Talk:Low German/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

ISO code mistake

There is no ISO 639-5 code nds (though there is ISO 639-2 & 639-3). It appears that the "Infobox language family" template assumes the 639-5 code existence. I'd change the template to the individual language one, but I wasn't sure if that would cause a "stir" (is it an individual or a family language?). So I'm noting the mistake here for a someone with more experience with the article to try and clean up. Thanks. --Bequw (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Diphtongs

The phonology section does not contain anything about diphtongs. I realise that Low German/Low Saxon has relatively few diphtongs compared to many other germanic languages, but are diphtongs completely absent? If so, that would be quite unusual, and worthy of mention. --195.0.221.197 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Some Northern dialects (mostly more urban ones) manage to have almost no diphthongs. More rural dialects usually have more dipthongs. Westphalian dialects are very rich in diphthongs. It all depends on the dialect, there are few rules that generally apply on all of Low Saxon. --::Slomox:: >< 11:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Plural verb ending in Mecklenburg (-t vs. -en)

The article says that the dialects in Mecklenburg use -en as the plural verb ending.

Quote: "The reason for the two conjugations shown in the plural is regional: dialects in the central area use -t while the dialects in East Frisia and the dialects in Mecklenburg and further east use -en. The -en suffix is of Dutch influence."

I live in Mecklenburg, yet the (native Mecklenburger) people that I've listened to speaking Platt always use -t for the plural ending.

Marxolang (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This map shows the distribution of the plural verb ending. As you can see, only the westernmost parts of Mecklenburg have -t while the whole rest has -en.
But another part of the quoted text is problematic: The -en suffix is of Dutch influence. That's not correct. I have no clue why the ending is different, but it is apparent that -en appears in colonial dialects. There are four regions where -en appears: The whole east (Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Pommern, Preußen), Schleswig, Frisia and the Veluwe region. The east was formerly Slavic, Schleswig was Danish and Frisia was Frisian. While Dutch influence cannot be ruled out (although it is improbable) in the east and in Frisia, in Schleswig there never were any Dutch. So that cannot be the source. The Veluwe never switched from another language and directly adjoins the Hollandic region so here Dutch influence is probable. --::Slomox:: >< 17:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The Dutch ruled modern East Frisia for quite some time, in which time the official administrative and church language was Dutch. It also saw extensive migration in the 16th century of Dutch refugees. Northern Germany around Berlin was settled in great numbers by Dutch colonists following the Ostsiedlung in the 13th and 14th century; of which the Berlin dialect still shows signs. Westbrabander (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
But that didn't affect most parts of Mecklenburg but there is also -en.--84.140.9.115 (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect map

The map "Sprachenkarte Deutschland1880.png" is currently used in this article. This 19th century map, made during arguably the height of (ethno-)nationalism in Europe; especially in newly founded Germany, is inaccurate. It shows Dutch as part of the German language; or rather, it shows German being spoken in the Netherlands and Flanders. Modern linguists, just like many contemporary French, Dutch and English linguists, have - in the past 130 years - completely changed this image.

Let it be clear that I'm not trying to prove Dutch isn't German, which would be ridiculous as discussions involving "French is Italian" or "German is Dutch" would make about as much sense. I would like to see this map removed because it;

  • Represents a biased (i.e 19th century German) point of view.
  • Makes linguistic distintions which are completly obsolete and proven to be wrong.
  • Offensive towards speakers of the Dutch language.

If someone would like to adapt this map to modern linguistics (which I think is possible as it seems to be in the public domain) then that's okay; but there is no reason, whatsoever, to keep this obsolete, inaccurate and offensive map in this article. I am removing it, until supporters of the map add their arguments in this section. Westbrabander (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The map shows the distribution of dialects (not standard languages) in 1880. The dialects of Northern Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium form a group of dialects with common features (most distinctly the lack of High German consonant shift) and that's what the map shows. In German this group was called Niederdeutsch back then and for that reason the label says Niederdeutsche. Additionally the direct Dutch translation Nederduits was completely unoffensive to Dutch people in 1880. They even used the term to denote their own language. --::Slomox:: >< 19:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The Dutch never refered to their language as "Niederdeutsch" or "Nederduits" in the sense of "Niederdeutsch". Again, this is not a point of discussion.Westbrabander (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that Low Saxon(i.e. Low German) and Low Franconian (i.e. Dutch) do not form a linguistic subgroup within West Gmc and never have. Shared failure to participate in a linguistic innovation (in this case the Sound Shift) is not a basis for classification - the map makes a basic mistake often made by non-specialists. And that makes it unsuitable for an encyclopedia. --Pfold (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly.Westbrabander (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Depends on the definition of "linguistic subgroup". If you define it as forms a branch in the family tree of the Westgermanic languages, you are right. But languages are much much more complex than simple trees. Take e.g. zeggen/seggen vs. sagen, vertellen/vertellen vs. erzählen, kaf/Kaff vs. Spreu, schacht/Schacht vs. Schaft, thuis/tohuus vs. daheim, angel/Angel vs. Stachel, wij/wi vs. wir (or mir), enkel/enkel vs. einzeln, buiten/buten vs. außen, een/een vs. eins etc. pp.
The most obvious and defining common property is lack of sound shift, but there are many other positive similarities. --::Slomox:: >< 20:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This is A) original research B) totally subjective. There are dozens of sound shifts which clearly separate Dutch from any Low Saxon variety, ignoring vocabulary of grammatical features which are even greater in number. Again, the status of Dutch is not disputed; the map is. Westbrabander (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


