Jump to content

Talk:German language/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Blank statement about dative and genitive

There is a claim in section "Grammar" - subsection "Noun inflection" which states "Both of these cases are losing ground to substitutes in informal speech." referring to dative and genitive. This claim is neither proven nor can it be substantiated. It is pretty much an urban legend, which is almost always told when dative and genitive is mentioned. There is no reliable evidence, such as scientific studies that proof such language changes. For such claims reliable evidence which meet scientific standards must be used to state a language change. This is also important taking into account that language learners use WP as a source, and reading this claim may lead to the misconception that dative and genitive is not that important to learn, which would be a huge mistake. -92.209.109.221 (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added the {{Citation needed}} template right after the sentence you critcize. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The criticism of a lack of source is, of course, entirely proper, and the blank statement in the article unhelpfully conceals a number of different phenomena, but the blunt rejection of the point just shows the complainant's ignorance of the literature. The decline of the genitive is not an urban legend but a well established fact about the development of New High German since the Middle Ages. There's plenty of literature on the subject just do a search for "Genitivschwund" or "Rückgang des Genitivs" (or just consider the case now used with wegen, or vergessen. I take it the complainant has never come across a construction like dem Mann sein Hut. The replacement of the dative by the accusative is less marked but certainly well-established (actually it's mainly their coalescense into a single "oblique case"), albeit not in the standard language. If you're going to castigate someone else's contribution as nonsense, you'd better be sure of your ground, and you have to be much better informed to say "there is no evidence". --Pfold (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You're right about the genitive case, but the sentence is about two cases, dative and genitive. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You shouldn't take or assume anything about someone else. So please talk about the subject and only the subject. The construction "dem Mann sein Hut" is purely a dialect construction due to the fact that most German dialects do not have a genitive and compensate possessive constructions through a dative construction. Most literature I have read so far does not give much account to the dialect's influence while speaking the standard dialect, which is most likely the explanation for the phenomen of replacing a possessive genitive with a dative construction while speaking the standard dialect. Given that, the decline of the genitive is in my view just a misconception of a phenomen that was once taken or misinterpreted as a decline and this was told for a long time without questioning. In any way, if the genitive is still in decline, there should be studies that describe such a decline. Add those studies which meet scientific standards which proof the decline of the genitive in spoken language and we are good. You don't have to convince me, but this artilce has to meet WP standards. -178.6.169.248 (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Could it be that, in stead of
both of these cases are losing ground to substitutes in informal speech,
a reordering of words
in informal speech, both of these cases are losing ground to substitutes
would be more accurate? Richard 07:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it's not just in informal speech, though that is admittedly the main area. The decline in the number of verbs taking a genitive object, for example, is a feature of the written language, too. In any case, I don't see whay the fact that a development is only found in dialects makes it untrue - the article is about the language as a whole, not just the standard. Anyway, I've added a (highly reputable) source for the supposedly unfounded "urban legend". So, whatever else, it now meets WP standards. --Pfold (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Pfold, the standard dialect is what is called modern German. Dialects and varieties belong like the standard dialect to the German dialect continuum, but they are not the same as the standard dialect. German students and pupils learn the standard dialect as well as people who learn German as a second language. Throwing all that together makes it an inaccurate statement. If you do that, you might get the impression that the genitive is losing ground, but if you differentiate between standard dialect, and dialect and varieties, the genitive isn't losing ground in the standard dialect and I get always the impression that all sources I (have) read throw standard dialect and dialects and varieties together, and on top of that do not give any account to the native dialect's influence when speaking the standard dialect. Anyway, have a good day. -92.209.128.75 (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
But this is encyclopedia not a language learners' handbook. And, no: "vergessen" and a number of other other verbs used to take the genitive and no longer do; "wegen" used to take the genitive and now often, even in the written standard, takes the dative. These are not "impressions", these are well-established facts about German. --11:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Weird preview for German Language

I was on a random page - Colmar Pocket. Anyway when I hovered over the link to German it showed a preview that seems possibly a bit inappropriate.

It says "Example of Language: Güchendörf which means "You're Hot" in the English language.

Colmar_Pocket

I have no idea how to edit this preview. Over to you guys?

