect with an army and a navy" (M. Vaynraykh: A shprakh iz a diyalekt mit an armey un a flot). Dos vil hoysn az di mame loshn iz nisht a shprakh? ;-) Wayasu (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This definition is evidently correct. Without an army and a navy English would be clearly a German dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.105.110 (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a Germanic dialect, not German. Kman543210 (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

About the entry from 19th of August: Isn't there another criterion that, ideally, two neighbouring languages are largely not mutually understandable, whereas two neighbouring dialects ought to be? Trigaranus (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that some German dialects, especially Lower Saxon and Frisian, are mutually understandable with English (if you don't use artifices like "overt" instead of "open"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.88.157 (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

English is not mutually intelligible with any other Germanic language or dialect, except for maybe Scots, which some consider a dialect of English. English is so far separated and influenced by other languages to ever be confused as a dialect of any other Germanic language. Of course there may be a few words that are understandable between Frisian and English, but picking out a few words here and there and understanding a conversation are two different things. Kman543210 (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Brea, bûter, en griene tsiis is goed Ingelsk en goed Frysk, but you'd struggle with the rest of the shopping list, never mind the fy.wiki. "Overt" is no artifice, it is a different word from "open" with different meanings and usage - English has many pairs, where words with the same meaning were absorbed from two different languages and given different shades of meaning in English. And therein lie the roots of the lack of intelligibility - you might be able to construct the occasional sentence which is understood in the other language using an artificially restricted vocabulary subset (~<25%, given that's a total from all dialects rather than any particular one), but the majority of natural sentences will contain a good proportion of unintelligible words and idioms. Knepflerle (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And Frisian and Low Saxon aren't defined as dialects but as regional languages anyway. -- megA (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me fairy tales. At least 20,000 words of the basic English vocabulary are directly understandable for a German dialect speaker. If you take into consideration that 85% of the 1000 most frequently used English words are of Germanic origin, then a dialogue is evidently possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.70.152 (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

According to ethnologue.org, English has 60% lexical similarity with German. French has 89% similarity with Italian, Romanian has 77%. So Romanian and Spanish are dialects of Italian or is it the other way round? -- megA (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lexical similarity is by far not the same with word identity. So for example, in spite of their lexical similarity of 77%, Italian and Romanian are not mutually understandable.

Buddy, it happens I am fluent in Italian and I have effortlessly held conversations with Romanians. So don't make up theories about things you know nothing about. -- megA (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The definition is of course not meant to be taken seriously, as the Weinreich quote continues, if my Yiddish isn't wrong: "So this means Yiddish is not a language?" So this means etc...? -- megA (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: This is of course OR, but isn't a language the result of a standardization of a sum of dialects? (on the other hand, I've read somewhere that Hungarian has no distinct dialects...) -- megA (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But at the same time a language has also a grammar, which in English can hardly be found (no genders, no declensions, no conjugations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.70.152 (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

English has a grammar and conjugations; it has just been simplified over time in some areas. See the English grammar article for more information. Kman543210 (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides, it wasn't what I asked... -- megA (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I came, you came, he came, we came, you came, they came (no comment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.70.152 (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So Chinese is no language because it has no verb inflection? This is getting really interesting... you should have better read up on synthetic vs. isolating languages. I wonder what this all has to do with German dialects, but anyway. -- megA (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We speak here about the Indo-European family of languages and not about Chinese languages. Can you read the Chinese characters, by the way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.117.180 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

English and German dialects have not only a large lexical affinity, but in many, many cases the words are also identically. But this is no surprising news, because the words stem from the same tribes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.80.102 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls.

Remember that the talk pages are for discussion on improving the articles, not general conversation about the topic. Kman543210 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The main question is: who are the trolls without arguments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.117.180 (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Please do not feed the trolls." Oh, please! Can I? He's so cute! I want to see what he comes up with next...! -- megA (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bayreuth

I have a question, how do you pronounce "Bayreuth". I can't quite figure that out.

Roughly "bye-ROYT". IPA is [baiˈʁɔyt]. —Angr 10:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Bayreuth ? It´s a town in north bavarian, or what do you mean ?!? i AM german, but i don´t speak ENGLISH so good and my translation programm shows more than one word for "pronounce" ...the first was the same as "discribe", so in that case its a town ;)

Die Frage war, wie man den Namen "Bayreuth" ausspricht. —Angr 15:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Try with "Bei-reut", pronounced exactly the same. --80.136.129.24 09:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi IP- "Bei-reut" is German. An english-speaking guy would read bayreuth = buyroit 153.100.131.14 09:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Andreas

"32% of citizens of the EU-15 countries say they can converse in German"

This 32% percentage of EU-15 citizens does obviously include the people of Germany and Austria so I find it rather misleading that such a statement is standing right next to: "German was once the lingua franca of central, eastern and northern Europe and remains one of the most popular foreign languages taught worldwide, and is more popular than French as a foreign language in Europe." It comes out as though this figure concerns German as a second language. In addition, the statement that French is less popular as a foreign language in Europe as German is directly contradicted by precisely the same source quoted to make this remark, see: [1] page 13.

Antonius Block 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Some German-speaking communities still survive in parts of Romania,..."

In Romania there are, beside many German pimary schools, also German high schools in bigger cities like: Bucarest, Brasov, Sibiu, Sighisoara, Timisoara. In these schools learn German and Romanian children. The Romanian parents consider it as a privilege, if their children are admitted to German schools. Thus the word "survive" is here at the wrong place.

Pronunciation of EE

This is a pronunciation that needs to be listed. I've been listening to different recordings of a particular Richard Wagner aria, and the singers' pronunciationd of this syllable vary. --Scottandrewhutchins 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

First thing's first: Who was the singer who brought this phonological abnormality to light? Which Wagner aria was he or she singing? And how did this person manage to pronounce EE in a way that could not be accurately described as any kind of front unrounded close-mid to open-mid vowel?
Really, if we were to concern ourselves with what singers do to German - I am a member of the guilty party itself, having performed a few Schubert Lieder - or what we do to any other language, these articles would stretch thousands of pages. They would also be insufferable. I remember being at a Mexican restaurant with a group of teachers and students debating whether singers ought to linger on a pair of Ls (z.B. Hölle) longer than a single L. One very good diction coach said yes, but a grad student said no, that singers do this by false analogy with Italian. There are recordings of great singers doing both, so it may just be a matter of taste. In other cases diction choices are made out of necessity, like the near-universal substitution of an Italian R when singing German, French and even English, languages whose Rs are articulated further back in the throat and are not resonant enough for the stage.
You can see why the linguist won't learn much about a language's phonetics and phonology with a trip to the opera house, nor will the singer get much help with the fine points of German singing diction out of linguistics. Sorry :) Skotoseme 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It was James Morris on "Auf wolkigen Höh'n wohnen die Götter". He appears to pronunce "Speer" like "spear" and "heer" like "hare". Donald McIntyre pronounces them "spare" and "hare". I'm doing this for an audtion, and I don't speak German (a German aria is mandatory), and I don't want to sound stupid mispronouncing things. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as they are (I guess) non-native speakers, of course they will be a bit off when it comes to pronunciation. "ee" in German is definitely not the English "ee" or "ea", "spare" would be closer (my vowel-IPA-knowledge is too bad to look the correct definition up). At least in spoken German, the 'r' would be transformed to a schwa in that case, by the way. I'm not really up on stage pronunciation for German, though. Baranxtu 23:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary pronuciation is /ʃpe:r/ (or whatever funky R is used for German IPA - I can't remember if it's upside-down and capitalized or just capitalized) Anyway, we're talking about three vowels:

English "spear" or German "tief" /i/

German "Speer" /e/ and

English "spare" /eɪ/

So, like Baranxtu said, "spare" is close to "Speer" but not quite it. There are two problems for an English speaker: 1) This weird /e/ exists in Standard English only as part of the diphthong /eɪ/ (as in "spare" or "say"). It is only isolated by Canadians and Minnesotans, who famously do a similar thing to O (/oʊ/ > /o/as in "Minnesooota." Interestingly, German also has this sound as in "das Boot" /bo:t/...the Minnesota native in my German diction class never had a problem with these sounds....but I digress) 2) Although IPA uses the same symbol, German /e/ is more closed (that is, a couple millimeters closer to /i/) than an artificially isolated English /e/ (artifically isolated by, say, holding the /e/ vowel before closing the the diphthong /ɪ/). So it's possible that you're hearing Morris' pronunciation of /e/ as /i/ because the more closed German /e/ could more closely resemble the latter. But his pronunciation, whatever it is, should be identical for both words, so...is he singing the words in different registers of the voice perhaps? (I don't know the aria well.) Singers tend to modify vowels into oblivion, especially on high notes and especially with closed vowels like /e/. This would explain the difference, but I can see why you're unnerved.

If you're still hearing /i/, forget Morris and follow McIntyre: closed /e/ without any trace of a diphthong. Good luck with your audition! :) Skotoseme 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I am a native german speaker, I can hardly understand the problem, but I can give advice: Listen to Theo Adam's Wotan, who pronounces very poperly. Even better in this respect: Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau's Wotan in the Karajan recording of "Rheingold".

Or if you speak or understand French: Imagine the words spelled like this: Spéer and Héer.--Vully 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to clear this up. The words Speer and Heer contain a diphthong which is pronounced [ɛɐ̯] in some dialects and [eɐ̯] in others. This is separate from the phoneme /eː/ which is sometimes written ee (e.g. Beere, Beet). The latter is always pronounced [eː]. — Timwi 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that singular Speer and plural Speere have different phonemes, even if the first surfaces with a diphthong and the second surfaces with a monophthong. —Angr 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That diphthong with [ɐ̯] is only used in certain varieties of German, but it is usually not used in singing. A closed German [eː] may indeed be similar to an English [ɪ] as in sing. -- j. 'mach' wust ☛ ☏ 10:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for all Germans, but I pronounce "Speer" [spɛɐ̯] and "Speere" [ˈspeːrə]. – Timwi 20:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you from Hamburg or nearby? —Angr 08:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for all Germans either - the pronounciation certainly varies in different areas -, but I pronounce [ʃpeːɐ̯] and [ˈʃpeːɐ̯rə], I think (I'm not really used to IPA, I hope I've made no mistake). So in my pronounciation (I am from Graz/Austria), there is that slight diphthong in plural, too, and thus the phoneme stays the same. --213.33.24.72 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the "eer" in German Speer is pretty similar to the "ear" english fear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.81.107 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(Yes, but only if "spear" is pronounced very Oxfordian.) OK, the Bühnenaussprache is [ʃpeːɐ̯] for singular and [ˈʃpeːʀə] for plural. (Yes, r should be a trill, but often has turned into a fricative even in standard pronunciation.) The diphtong in the singular results from the "r" at the end of the word. The plural diphtong and the [r] are indeed a feature of Southern German/Austrian pronounciation. -- megA 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The adding of links to the wiki

hey guys,

I've recently launched a completely free site to teach people the basics of German. I am wondering what the requirements of my site are before I can add a link to it on wikipedia? Thanks, Morryau 09:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL, in particular WP:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest. —Angr 09:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Angr, that explained it perfectly. My site is at http://www.jiffygerman.com I currently don't think it has much to offer, as I only just put it up, but I will be adding content over time. Is there anything on this site that would prevent it from ever appearing on wiki? Assuming content is at a suitable level.