The very definition of "Nederduits"/"Niederdeutsch" is: the language spoken in the low (coastal) countries as opposed to the language of the higher-lying areas of Southern Germany ("neder" refers to geography) and the term was coined in the early 16th century. At that time printed texts increasingly replaced hand-written texts and the possibility to reach broader audiences made printers and publishers more aware of the differences between the Continental West Germanic language variants. The first obvious dividing line they realized was that between "Niederdeutsch" and "Oberdeutsch". Dutch was "Nederduits" and the Dutch referred to their language by this term.
And the map shows this dividing line between "Niederdeutsch" and "Oberdeutsch" using the common terms of the time (and which are still in use today, although their use is limited cause linguistics focus on different aspects nowadays). The map is thus perfectly okay. The only thing "wrong" with the map is that you don't feel comfortable being labeled "German" (or "Deutsch" or "Niederdeutsch") cause of the Dutch nationalism developed in the time since 1880. So don't call 1880 the "height of (ethno-)nationalism in Europe", rather call 2010 the "height of (state-)nationalism in Europe".
I won't edit the article, I have no interest in any edit-warring, but a much more useful solution than deletions would be to
  • Proposal A: tell us exactly how the map should look like in your opinion.
  • Proposal B: provide a concept for the whole article about which maps should be shown in which places to illustrate/provide which information. --::Slomox:: >< 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The Dutch were nation long before the Germans and if you deny the 1880s/1890s are not the height of German nationalism, then you don't know your ow history. My objections with the map have nothing to do with nationalism; other than that I find it offensive to label the Dutch as Germans; which is the same as labeling French as Spanish or Poles as Russians. I object to the map; like I've said, because it is inaccurate/false and wholely German in its POV.
Adding; Nederduits in Dutch 16th century writing is of a humanistic nature and comes from the translation of "Germania Inferior" the Roman name for what are now the Low Countries. It is not the same as the later calque from 19th century German linguistics "Niederdeutsch"; especially in meaning. To claim Dutch people at any time saw themselves as "Niederdeutsche" is offensive and a-historical.Westbrabander (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you tried searching Google Books for the term "Nederduitsch" (old orthography for "Nederduits")?
  • Over de Hollandsche en Vlaemsche schryfwyzen van het Nederduitsch': About the Hollandic and Flemish orthography of Dutch
  • Algemeen Nederduitsch en Friesch dialecticon: General Low German and Frisian dialecticon
  • Niew nederduitsch-hoogduitsch Zakwoordenboek: New Dutch-German encyclopedia
etc. pp. Several thousand more results. These results show, that the term was used for both the Dutch standard language and the whole area of non-sound-shifted dialects (as in the dialecticon, that speaks about nederduitsch dat in Mecklenburg-Strelitz, zoowel als in de pruisische landstreek Uckermark wordt gesproken, which clearly refers to Low Saxon, not to Dutch).
if you deny the 1880s/1890s are not the height of German nationalism, then you don't know your ow history. German ethno-nationalism existed for centuries and was aimed at internal unification. Only in the first half of the 19th century it became strong enough to influence politics (before that time the personal power interests of the rulers of the small states were more important). The first culmination point was 1871 when German nationalism succeeded in creating a unified German state (although it was still the Kleindeutsche Lösung without Austria). This new power as a unified state boosted a new kind of nationalism that was increasingly aggressive and arrogant to other states. This new kind of nationalism culminated in WW I and after a setback after the lost war again culminated in WW II. After that the quality of German nationalism again changed. The ethno-nationalism was replaced by a state-nationalism. It's restricted to the state in its current borders and has no ambitions outside its borders. This state-nationalism grew since then and is still growing in the present.
The Dutch nationalism was quite different from the German nationalism. Before the 16th century the Dutch did not feel like a nation of its own. They were Germans. But with the invention of book printing and the consolidation of standard languages soon after, which resulted in two standard languages in the Empire and the political independance of the Netherlands, the Dutch considered themselves to be a different nation, although they still considered themselves to be Germans (so there were two German nations) The Dutch lands have strong neighbours. Germany and France were too powerful for the Netherlands to develop any kind of territorial ambitions. The only realistic option for ethno-nationalist expansion was incorporation of Flanders. The other possible ethno-nationalist targets Rhineland (linguistically more close to Dutch than to German) and Northern Germany (linguistically and culturally close to the Netherlands) were out of reach cause Germany was too powerful. So when German nationalism became stronger in the 19th century the reaction of the Netherlands was to defense themselves against any possible German ambitions and to consolidate their own nation. With Germany's power growing the Dutch feared that people would think of them as "that other, unimportant German state". So they tried to drop the term "German" (Duits") and increasingly started to refer to themselves as "Dutch" ("Nederlands"). And you are continuing this "We're not German!" relabeling. Of course that's okay, it's perfectly legitimate to try to be noticed as a entity of its own. But it is not okay to project this newly developed labeling to the past where it becomes anachronistic. --::Slomox:: >< 16:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by citing those book titles. With comments like "The dialecticon, that speaks about nederduitsch dat in Mecklenburg-Strelitz, zoowel als in de pruisische landstreek Uckermark wordt gesproken, which clearly refers to Low Saxon, not to Dutch" you're pretty much proving my point. Nederduits in Dutch had two distinct meanings; one derived from Latin (Germania Inferior, meaning Dutch) and one much later definiton from 19th century German linguists (Niederdeutsch, refering to a now obsolete linguistic classification) so what exactly are you trying to prove?