Or let me know if you need a screenshot

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxfornow (talk • contribs) 11:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. The weird text had already been removed. The Page Preview functionality apparently uses a cache. I have purged the page. It seems that the Page Preview shows the correct version now. It would have done so anyway in a matter of hours. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

E-960's edits

File:German standard varieties.png
The national and regional standard varieties of German.[1]

E-960 (talk · contribs) is vandalising articles on German language by removing a map which is referenced by peer-reviewed author Ammon, obviously for ideological reasons - "German minorities must not exist, for the have been justfully erased". -- PhJ (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

PhJ, there is no German speaking minority in all those places in Eastern Europe per government census data form those countries, also this map is based on an original map created by user Postmann Michael, who was blocked for, quote: "POV from doubtful sources, playing down Nazism. Harms Wikipedia (POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus. Schadet der Wikipedia). Postmann Michael's maps are constantly are criticized on German Wikipedia, and at this point you are defending a map that is created by a user blocked for Nazi apologetics. --E-960 (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
All the countries mentioned on the map have German minorities according to their censuses. The map has no information on the size of the minorities. E.g., in Poland the most sizable remaining German communities are in Upper Silesia and Mazury, in Hungary, they are in the places shown on the map. That does not mean that they are in the majority there. And you can read about this in Ammon's book on the German language. It doesn't matter at all, the the author of the image has been blocked at Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia for other reasons. -- PhJ (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Per the 2011 Polish census, in the City of Łodź there is only 263 individuals who declared a German ethnicity in a city of 700,000, yet that city is marked on the map in a big blue area as if it was bi-lingual, extreme misrepresentation, and possibly deliberate manipulation of facts to overstate the size and are of German minority in Eastern Europe, where did we see that before? Similar misrepresentation abound on the map. --E-960 (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
You might be right regarding the area around Łodź. A possibility would be to change unexact details of the map but keep the blue areas for Mazury and Upper Silesia, but it is unacceptable to erase the whole map. The map can be changed at Wikimedia Commons, but don't erase it here. -- PhJ (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The only place in Poland where there is a legitimate sizable and recognized German minority, in lower Sląsk, and it's legitimate to show that area, all those other places simply do not have anything that resembles a German speaking community. Same in Czech Rep, and Slovakia, especially after the fall of Communism and entry into the EU, where many of the German minority simply migrated back to Germany. --E-960 (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