Thanks again, Morryau 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at my site and either add it to the wiki or let me know what is needed before it is allowed to go on here? Or let me know if I can add it myself. Cheers, 58.107.172.115 03:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea for the suitability of your site regarding wiki. however, as a german, i can tell you you MUST fix up the capitalizationg on your "useful german phrases" page. the german one needs to be correct: all nouns are capitalized, and you need to standardise what you do on the english side. it's a rather important aspect of german Deguerradeguerra

It's curious that your concern for "Rechtschreibung" only applies to German. The word "standardise" is spelt in English with a "z" and the pronoun "I" as well as the names of languages including German are capitalized in English. Cakeandicecream 09:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Standardise and standardize are both correct spellings, although the first is found mostly only outside North America. —Angr 09:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. My Webster (American) only knows the z form. My only British source is Cassells who also only lists the z form. Do you have other reference? The s form applies to many other languages especially German. Cakeandicecream 15:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

All words with the -ize/-ization suffix can be spelled -ise/-isation outside of North America. —Angr 16:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Angr. I checked Webster online and found:

"Main Entry: stan·dard·ise

British variant of STANDARDIZE"

Also Wikipedia uses both spellings probably depending on the origin of the author.

My Cassells was published in London in 1978, probably too old. I'll consider the s-form as a variation sometimes used in Great Britain. In all other cases it's a mistake. The standard version is only z. Germans writing English tend to take the s-form as a carry-over from their native language. I mark it wrong. There's only one source for acceptable spelling and that's a dictionary. I know linguists at least in Germany like to report trends in a language instead of tackling the real problems.

By the way, thanks for your tip. International characters are at least discernible on my screen even though I don't understand them yet. Also Jan Hofer (ARD) must have gotten wind of my contribution to German Phonology. His pronunciation of the plural of "Stadt" in German conformed for the first time ("Tagesschau" on Thursday Dec.28th) to the accepted standard pronunciation "Städte". If he sticks to the standard I'll revise my contribution. Cakeandicecream 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cakeandicecream. The chances are not slim that the s-form is used throughout the Commonwealth of Nations. I agree that there is only one source for acceptable spelling and that's a dictionary; a dictionary of Australian English, Belizean English, British English, Hong Kong English, Indian English, Indonesian English, Irish English, Jamaican English, Canadian English, Caribbean English, Malaysian English, New Zeeland English, Philippine English, Singapore English, South African English, Trinidad and Tobago English, United States English, Zimbabwean English, etc. But lacking most of these sources I have just been sloppy and checked out the spelling using the spell checker in my word processor. Of all the examples listed above only "English (USA)" marks "standardise" as incorrect. That's reason enough for me to invalidate your assertive "In all other cases it's a mistake". --Feetonthedesk 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As a native Canadian, I can assure everyone that the -ise/-isation spelling is perfectly acceptable (I use it myself), though the -ize/-ization spelling is used by most. Thomeier 14:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The substitution of "standardise" by "standardize" in US-English is due to the Spanish influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.64.19 (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseless speculation. It's a long-established feature of English orthography based in the Latin and Greek origins of the words that was crystallised/crystallized in American usage by the influential dictionary of Noah Webster, just like many of the other differences between US and UK orthography. Webster's primary aim was a move towards a more phonetically regular orthography - Spanish had nothing to do with it; indeed there were very few Spanish speakers in the United States at the relevant period, especially in positions that would have seen influence in publication. Our article here and this link from AskOxford give sound introductions, easily-readable details can be found in Hargraves 2003. Knepflerle (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC).

Absurd, really: a heated discussion about English spelling on a page supposedly concerned with the quality of an article on German - and yet, @Knepfler: Webster?? - My good old Consise Oxford Dictionary from OUP, Oxford 1950, gives only (!) standardize', crystallize', organize &c.&c Marschner (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is (or iz??) really getting a bit absurd. Before it gets completely out of hand: Do not bother to correct each other's spelling on this issue! The two forms are variants, both perfectly acceptable. US publishers more or less uniformly use the -ize form, whilst in Britain, publishers apply one or the other. As far as I know, even Cambridge UP and Oxford UP don't have the same standard. So, who would like to seize this opportunity and discuss a topic concerning the German language? :-) Trigaranus (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and? There is no contradiction with anything I wrote. The spelling was widely popularised by Webster in the early 1800's but was extant before. The Oxford English Dictionary picked it as their standard spelling much later on etymological and phonetic grounds: "[...] some have used the spelling -ise in English, as in French [...] But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek -izein, Latin -izare; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. In this Dictionary the termination is uniformly written -ize."

Although it is unusual to go into detail like this on the German language talk page, it is not unusual anywhere to correct false and misleading statements such as the one I responded to above, so that our readers are not disinformed. Knepflerle (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

15 million speaker gap.

This huge gap of 15 million native speakers has got to go. It's simply too big. Someone needs to get respectable references on the number of speakers.Rex 21:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you count the 10 million in the USA and the 3 million in Canada, which are not officially registered, then your alleged gap is quasi stuffed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.51.222 (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

10 million native speakers in the US? No chance - see here: [2] - there's no more than 2 million speakers of any decent proficiency, and I would bet most are second-language speakers. Either the US Census is very wrong or the 10 million native speakers in the US must be unusually forgetful of their mother-tongue! The claim that 10% of Canada speaks German is likely equally off-beam. Knepflerle (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

These 10 million in the US can speak German even because they are not forgetful of their mother-tongue. And they represent only 15 % of the Americans with German ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.124.46 (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood the above. The census says there are <2m speakers of German in the US. The native speakers are a proper subset of these, and therefore number <2m themselves. The 10m figure is entirely unsupported by any evidence. Knepflerle (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Never heard anything about bilingual speakers? Your census includes only a small fraction of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.88.31 (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Mr. IP Address, but are you possibly a troll?

I mean, if you count another 20 million speakers in Brasil, 5 million in Australia and 1 million in Namibia and 2 billion in Russia, my God, where will that take you? Why do we even bother writing an English Wikipedia? Unoffensive text or character (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Offensive! I don’t think that your aberrations are useful for a constructive discussion. Oscillating from one extreme to the other doesn’t make you more credible. And if you have no arguments then let it be for the sake of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.110.251 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being offensive. Got carried away.Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Read texts

Does anybody know a wiki-based site where English-German texts (copyright free) are read, both in German and in English, as mp3-files for example? If not: Is there anybody interested in to found such a site? Contact directly via delabarquera@aol.com - "Wikipedia-fellow" Germany: Delabarquera --172.158.188.44 14:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you find something on 'gutenberg' [3]. Grimms' fairy tales? (I hope there will be more audio files some day.)84.178.116.95 21:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Another postman image

Could we please stop adding inaccurate images (R9tgokunks?) created by the postmann dude. He wasn't banned on the German wiki for nothing you know.Rex 18:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a better image? The image you deleted should be complemented with its exact source and with a comment explaining that it shows other Germanic languages, like Dutch, too. A version acceptable to be shown here would not have Netherlands and Flemish region in grey. LHOON 22:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need another image? I don't mind AT ALL if people want to insert an image which shows former German speaking areas in Eastern Europe, but I simply can't tolerate it that separate languages are included as German. These images, created by Micheal Postmann, are all controversial. Apparantly, the positioning of German in Eastern Europe isn't even correct either. If someone wants to insert a similar image, they have to make sure it's sourced and accurate. Rex 22:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is that Postmann guy, anyway? LHOON 11:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I heard he was a wikipedian from the German wikipedia who made a lot of these maps, (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Postmann_Michael) and was banned for"(POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus." (POV based on untrustworthy sources, revisionism concerning National Socialism) ... I strongly support we remove all his maps from commons and this wikipedia.Rex 14:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello/Hallo

The German word for "hello" is "Hallo" and NOT literally "Guten Morgen/Guten Tag/Guten Abend". (Same statement in German: Das deutsche Wort für "hello" ist "Hallo" und ist NICHT identisch mit "Guten Morgen/Guten Tag/Guten Abend") --84.174.219.137 04:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're making the literal translation error. You have to look for equivalent use. Germans mostly say Guten Morgen/Tag/Abend when greeting someone, and native English speakers in those same circumstances will usually say hi or hello. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is, German has a formality difference here that English doesn't have. Yes, in German you say "Guten Tag" or "Guten Abend" when greeting someone, but usually only to someone you don't know well (someone you'd call Sie). Saying it to a friend or acquaintance sounds silly, or at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek; to people you'd call du you're far more likely to say "Hallo" or "Grüß dich" or even just "Hi". (This applies to the northern half of Germany. In the south and Austria there are greetings like "Grüß Gott" and "Servus", but I don't have a feel for how formal or informal they are.) —Angr 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

People use Guten Morgen/Tag/Abend formally and informally, and Grüß dich/Grüß Gott informally too of course, but "Hallo" is not used as much, at least not in my experience. Perhaps it does depend where you live. My point was only that "Hallo" is not used in Germany in the same way or with the same frequency "hello/hi" are used in English. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)::

That's definitely wrong. "Hallo" is used in the same way as "hello" in English and has nothing to do with "Du" or "Sie". --84.174.225.31 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [4]

"Definitely" is not a word that should be used in case of a tongue spoken by millions in dozens of dialects, I think.--Sodala 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not "definetly" but today very common, even when you enter a shop - i think the informal character got lost pretty much today. So you can use it like "hello" in english213.44.105.208 (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I cannot really say that Guten Tag/Abend/Morgen are very common here. Most common really seems to be hallo here in this area -- which is Hannover/Brunswick, Lower Saxony. Guten Tag/Abend/Morgen exist, but especially younger people use them rarely. But you might hear e.g. n'abend or just morgen. I'd say I for example never say Guten Tag/..., I'd say even my parents never do. Under friends or people knowing each other na/moin/hey/hi are also pretty common, grüß dich maybe too.