  2. Secondly; let me illustrate what you're now claiming. You claim, that prior to the 15th century (a time with no printing press, education, wide spread traveling or literacy) the Dutch considered themselves to be Germans?! Furthermore, you hence claim the existence of a German nation prior to even that?! German nationalism is typical for the 19th century only, when powerfull centralized states like Prussia emerged. Any age before that, German was a language and people were Hamburgers, Bavarians, Saxons, etc. ... not Germans. It is a blatent falsification of history to claim otherwise. As it is to claim the Dutch as Germans, correction, to claim the Dutch claimed they were Germans. Which is, especially if you have any knowledge of Dutch social- and general-history (which you clearly don't) even worse.
  3. The third point is that my second point has nothing to do with the discussion and merely serves as a rebuttal of your ridiculous claims. Please stick to the matter at hand; that is why you think a 19th century map containing false information should be used in this article. Westbrabander (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
so what exactly are you trying to prove? You denied, that the Dutch ever considered themselves to be German. But they did. And the books prove it. If you need further proof, try to look for books written in old times containing the term Duitsch or Duitsche. E.g. De schat der Duitsche Tale from 1750. It's about Dutch. Or die Bibel int duitsche neerstelick ouergheset from 1525 which is a _Dutch_ translation. Do you see my point?
You claim, that prior to the 15th century (a time with no printing press, education, wide spread traveling or literacy) the Dutch considered themselves to be Germans?! Yes, I do.
Furthermore, you hence claim the existence of a German nation prior to even that?! Yes, I do. Although it's not a "claim", it's a historic fact.
Any age before that, German was a language and people were Hamburgers, Bavarians, Saxons, etc. ... not Germans. Please read the article theodiscus. It explains the origins of the word "Duits", "Deutsch" etc. Being a Bavarian does not mean you cannot also be a German.
Please stick to the matter at hand; that is why you think a 19th century map containing false information should be used in this article. Well, a 19th century map containing false information should not be in the article. But the point is, that there is no false information in the map. The map is correct. You just feel offended cause you measure a 1890 map by 2010 standards of political correctness. You are that kind of guy who tells museums to remove their ancient Greek vases cause they contain Nazi symbols. --::Slomox:: >< 12:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Your books prove that the Dutch language contains the word "Duits". Nothing else. You then interprete that word in the way you want it to be. Which is incorrect. I dare you, go to the Dutch people and insert into it that the Dutch were Germans. Try it. You logic is flawed, the map will not be in the article anymore. Westbrabander (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Your books prove that the Dutch language contains the word "Duits". Nothing else. You then interprete that word in the way you want it You are really annoying... die Bibel int duitsche neerstelick ouergheset _is_ a _Dutch_ bible. I cite from The Low Countries as a crossroads of religious beliefs: The year 1525 also saw the first new Dutch version of the Old Testament, Die Bibel int duitsche neerstelick overgheset: ende gecorrigeert tot profite van allen kersten menschen. What about Alexander de Medicis, of 't Bedrooge betrouwen, treurspel, in duitsche vaarzen gestelt door J. Dullaart? Dullaart was a Dutchman, the title of the book is clearly Dutch. What language do you think refers duitsche vaarzen to? What about Farrago Latino-Belgica, of mengelmoes van Latijnsche en Duitsche gedichten? It's Dutch. I mean, seriously, what do you think why _Dutch_ is called _Dutch_ in English? Please explain! --::Slomox:: >< 12:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Dutch_people#Etymology_of_autonym_and_exonym. The explanation there is PERFECT. Why haven't you yet changed the article btw? Dutch were Germans right? Then place change the Dutch people article! Come on do it! Westbrabander (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Dutch_people#Etymology_of_autonym_and_exonym. The explanation there is PERFECT. And you do realize that the text supports what I said, that the Dutch formerly used the word Duits to refer to themselves? --::Slomox:: >< 19:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
AND DO YOU SEE THAT DUITS IN THAT SENSE NEVER MEANT GERMAN?! HOW STUPID ARE YOU?! Westbrabander (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You are taking the modern definition of the word and contrast it against the definition of the word used over 100 years ago. That's anachronistic. Of course the extent of the word's meaning was different back then. That's the point. --::Slomox:: >< 23:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
IT NEVER MEANT GERMAN AT ANY GIVEN TIME BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GERMANS BEFORE THERE WERE DUTCH PEOPLE!!!!Westbrabander (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, previously there was only one ethnos and then the Dutch branched off. The new branch took on a new name after some time and the rest kept the old name. But at the time the map was created the old name was still in use on both branches. --::Slomox:: >< 17:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
NO THERE WASN'T BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GERMANS BEFORE THERE WERE DUTCH!!!!!! GO AND READ A GODDAMN BOOK!!!Westbrabander (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if you were right about the non-existance of the nation: your concern was the _term_ "deutsch" used in the map and the _term_ _did_ exist. --::Slomox:: >< 21:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) has placed some icecubes so everyone can get a cool drink! Nothing is more important then a cool head during a heated discussion, so help yourself!