See also commons:File talk:German standard varieties.png. E-960, your edits to the file on Commons were all reverted, mainly because they blanked out certain regions in stead of correcting when necessary (and when making corrections, those corrections should – of course – be accompanied by references). Basically the same as was done here: "I think it's wrong so I remove it". You shouldn't. You should correct it. As for the map itself: I think it might not be 'wrong' per se, but outdated in some aspects. So yes, some minorities might be significantly smaller now than the map suggests. I don't beleave that is for the sake of 'deliberate manipulation of facts'. Richard 11:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Richard, they were reverted because some folks want to keep an inaccurate map. There is simply no German Minority in all those places, the problem is that someone like you has no practical way of going to some of those places to see for yourself, and you relay on other questionable internet sources to as reference, and this is how misinformation spreads, and I'm saying this to drive in the point not to be argumentative. Census data from those countries within the last decade shows this, as a quick informal reference see the articles, German minority in Poland, Carpathian Germans, and Germans in the Czech Republic. --E-960 (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Another example, the city of Gdańsk (Danzig) is also marked in a big blue area as if it was bi-lingual area, however just look at census data, in the entire Pomeranian Voivodeship region (where the city is located) there is a total of 2,192,000 people and only 2,016 self declared Germans, how do you even begin to mark the map as if it there is a sizable German speaking community there?? Seriously. Also, the map does not cite the reference source that the image thumb box description does, again bit questionable. --E-960 (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems you confuse the declaration of ethnicity at a national census with language use. Have you gathered data on the latter, as Ulrich Ammon did? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly, for example since if you only have 263 people in Łodź who declare German ethnicity, how can you begin to argue that there is a sizable German SPEAKING community with German being their mother tongue. Just think about it. --E-960 (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
(after several edit conflicts): Alway nice to know that someone can read people's minds (how else would you know that a wish to keep an inaccurate map was in those minds?). That I have no practical way of going there is simply something you made up. I could go there, but what you're suggesting would constitute original research. As I said: if you have the sources (e.g. census data), you can (should?) correct things – but you should back up your corrections with those sources (on the talk page of the file, for instance). Links to census data would be helpful, otherwise it's going to be difficult to prove the validity of your claims. If you don't provide sources, the only remaining sources might be sources you describe as questionable. Blanking out Poland and Czechia, as you did before, is not a good idea. Also, there might be a difference between 'being German' and 'speaking German'. Richard 12:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Richard, per WikiCommons rules, the changes should occur on the article page not on the map itself, if the map is questionable it should be discussed and removed form the article, not changing the map on WikiCommons (my initial mistake), pls review the rules instead of trying to punt the ball back to WikiCommons. Provided the links to the actual articles on the subject, they have tables etc. backed up by the census date for easy reference. --E-960 (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Reading commons:File talk:Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen Sprache 2010.png (a discussion on a map, created by you and likely meant to be the successor of the one you removed here) and the first two sections on this page (now archived) does not make me happy. Although commons:File:German standard varieties.png might be based on outdated data, the way you interpret and use (newer) census data, is not free from criticism. And just now you uploaded yet another map on the same subject (which in turn gives this map as author – a map with a talk page where you yourself voiced the same concerns you are voicing here and in other places). BTW, I wonder how many maps Commons has on this subject... Richard 13:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Richard, you want to deflect the issue, and by talking about other maps that are not even part of this discussion. The issue at hand is the map shown above, and it's inaccuracies. Really, you have not presented a single argument why the map should stay because it's "accurate", you just throwing up red-herring argument about other items. The newer map (btw, not a successor to this map) cites the National Census data, this map only cites another map which cites another map (circular references). --E-960 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
German or "Niemiecki" in Poland, only one area where there is a sizable German speaking population
  • For Poland the Ethnologue: Languages of the World [1] states for German use in Poland: Location Lower Silesian, and Silesian provinces. Two provinces right next to each other, not all these places al over Poland. --E-960 (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this map looks very misleading: it looks as if the German-speaking minority areas were indeed German-speaking areas, and it confuses standard German varieties with German-speaking minorities – notions that belong to very different categories, and in this article, only the former is relevant. What is much more important: I very much doubt that Ammon at al. have published a map about German-speaking minorities. Their book is about the different varieties of standard German, not about German-speaking minorities. I can consult the book one of these days.
My suggestion: Create a new version of the map that only includes the standard German varieties according to Ammon et al. and use this map instead of the dubious one. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 17:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I scanned my copy of Ammon et al. (2004) for maps; this is the complete list:

  1. Page XXXIII: "Die nationalen Zentren der deutschen Sprache" showing three nationale Vollzentren (in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland) and four nationale Halbzentren (in South Tyrol, Luxembourg, East Belgium, and Liechtenstein)
  2. Page XXXIV: "Österreich: Sprachgebiete"
  3. Page XXXIX: "Schweiz: Sprachgebiete"
  4. Page XLIII: "Deutschland: Sprachgebiete"

There is no map showing German speaker distribution outside the seven nationale Vollzentren and nationale Halbzentren.