I agree with Angr. Combine the circumstantial with the formal/social distinctions, and a one-word translation seems problematic. Hallo is commonly used, but of course not precisely the same way hello is used in English. One example of hallo is when calling someone from afar or trying to get someone's attention - but it can be the equivalent of the English hello when used in an informal greeting too. Saying "Hallo, Thomas." is perfectly common - saying "Hallo, Frau Sowienoch." is not quite as common as a greeting, but might be used, as mentioned above, also when trying to get the attention of someone you siez.

Guten Tag etc. is commonly used, but not in the exact same way hello gets used in English either. In addition to the ones mentioned by Angr, alternative formal greetings include regional variants such as saying Mahlzeit around noon (even if you already had lunch), Tag (not very polite, but it's used in formal situations too), or Grüezi/Grüessech in Switzerland, There are plenty of other informal greeting words, local and social varieties including hei, hoi, moin moin, hallihallo, Tagchen, hallöchen, schalömchen, na du, was läuft, ciao, salut etc. Should hallo be added to the box, should the usage be specified, should that entry be removed because it's too ambiguous, or what are the suggestions? ---Sluzzelin 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Schalömchen"???? Oh dear oh dear... —Angr 08:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it about time to say Auf Wiedersehen, Tschüss, Tschö, Pfüati, Pfüa Gott, Ade, Adschee or even Tschö mit ö to this discussion?Unoffensive text or character 09:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Angr. "Guten Tag/Guten Abend" is used mostly at an entrance when visting (especially when several people are present or you don't know the person good) or you don't know the people/the person in question. "Hallo" is much more informal; younger people often prefer the shorter "hi". "Hallo" has apart from that a very specific use: If you want to indicate your presence if noone can be seen yet (For example if your neighbour has left his door ajar <knock on door frame> Hallo ? Hallo ?!) or if you hear some noise and ask if someone is present ("Hallo ? Jemand hier ?"/"Hello ? Anybody out there ?" ). --136.172.253.189 09:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Austria - In Austria the use of the phrases 'Guten Tag, Guten Abend, etc.' are very little in use and sound very German-German, but 'Hallo' is used very often - of course only with people you adress in informal way. --El bes 22:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As an addition to what Angr said: in Franconia (what anybody besides Bavarians would call "southern Germany") "Grüß Gott" is only used in a quite formal way, like greeting someone significantly older than yourself. If younger people are greeting themselves with "Grüß Gott", they want to make fun of themselves or older ones. "Servus" is simultaneously used as "Hello" (also often "Hi", "Hey") and "Bye" (98% "Ciao"). "Guten Tag" is some sort of "stiff upper lip" greeting in my area and nobody says "Guten Morgen" besides meaning "why the hell is nobody greeting? I'll make a point", in every other situation one would use a short form like "Morgn", "Murgn", "Murche" etc. 'nuff babbling :o) --Sodala 22:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Infobox

I strongly agree with Angr that the infobox should not be overloaded with too much information. Its purpose is to give a general idea, detailed information should be found in the article itself. As Germans have been emigrating for centuries, it is not surprising that traces of German settlements can be found in almost all countries of the western hemisphere. It is fruitless to name them all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unoffensive text or character (talk • contribs) 09:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

best

Of course it's true that best doesn't occur as an adjectival surface form in German, but it is the lemma form cited in the dictionary, and it occurs as a neuter noun. On the other hand, perhaps besser would be better. --Pfold 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Which dictionary is that? I've never seen a German dictionary that listed best as a German lemma. Duden lists it as best... with the ellipsis indicating the missing ending, while Wahrig lists it as beste. —Angr 20:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest they had the bare form (though actually Langenscheidt does, with a cross ref), but that they don't include an ending - my 1968 Wahrig has best..., Collins has best-, which seems to me the appropriate way to give a bare morpheme, as we do with -heit. --Pfold 11:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

"Best" is standing alone not a german word. You can only use it as part of a longer word, i.E. "bestmöglich". But alone it's "Der/Die/Das Beste" (The Best).--84.142.128.75 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

German or English as the standard language in the USA

There is a legend popular in Germany that the official language in the USA was dependent on one vote somewhere. This is a pure legend known as the "Muehlenberg-Legende" and can be looked up in the German Wikipedia or under http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/zwiebelfisch/0,1518,295157,00.html where an English version is also available.

The rumor started about 1840 from a book by Franz Lohers published in 1847 called "History and Achievements of the Germans in America". At the beginning of the 19th century the number of immigrants from Germany was actually less that popularly assumed. In 1830 there were less that 33% in Pennsylvania and less than 10% nationwide.

USA had never had a vote to determine the official language niether nationally nor in a state. The legend is based on a petition to the House of Representatives from Jan. 9th 1794 by immigrants living in Virginia requesting that the laws should also be published in German. The responsible committee turned it down with a vote of 42 to 41. The speaker of the House was Mr. Muehlenberg. His comment afterwards were that the sooner the Germans become Americans the better.

Cakeandicecream 15:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard this story, the Muhlenberg legend, countless times from old and young, well and poorly educated people. I have made the experience that with most people you better just let it pass. They will never believe that a story we Germans have been cherishing for two centuries is false.Unoffensive text or character 15:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vielen Dank Unoffensive. Zu spät hab ich es in der deutschen Ausgabe nachgeschlagen. Meinen ursprünglichen Beitrag habe ich dann entsprechend angepaßt.Cakeandicecream 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact is that the German language and German publications have been suppressed in the United States during the whole first half of the 20-th century. This was, beside other aspects, a manifestation of the rivalry between two related languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.51.222 (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Until WWI, English and German were co-official languages in Pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.74.229 (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

German of Luxembourg and Liechtenstein

Do Luxembourg and Liechtenstein have their own dialects of German? This needs to be addressed in the article. Gringo300 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Luxemburgish was traditionally considered a dialect of German. Only recently it has gained the status of an official language, so that now, similar to Dutch, the local dialects are part of the Germanic dialect continuum but they are no longer regarded as dialects of the German language. Furthermore, on the German side the use of local dialects has decreased dramatically, so that there is now evolving a sharp linguistic boundary between Germany and Luxembourg.

The Liechtenstein dialect is an Alemannic dialect that is very similar to the dialects of eastern Switzerland and of Vorarlberg in Austria. Both in Switzerland and Liechtenstein (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, in Vorarlberg), all generations use the local dialect as the only means of everyday communication, but there is no independent Liechtenstein variety of German.Unoffensive text or character 10:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

rf. Swiss GermanUnoffensive text or character 10:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe unlike Luxemburgish, the closely related Transilvanian Saxon ("Såksësch") is but a German dialect, i.e. "in the eyes of its speakers" who had felt German for about one thousand years living in their far-off land (now Romania). Though Såksësch being almost unintelligible for speakers of High German, I once listened to my wife's conversation to a Luxemburg-born Italian both talking in their own dialect respectively - without greater difficulties of understanding each other, albeit there are different accents (influenced by French and Romanian/Hungarian resp.) and loan words. The difference of a language and a dialect depends on what their speakers want it to be - and whether or not they are able to defend their decision! Do the speakers of Letzëbergisch possess "an army and a navy"? ;-) Wayasu (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Luxemburgish has gained the status of an official language in Luxembourg doesn't change its linguistic proprieties as a German dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.52.218 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

Can someone tell me the 'undisputed' no. of total speakers of German and French? Which of them have more speakers? Please quote the number in numericals. Maharashtraexpress 15:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the number of people using it as a first language?

I'm afraid there is no undisputed number. Currently, there are some 80 million people living in Germany. But how many of them have German as their first language? Only the Germans (some 75 million, I believe)? All Germans? What about the millions of dialect speakers? In Switzerland it's even harder to decide: some 5 million Swiss are usually counted as speakers of German, but their first language usually is a dialect that is quite different from Standard German. Then there are millions of Germans all over the world, many of them have been living oversees for generations. Who can count them? Who can even estimate them? Who knows anything definite about their first language (English, Spanish, Portugese, German or some exotic dialect of German?). Unoffensive text or character 07:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot 8 million Austrians. And the official version of German in Switzerland is indeed Standard German, which is also reflected in that it is used as the written form of "Swiss German". (There is very few written Swiss German.) Standard German is also used in school instead of Swiss German. If you took dialects into account, then this would leave only a few million speakers of Standard German, since most Germans speak a dialect of some kind, many of those as far from Standard German as Swiss German. (Swabian, Bavarian and Low German come to mind, although the latter is officially classified as "regional language") (And the number of dialect speakers is decreasing, thanks to mass media. </sarcasm>) And what about Luxembourg and Belgium, where German is one of the official languages and spoken as first language by a part of the population. --megA 21:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My point was simply that there is no way of counting or even seriously estimating the number of speakers worldwide for two reasons: i) A significant (yet unknown) percentage of "German" speakers worldwide are not fluent in standard German. ii) There is no way of even estimating the number of first, second, third or whatever generation emigrants worldwide who still have some German.Unoffensive text or character (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but someone from Northern Germany can hardly understand someone from Switzerland even if they both try to talk Standard German. --84.63.93.100 12:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, 84, but that is nonsense. You are confusing dialects (which can be mutually unintelligible across Germany) with accents. If they both speak Standard German, even with regional accents, they can by let's say 95% understand each other (even if they might sound funny to each other). -- megA 19:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The population of France is 62 million. 93 % of them have French as their first language; thus 57,7 million are French speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.53.27 (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So an immigrant who learned French as second language does not speak French? -- megA (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He speaks it as a second language, exactly like the immigrants in England or Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.56.111 (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So he is a French speaker, too. Thank you for clarifying, 84.163... That makes 62 million speakers. -- megA (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Then in Germany are 82 million German speakers, and not 75 million as mentioned above.