Remember to Keep cool during discussions. Overheated machinery tends to break down. :)

And do both of you realize that you are in the area where you seem to be commenting on contributers rather then content? Please cool down a bit, take a break or get some coffee and return in an hour or so. Civil debates tend to be several orders of magnitude more productive then debates riddled with personal attacks. If the two of you cannot seem to agree on the issue i would advice you to seek dispute resolution, such as a third opinion. Continuing the debate in its current form will only amount in a lot of swears flying back and forward and the issue you are actually debating would be drowned in a steam of profanity. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in this discussion I resorted to personal attacks. --::Slomox:: >< 23:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I just realized that the map in question has a history of forgery and users trying to manipulate the map so that the Dutch are shown separate. --::Slomox:: >< 19:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

resources

And now to something completely different. Ina Müller, German music comedian, writer and tv host who publishes/performs both in High German and her native language Low German, has published several books in Low German and, recently, a music album that is sung exclusively in Low German. Should one include her in the "writers" list? Should one add a "musicians" list? Here's a link to Ina Müller: http://www.inamueller.de/cm_standard_1.3.1/site/modules/index.php?area=platt -- 188.101.91.37 (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC) -- There IS a musicians' list. Sorry for being so inattentive. Should one add her? -- 188.101.91.37 (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say: go ahead. She's definitely the most relevant (relevance in the sense of popular demand) of the recent Low Saxon artists. --::Slomox:: >< 13:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Colloquial term Platt

"The colloquial term "Platt" denotes both Low German dialects and any non-standard variety of German; this use is chiefly found in northern and western Germany and is considered not to be linguistically correct.[3]"