As a linguist I don't care how many speakers a language variety has. This figure has no impact on its scientific value, and the most influential language in current linguistic theory discourse is Pirahã. Over half of living languages have considerably less than 10,000 speakers anyway (see Ethnologue statistics), and several hundred is already a fair and "sizeable" number. (E-960's spelling is sizable.) I myself contributed to the primary description of a language of Northern Sulawesi with a similar number of speakers as Pirahã. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Nice, you got your own copy. Since Ammon et al. do not detail the German-speaking minorities, I think we should remove the map on the grounds of WP:VER, to be replaced with a better map that illustrates the Voll- and Halbzentren according to Ammon et al.
Let us not forget that the purpose of this map in this article is to illustrate the section Varieties of Standard German. By contrast, its purpose is not illustrating where German is spoken. This is described instead in the section Geographic distribution, which uses maps that appear to be based on solid sources. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 21:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
+1.
BTW, in 2016 Ammon et al. published an enhanced edition of the Variantenwörterbuch entitled Variantenwörterbuch des Deutschen. Die Standardsprache in Österreich, der Schweiz, Deutschland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Ostbelgien und Südtirol sowie Rumänien, Namibia und Mennonitensiedlungen. See also de:Variantenwörterbuch des Deutschen and de:Standarddeutsch#Viertelzentren. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
German Standard Verities
LiliCharlie, I blame "sizable" on my spell check tool, which does not pick up the context in which the word is used. Anyway, per the discussion, I went ahead and created a zoomed in version of the map, omitting the minorities and focusing only on the official standard verities of the language, I think that's a reasonable solution. --E-960 (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
We have 22 communes in Poland, where German is a co-official language and we have 31 communes with German place names. Besides there are still more communes with the same number of German speaking people without any offcial status.. There are 200.000 German speaking people in Poland, but now have a look on E-960s maps...: The Polish Map is empty... Does anyone really believes in the accuracy of E-960s maps? --Jonny84 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
No, there is 148,000 (and out of that 64,000 declared German jointly with Polish) [2], and all those 22 co-official language recognized communities are in Sląsk region, as the map I attached above shows. Also, you miss the point this map is about Standard German variations Austria, Germany and Switzerland, not German minorities. --E-960 (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
"No Germans here" This Polish-German sign stands there just for Ukrainians maybe...
You are NOT even able to differentiate between the data about German speakers and German ethnicity.. And you want to claim, that you are able to make accurate maps? Seriously? And there is NOT a voivodeship which is called properly "Sląsk region"... There is Silesia or the Opole Voivodeship and the Silesian Voivodeship.. And as far as I can see, there is nothing marked in Opole Voivodeship... It's completely empty... You even cut it off from the original map. So? Where are the 22 communes? --Jonny84 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
E-960 says: ″there is no German speaking minority in all those places in Eastern Europe per government census data form those countries Hmm. Official Polish census from 2002 says there are 200.000 German speaking people... Either 200.000 people are NO ONE or E-960 is just simply a vandalising bold liar... --Jonny84 (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand your problem, above I cited the 2011 Polish Census and provided the link to article, and you are calling me a liar? Also, as I stated before sizable German minority is only found in Sląsk not all over Poland. But again, this is not an issue about minorities. --E-960 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
″I don't understand your problem″. I know YOU don't want to understand, because you are just doing vandalism and want to erase German minorities... ″German minority is only found in Sląsk″ So why isn't even THIS on the map? Right, because you are just doing vandalism.. ″this is not an issue about minorities″ No, it's NOT? You are erasing minorities from the map, and it's not the issue? So minorities don't even has a language? Minorties are none? --Jonny84 (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jonny84: Re There are 200.000 German speaking people in Poland, but now have a look on E-960s maps...: The Polish Map is empty...: If you want to learn about German speaking people in Poland, then you better refer to the section § Geographic distribution. There, you will find the map Legal statuses of German in Europe (which appears to be based on much more reliable sources than the dubious map E-960 has removed). Voilà: the Polish map is not empty.
The section we are talking about here is the section § Varieties of Standard German – clearly not the appropriate section for learning about German speaking people in Poland, especially because the relevant source for the map apparently does not discuss Poland at all. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 20:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Legal statuses of German in Europe