Yes. (You can sign your comment by adding four tildes: ~~~~ after it.) -- megA (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Toilette

In one of the tables the translation of "Where is the bathroom?" is given as "Wo ist der Toilette," which means where is the toilet. While getting the point across, a toilet and a bathroom aren't quite the same thing. The more appropriate translation should be "Wo ist der Badezimmer?" Badezimmer, of course, meaning bathroom. 67.142.130.18 05:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't Americans mean toilet when they say bathroom? Why would anybody be asking for the real bathroom in a restaurant or on board a plane? Unoffensive text or character 07:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(after e.c.) "Wo ist das Badezimmer?" (or "Wo ist das Bad?") would be asked when looking for the room with bath/shower facilities, in your hotel room, while looking at a new apartment, when studying blueprints of a house etc. It would only very rarely mean, Where is the bathroom? in the sense of Where is the can? While most English speakers prefer euphemisms and wouldn't be so crudely specific to actually name the toilet in their question, it's very common practice in German to ask Wo ist die Toilette? (alternatively: das Klo or das WC) when looking for a room with a toilet. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, "toilet" is an euphemism itself, and originally referred to the process of washing and dressing. Femto 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Toilette (french) is mostly being used to ask for the lavatory (that is what this discussion is about, right?), but it can also mean the place to put makeup on or clean your hands (Room that has a mirror and a sink). People often add to the question the sentence that they are NOT looking for the lavatory, if they are looking for the place zum "frischmachen" (basic cleaning, makeup). Badezimmer = Bathroom is used the same way as Toilette but its a German word and not a "foreign" one, which was "germanized" and causes headaches to average people, because foreign words are often misspelled, since they don't follow German pronunciation and spelling rules(Toilette would be spelled "Tolette" if it were a German word). WC (water-closet) is french again and straight forward. If you ask for the WC, 99.9% chance that the person is looking for the lavatory. "Klo" is short for "Klosett" (and french again) and is vulgar language, slang. Men might also ask for the "pissoir" (french) which is also straight forward. It's more used in an attempt to be funny by pretending to be "high class". I am not a language professor, but my bet is that it must have been used commonly in aristocratic circles in the past. I was born in Berlin (Prussian so to speak). There are probably a lot more ways to ask for the "stille Örtchen" (a descriptive phrase being used for the same thing) depending on the area and the form of German spoken there. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

roy wrote: Badezimmer = Bathroom is used the same way as Toilette but its a German word and not a "foreign" one. I have never heard the word Badezimmer used to mean "WC", but then of course there are dozens of ways to refer to the "stilles Örtchen" and there may be social milieus that say "Badezimmer" when they mean WC. But I am pretty sure it is not in common use. Unoffensive text or character 12:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Often used slang words for Toilette are 'Scheisshaus' or Donnerbalken (Thunderbar). Marian (194.114.62.66 11:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

The toilette room is different than the bathroom in many cases in german. In any case, in german it is much more common than in english to say what you mean.

"Toilette" in German never means Bathroom (brit. Engl.). Only North Americans seem to be fussy about the word "toilet" and use "washroom", "restroom", "bathroom" etc. instead. "Klo" (loo) is, like in Brit. English, colloquial, but definitely not vulgar. Anonym 23 July 2007

Well, if anybody who is invited in a German house would ask "wo ist das Badezimmer?", he would earn a fuzzy look, just if one had asked for the bedroom. In many German households bed- and bathroom are no-nos for guests (who stay for no longer than a day - or just the night :o) hihi). They may only be entered with the expressis verbis permission of its owner, like when getting a tour through the house. For some Germans getting a glimpse into a unknown bedroom is the same as surprising someone fairly known who is putting his pants on. --Sodala 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, I am a native german and I think, that you are putting way to much interpretation in the sentence "Where is the bathroom?". I CAN say "Where is the bathroom" in order to use the toilet OR use the bathroom itself, e.g. when a shower or mirror or sink is needed. When you say that sentence, whilst being a guest in a typical german household, nobody will look fuzzy or will say anything. They will think that you have to use the toilet or have to use the sink. No more no less. Alternatively you can say that you have to use the toilet. That is a bit more tricky. When you are somewhere noble or high class, you might not say that you are going to take a piss or a shit, which is exactly what "i have to use the toilet" implicates. But in most homes and in most situations it's totally fine and often used.

So: The version where you are never wrong and never misunderstood: "I have to go to the bathroom", or the alternative "I have to go to the restroom". Besides: Very few people really say that. They actually say: "Wo, bitte, ist das Badezimmer?", or "Entschuldigung, aber wo ist die Toilette?", or in english: "I'm sorry, but where is the bathroom?" or "Please excuse me, but where can I find the toilette?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.53.201.63 (talk) 20:16:18, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in Austria, the toilet and the bathroom are in most of the cases two separate rooms (only in homes of course - not in restaurants), so if you want to go to the toilet, you will not ask for the lavatory, because near the toilet is often a sink so that you don't have to change the room to wash your hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.119.44.47 (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoken in Iceland

Why is Iceland listed for 'countries spoken in'? --66.41.102.194 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For many languages, the "spoken in" section of the language info box does simply make no sense. Languages like English, German, Chinese or Italian (to name a few) are spoken all over the world in countless places and by countless groups of immigrants. As in probably every other country in the world, there certainly is a German community in Iceland. But I think we should limit the countries named in the "spoken in" section to those where at least some clearly defined areas or regions are German speaking.Unoffensive text or character 10:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

antiquated Town Names

A lot of old german names of towns out of Germany are not longer used in the common german language. Never hear or read Ofen and Agram instead of Buda and Zagreb. A lot of german have to take a look in a lexica when you talking about Pressburg and Laibach. I think it's better to mark this names as outdated. Marian (194.114.62.66 11:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

I don't think so. Many foreign towns and cities have names translated into German. Although nobody says "Leberteich" for Liverpool, especially many eastern Europe cities are pronounced in German. One reason surely is that the German names are easier to pronounce for Germans (just like "Laibach" instead of "Lijbliana", not even thinking of the Polish names of "Warschau" or "Breslau"). I personally have met Czechs learning German in school who are using the German names of Czech towns themselves when speaking German. No German would say "Praha" for "Prag" or "Budapeeschd" for "Budapest". Interestingly, in my 1938 Brockhaus dicitonary no "New York" or "New Orleans" can be found - only "Neu York" and "Neu Orleans". --Sodala 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I use to say Ljubljana and Bratislava, actually I have never heard the German names. It is possible that in some areas they are still used (I don't know), but a lot of Germans probably wouldn't understand them. Mondschein 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Many 'traditional' german townnames are still in use, but not all. The examples Breslau, Warschau, Prag are absolut commmon in the actual german language but Angram, Ofen, Laibach & Pressburg not. 1938 Brockhaus dicitonary : Maybe you can also read in this edition that germans are superman and other national socialist nonsens ;) Marian 13:08, 7 Sep 2007 (UTC)

Many names of even rather small places have been translated into German and many of these are still used. From what I am used to, German names for East European and Benelux cities will be regularly used (Moskau, Warschau, Breslau, Königsberg, Athen, Brüssel, Den Haag, Straßburg, Antwerpen) while English-language cities usually retain their original names (Liverpool, Manchester, New York not Neu York). As a rough guideline, regions and cities which once were under strong German cultural and/or political influence are still called by their German names, as are places which are common German tourist destinations (e.g. in Spain or Italy). And that means a lot of places... Ewok1 00:25, 16 Februar 2008 (CET)

Some of the German names have definitely fallen out of use (e.g. Ofen or most of the names for smaller, lesser known towns in Eastern Europe), others are obsolescent (Reval, Wilna); then there are a few names which may or may not fall out of use (Pressburg and Laibach can occasionally be found in the press or on TV news); and lastly, there are many names whose non-German equivalent is unknown to most Germans (Bukarest, Moskau, Warschau, Breslau, Königsberg, Prag etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unoffensive text or character (talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Autmomat a german word ?

Autmoat isn't a real native german word. In the Year 1917 Josef Čapek used in his story "Opilec" at the first time the word 'Automat'. Capek was a Czech and he used two old greek words in 'Automat' (Auto..~self & ..mat ~ animate).

I also doubt that it is a German word...--84.142.128.75 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if its a german word, but i read ETA Hofmann "Der Sandman" from 1817 in german and i found the word "automat" several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.67.253 (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Syntax

The third paragraph contains the example: "Should he move into the house that he just had renovated?". My source (A Practical English Grammar, Third edition, Sixth impression [October 1983], ISBN 0 19 431336 0) states that the present perfect tense is used with just to express a recently completed action. It does emphasize, however, that this is a special idiomatic use of the present perfect and I am loath to insert "has" without first acquiring consensus about the rule's global validity. Feetonthedesk 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this sentence is wrong the way it is. The form "someone (just) had something done" implies that they hired someone to do something for them. In this case it seems like a perfectly acceptable assumption to make. If you do change it to "has", I would suggest you swap positions with "just" because it would flow better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually thinking about it more, even in the first case the adverb placement is problematic. The adverb needs to come after the helping verb. A better version might be "that he had just had renovated." or just without the second "had". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

^Please excuse me that I as a german with rather poor knowledge of English interfere in this debate. But as far as I see the english sentence " Should he move into the house that he just has had renovated ? " has been translated correctly. User " Feetonthedesk " didn't cite the phrase correctly omitting the " has " that changes the meaning of the sentence. His version would mean that someone had renovated a house by himself, that this renovation is now finished and that he asks himself whether to move into this newly renovated house. In german : " Soll er in das Haus einziehen, das er gerade renoviert hatte ( not " hat" ) ? ". Meanwhile the original sentence means that someone had ordered another one to renovate a house that this renovation is finished now and that he asks himself whether to move into that house another one has just renovated. In german : " Soll er in das Haus einziehen, das er gerade hat renovieren lassen ? ". I think the whole confusion is growing out of the meaning of " He has done s.th " as " Er lässt etwas machen " and " He has had done sth. " as " Er hat etwas machen lassen ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.235.173 (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Missleading map

I relly can't understand why the entire European union is colored. Yes, there are many who speak German as a second language in some of the European countries (The Netherlands, Denmark, Slovenia, Sweden) but absolutly not in all of them. Moreover, a country with non native speakers is usually not coloured (if the language is not an official or ex-official language). Take a look at the maps of the English and the French language. If the same rules for coloration were used for English the whole world would be coloured!

The map should definitively be changed. Aaker 18:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If I am reading the legend right, the image indicates that German is an official language of the EU. I think the colors should be changed at the very least to make it easier to read, especially since many people can't tell the difference between shades of orange. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Irish is also an official language of the EU, should the entire union be coloured at the article about the Irish language as well? It would be quite missleading IMO. Aaker 20:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The map for "Knowledge of German in the European Union and candidate countries" on [5] and on [6] show Switzerland as having no German speakers when in fact German is one of three official languages of Switzerland (including French and Italian). And, out of these 3 natively spoken languages, German is by far the largest.

Also, I agree the shades of orange/red, need to be changed so that it is clearer as to which percentages go to which country.

German is still the fastest growing web language (but will be eventually passed up by Chinese), and is the the #1 foreign language in Eastern Europe, so this map is on the conservative side to the actual number of German speakers in Eastern Europe, which is a lot higher. 63.24.98.39 06:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It ist really quite obvious that the map only covers EU countries. Switzerland, as you may know, is not a part of the EU. - Chincoteague 06:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As am easterm European I can tell you that English is just as popular as German amongst the older generation and way more popular than German amongst the younger population. Many people do not like the German language becuase of the stigma that is attached to it.