I find this to be very troubling, as at least in the 5 northern Bundesländer where Platt (Low German proper) is still spoken and by most if not all considered a separate language, it solely and only refers to the "Low German language" and non other "variety of German". Even the local High German dialects which use a good bit of the Platt phonology and plattdütsch loan-words are not by any means considered Plattdütsch by the local people. On the other hand I'm not an Englishman and may simply misunderstand the wording. So if I am mistaken please fill me in but if not I'd ask to remove this bit or find a better reference, since the given seems to be based on a questionnaire where people who do not speak Low German proper any more - if ever (the areas being as south as Stuttgart, where Schwäbisch is the very single and dominant dialect and no Low German was ever spoken) - had to choose one of two options.193.174.122.76 (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Plattdeutsch is synonymous with Niederdeutsch - Low German. There will always be somebody who uses a term differently, but a variant usage here is not widespread enough to be mentioned; at present the wording suggests two meanings with equal status. This should be changed. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"Plattdeutsch" may be sysnonymous with "Low German", but "Platt" on its own is not, and is applied to a number of Central German dialects - Hunsrücker Platt and Westerwälder Platt, for example, both of which are a long way south of the Benrath Line! I agree the current wording is misleading (Bayrisch is never Platt) and could do with clarification, but the point is not fundamentally wrong. I haven't got time to source this at the moment, by my hunch is that, apart from Low German proper, it's used only for the Rhine and Mosel Franconian dialects, i.e. West Central German. --Pfold (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The Atlas zur Deutschen Alltagssprache map is correct, but it only provides a very limited view on the complex reality. It refers to situations like the questions Sprecht ihr zuhause Standarddeutsch? (Do you speak Standard German at home?) and the answer Nein, wir sprechen zuhause [...] (No, we speak [...] at home.) where the given answers for [...] were Dialekt, Mundart and Platt (the first two are synonyms both meaning dialect). Platt means something like our local tongue in the blue dot area on the map. In the western portion of this area along the Rhine and south of it the regular term is Platt (some people use the term Plattdeutsch interchangeable, but the much more common term is the short Platt). It really only denotes our local tongue and they usually do not connect an identity to it. In the north it's a bit different. The north calls it's language Plattdeutsch and Platt is a shorthand term. And the north is well aware that Plattdeutsch is an entity of its own connected with an identity.
It's hard to explain, because it deals with much implied semantics.
Perhaps the difference can be illustrated like this: If you ask a Plattdeutsch person from Münsterland whether people in Hamburg or in Mecklenburg or in Eastern Frisia speak Plattdeutsch he'll answer "Yes". Perhaps he'll add "but it's different from our Plattdeutsch", but he'll unhesitantly accept that it's "Plattdeutsch", that it's the same language. If you ask a person from Saarbrücken whether people in Cologne, Mainz or Aachen speak "Platt" he'll most likely say "No, they speak something else there". That's what I mean with identity.
The northerners are well aware, that "Plattdeutsch" is spoken in a wide area that reaches far beyond the own home while the westerners' point of view is really a point: the own home town and it's close surroundings. --::Slomox:: >< 19:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Low German speakers speak "platt"

The official High-German word might be "niederdeutsch" or "plattdeutsch" for Low-German speech, but a Low-German speaker would say "(Ek or) Ik segg det uff platt" English: I say this in platt - and NOT "I say this in plattdeutsch." moin moin(71.137.202.103 (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

If one uses the word "uff" one's not a speaker of Low German/Low Saxon but of one of the Rhenish varieties who indeed often refer to their language as "Platt", although they are linguistically separate from the language described in this article. In the language described in this article "Plattdüütsch" is the common term and "Platt" is a shorthand of the common term. --::Slomox:: >< 08:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of clearness: While some varieties of contemporary German in Germany refer to themselves as Platt, they never refer to themselves as Plattdeutsch. For the contemporary Saxon language (the 'Low German' in this article) however the term is Plattdeutsch about which Slomox already spoke above. At least that's their usage in media.Dakhart (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Differences"/Dealing with sourceless stuff.

First something off the differences-topic. I know it has been discussed, I know it has no point, but I find the criteria given for the language debate stupid. They're wholly political or "it's a language if enough people use it and it's never used anywhere" (with triple the speakers that let's say Lithuanian has) and the idea of denying a language because there is no "national standard" is odd, when there is grammar and lexicon which differs from any adjacent dialects yet is highly consistent within the Low German ones, much much more than the grammar and vocabulary in the High German ones. This said, we're at the point which wonders me. I've read a good deal of Low German texts from between 1600 and 1900. The language has not changed since 1900. I found them vastly to be the same, sometimes even being indiscernible as to where they come from - especially the Low Saxon dialects. They all use the same conjugations for all the verbs, all nouns have the same genders - with differences from the German dialects which in themselves uses the same genders - the same endings, the same stuff. Yet the article states that there is an "immense" diversion. Maybe I am just blind but I cannot find a source for that in the article. Especially in Germany I find the dialects to be grammatically identical and mutually intelligible, if not in the first ten seconds. (Whilst the High German are a harder challenge for each other.) So - I'm relatively new to Wikipedia - what am I to do with this unreferenced claim which contrasts my equally unreferenced perception? Clearly I don't want it to be left standing just because somebody was quicker than me, saying random things. Yet of course somebody's wrath will come over me when I just erase it. So I ask anyone to provide source for or against it (or both so it can be weighed (or just against it)) and maybe a general advice on how to work with unreferenced parts, which sometimes form whole articles in Wikipedia.Dakhart (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


So...I deleted it anyway. With regards to the old version I doubt that anybody will find it incorrect or objectable. The arguments WERE "it's not used for anything important" and thus (my opinion of course) don't really deserve more than a summary. If somebody wants to rebuild them into their former status, please use less biased text. Despite all, even if you rebuild them, I think the tenor of the section should in any case be: 1. Linguistics has no "uni sono" opinion. 2. Since the former statuses of this language were proper "langauges" the would-be dialectal status (with regards to the rest of the article) probably stems from language decline due to "language occupation" and chic of Luther-German. 3. De jure it's a language, basta. Anything beyond that (linguistics and law), scholary or not, is irrelevant for a sophisticated language classification and should - if anything - only be mentioned edgeways.Dakhart (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit 4.7.11.