″Voilà: the Polish map is not empty.″ But the map of E-960, which we are talking here about, sure is... ″The section we are talking about here is the section Varieties of Standard German″ I'm sure if 200.000 people in Poland speak German, they sure speak in one of its varieties. --Jonny84 (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Why do you keep saying 200,000?? In the 2011 Polish Census [3] on page 70 table 3.2 it lists which language(s) is/are used at HOME, and German is used by 96,000 people, with that those same people declared that Polish is also used by 80,000 along with German. So, in Poland there is only about 16,000 people who only speak German in their households, and out of the total 148,000 people who declared some sort of German ethnicity 52,000 don't speak German at all. But, again this is not a map about German minorities, so why do you keep repeatedly bringing up this issue, and the original map has serious errors all over why did you not criticize it? Also, the 2002 census [4] though it has higher numbers (which went down due to immigration) still do not justify the original map's claims, with the Łodź example it lists 325 people as German (speakers less), again significant exaggeration to mark the city as having a sizeable German speaking population. --E-960 (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Why would one want to subtract those who don't use German exclusively? That would be manipulating the figures. 96,000 use German, not just 16,000. Richard 08:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Richard, no one is. This is just an off-topic example to respond to earlier comment. This map is about the 3 national standard varieties of German, not about minorities (the source which is used in the article does not even discuss this separate matter). --E-960 (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I know that, I was just wondering why you would use that in your reply to Jonny84. Everything between "German is used by 96,000 people" and "But, again" could have been left out. Now it looks like you're trying to get the numbers even further away from the 200,000 Jonny claims. Richard 09:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
If you notice a pattern with the old unsourced map and some of the claims being made, which overstate the size and area or German speakers in Poland, and other countries. Anyway, you're right this is going off on a tangent. --E-960 (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know whether Donald Tusk claimed Polish, German or Kashubian ethnicity in the 2011 Polish Census, nor which languages he speaks at home. However it is obvious that his responses don't change his language skills in any way.
E-960, I don't understand why you suggest that someone "who declared some sort of German ethnicity" but doesn't speak German at home isn't a German speaker. I for one did not always share my house with someone to talk to in my mother tongue, and several of my family still don't.
P.S.: I'm unable to make head or tail of the locution "some sort of German ethnicity." But anyway, many people speak German no matter whether their ethnicity is German, Han Chinese, Polish, Turkish, Austrian, Russian, Kashubian, Flemish, Vietnamese, or Herero. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
LiliCharlie, "some sort of German ethnicity" is a reference to the Polish census were you are able to list more then one ethnicity and list it as a 1st or 2nd identity. Also, in the old map is says "German-speaking minorities" (ethnic Germans) so this would not equate to a general knowledge of another language by various non-German groups. --E-960 (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Let me repeat that ethnicity is completely irrelevant when it comes to language use, and this is also true for Germans: The over 44 million German Americans constitute about one third or worldwide Germans, but only about 1 million Americans speak the German language. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
He don't want to understand, because he just want to vandalise. --Jonny84 (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Another fun fact: In the national census from 2002 in Łódź 29.632 people didn't declared any ethnicity. There could be more different ethnicities... --Jonny84 (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, this is in line with the third sentence of our article German minority in Poland: Due to complications arising from multi-ethnic identities and previous concealment during the communist period, many people of German descent are not accounted for and some estimates number Poles of German ancestry from 400,000 to 500,000.[2] In other words, people felt it was safer to conceal their ethnic identity, and they continue to conceal it. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
″That would be manipulating the figures″ That's the specialty of E-960: The manipulation of facts and maps... That's why he ignores the existence of 200.000 German speaking people in Poland, and makes empty Polish maps... So he also ignores the existence of 22 communes, who are co-officially German speaking.. And that's why he ignores the difference between ethnicity and language... And that's why always try to use the smallest numbers... --Jonny84 (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This is slightly off topic, but I'd like to point out that language and ethnicity are two completely different notions. Just three examples:
  1. Less than 100 of over 10 million Manchu people in China speak the Manchu language.
  2. Almost all Singaporeans are proficient English speakers even though nearly 97% of them claim an ethnicity that is either Chinese (74.3%), Malay (13.3%) or some Indian ethnicity (9.1%). (The official languages of the city-state of Singapore are Chinese, Malay, English, and Tamil; its constitutional "national language" is Malay.)
  3. The overwhelming majority of ethnic Luxembourgers are trilingual and speak Luxembourgish, French, and German.
Further reading: Joshua A. Fishman & Ofelia García (2010): Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Oxford University Press. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed this is a different topic, and language and ethnicity are two different items, so for closing thoughts, I think that once you get to such small numbers it becomes an issue of accuracy and verifiability, exaggerating such data on the map results in misrepresentations to the size and area, and that becomes a real problem. --E-960 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
A great many of the maybe 2.85 million Poles in Germany speak not only native-like Polish but also native-like German. You simply cannot rule out that ethnic Poles, no matter on which side of the Oder–Neisse line they take up residence in their later lives, are not only speakers of Polish, but also of German. Mastering several languages is certainly not the privilege of said Singaporeans and Luxembourgers; most linguists believe that multilingual speakers outnumber monolingual speakers in the world's population. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Manipulation by E-960