Vot Stigma?? --megA 21:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

take a history book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.224.50 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another German stigma is that they don't understand irony... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.103.215 (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here we should speak about languages and not about politics. I come also from Eastern Europe and the English knowledges of the older generation are very low. Their standard foreign language was and is German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.53.58 (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cognates: antworten

This entry states that "-wort" = "word" and that therefore the second syllable is not cognate with English. Is there an etymological source for Antwort/antworten? It seems to me quite likely that the form -wort might be the product of false etymology (in other words, nothing to do with Wort at all, but rather an+twort). It is suspiciously similar to Swedish "svar" (verb: "svara", and "ansvara" = take responsibility for) which has nothing to do with Swedish "ord". Furthermore, Köbler's etymological dictionary (http://www.koeblergerhard.de/derwbhin.html) gives "wort" as the MHG and OHG forms of "Wort", while "Antwort" had "antwurt/antwürte" and "antwurti" respectively. The false etymology theory might also explain why it is "die Antwort" despite "das Wort". Though, as everyone knows, etymology is the science in which the consonants don't count for much and the vowels for nothing at all :-) --Dub8lad1 15:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense... the old english version of answer is "andswaru", which is pretty close to ansvara and antwurti. As for the die/das thing, might be something, but unfortunately sometimes things change in a language "just because". If you are right, I think antwort might be the only case where wort doesn't equate to word in english--Shadowdrak 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Köbler, Gerhard, Deutsches Ethymologisches Lexikon, http://www.koeblergerhard.de/derwbhin.html

Antwort, F., »Antwort«, mhd. antwürte, antwurt, N., F., »Antwort, Rechenschaft«, ahd. antwurti (765), N., »Antwort, Verheißung, Orakel«, germ. *andawurdja, *andawurdjam, N., »Antwort, Widerwort«, s. Wort, ent

ent, Präf., >weg‹, mhd. ent, Präf., >ent‹, ahd. int, Präf., >ent‹, as. ant, Präf., >ent‹, germ. *anda, Präp., Präf., >entgegen, gegenüber, weg, ent‹, zu idg. *ant-, *hant-, Sb., >Vorderseite, Stirn‹

>away from<,>against, in opposition, in front of, away<,>forefront, forehead<

So this encyclopedia says that Ant wort is a combination of "ent~ant~anda", "against, in opposition, opposite to" and wort=word

wort is familiar with word, wurda, wurdam. Wurti seems to be absolutly familiar with those.

Another source is: Deutsches Wörterbuch, Wilhelm Grimm, Jakob Grimm http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projects/WBB/woerterbuecher/dwb/wbgui?lemmode=lemmasearch&mode=hierarchy&textsize=600&onlist=&word=ant&lemid=GA05042&query_start=1&totalhits=0&textword=&locpattern=&textpattern=&lemmapattern=&verspattern=#GA05042L0 says that Antwort is familiar with ancient nordic: andsvara ancient gothic. andsvarian engl. answer ancient nordic bloszes svara (sverja schwören swear are familiar but seperated) andhafjan, arise against the speach, against the question

Many sources show that the article switched often between "das" and "die". In MHG "das" was more common. Luther also used "das Antwort" Later changed to "die Antwort"

ant is familiar with ent, en, anda Greek anti Sanscrit ati, adhi in opposition, against

Disapeard from german language, changed from "anda, ant" to "ent, en, in, im" remains only in Ant wort and Ant litz

responsibility is Ver ant wortung. Has something to do with having a word or a speach in front or in opposition to those to whom responsibility is necesary.

also in other languages, latin respondere=answer -> responsibility

Conclusion: Antwort comes from Ant Wort, and not from an twort, wich does not exist.

antwort is cognate with answer

the article changed from das to die

the etymology is not false

--Stöberer 14:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wanderlust

Is 'wanderlust' actually a borrowing? The word makes sense in English as well -- to wander, and lust. Antman -- chat 02:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually a borrowing, according to the OED ("a[dopted from] Ger[man]", first citation 1902). It can be pronounced with a [v] and written with a capital letter as in German. Lust generally has a stronger sense in English (OED: "Lawless and passionate desire of or for some object"), and English does not seem to form compounds of the form [verb + lust]: eatlust ? kill-lust ? CapnPrep 09:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course. If you'll excuse me, I have a little bit of eatlust, so I'm gonna get something to eat. Antman -- chat 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Continual POV-pushing of incorrect maps marking Dutch as German.

Hopefully this is the last time I replace a map which somehow want to create the illusion that the Dutch language (and Frisian for that matter) was somehow German untill the First World War. I carefully advise people to make a very clear distinction between the Continental West-Germanic dialect continuum and the German language ."Continental", "West-" and "-ic" have a reason you know. Dutch isn't German, it never was, and will never will be a part of German. Thank you very much. Rex 14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's not part of German, just like American English and British English aren't the same language. You seem to be hell-bent on making sure that no one thinks that Dutch and German have no relation whatsoever, based on what you've said in the past ("Dutch and German are not related", etc)... another instance is that instead of doing what I've suggested on numerous occasions (Replacing "German" with "West Germanic" in the map, omg!), you insist on removing any suggestion that there might be ANY relation between the two languages, and removed the Dutch portion entirely. Even wiped clean the area of the Netherlands that speaks Low Saxon, which is Low German. Antman -- chat 03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

just ignore him! Who cares about Dutch anyway?

The funny thing is that he does not quote any sources. Dutch clearly belonged to the dialects labeled as tiudisc - which later became Deutsch, as the English name of these dialects language still shows. He confuses Standard High German with German. -- Zz 12:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Rex is right about one thing, English has confusing terms while Dutch has a clear distinction, Nedersaksisch, Nederfrankisch, between families of languages and the modern-day language. It's clear that the English term Dutch still causes confusion to many people, now I'm speaking of my experience though.

I quote an etymology dictionary:

c.1380, used first of Germans generally, after c.1600 of Hollanders, from M.Du. duutsch, from O.H.G. duit-isc, corresponding to O.E. þeodisc "belonging to the people," used especially of the common language of Germanic people, from þeod "people, race, nation," from P.Gmc. *theudo "popular, national" (see Teutonic), from PIE base *teuta- "people" (cf. O.Ir. tuoth "people," O.Lith. tauta "people," O.Prus. tauto "country," Oscan touto "community"). As a language name, first recorded as L. theodice, 786 C.E. in correspondence between Charlemagne's court and the Pope, in reference to a synodical conference in Mercia; thus it refers to Old English. First reference to the German language (as opposed to a Germanic one) is two years later. The sense was extended from the language to the people who spoke it (in Ger., Diutisklant, ancestor of Deutschland, was in use by 13c.). Sense narrowed to "of the Netherlands" in 17c., after they became a united, independent state and the focus of English attention and rivalry. In Holland, duitsch is used of the people of Germany. The M.E. sense survives in Pennsylvania Dutch, who immigrated from the Rhineland and Switzerland. Since 1608, Dutch (adj.) has been a "pejorative label pinned by English speakers on almost anything they regard as inferior, irregular, or contrary to 'normal' (i.e., their own) practice" [Rawson]. E.g. Dutch treat (1887), Dutch uncle (1838), etc. -- probably exceeded in such usage only by Indian and Irish -- reflecting first British commercial and military rivalry and later heavy Ger. immigration to U.S.

So if you really are having difficulties on this issue, just mention this etym. and all will be well. That's the best we can do on Wikipedia to clearify this issue, no? Mallerd 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

German Einstein translation needed

To use in the Hermann von Helmholtz article, could you translate this for me:

”Ich bewundere den originellen, freien Kopf Helmh[oltz].”

-Albert Einstein, August 1899

Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 18:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved here. --Sadi Carnot 16:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

The article states that The history of the language begins with the High German consonant shift during the Migration period, separating South Germanic dialects from common West Germanic.

This blatantly ignores that Low German is German, too. Compare the slightly, but distinctively different wording in History of German. Interestingly, a reference to German as the perceived language of the (ordinary) people - "tiudisc" - is not included in the article. Additionally, South Germanic is hardly a commonly used term.

Further, it is interesting to see that Low German is not spoken in the Netherlands, as implied by a certain gentleman, since he excludes it from the maps. He seems to believe that the language changes from Low German to Low Saxon when crossing the Dutch border and that Low German and Low Saxon are two different languages. -- Zz 12:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Germany and French in Alsace and Lorraine

The process of replacement of the local dialects by standard French did by no means start in 1639. More than 90% of the local population spoke dialects of German until at least the 1950s. Before the 1950s most non-bourgeois Alsatians would have had only a very elementary knowledge of French. The middle classes, which made up only a small percentage of the total population, were usually able to read and speak French, though they did not normally use it as an everyday language either. What happened in the 1950s was that Alsatians increasingly decided to identify with France and - for obvious reasons - to reject everything German. The influence of modern mass communication may have accelerated this process, as it did in other parts of France. Unoffensive text or character 16:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's very interesting but would require some sources to be incorporated into the article. I had always "heard" that the process pre-dated the end a of the 2nd world war by a long shot. I don't have any sources either and may be wrong. 193.132.242.1 14:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I will not put it in for the reason you have named: I have no valid sources. But for a brief overview, have a look at this: Since the annexation of Alsace by France in the 17th century and the language policy of the French Revolution up to 1870, knowledge of French in Alsace increased considerably. With the education reforms of the 19th century, the middle classes began to speak and write French well. The French language never really managed, however, to win over the masses, the vast majority of whom continued to speak their German dialects and write in German (which we would now call "standard German").

If during the 19th century, "the middle classes began to speak and write French well", that means that prior to the 19th century, not even the middle classes spoke or wrote French well.

And keep in mind that when the text says "annexation of Alsace by France in the 17th century", this is an oversimplification, as France only gained control over a small part of Alsace in the Peace of Westphalia. The rest of the country was occupied town by town, village by village in a process that took about 150 years. Unoffensive text or character 15:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In your discussions you have forgotten that, between 1871 and 1918, Alsace and Lorraine were part of Germany and the official language was German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.83.232 (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cognates with English"

Is it just me or are there two lists containing exactly the same information in "Cognates with English"? I don't dare to edit this part, maybe I overlooked differences. Can somebody familiar with this article please read the mentioned part of the article? Regards 89.245.91.43 11:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"one of the world's major languages"

What's a "world's major language" anyways? And with what neutral criteria is German one of them? Miskin 11:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Er... you're serious? Unless the definition of major has changed, it should be pretty obvious what that phrase means. From the article, "Worldwide, German accounts for the most written translations into and from a language." I am pretty sure that fact alone satisfies the requirements for German to be called a major language("Great in number, size, or extent"). Remember: there are no stupid questions, only stupid talk page posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.196.38 (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The fact that German accounts for the most written translations from a language means that it is less important than it used to be. If German were a major world language then there would be no need to translate German into other languages. Think about it. Why isn't English the most translated from language? Because most people speak it. Not many people are learning German so they need translations.

