Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2022 October 23

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 23

Use of German 'dialects'

I asked this question here a year ago but I still wonder: do we have data on the use of German dialects / West Germanic languages in Germany? Is there diglossia? How many people understand these dialects/languages/varieties? speak them? use them every day? In which situation(s) are they used? Are they used in writing as well? What are the trends in use? Is the situation similar to the one of Swiss German vs Standard German in Switzerland? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Low German has undergone quite a decline in status since the Hanseatic League days. In the late middle ages and early Renaissance it had a very significant influence on Scandinavian languages, and was even the source of some nautical or trading words loaned into English. At that time, only a few mining or metallurgical words ("zinc" etc) were borrowed from High German into other languages. Since then, Low German has become various local patois, which are rarely written, and seem to be mostly declining in use. The special characteristic of Swiss German is that it's used in any and all spoken contexts when Swiss speak to each other. I doubt whether local dialects in most of Germany have that degree of vitality... AnonMoos (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This volume is a real treasure for the topic. Chapters 25 and 27 cover some of the questions you have raised here. However, it's in German. I don't think there is much in-depth literature about the subject written in English, but I might be mistaken. –Austronesier (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Sign in Bavarian.

Thanks @Austronesier, it's a pity I lost all my German...

Bavarian has 6 million "users" in Germany according to Ethnologue (passive speakers? daily use?) and it seems that the language is still used in some public signs. However, I can't find more granular data similar to what we have for Catalan_language#Number_of_speakers. Still, I found these sources:

• The Decline of German Dialects, 1959: "A radical change in the tempo of this development can be observed in postwar Germany. Migrations on an unprecedented scale took place and broke down the isolation of dialect areas. [...] Among the more than 50 million inhabitants of West Germany, more than 20 percent are recent arrivals from the east; every fifth West German is an expellee or refugee. [...] Thus, a leveling of the colloquial standard was a consequence of the mingling of populations. [...] The eastern German dialects are dying out, the western are receding. [...] For the ordinary pursuits of life most use a colloquial form of speech, in fact several forms depending on the nature of the contacts. This colloquial speech still varies in different parts of the territory, depending on the strength of the regional dialect. It is typically a compromise between the standard language and the dialect. In the north the dialect elements are minor. In the south, particularly the southwest, dialect features in pronunciation and vocabulary are still much stronger but receding"
• Language variation and (de-)standardisation processes in Germany, 2011:
  • "the Low German area is characterised by a widespread loss of dialects" // "A large part of the population in this area are speakers of standard German who use a vernacular distinct from the standard language, but with very few regional features, even in informal situations"
  • "In the Middle German area there is a tendency towards base dialect loss, and most speakers are able to use a variety of the (spoken) standard language in any situation (Dingeldein 1997: 131)."
  • The Upper German area: "Here, dialects are still in use [...] In the Bavarian language area (east) there is more tolerance of the use of (regional) dialect. In the Alemannic and Eastern Franconian area (west) the rural varieties and the regional dialects are commonly avoided in public and formal situations (Ruoff 1997: 145). [...] Ruoff (1997: 143) states that dialects in the south of Germany are changing, but that this change does not appear to be in the direction of the standard language."
  • There's a nice map (Figure 2) showing that the North of Germany has lost dialects whereas the South is diglossic.
  • "In 1983 and 1998 the Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach (Allensbach institute for opinion polls) asked about 2000 people 'Are you able to speak the dialect of your region?' [...] Comparing the results from 1983 and 1998 it is possible to observe that dialect competence diminishes in all regions except for Bavaria."
  • "Straßner‘s (1983) overview of the development of dialect use in the mass media since their beginnings reveals a clear predominance of the standard variety, with only some 5% dialect use in radio and even less in television."
• Bavarian: successful dialect or failed language?, 2011: "In 2008, 45 percent of Bavarians claimed to use only dialect in everyday communication"

A455bcd9 (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Quickly added these sources here => Languages of Germany#German dialects. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Dialect levelling#Standard German has some information relevant to this discussion. --Jayron32 15:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @Jayron32, too bad nothing is sourced there... A455bcd9 (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"High" German

I have a vague notion from somewhere that the word "high" in "High German" is more about the geographical elevation of the regions it comes from than about the prestige level of the lect. Is that true? If it is, it might be good to say so in the articles, as people could easily get confused. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