I've just realized this summer, that user E-960 is trying to manipulate maps about the German language, because he tried to change some files, which I had on my watchlist, so they showed up. But now that I looked on this article, I just found out, that he even changed other maps (which are used on this page) long time before, like in 2017. He always erases all German speaking minorities in Poland, Czechia and Slovakia completely. This is an act of denying of the existence of German speaking minorities in Eastern Central Europe. So he already changed this map (File:Continental West Germanic languages.png) in 2017.. Just have a look on the version history and compare. On this map he even erased everything in Hungary and Romania. So now I hope, that you know how biased his edits are. --Jonny84 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Romania? — Not only is Romania's president Klaus Iohannis an ethnic German, but he also speaks fluent German. And Herta Müller who in 2009 won the Nobel Prize in Literature for her oeuvre that she wrote in German is from Nițchidorf/Nitzkydorf, Romania. I don't believe they learned the language of Sigmund Freud (great literary stylist) and Albert Einstein by way of self-teaching. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, “Region where German has no official status” is not a West Germanic dialect. Putting it on a map about West Germanic dialects does not add any information about West Germanic dialects. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 21:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
36,000 as of 2011, 0.2% Germans. Herta Müller emigrated 1985-1987. Xx236 (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Low German

Low German is an language, not an dialect. Please note that. [5] --Phillipm0703 (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

List Dialects or Subfamilies in Infobox

I would argue that the dialects or regional languages (depending on whose side of that debate you are on) should be placed in the infobox by the parameter dia1=, dia2= instead of listing 20 different ISO 639-3 codes, 20 different Glottolog codes and Linguasphere codes. Each of those languages/regional languages/languoid, dialects have an infobox where the various codes can and should be added.--Alternative Transport (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

On first thought, I tend to agree. Richard 09:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it is safe to say that not all items listed in the Language codes section of the infobox fit the desciption of German given in the History section. — It seems inconsistent to list gmh and goh for Middle and Old High German, but not gml and osx for Middle and Old Low German, though nds for contemporary Low German is given. It is also unclear why frs for East Frisian Low Saxon is missing. (Maybe the absence of wym for Wymysorys also requires an explanation given that so many other lects remote from Standard German are listed.)
I suggest to keep a(n alphabetic) list of ISO 639 codes that is collapsed by default (but de, deu and ger for contemporary German proper should always be visible), and add a hierarchical list of dialects. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Low German isn't an dialect, it's an language. Phillipm0703 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
This depends on your definition of language vs. dialect, see Dialect#Dialect or language.
Following a sociolinguistic definition, High and Low German varieties can be grouped as one language, all Sinitic varieties as one Chinese language, all Arabic varieties as one Arabic language etc. On the other hand a sociolinguistic definition can lead to viewing Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin as separate languages, Hindi and Urdu as separate languages, Farsi, Dari and Tajik as separate languages, and so forth.
A purely linguistic definition, or one taking mutual intelligibility as the main criterion, leads to different classifications, but is considered inappropriate by the majority of language users. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Order of the four cases

The correct order of the four cases is:

nominative, genitive, dative, accusative

Example: das Haus - the house

  • Nom.: das Haus,
  • Gen.: des Hauses,
  • Dat.: dem Haus/Hause,
  • Acc.: das Haus

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:9702:A100:49B8:44AE:EF60:2012 (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no "correct" order, just differing conventions. Having said that, in a declensional system where there is a widespread loss of contrast between Nom. and Acc. it's simply unhelpful not to list these cases adjacently. --Pfold (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Loanwords

I've tagged some of the words (anschluss, kraut, reich, gelandesprung) listed in the loanword section as I don't think the fit the bill. If a loanword here is a word from German that has come into general use in English, then these aren't, really; English speakers do not use anschluss when they mean connection, or kraut when they mean cabbage, or reich when they mean empire. All of those words are, rather, borrowed terms ie non-English (in this case German) words with a specific meaning that are used because there isn't an English word for it. And there is nothing at the Ski-jumping article to suggest that gelandesprung is commonly used in English to describe it. Is this list drawn from any source at all? Or is it just a list someone has dreamed up? Moonraker12 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • While I agree with you for gelandesprung, Kraut is very common as a semi-derogative term for Germans in general (and has been used that way for a century and a half). Anschluss is used in English specifically to the German-Austrian anschluss during the third reich. It's probably good to mention that we say Reich in English as "Rike" instead of the German pronunciation because it used to be an English word meaning the same thing it does in German, a realm. However since WWII it's been used specifically as "a German empire" referring to either The German Empire or the third reich. Anschluss, Kraut, and arguably Reich are very much loanwords, even if they don't mean the exact same thing in English as they do in German. I think what also happened is that you may have mistaken the last column of the table for "use in English" when it's pretty clearly labelled as "Meaning of German word". I think we should just extend the table by a column to add the English use. And definitely get rid of a few words like gelandesprung. Acolossus | Talk | Contributions 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Spoken wikipedia - one table only