Isn't copy and paste a wonderful tool? See below... -- megA 21:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the English dialect is easier to learn than the German language, and that's because of its simplified grammar. But a simplified grammar can be found in all other Germanic dialects too (eine Welt, a world, a Welt). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.123.51 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether a language is important or not also depends on the importance of the country/countries it is spoken in. Germany is one of the world's biggest economies and the world's largest exporter of goods, has the biggest army in Europe and with about 100 million native speakers German is by far the most spoken language in Europe. Also German is an obligatory language in a lot of fields of study, e.g. philosophy or History and a big part of the cultural heritage of the western world (Grimm's fairytales, Texts from the Enlightement, classical music with German lyrics etc.). And German is also the language out of which most translated texts are. So there is a need for translations from German in most of the world. And that does speak for German as a major language, not against it. --134.93.57.236 (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't major a weasel word anyway? To me it seems pretty pointless to discuss whether a language is "major", "captain" or only "lieutenant", as long as the adjective major (as opposed to the noun) has no clearly defined meaning. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So remove "|major language" from the text (and "world's" of course) - does that change much? Lars T. (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of exercising in polemics, you could learn something about the nine world languages by reading wiki.riteme.site/wiki/World_language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.47.83 (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear German-haters, you should not forget that Kant, Leibniz, Marx, Gauss, Beethoven, Keppler, Goethe, Bach, Mozart, Röntgen, Planck, Einstein and von Braun have all spoken German. Their works have been translated almost in all languages of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.123.51 (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On a flight from Frankfurt to Bucarest a speaker of the Delta Airlines made his announcements only in English. The flight guests asked one another why this man doesn't speak German, because "kein Schwein" could understand what he said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.52.29 (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this invaluable piece of knowledge with the Wikipedia community. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

On his Moscow-visit from the 14. May 2008, the German foreign minister was told that presently 8 million Russians are learning German, and that 12,000 Russian students are registered at German universities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.80.86 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Baltic states?

Where did you in Baltic states found german speakers? In Latvia I know some germans, actualy they are relatives of mine, but all speaks in latvian, and most of them didn't know german exept some phrases like: bite shen, danki shen, gutten tag, or WW2 specific;)

Probably in Lithuania there are german speakers (deported prussians). Still I don't think there are any german speaker in Tadjikistan. If there was some germmans, i think most of them left poor and archaic (with islamist fundamentalist) Tadjikistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.205.130 (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Some German-speaking communities still survive in parts of Romania, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and above all Russia and Kazakhstan, although forced expulsions after World War II and massive emigration to Germany in the 1980s and 1990s have depopulated most of these communities." Actualy during WW2, soviet germans as posible traitors was deported deep in to soviet teritory - Kazakhstan and other central asian countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.205.130 (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

German language in decline

The fact that German accounts for the most written translations from a language means that it is less important than it used to be. If German were a major world language then there would be no need to translate German into other languages. Think about it. Why isn't English the most translated from language? Because everyone speaks it. Not many people are learning German so they need translations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.197.7 (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So what does the fact that English is the most translated language tell you? Lars T. 18:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Because everyone speaks it."

Yes. And one day, when you set your foot outside Australia, you will discover a wondrous world where you'll be helpless if you speak only English. -- megA 15:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If English is the most translated language then you should change the opening paragraph of the article. It states that German is the most translated language and so is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.197.7 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when are "to and from" and just "from" the same? It is not misleading to anyone who actually speaks English. Lars T. 01:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's only misleading if your earlier comment is true. How can English be the most translated language and German be the most translated language at the same time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.197.7 (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to answer an idiot who can't even read plain English, with or without translation. Lars T. 14:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're reactions are a little over the top. First of all just because I am in Australia doesn't mean that I am Australian. Ich wohne in Australien aber ich komme aus Europa. Ich spreche vier Sprachen und jetzt lerne ich Deutsch weil die Sprache sehr wichtig in Europa ist. Auch bin ich nach Deutschland gefahren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.197.7 (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Where from Europe are you from then? I mean, Europe is one of the few areas in the world where there are many different language in a relatively small space. Mallerd 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Das stimmt. Mein Land liegt in Mitteleuropa und grenzt an Deutschland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.197.7 (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tschechien oder Poland? Mallerd 12:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

oder Dänemark, Nederland, Belgie, France ... Germany has borders with nine other nations, and only three of them use German (Austria, switzerland) oder a German-related Language (Letzeburgisch). ---Idler 19:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.83.207 (talk)

No, four. Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and Luxemburg, too. There are three official languages, one of them and most spoken is Standard German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.222.124 (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I know something about the declination (declension) of German substantives, but about a decline of the language I didn't hear anything so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.47.83 (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Instead of a wiki-link to the Guiness World Records, better to have either a citation from the book itself or some other article that cites the same fact. KyuuA4 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Knowledge German EU map.png

How is knowledge of German defined? Yes, in the Netherlands it is educated for several years, but most people don't have that much vocabulary. Perhaps around a 1000 words? I don't know exactly, but I know that it is not much. If you count the better speakers it would be 25-30% I'm afraid. Mallerd 19:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of "knowledge" -- how about "fluency"? KyuuA4 18:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fluency: Fluency is the property of a person or of a system that delivers information quickly and with expertise.

Ouch, I don't know a lot about that, but my guesses are that is even worse. Dutch people are known to have a very distinctive accent. You recognize it when they speak English, German, French etc. But where are the statistics for the image coming from? I'll check it out and come back to this. Mallerd 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I think about it, does accent really matter? If people know German words does it matter how they pronounce them? Mallerd 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Special Eurobarometer 243" of the European Commission with the title "Europeans and their Languages".

That's the source. I think that under fluency many Dutch only fall over the Speaking skill. So that makes 75% Mallerd 19:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Latvian name for Germany

I believe the etymology for the Latvian 'vacu' is incorrect. In Lithuanian, Germany is 'Vokietija'. The Lithuanian language historian Buga (forgot his first name) says that this comes from a river with a name something like *Vokia, in southern Sweden, with whom the Balts had early contact. There is currently no river identifiable as the Vokia, but the idea is that the name 'Vagoth', which was a Germanic tribe, is actually a compound of Vokia-Goth. 78.60.32.213 (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

German German

German german redirects to this page. That seems rather harsh as there are seperate articles on Austrian German and Swiss German dont you think? Besides English English has its own page and doesnt redirect to English (even though it should really, it being the English who invented the language..). --Camaeron (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the standard form (the one everybody thinks of when they hear "German") is the German one. The Austrian and Swiss national standard forms are considered (even by themselves) variations of the common German (in the sense of Germany) standard. And besides, most Germans are imbibed by a fervent sense of linguistic supremacy when they come to Austria or Switzerland, and are only too keen to share this with others. So German to the Germans it is. ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Why on earth does the same thing not apply to English and England (or UK, as would now be politically correct? Every argument you have named applies equally to case of English :) --Camaeron (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

English English has its own article. German German is a {{R with possibilities}}. dab (𒁳) 16:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox edit

German is not a significant language in Mexico, or to my knowledge, any of the numerous countries listed in the infobox, which did NOT explicit list the core German speaking countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein). Listing German as a language of Mexico or Chile is ridiculous and makes the article look silly. Sure, there may be speakers of German in these countries, maybe even a lot of them, but the fact that German is spoken by immigrants and so forth in various places around the world doesn't make it a significant language in these countries, because the same could be said of almost every European language. Mtsmallwood (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Twain and German verbs

Would Mark twains ruminations about German verbs have a place in the syntax section? Its amusing and also has a valid point - referring to the apparently at least somewhat unusual German syntax rule of putting the verb at the end in the past tense. Ingolfson (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As one of the most-cited articles on the German language (and indeed even more notably, one of the most-quoted articles of Mark Twain) it probably deserves a passing mention, bearing in mind that we need a wording that shows the uninitiated that it is a work of no little exaggeration for comic effect!

On second thought it would probably be best to have a separate article on this article as it is certainly notable, and then link to that from this article. If you would like to collaborate on putting such an article together, please get in contact. Knepflerle (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as its value as a witty analysis of German verbs is concerned, I'd say that value isn't tremendously high, at least not high enough for it to be included in a supposedly scholarly article about the language itself. Apparently, it is even somewhat misleading -- I admit I have only read about a third of it --, as the rule for verb finality in a German clause is not that it be in the past tense, as Ingolfson wrote, but that it be a subordinate clause. So, from my part, that would be a "Nay". Other opinions? Trigaranus (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I think there's more value in having a separate article about this essay, and just simply linking to it from a "see also" at the bottom. The essay is definitely notable - if you have a look at Google Scholar's results when searching for the title, it is clear this is both a widely cited and critically analysed piece of work. It is much better to analyse it in and of itself, rather than as an accurate or scholarly description of German grammar which it was never intended to be - it is exaggerated and sometimes just downright inaccurate in order to make its general and salient points more prominent and entertaining. Knepflerle (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of asking himself why his English dialect has no genders, declinations and conjugations, Mark Twain was wondering about the presence of such components in the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.89.182 (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect; English has all three features that you list (albeit in the case of gender and declension to a restricted extent). See Declension#English, Grammatical gender#Gender in English and English verb. Knepflerle (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from a she-cat and from a male mouse; the tail of the cat is very short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.92.3 (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

German syntax

The section on German syntax is embarrassingly thin. I've added some examples, but this would really benefit from contributions from someone who is an expert on German syntax or a native speaker of German. G.broadwell (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Language Table

The language codes are garbled between "yid" and "wep". Since I don't know what this table does, maybe someone could fix it. -- megA (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Merely Germanic dialects

There have been a large number of edits reverting the same material recently:

[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]

This user is hell-bent on getting this unsourced, debateable and unwanted statement into this article. All IP's are in the 77.2.*.* range. They are also editing the Germanic languages page to make unsourced changes to the numbers of speakers. Please keep an eye out for edits of this type, and if you are around soon enough please see if you can engage with this user and explain the problems with the addition. Knepflerle (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, he's a silly one, and one impermeable to reason, too, I daresay. Why on earth he keeps doing this anonymously and without any backing up of his claims, only he may know. Trigaranus (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this has been going on for two months now, isn't this a clinical indication for semi-protection? -- megA (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Germanic dialect warmed up