High German languages#Classification already supports your notion, however Standard German, which is sometimes also called High German, seems to be a different kettle of fish. Alansplodge (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The prestige variety of German happens to be a form of High German, but my notion is that this is something of a coincidence, and not the reason for the word "high". If that can be verified (I don't really mean just someone finds a source somewhere; I'd like to know that it's the consensus view among experts) then there are probably a number of places we should mention it. Standard German would be one of them. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Highest German (Highest Alemannic) is so called because it's spoken in the Alps. Low German is so called because it's spoken on the coast -- same reason for the name of the Netherlands. High German is divided into Middle or Central German and Upper German, and Standard German is based on both. But calling standard German "High German" may possible be due to its prestige. I wouldn't be surprised if the two metaphors have gotten mixed up in this case. — kwami (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there a difference between Highest and Upper German? (As far as I have understood Upper German, it is less of a standard, but the High German sound shift has shifted further.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

In this map of Upper German lects, Highest Alemannic (coloured dark green) constitutes only a minor part.  --Lambiam 12:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The origin of the designation is without doubt the geographical elevation. Compare the name the Low Countries and the name Low Saxon, a calque of German Niedersächsisch, for the dialect spoken in Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen) and surroundings. The lofty sense of the adjective rubbed off on the connotations of High German and made this an ambiguous term. In the linguistic sense, the High German dialects include several dialects that are strongly divergent from "Standard German", up to the point of negligible mutual intelligibility.  --Lambiam 12:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The land of Baden-Württemberg for a while used the slogan Wir können alles. Außer Hochdeutsch. ("We can do anything. Except speak high German.") This is interesting because all the dialects spoken in BW are High German dialects (Swabian and other allemannic and franconian dialects), but clearly distinct from High (=Standard) German. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The slogan plays with the understandig of the word 'Hochdeutsch' in the general population (not among linguists): 'Hochdeutsch' as opposed to dialect. The slogan implies that - although many people in Baden-Württemberg speak more or less the local or regional dialect rather than standard German - they nevertheless build technically advanced Mercedeses (etc.). Morinox (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

By the way, the German Wikipedia has a page about this slogan: de:Wir können alles. Außer Hochdeutsch. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Strangely enough (one's own) language seems to be among the worse understood (everyday) subjects of all. A supposed value-difference between languages with and without writing, between dialects and official languages is nonsense (if the study of language is concerned)- Chomsky got that right. The days that dialect-speechers were despised "rustics" sadly linger on. But the old folklorist's idealization of "pre- modern", rural, cultures doesn't help either: they hated and ignored modern urban dialects (Ruhrgebietsdeutsch, Berlinerisch). Another factor in value- judgements about languages and language- users are religious (catholic and protestant cultures) and/or political (hatred of Bavaria), nationalistic: contempt for Dutch. Even the 1970s Ostfriesenwitze have a strong historical- poltical background. All these prejudices are of course important in a sozial sense, but completely false, if pure linguistics is concerned.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Can "want" be used in the imperative?

Why or why not? 24.130.152.125 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone will probably correct me, but I believe the expression "waste not, want not" is an example of "want" being in the Imperative mood. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

That's "want" in the sense of not having. Also, I'm not sure it's imperative. More like ellipsis: (if you) waste not (then you'll) want not.

You can certainly use "want" in the sense of desiring in the imperative. It's just semantically odd. But in a context where it makes sense (where you could command someone's desires), it would be perfectly acceptable.

I found something like the necessary context on Gbooks: "You'll want what I tell you to want."

Okay, I found several books titled "Want Me". Those are in the imperative.

P.S. Is this a homework question? — kwami (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The statement "want me" sounds like an imperative. The others here, so far, do not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

True, but similar semantics, which is where we'd need to look. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If you were around in the late 1970s, there was a well known song "I Want You to Want Me"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

However, there is no imperative in that title. "Want me" (imperative) is just something that a person might say if they feel as described in the title. --174.89.144.126 (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I know, but it's a prominent example of one person rhetorically requesting or requiring another to want, as discussed by Kwamigami. AnonMoos (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"I want you to (X)" is not an imperative, unless it's coming from someone you report to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The paperback edition of the book Want Me, Cowboy (ISBN 978-1-945879-39-5) contains, on page 269, this passage of interior monologue: "Oh, please, oh, please, want me. Love me." The verb is unambiguously in the imperative mood.  --Lambiam 11:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The usage of stative verbs in the imperative might be possible, but is unusual. --Theurgist (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, be happy – but know your weaknesses.  --Lambiam 18:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's the semantics that's odd. You don't normally command something that is involuntary. When a doctor tells you to cough, you have to fake it, so really they're telling you to imitate a cough. The imperative 'love me' normally means affection or sex, both of which are under voluntary control. But you wouldn't say 'fall in love with me' unless maybe you were casting a spell. You need very specific context to command someone to do something they have no control over. The quote from Want Me, Cowboy above is a matter of wishing, maybe a prayer, where you're trying to command reality rather than the person. Rather like 'please be here' when you go to meet someone unannounced -- you're not commanding anyone to do anything, just wishing that it be so. — kwami (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)