1. Changed name to be more fit to the content.

2. There were no "these criteria" left in the text so I removed that bit.

3. I'm aware that the sentence about the status in Germany (regional language) is probably not what the former author intended, but I could not decipher at all what he meant. Either because it was an extremely rare construction or it was wrong grammar. Do not revert without discussion. Please.Dakhart (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

First bit - varieties vs. language

The focus of the article is the language Low German which is the common modern name for the Saxon language. The article further explains why the usage of 'Low German' for other things is in decline. No matter how accurate, when the first sentence talks about language varieties, it is not the same impression as if it would talk about a language. "Language varieties" in not an accurate term, language is. There are no different Low German languages in Germany and Netherland, there is just Low German, its diverse dialects and an incountable bunch of Missingsch falseness in them. This, however, doesn't make Low German a collection of "varieties" all of a sudden. The article is about a West Germanic language. And that what it should say from the beginning. If it deals with something else aside from the language, then put it in the second sentence.Dakhart (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Defining "not Low Franconian"

The section pointing out that Low Franconian may or may not be included in Low German isn't too usable without having a handle on what exactly sets a German variety as Low Franconian. Neither this article nor the one on LF seems to state this, so assessing any variety intermediate to "Dutch" and "definitely Low German" remains ambiguous. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 05:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The article states that Low Franconian has two plural verbal endings as opposed to one plural verbal ending in Low German proper (Low Saxon). There are other features that set the two apart, but the plural endings are the most definitive. --::Slomox:: >< 22:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sound change "K"

I have been trying to understand the sound change table, and I don't get why for the Proto-Germanic "k" the High German is supposed to be "kch". The "K" in "Karl" is pronounced just like the "C" in the English "Carl". I don't see that there is a sound like "kch" in High German, no matter how this is to be pronounced. If we were talking about Swiss here, this might be a different matter... ;-) --Anna (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the edit that added the line back in 2006. Seems a bit confused, because it has kch in the High German field and then Kcharl in the Low German field, which is both incorrect. I'll remove the kch. --::Slomox:: >< 12:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - so it wasn't just me... - ? I can't even imagine what "kch" was meant to sound like (it would probably be clearer to use standard phonetic transcription). With this spelling, it's a sound I really can imagine in Swiss German only. --Anna (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it: I see you have just changed the ship/skiff example. To be honest, I think that whole example is a bit confusing in such a chart because it has another set of consonants that might just as well be focussed on for a sound change. I didn't look quite closely yesterday and thought this line was about the sch-/sk-sound which might easily also have been compared here. My mistake of course, but an easy one to make. Maybe there is another example word which will bring the point across without including a second set of consonants which have undergone a similar sound change. --Anna (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Maps

All maps were removed from the article with the claim, that they exaggerate the distribution area or are outdated. The map showed both Low Saxon and Dutch. But the map doesn't claim that Dutch is a part of Low Saxon and thus does not exaggerate the distribution area. The image caption clearly adressed the fact, that Dutch is also in the map. The reason why it is in the map is that Low Saxon and Dutch both are part of "Low German" (in the broader sense of any form of non-Frisian Continental West-Germanic that did not participate in the second Germanic sound shift).

The other map showed the extent of the language distribution area 1881 and is indeed outdated after the speakers were expelled from their homes in what is now Poland and the Kaliningrad oblast post-WW II. But that is the point of the map and the image caption clearly stated that it shows the situation 1881. The post-WW II events marked an important turning point for the language and the pre-WW II situation is an important information that needs to be included in the article. --::Slomox:: >< 21:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree a map or two would be helpful, but neither of these fit the bill. The big problem with the first map is not that it included Dutch, but that it GREATLY exaggerated the range. For example, Hannover was shown as being deeply within Platt territory, when it was basically Platt-free even before the war. The same with the Northern part of the old DDR. I don't know what criteria were used to draw the map, but it looks like a version of a 19th century map just fitted to post-war borders. The historical map is pretty, but not really to useful for this article. What's needed is a more realistic map showing the areas where Platt is still spoken by a substantial proportion of the population, not by just a few odd elderly people who barely if ever use it any more. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want a map of all areas, that are majority Low Saxon, that is easy: File:Blank map of the world.PNG.
There are still speakers in almost all areas, also in Hanover, also in the GDR. They are not a majority and they get fewer day by day, but they exist. The map did not claim, that it shows the area in which Low Saxon is spoken by the majority or "a substantial proportion of the population" (whatever that means in practice). It shows the area in which the traditional dialect is Low Saxon til today.
The historical map is pretty, but not really to useful for this article How so? --::Slomox:: >< 08:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Pronouns

This page seriously needs a pronoun chart. Komitsuki (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Listing films with Low German?

