Talk:Hohle Fels

"Hohler Fels"

There has been a lot of circular discussion at de-wiki on whether it should be "Hohler Fels" or "Hohle Fels".

The very simple upshot of this is that "Hohler Fels" is Standard German while "Hohle Fels" is Swabian German. The cave is in Swabia, and the the mapmakers have opted for giving the local toponym.

Within Standard German prose, it is awkward to give the Swabian form, because it simply results in broken Standard German. English doesn't have this problem, the name is foreign anyway, and there is no reason not to use the local toponym. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this is a dialect issue as Swabian German does not have a written standard (but does have declension of adjectives). I rather assume that German scholars use "Hohle Fels" in English language publications and then violate the rules of German grammar to avoid inconsistency.--ペーター (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed some truth in your statement. Although, English RS's adopted the "Hohle Fels" version and that means IMO we have to stick to it as we can't just "dump" wp:TRUTH.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

of course Swabian has adjective declension. It's just that the weak and strong nominative sound exactly the same.

Standard German: der hohle Fels; ein hohler Fels

Swabian German: dr hohle Fels; en hohle Fels

Swiss German: de hohli Felse; en hohle Felse

Look, it is very common for maps to give regional names, even if these are in dialects that have fallen out of use 50 years ago. The story is that the cave was labelled "Hohle Fels" on some map at some point, and from there this form of the name made it into our RS. There is no problem whatsoever with retaining this form in English. --dab (𒁳) 05:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which maps? Which dialect has fallen out of use? What is the source of your Swabian (written) grammar? In my Swabian it would sound something like [dɔ ˈhoːle fɛls] and [ən ˈhoːlɐ fɛls] or [ən ˈhoːlɔ fɛls]. And here is prove that standard German declension is used in the area for the place in question:

.

A more detailed explanation of the confusion about the place's name can be found here (in German). [ə ʃeːs ˈɡriə̯sle]--ペーター (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I was explainig the reason for the name "Hohle Fels". I retract "sound exactly the same", I was saying, more accurately, that /ˈhoːle/ /ˈhoːlɐ/ is both rendered as Hohle. I do not need to present any sources for this as long as I do not insist on elaborating it in article space, take it or leave it. The fact of the matter is that our sources have "Hohle Fels", therefore we also say "Hohle Fels". WP:NAME. If you can show that a majority of English language sources switched to Hohler, we can of course follow suit. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I never argued against the title of this article or suggested to move it. In this edit I only wanted to clarify that the name of the place in English has nothing to do with the difference between standard German and Swabian. I suggest to delete any referece to German dialects (including so called "standard German") from this article. If the place is called "Hohle Fels" in English that is o. k. with me (Cologne is called Cologne in English and Köln in German and so forth.)--ペーター (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

are you sure that "the name of the place in English has nothing to do with the difference between standard German and Swabian". In my understanding, this is precisely the reason. If you have some coherent reason to doubt this (I admit I cannot understand how you would argue that, seeing that you apparently do speak Swabian), it may indeed be best to remove any mention of this pending citation of some reference. The fact is that the place is called either of "Hohle Fels" and "Hohler Fels" in German (also Hohlefels run together).[1] Paleoanthropological literature in German very clearly favours Hohle Fels over Hohler Fels, note the numerous im Hohle Fels, des Hohle Fels in the titles listed here. English usage merely reflects that fact.

We would then simply say "German: either Hohle Fels or Hohler Fels" without going into any detail of inflection. Imho it is more helpful to hint at the fact that the reason for the dual name lies in differences between Standard and Swabian German. --dab (𒁳) 11:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

all of this originates in the 19th century. When I say mapmakers I mean toponymy collected in 19th century Volkskunde, not modern maps. Here is evidence of Hohlefels from 1878, here one from 1880. Here [2][3] are early examples of Hohlefels in English.