A short piece of info to the dialectal zealot who has been anonymously editing this page: While there is no commonly accepted definition of the word "dialect" that would draw a clear line between "dialect" and "language", it is generally agreed that within a language family as widespread as the Germanic languages, dialects would have to be mutually understandable to a large degree, whilst languages would require a higher number of differences as far as grammar, lexicon and sound changes are concerned. This rule is not always observed all too strictly: Norwegian and Swedish are counted as different languages, although they understand each other, while Walliser German and High German are considered merely different dialects, although they hardly are mutually intellegible. Nevertheless, sad but true: German and English are distinct languages, and have been for the last one thousand years and more. This is not because of the high percentage of non-Germanic loanwords in English, but rather because of the significant changes that have separated the two in grammar, lexical semantics and in phonemics.
Important: If you think you can make a feasible argument as to the merely dialectal difference between the two languages, please state your point here. Do not keep changing the article itself to no use (since all unproven statements will be reverted, as you might have noticed). Otherwise, the article will be protected from edits by anonymous contributors. Trigaranus (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sad but true: English has remained the same Low German dialect as it was one thousand years ago. The grammar has been hardly developed since then ("ein" and "eine" are still "a", exactly like in all other German dialects), the declension of substantives and the conjugation of verbs appear only as rudiments. The pronunciation of the most Germanic words is also the same as in other German dialects. The only "enrichments" are the loanwords from other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.56.146 (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For a broader understanding of the relations between German, English and the German dialects you have to know all this idioms in detail. Fact is that in very many cases the German dialects have a greater affinity with English than with German. This can be seen clearly in the following examples (German - English - dialects):

Ich denke sie allein ist daheim. I think she alone is at home. I denk sie allon is dahom.

Ein grüner Apfel ist oft sauer. A green apple is often sour. A griener Appl is oft sauer.

Nein, sie ist nich zu dünn und nicht zu breit. No, she is not too thin and not too broad. No, sie is net zu dinn und net zu broad.

Der Silberweg war steinig und lang. The silver-way was stony and long. D'r Silverweg war stonig und lang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.99.134 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Eine Katze hat meistens grüne Augen. A cat has mostly green eyes. A Katz hat meist griene Aua.

Wir haben ein gutes Gefühl. We have a good feeling. Wir hava a gud's Gfihl.

Meine alte Mutter kann nicht gehen. My old mother can not go. Mei alde Modder kann net geha.

Sie haben gesehen und gehört. They have seen and heard. Sie hava gsihn und ghärt.

Hence you can build your own view, if English is a German dialect or not. The only impediment consists in the different ortographic rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.99.134 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not using the standard definition of dialect in the above. You are not using the terms German and Germanic in the standard linguistic fashion. You are extrapolating a lot from a few examples and are not considering the wider question of mutual intelligibility - there is no dialect of German which you could use in English and be understood. You are not distinguishing between your own minority point-of-view and that of the evidenced mainstream, and are failing to produce any cited research to back up your claims. Knowledge of these terms and how to apply them are what are required for a broader understanding, not a few contrived and insufficient examples.

"A cat has mostly green eyes" - a native English speaker would contend that the normal cat either has half of its eyes green, both of them green, or neither of them green. The intermediate or time-varying situations typically implied to a fluent English speaker by "mostly" are somewhat difficult to envisage. Knepflerle (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a single dialect in that table, or a mix of different dialects, anyway? Either way, it should be marked as such. Looks like a mixture of Upper and Central German dialects to me, with every single word chosen for maximum similarity to English. (But I may be wrong) I think Low German would be a better case to prove the point (if there is any). -- megA (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you really think that my considerations are based on the few examples cited above, then I must say "very witty, man". I could list here many clusters of such examples, in any case a multiple of the few hundred words that are needed in a daily conversation. Therefore your point-of-view cannot be regarded as "mainstream". You can be sure that a North-German speaker understands considerably more from an English sentence (without porc, mutton or other uncommon loanwords) than from one spoken in indigenous Tyrolean or Bavarian. In conclusion the most-spoken Germanic dialect is English and not Bavarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.92.3 (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud, you pretend there are no English dialects that most English have trouble to understand. Transcribe the interviews here and come back to us.Lars T. (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You may cry as loud as you can, because I didn’t say that there aren’t also English dialects and idioms. But English as a whole is a Germanic dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.88.31 (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the dialect sentences are from somewhere in Franconia or adjacent parts of Thuringia? They may look very similar to English indeed, but in reality, you will find no Englishman who will be able to follow a conversation in this dialect. And if a North-German speaker, as claimed above, considerably more from an English sentence .. than from one spoken in indigenous Tyrolean or Bavarian, I would be very much surprised. And, on a second thought, I would attribute it to his knowledge of English as a foreign language.Unoffensive text or character (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

An Englishman will not be able to follow a conversation in the described dialect simply because English is a mixture of several German dialects. Example:

German: heim Stein gesehen Regen... Dialect 1: hom Ston gseha Rega... Dialect 2: hem Sten gsihn Reen... English: home Stone seen rain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.54.249 (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I cannot agree with your second thought, and secondly it's no shame that English is a Germanic dialect. Take for example the following sentence (German - English - dialect): Der Müller hat selten Feuer in dem alten Steinofen, und die Mäuse füllen den Ofen mit Grünfutter. The miller has seldom fire in the old stone oven, and the mice fill the oven with green fodder. De Miller hat selda Feier in dem alda Stonova, und die Meis filla de Ova mit Grienfuder. I think that any Englishman can understand the spoken dialect sentence. However many speakers of standard German will need a translation for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.84.22 (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If an Englishman can understand the dialect sentence, he can understand the standard German sentence as well, since the difference is minimal. By the way, the correct word order in the English sentence would be different from how you wrote it. English is stricter in word order than German. -- megA (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Subterfuges cannot change the facts. My clear intention was to demonstrate that the articulation of the dialect words is identical with that of the corresponding English words. On the other hand the differences to the same words of standard German are often considerable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.91.153 (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. Mind your language, by the way. To put an end to this, Wikipedia is not a place to present original research. If you can find a reliable scientific source backing up your claims, let that source speak for itself. Otherwise, find a linguistics discussion board elsewhere. As of now, your personal opinions are not backed by any scientific research and will therefore be dealt with appropriately. -- megA (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. megA. I think that only with a rigid mindset and lack of arguments you will not contribute to the quality of this website. What you tried to present as my personal opinion is exactly the result of international scientific researches. See “English - a German dialect?” on www.rotary-munich.de/2005-2006/theo-vennemann.pdf. The cited work, which is based on a lot of reliable linguistic publications, states clearly that “English is a substratally Celticized, superstratally Romanized, Low German dialect”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.83.89 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to please me, Mr [Anonymous Number]. (It's really easy to set up an account, by the way.) Your personal attacks and pompous words cannot change the fact that your argumentation is lacking and your source is well-known for being highly controversial, to say it politely. If this is all you can come up with, you should have a look at reliability criteria before digging up Rotary Club archives. Your scientific ineptitude is further demonstrated in that you try to prove English as a Low German dialect (as you quoted your "source" just above) by giving examples from a High German dialect. Please look up the difference before trying to contribute to an encyclopedia. Then look up and understand the difference between "language" and "dialect". If you want to indulge in your pan-teutonic fantasies, why not call Dutch, Danish, Swedish, etc. "Low German dialects" as well? I will now stop feeding you, as the others have long since done. Bye. -- megA (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: You have tried artfully to accentuate my "scientific ineptitude" by using a purposeful amalgam of two entirely different matters. I've demonstrated clearly that even in the case of High German dialects, the similarity to English words is greater than that to standard German ones; not to speak about Low German dialects, which have been analized in the cited work. But if you ignore deliberately any scientific and practical evidence, and pursue your own (or telecommanded) politics and considerations in an encyclopedia, then you cannot have any earnest pretension of objectivity. I geh hom, mei Freind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.127.35 (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr megA. The fact that English is a mixture of several German dialects has nothing to do with "pan-teutonic fantasies", but it is an incontestable linguistic reality. And this fact cannot be changed by diplomatic means. Swedish and Norwegian are Germanic languages, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.53.204 (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

German flag

For some reason people have been reverting the Germany flag I inserted at the top of the page? Why do people object to the flag of the country where the language originates? --Camaeron (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, people may have different reasons. I'd like a certain degree of similarity between related articles. We have one article on almost every language in the world, quite long articles on at least the top 200 languages. At present, they all follow the same outline. Now, for some languages it's not a big deal to add a flag but that's not the case for many others. Did Korean originate in North Korea or South Korea? And Portuguese originated in contemporary Spain, but using the flag of Spain would of course be a bit strange. German originated in the area that today is Germany, but the current German flag is a recent creation and not necessarily representative for the language. There are many minority languages for which a flag could be a problem. These are just a few of the many controversies I foresee if we change the template of language articles to include flags. For that reason, I would suggest keeping them out. JdeJ (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The simple reason: because the German language doesn't originate in Germany, but Germany originates in the German language. Lars T. (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

On a similar basis I propose removing the little nest of flags in the infobox. It is hard to say what, if anything, they add. On the other hand they certainly clutter up the infobox. --John (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just untrue. On every package that has text in different languages, each one is usually represented by a flag, at least in Germany. The usual way to represent "German" is to use the german flag..78.48.229.97 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

to fence

hey y'all, i just though adding "to fence" to the grid would be interesting since the english "to fight" refers to the German word for "to fence". i hope nobody minds that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.62.23 (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There must be added that the German word "Gefecht" means "fight" or "fighting". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.92.3 (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Cognates with English: Sympathy

there is constant arguing in Germany when it comes to discuss the meanings of the English word sympathy and the German word Sympathie. E.g. in the Rolling Stones Song "Sympathy For the Devil" no German including me definitely knows what the word sympathy stands for. Can a native English speaker help? The German word Sympathie has exactly only the following meaning and nothing else: to like somebody / have positive feelings for somebody / identify yourself with somebody / like the opinion of somebody. E.g. all supporters of a football clubs like their club, so the have Sympathie for their club. The English meaning sympathy possibly means something completely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.174.153 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

http://dict.leo.org: sympathy: Anteilnahme, Mitgefühl, Mitleid, Sympathie, Verständnis, Zuneigung -- megA (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

ja, aber wenn man da auf das i in der Mitte klickt, streiten sie auch, und Mitgefühl heißt es wohl nur in zusammengesetzten Wörtern —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.132.98 (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"sympathy" ist der Name fuer (ich habe kein umlaut auf meiner Tastatur)das Fuehlen vom Verstaendis, dass zwischen zwei (oder mehr) gleichgesinnten leute gefuehlt ist. Ich hoffe, dass das eine hilfe ist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.62.111 (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New German Critique

What do you think of it? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Word order

"Except for emphasis, adverbs of time have to appear in the third place in the sentence, just after the predicate. Otherwise the speaker would be recognised as non-German. For instance the German word order (in Modern English) is: We're going tomorrow to town. (Wir gehen morgen in die Stadt.)"