Would there be any utility to having a list of films which use Low German, including Plattdeutsch? I just finished watching Small Town Murder Songs, and a chunk of the dialogue is in Plattdeutsch with Ontario Mennonite farmers. Not to get too WP:In popular culture, but might there be some role for either a section here, or a separate list article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move to Plattdeutsch

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Discussion was initiated by a sock of a site-banned user, and no support has been forthcoming. Favonian (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Low German → Plattdeutsch – I recognize that current title is at least somewhat more common in the RS, but doesn't it sound off in our modern age of political correctness? "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others," per WP:COMMONNAME.The Goethe Institute and The Independent use the proposed form, so I take it that this is the official and sensitive usage these days. "Plattdeutsch" is given Merriam-Webster and other dictionaries, so it passes the "use English" test. My grandmother spoke this language and called it "Plattdeutsch". I was a bit surprised to see Wiki calling it something else. The Holy Four (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the linguistics the text books I have worked with all say Low German, and German-language textbooks usually say Niederdeutsch. I only know Plattdeutsch in German, and as a colloquial rather than a scholarly use. I'm not sure why Low German would be politically incorrect, and since Plattdeutsch means "Flat German" I'm not sure why that would be politically any correcter. This is the German from the LOW-lying FLAT lands of the north, just as High German is the southern, mountainous variety. None of these words are judgmental. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Plattdeutsch is a purely informal term. As Doric Loon says, it is not part of the terminology of professional linguistics. Quite apart from the fact that Platt is also used, again informally, for West Franconian dialects that are not Low German. Neither an individual speaker nor a general-purpose dictionary can be cited as a challenge to the settled terminology of the field.--Pfold (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Official Language

Low German is official Language in Germany--Zorono Suomenlainen (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? We need to provide citations so that readers can verify information. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niederdeutsche_Sprache--Zorono Suomenlainen (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

- It's a dialect.

Weird interwiki problem

For some reason, when I click the Netherlands interwiki link, I end up on the Dutch Wikipedia article of a band named Boh Foi Toch. What's going on? Anyone know how to fix this? Thanks, --93.212.230.88 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Very odd. The underlying language link is correct, and it works correctly to NL from other language wikis. No idea, I'm afraid! --Pfold (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
So it's not just me (and my browser, or whatever)? You experience the same problem? --93.212.230.88 (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem originated in this edit. I fixed it by removing the interwiki links, but someone might want to check if it needs any further improvement. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Low German. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Low German. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Terminology again

I got rid of some of the names in the lead seeing as there were a whopping ten of them. I only left the article names from each language's Wiki page. I tried to wrap my head around the differences between all these names but it's just all over the place. The English terminology doesn't help at all since it's just crude calque, and the choice between German and Saxon seems to follow different rules in all dialects. In some, ...-Saxon refers specifically to the Dutch variety while ...-German (or Duutsch, Deutsch, Duits etc.) is the German part. There is a Low Saxon wiki but it's unclear what variety it belongs to, despite it having already been stated that Low Saxon has no standard form. There is another Wiki specifically for the Dutch variant and it looks quite different. That Plattdüütsch article, titled "Plattdüütsch (Neddersassisch)", claims that it is a nedderdüütsche language along with Low Franconian. Apparently platt comes from a 17th century Dutch term meaning "common tongue" or "simple language". It later explains:

De plattdüütschen Lüüd in dat Rebeed, dat vörnehmlich Hoochdüütsch as Schriftspraak hett oder harr, seggt Plattdüütsch to de Spraak (fakener ok afkört to Platt). In dat Rebeed, in dat Nedderlandsch de vörnehmliche Schriftspraak is, hett sik de Naam Nedersaksisch dörsett. Vun Wetenschopslüüd warrt faken de Begreep Nedderdüütsch bruukt. Lüüd, de dat Woort düütsch in plattdüütsch ümgahn wüllt, dat de Lüüd buten Düütschland sik ok wohl föhlt, un de den gemeensamen Oorsprung vun de verschedenen Varianten vun de Spraak betonen wüllt, bruukt fakener den Utdruck Neddersassisch.

Translation as far as I could understand it (I think this is the German variant):

Plattdüütsch speakers from areas where High German is or was the standard written language call the language Plattdüütsch (often also shortened as Platt). In the areas where Dutch is the standard written language, the name Nedersaksisch emerged. Scholars often use the term Nedderdüütsch. People who don't want to use the word düütsch in platdüütsch, so that people outside Germany also feel included, and to stress the common origin of the various dialects, prefer saying Neddersassisch.