I was wondering if it was of any interest to have the table in section English to German cognates supported by an audio recording?

If so,

  • 1) column by column or rather 2) row by row?
  • 1) Both English and German content or 2) just the German words (to get the pronunciation right)?

(Alternative: To mind, adding IPA to the column would just blow up the article/the table unnecessarily, wouldn't it?) DrJHinker (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

English to German cognates

I feel the table is getting too bulky. Besides, not all of the items seem to be exact cognates. For example, fließen parallels to fleet rather than to flow. Flow is cognate to Old High German flewen, flawen "to rinse", Proto-Germanic *flōaną; while fließen derives from OHG vliozan, P-G *fleutaną. That is, they have been different words for millennia. Similarly, Fluss is closer to flood than to flow; Hut closer to hood than to hat; and it is by no means certain that hag is shortened from Old English hægtesse, hæhtisse, hægtes, -tis, hegtes "fury, witch, hag" ≘ OHG hagazissa, hagazussa, hagzus, whence Hexe. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Renaming of Schulschrift file

This was unnecessary and is now confusing. "2." is clearly the German ordinal meaning "2nd". Jmar67 (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"German, standard" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect German, standard. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 9#German, standard until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"German, Standard" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect German, Standard. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 9#German, Standard until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Deutsh" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Deutsh. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Deutsh until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Map of pre-war german dialects

I think that this could fit well in the "History" section to show the dialects of German (and Dutch) in the early 1900s: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_der_deutschen_Mundarten_(Brockhaus).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.252.66 (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Many of the words listed as English Loanwords are obviously no such thing

Many of the words listed as English Loanwords are obviously no such thing e.g. anschluss, gedankenexperiment, gelandesprung, gemütlichkeit, reich, sprachraum, verklemmt.

The fact that these words may be understood by some English speakers due to cultural significance etc. does not make them English Loanwords. The list neds to be pruned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.207.121 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

At least for Gemütlichkeit, there was a time when it was better known to English speakers than hygge: [6] –Austronesier (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I would certainly like to see the proper nouns removed - words like Anschluss, which refer to a specific historical event - and any which don't have an article in the English WP (e.g. katzenjammer). --Pfold (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The best solution, IMHO, is to get rid of that table, which only attracts low-quality edits, and merge it into List of German expressions in English. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that getting rid of the table is the best option. It seems that words are getting added that few people, who only speak English, understand.BradAstroClass (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
We also need to be careful not to discard any words which are definitely loanwords, but which might not be known to people outside of the fields where they are used, e.g. Sprachraum in linguistics, Gedankenexperiment in natural sciences; both of these are (despite what the IP says) definitely loanwords and are used just like English terms. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Denglisch

The article barely mentions the problem. It needs at least few lines.Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Red references

Recently added table lacks three references.Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Table in lead

Can that table be moved... anywhere else? The lead shouldn't contain tables at all.--Megaman en m (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed it. –Austronesier (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

German MOOC course

Please add to external links

  • [http://worldmentoringacademy.com/www/index.php?ctg=lesson_info&lessons_ID=1080 MOOC German language course]: Free German course with Audio, Text, G+ hangouts, media, & Culture.
it's gone. --Naramaru (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

why the scope is unclear

German language is part of a concept, the concept of two sides of a language, the dialect continuum on the one side and the umbrella variant on the other, forming together a language, this is how Low German as part of the West Germanic continuum and Standard German as the umbrella can be part of the same language... not everybody believes in this concept, but many do, cf. e.g. Peter von Matt "Unsere Muttersprache ist Deutsch in zwei Gestalten"... others may define a language with different criteria like grammatical distance, different set of sound changes and other contact languages... --Aferghes (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