As far as I can judge, this is wrong. As a native speaker, I have no problems saying or hearing "Morgen gehen wir in die Stadt". It does not change the meaning as far as I would be concerned (perhaps it adds a very tiny stress onto "tomorrow"). Noone would suppose someone else to be foreign or even having committed a grammatical mistake when saying this. More interestingly, it does make a difference to say "Wir gehen in die Stadt morgen" - which sounds quite unfamiliar and thus indeed puts stress onto "morgen"...of course, but this is not recognized as being wrong either. Moreover, one statement in the subsection "Multiple infinitives" is just wrong: "The number of infinitives at the end is usually restricted to two, causing the third infinitive or auxiliary verb that would have gone at the very end to be placed instead at the beginning of the chain of verbs. For example in the sentence "Should he move into the house that he just has had renovated?" would be rearranged to "Should he into the house move, that he just renovated had?". (Soll er in das Haus einziehen, das er gerade hat renovieren lassen?). The older form would have been (Soll er in das Haus, das er gerade hat renovieren lassen, einziehen?)."

The statement is just nonsense. You can say "Sollte er in das Haus, welches er gerade hat renovieren lassen, einziehen?" which is the correct translation of the example phrase. This also implies, that the last comment about the older form is redundant. You could also use the order "...renovieren hat lassen, einziehen.". Of course, the translation given as THE ONLY TRUE one is correct, too, although As a native speaker, I have little knowledge about what grammar books say about this subject;) This is just what my "Sprachgefühl" tells me...78.48.229.97 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Flags and alphabetical order in the infobox

I believe that having the flags in the infobox, and placing them in alphabetical order instead of in categories, works better then the current way it is. Certain areas (like Germany and Austria) are clearly know to speak German. But areas like Namibia (witch used to be a German colony), only speak the language at a national/regional level. Still, other areas (like Krahule, Slovakia) use the language only in the specific are of the broader country. And major organizations like the European Union are already using German officially, so there is no need to state it's reason for being there, it's already official.

The flags are also used in other language articles (pick one at random), and you should see something. Here is how it looks:

• Germany
  • Areas that have the language official are simply there with no additional information.

• Namibia (regional)
  • Areas that have some specific on the language (de facto or regional status) have the information of its use in parentheses and are usually italicize.

• Slovakia (Krahule)
  • Areas where the language is spoken in a specific areas (city or province), the main government is shown, with the main area(s) in parentheses.

Does this make sense? Because this is what I was told a while ago, and am not sure if it is still being used. But I still like this idea and I want your opinion on this. — NuclearVacuum 00:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

-- actually, "Morgen gehen wir in die Stadt." sounds better than "Wir gehen in die Stadt morgen."... you would choose the first sentence more often —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.233.88 (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Third most commonly learned foreign language after Spanish then French???????

Read note 18. WHAT? Surely English is more commonly learned than Spanish, French, and German. Furthermore I'm sure French is more commonly learned than Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.65.10 (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So Düsseldorf speaks Dutch?

I know this is a sensitive topic, but Image:Continental West Germanic languages.png shows the Düsseldorf area speaking a "Dutch dialect", called "Low Rhenish" (blue, No. 15). Does being a Low Franconian dialect automatically make it a Dutch dialect? Isn't this mixing language families with nationalities? For the layman, this is confusing... -- megA (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In a dialect continuum, all borders are neccessarily arbitray as is assigning dialects to dialect families. From a Cologne point of view, every distinction from Düsseldorf is a good one ;-) --Qualle (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

All Dutch is Low Franconian, not all Low Franconian is Dutch. --10:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfold (talk • contribs)

I absolutely agree. So the map is wrong. -- megA (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Qualle is correct about the problems in distinguishing precise borders in a dialect continuum (almost by definition of continuum!) but the distinguishing border given on that map is distinctly non-standard. This is closer to the academic norm [18] but is a bit confusing to the layman. If someone fancies tidying and clarifying it in the process of translation I think it would be a good replacement. Knepflerle (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Words borrowed by English

What about "Blitzkrieg" I'm from Germany and I heart that you often use that word, is that right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.131.143.214 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See List of English words of German origin. Lars T. (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

i just want to know a few words

mann gegen mann, rosenrot, reise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.11.30 (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

dict.leo.org yourdictionary.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegA (talk • contribs) 09:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"In Alsace the local German dialect has not been fully replaced on the street"

Here must be said that the dialect of Alsace, which is the same Allemanic dialect as in Southern Gemany and in Switzerland, has not been replaced at all. The native Alsatians speak French only as a second language. Many of them are working in Germany an watch the German television. Only people coming from other parts of France and the immigrants from North Africa speak French. In concordance with international law the Alsatian dialect would have to be acknowledged as a minority language, and not to be replaced on the street.

Your second statement is untrue; there are many, many Alsace natives who speak French as their first or primary language. The third is true to some extent. The fourth statement is completely and utterly incorrect; see my earlier comment. The fifth is seen already in the fact that Alsatian is recognised by the French government as a regional language of France. Knepflerle (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not know where the anonymous user has made his observations, but it cannot have been in Alsace. Wheras native Alsatians born in the 50s and earlier virtually always speak the dialect fluently, there are nowadays hardly any speakers to be found under the age of 20.Unoffensive text or character (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the evidence is obvious. The only way an observer in the Alsace could think otherwise is to say that no true Alsatian would speak French as first language... Knepflerle (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly a regional language of France is not a minority language with historical rights, and secondlly the law has not been ratified by the French parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.52.195 (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

More untruths - please do the research and check your facts. For the first, why not read the report that defined Alsatian, amongst others, as a regional language of France, the Cerquiligni report. ("par l'expression "langues régionales ou minoritaires", on entend les langues ... pratiquées traditionnellement sur un territoire d'un État par les ressortissants de cet État qui constituent un groupe numériquement inférieur au reste de la population de l'État ; ... Le texte concerne les langue régionales ou minoritaires pratiqués "traditionnellement" ; on dit aussi "historiques""). For the second, just check the Constitution of the French Republic (Article 75-1). Knepflerle (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You try to declare obvious facts as untruths by being agressive and by citing only documents of your liking. The essential point is that France has not ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. (see: wiki.riteme.site/wiki/European_Charter_for_Regional_or_Minority_Languages). But for other countries, which intended to enter into the EU later, the ratification of this charter was an obligatory precondition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.51.71 (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing aggressive in the civil pointing-out of blatant falsehoods with suitable sources; those two documents define the position the French government has ratified. True, France has not ratified ECfRML (it is, however, a signatory), but that doesn't make anything that you said earlier true, nor what I wrote incorrect.

Please be aware of the following from our talk-page guidelines:

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views... are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues."

Unless there is verifiable, reliably-sourced information that you want to add to the article, there is no reason to continue this discussion. Knepflerle (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This dicussion is senseless, because you don't show any sign of objectivity. But exactly this objectivity sould be the guideline of Wikipedia, and not "the replacement on the street". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.51.71 (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand both Wikipedia and the term objectivity. Objective research on Wikipedia involves backing up statements with reliable sources. There is nothing less objective than drive-by posting of unreliable, false and completely unsourced speculation and expecting it to go unchallenged. Knepflerle (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Essential for the rights of the minority languages in Europe is the EU Charter, but not your sophisticated attempts to convince me about something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.51.71 (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How to pronounce "eu"

In a language learning program (Rosetta Stone), I was taught that "eu" was pronounced as an English "oi". For example, the word "flugzeug" was taught to me as being pronounced "flook-tsoig". I also heard it pronounced this way in The Longest Day and also with another word with "eu" on CNN.

However, a friend of mine who just so happens to have been the friend of a native German speaker some time ago told me that "eu" was actually pronounced as an English "oo", and he scolded me (and ended up embarrassing me in front of company) about it.

He seems pretty sure of this, so I have considered the possibility that we are both right and that this is just dialect confusion.

If this is about dialects, if it is possible, could somebody please determine for me which specific dialects we're talking about here?

Thanks.

YoshiroShin (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The German diphthong "eu" (Spiel-zeug) is pronounced exactly as an English "oi" or "oy" (toy). If the vowels "e" and "u" are in different syllables (be-ur-tei-len), then they are considered as independent letters.

Hmm... in no dialect "Flugzeug" would be pronounced /-tsoog/. Maybe in Dutch, but not in German... Some dialectal examples would be /əі/ or /aі/ in the South, while in the North it is closer to standard /oi/, sometimes nasalized. But it stays a diphtong with /-i/ all the time... -- megA (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. YoshiroShin (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, tell your friend he was talking bollocks. ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Barbarism

Sourced informations of the article are systematically deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.82.157 (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be polite and avoid calling people barbarians because they don't agree with your edits. Your edits of adding "The same census states that 60 Million Americans are of German descent" to the article have been continuously reverted by me and 2 other editors because they have been deemed not relevant to the topic. The article is about the German language and not about German ancestry. The fact that there are people who claim German ancestry in a census doesn't relate to how many of them speak German. By the way, the 2000 U.S. Census enumerated only 42,885,162 people who claimed to have German ancestry, so the 60 million number is incorrect (see official census summary here: [19]).

Until a consensus is reached to add this information, please refrain from adding it again due to being reverted by three different editors. Also, I would recommend that you create an account and sign in, as I see that you show up under several IP addresses ( 93.133.72.183 , 93.133.126.6 , 93.133.82.242 , 93.133.102.101 , 93.133.82.157 , and 93.133.111.47 ). Kman543210 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To the following comment ("With your pseudo-scientific theory, which states that there's no connection between ancestry and language, you probably intend to maneuver some unpleasant realities. The other editors are also far away from objectivity.") one can only say: stop being so paranoid and face the facts: German ancestry in America is a lovely thing, and we're all terribly fond of it. But it does not enter into the German language issue of this article. That's all there is to be said about that. Laß es gut sein. Trigaranus (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a funny proverb at this place. Where did it disappear so fast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.53.181 (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be astonished about these guys. They only like to present their dialect as great, and the language as disappearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.100.137 (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)