Finally, it seems to conclude that all forms of Nieder/Neder/Nedder are geographical rather than political, making "Low" the proper translation in those cases. All forms of Saksisch, Sachsisch, Sassisch are because Düütsch, Duits, Deutsch are occasionally seen as referring exclusively to Germany, but also to stress their origins. Several of these other Wikis make this distinction, yet the crosslanguage links are—again—all over the place. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Low German. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Redundant

The following is from the last paragraph of the introduction and is repeated except for an endnote indication as the first paragraph of the very next section: 'It has been estimated that Low German has approximately 301,000 native speakers in all countries;[3] while 6.7 million people understand it – 5 million in Germany, primarily Northern Germany,[1] and 1.7 million in the Netherlands.[2]' Also, if the total is 301K for the world, for it also to be the total for Europe, there must be no native speakers outside of Europe. Is this so? 5.34.85.139 (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe this source is sonsense. The number of 301,000 speakers is given from Ethnologue: https://www.ethnologue.com/language/nds But this number is made of 1,000 speakers in Germany as well as 300,000 speakers of the Low Saxon dialect called Pomeranian in Brazil. Scroll down on the Ethnologue and under "Also spoken in" choose "Expand all". But 1,000 speakers in Germany is nonsense and much too low. And where are the speakers of the Netherlands? I don't think this reliable source. --Dergrimm 00:42, 09. Mar. 2018 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dergrimm (talk • contribs) 23:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of speakers

In the third paragraph this article states:

It has been estimated that Low German has approximately 301,000 native speakers in all countries;[3] while 6.7 to 10 million understand it. A 2005 study by H. Bloemhof, Taaltelling Nedersaksisch, showed 1.8 million spoke it daily in the Netherlands.[12]

Who has chosen the Ethnologue page (https://www.ethnologue.com/language/nds) as a source for the number of 301,000 native speakers in all countries, and why? If you look at that Ethnologue page closely, you can see that it states there are 1,000 speakers in Germany and 300,000 speakers in Brazil speaking the Pomeranian dialect of Low Saxon (scroll down to "Also spoken in" and click "Expand all"). Thus, giving a total of 301,000. I'd say this is in heavy conflict with other estimates for the number of speakers. The speakers of the Netherlands are also completely ignored in this number and 1,000 native speakers for Germany is way too low. Plus, as this article states, there are also some speakers left in Denmark, and in the next sentense it states " 1.8 million spoke it daily in the Netherlands". I'm not a total expert on this and don't want to change it, but I'm sure this number is wrong, Ethnologue is no good choice as a reliable source, the sentences of the stated paragraph are in conflict and this should be reworked.

Best, Dergrimm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dergrimm (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Low Saxon is only part

Low German includes Low Franconian and Low Saxon speaking areas, divided by the Benrath line ("maken"/"machen" for "make") from the Middle German dialects. See links in QS box in this de-WP article; I added them because ther it is also wrong mentioned. --Tanneneichhorn (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Inside Europe

The Baltic Germans had abandoned Low German by the 17th century, switching to High German and then developing another distinct dialect. "German speakers in this area fled the Red Army or were forcibly expelled after the border changes at the end of World War II." - while correct, this is a bit pointless to mention here, since by then, their connection to Low German had been broken for well over 200 years. Strombones (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Map showing were it used be spoken before the germans were massacred and driven out of their eastern homes.

Low German was spoken across a much wider area and it's speakers had a huge cultural impact on the places they settled in. While this is vaguely mentioned in the article it, it needs a map which shows the widest span of where they low German language/dialects were spoken. It's an important factor in understanding the heritage of many of these places. Especially along the baltics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.24.247.21 (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you point us to a suitable well-sourced map (preferably one with a free license)? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Spoken audio clip

Is this audio file in Low German or standard German? en:File:ChristineGrueter-Rillenglas.ogg I'm considering adding it to the article, but I am unsure whether it's spoken in Low German. - Sir Beluga 18:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is Low Saxon. --Phillipm0703 (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep, it is Low Saxon, Westphalian Low Saxon to be more precise. And within the Westphalian dialect group of Low Saxon it is probably part of "Mönsterlänsk Platt" (the Westphalian of the region of Münster), but I'm not 100% sure about this last fact. I do speak Low Saxon, but can only recognize the Westphalian dialect group in general. I just guessed this because of the origin of the speaker (she shall be from Liesborn).
I think it would be nice to have audio clips on the article. But then I would also add a clip in Northern Low Saxon (as this is the dialect group that has most speakers today in Germany), and of course samples of other dialects would be nice as well. --Dergrimm (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

West Frisian Form of "Ten"

The West Frisian Form of "Ten" given in the consonant comparison table is "Tsien" which seems to display the High German Consonant shift, even though that can't be the case. What is the explanation for this sound change? It could be palatalization, but I thought that only happened to [k] and [g]. There should at least be a footnote clarifying this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.140.181 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Since this article is about LG not Frisian, no footnote is necessary. --14:04, 17 March 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): Cmsieg64.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Low_German/Archive_4&oldid=1218406823"