Because the significance of the site was recognized early, the dialectal name stuck in scholarly usage even after the Swabian dialect was pushed to extinction and they changed the maps and street signs. --dab (𒁳) 12:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but your Swabian grammar did not convince me. The German article also suggests that "Hohle Fels" is German-Paleontologese since that form was accepted by a professor in a students master's thesis. There may be 19th century sources with "Hohlefels" and in a coumpound no declension of the adjecitve is necessary. I also see no evidence that "the Swabian dialect was pushed to extinction". German spelling in the 19th century was not yet standardized, and this fact rather than dialect may have contributed to the variants "Hohlefels" and "Hohler Fels" (but not "Hohle Fels" without a preceding determinate article, though).--ペーター (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

fine. So I drop the "Swabian grammar" point, ok? I do not need to convince you of anything since you yourself admitted that you say /ən ˈhoːlɐ fɛls/. I didn't claim anything beyond that.

At the bottom of things, yes, "Hohle Fels" is 'Paleontologese' in German usage. Used not just in "a students master's thesis" as you would put it, but in virtually every publication since 1870. Since the cave's notability is entirely due to paleontology/paleoanthropology, this is unsurprisingly also the form found in non-German usage.

We can simply state that the cave is variously called Hohle Fels, Hohlefels and Hohler Fels in German. --dab (𒁳) 14:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue should be discussed in the article text? Pending appropriate sources, of course.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the present version of the article. Thank you all for the inspiring discussion. (And by the way [ɐ] would of course be rendered "-er" in German spelling (or Swabian, if there was such a thing as Swabian spelling).--ペーター (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

that's because the Swabians have been "standardised" since 1870. The -r was probably not there even subphonematically at the time the form was recorded. I say this because it isn't there in Basel German, which is very close to the (former) Swabian dialect. I think you underestimate the drastic loss of dialectal variety in Germany after 1945. But I agree of course that any discussion of this in article space would need to be based on good references. --dab (𒁳) 08:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

English grammar

edits like this really exasperate me. "Hohler Fels is the German for 'hollow rock'" is a perfectly grammatical statement in English.[4] By contrast, *"Hohler Fels is German for 'hollow rock'" is in fact dubious English, although I am willing to recognize it is in use. If you are going to take it upon yourself to correct other editors' English grammar, you should be at least on terms with English grammar familiar enough to keep you from editing away from grammaticality. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't patronize me. As you mentioned by yourself, both (grammar) options are correct and as far as I see it the initial one is more common on the English WP as we mostly apply American-English (which is of course not a must in this article). Also you provided a quote from the very recent history) which is not accurate. You're quoting "Hohler Fels is German for 'hollow rock" but in fact it reads like this: "The Hohle Fels (also Hohlefels, Hohler Fels, German for "hollow rock")". See that (separation) "comma" in the latter? So much for this.

Now regarding to your reversal here [5] and your edit summary: "rv edits that would need the support of references. The article at de: is very clear that this is about one cave." let me remind you that Wiki itself is not a reliable source. The German article you're citing as to be "very clear" is contradicted by [6], another German WP article. So what would be right and what would be wrong? The answer would be: What wp:RS's say and that means we need sources in this and related articles. Don't you agree?

Anyways, have it your way but please get it right. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I was reacting to the patronizing attitude on your part. If I was reverting your unreferenced additions, that was because they were unreferenced, not because they were necessarily wrong. If you add them back with proper references, I will obviously not interfere. --dab (𒁳) 06:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: It was another editor's unreferenced addition you reverted and it was not my intention to patronize you in my editsummary. Cheers, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the editors making the edits removing the "the" from "the German": by dab's Google test "is German for"[7] is more common than "is the German for"[8]. It may be an American vs. British thing; if it were, we should go with the American style used through the rest of the article. At any rate, this is certainly nothing to get so testy about. On another note, dab's revert appears to be correct; it looks like from the Nature article that this is a single cave, with others nearby.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)