That is, the article should differentiate (more) clearly between the following, right?
And most information probably belongs into the article of Standard High German which is standardised.
--Naramaru (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Speakers

  • "Native speakers: 95 million (2014)[3]
    L2 speakers: 80–85 million (2014)[3]"
  • ^ Ulrich Ammon, Hans Bickel, Jakob Ebner, et al.: Variantenwörterbuch des Deutschen. Die Standardsprache in Österreich, der Schweiz und Deutschland sowie in Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Ostbelgien und Südtirol. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2004.
  • ^ Tomasz Kamusella in "Dual Citizenship ..." estimates the number of ethnic Germans to be 400-500 thousand
  • ^ a b "Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and their languages" (PDF) (report). European Commission. June 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 January 2016. Retrieved 24 July 2015.
    1. How can it be "(2014)" when the source is from 2012?
    2. That source lacks the page, where is the above information?
    3. As far as I can see, the source doesn't give any absolute number (in million) but only relative numbers (in %), and has:
      • p. 1: "There are 23 officially recognised languages1, more than 60 indigenous regional and minority languages" with "1 [...] German [...]". In the footnote there is no Low German, which is a regional or minority language as per the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, i.e. in this paper German means Standard High German or at least High German.
      • p. 5: "In accordance with the EU population, the most widely spoken mother tongue is German (16%)[.] [...] The five most widely spoken foreign languages remain [...] German (11%) [...].". As for the population, there is a link to [7]. Now one could research the EU population of 2012 and do some math (native speakers: 16% of EU population, L2 speakers 11% of EU population).

    So to sum it up: Information and source are insufficient. --Naramaru (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

    Duden

    Quote: "In 1872, grammatical and orthographic rules first appeared in the Duden.[1]".
    • Source:
      • p. 8, right column: "in 1872, he [= Konrad Duden] offered an enlarged edition, Die deutsche Rechtschreibung: Abhandlung, Regeln, und Wörterverzeichnis [...]"
      • p. 9, left column: "Duden's Vollständiges Orthographisches Wörterbuch, first published in 1880, with subsequent revised editions appearing [...]"
    • According to Duden (duden.de: Auflagen des Dudens (1880–2020), Der Urduden), the first Duden was published in 1880.

    Thus:

    • In 1872 it was not "in the Duden" but "in a work by Konrad Duden".
    • The source doesn't (seem to) mention grammatical rules, and the title only implies orthographical rules.

    --Naramaru (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

    Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

    This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fantinij, Sarahaubrey13. Peer reviewers: Esotericbubbba, Djiang1019.

    Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

    Umlaut (linguistics)

    Would someone have a quick look at Umlaut (linguistics)#Marking please? As written, it appears to suggest that the mark is historic. I don't speak German but even I know this to be nonsense. Thank you. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

    Your concern isn't entirely clear to me (nor why you're asking here instead of at Talk:Umlaut (linguistics), but that's secondary). Is it that you're interpreting "originally" to mean that the mark was originally used but no longer is? I can see it being read that way, but I can also read it another way, to indicate that that was the umlaut mark's original purpose, but that it is now used in words that involve no phonological umlaut, as in foreign borrowings such as Büro and imaginär, or perhaps even in native words like Bär (Middle High German ber). Perhaps that was what was intended. If so, then it should be reworded to remove the ambiguity. Largoplazo (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you. The current text is ambiguous. I feel it needs the attention of a German speaker to tease out the nuances. (Yes, I should have tried asking at the article talk page first. Feel free to transfer the conversation there.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
    I will remove the passage completely. That page isn't even about the diacritic nor German (or Germanic) umlaut, but the linguistic phenomenon in general. So it's quite off-topic. –Austronesier (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

    "Wie gehts" listed at Redirects for discussion

    The redirect Wie gehts has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 22 § Wie gehts until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

    "Deutschgesprachen" listed at Redirects for discussion

    The redirect Deutschgesprachen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 22 § Deutschgesprachen until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

    1. ^ Weiss 1995, pp. 7–12.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_language/Archive_8&oldid=1227544538"