Talk:German language/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Germany has not had much colonies!

Maybe it is noteworthy to demonstrate that german has never become a popular language outside of europe, because there was none german governement before 1871. The article should mention, that 40% of the today us-american population have german roots, but german has never become popular on the american continent or in africa for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.78.69 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

German was once a popular language on the American continent. At the beginning of the 20. century in the States every sixth child was learning in a German school. But later on German has been suppressed especially in the US. Already before WWI there was a prevailing anti-German sentiment. After the outbreak of the war the German schools were closed and everyone, which spoke German, was considered a potential enemy. Therefore many US-citizens switched from German to English. Still today it is difficult to imagine how such a discrimination didn't conduce to an uprising of the German-speaking population. The consequence is that nowadays the world-dialect of the German language is English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.225.9 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources, please, both of you. What does “the world-dialect of the German language is English” mean? --Six words (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

www.conservapedia.com/German_Americans:

German Americans had strongly opposed American entry into the World War. With rare exceptions they did not favor Germany; rather they demanded neutrality. Their position was increasingly marginalized and ignored; a small minority of Congressmen (usually from heavily German districts) voted against the war in April 1917.

During the war Germania was watched closely for signs of disloyalty, which seldom were found. One German was killed in a tavern brawl on political grounds. Nativism took on three different styles. Common acts, such as eliminating German language teaching in schools and encouraging the purchase of Liberty Loan Bonds, occurred across the U.S. Collective action, such as intimidation and violence, occurred mostly in smaller towns and rural areas where Germans compruise 5% to 40% of the population, and where local Anglo elites like newspapers editors and mayors demanded it. Symbolic action, such as changing street names (in Cincinnati, for example, German Street became English Street), was the norm in the larger cities, where city newspapers denounced violence. The :::German-American communities in cities such as Cincinnati were already in decline by 1918.[7]

During World War I, intense scrutiny of German Americans led to a debate about the definition of American culture. The central question was the status of "hyphenated Americans," a term which became nearly synonymous with German Americans and their perceived challenge to American integrity. Thus, the hyphen became a term not simply for discussing cultural minorities but also for discussing the dominant culture's relationship with Britain.[8]

In Indianapolis, Indiana, German Americans comprised over a fourth of the population and supported numerous clubs and associations to perpetuate German culture, By lobbying the school board they were able to establish an extensive program of German-language instruction in the city's primary and secondary public schools. The World War, however, generated intense patriotism and a concurrent intense hostility toward all things German. In October 1917, a new federal legislation required every German-language newspaper to file sworn translations of war-related articles with local postmasters; most smaller papers could not afford the cost and closed down. In this atmosphere, the school board responded to assertions that teaching German was promoting the enemy's culture by banning German instruction in elementary schools in January 1918. Anti-German sentiment continued even after the war, and the Indiana legislature in 1919 banned all German-language instruction in all Indiana public and private schools. The Indianapolis story was typical of cities where the Germans did not have a majority of votes. Unlike Canada and Australia, which imprisoned German citizens, the German Americans were pressured into buying war bonds but were not imprisoned.[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.115.242 (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside that conservapedia isn't a reliable source, there's nothing in this quote saying that “every sixth child was learning in a German school” (emphasis added) or that US-citizens switched from German to English, so it doesn't really prove your point. What exactly is it that you want to add to the wikipedia article? --Six words (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that reliable sources are only those of your liking. Therefore I ask you to explain me, why in the US - from 58 mil people with German ancestry (Census 1990) - only 1.4 mil speak German at home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.20.168 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, a source doesn't need to be “to my liking” to be reliable. If you follow the link to our reliable sources guideline you can check whether my assessment of conservapedia is correct (you can also ask for opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard). I don't know why people with German ancestry don't speak German at home anymore and it's not my job to guess what the reason is, nor is it your job. If you find a reliable source explaining that phenomenon (is it even worth being discussed? Does it differ from other foreign languages, e.g. do most Americans with French ancestry still speak French at home?) or saying that “German was once a popular language on the American continent but now due to anti-German sentiments isn't anymore” you're free to add it to the article. --Six words (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You cannot compare the number of 13 mil people that are of French ancestry with the 58 mil people of German ancestry. In spite of this disproportion, nowadays in the US speak more people French then German; not to mention the case of the Spanish-speaking minority.

Another source that describes clearly the suppresion of the German language in a supposed democracy with no official language is:

www.everyculture.com/multi/Du-Ha/German-Americans.html:

However, when World War I broke out, the German element was so discredited in the United States that when Congress declared war in April 1917, within six months legal action was brought not only to dampen considerably German cultural activities but also to eliminate the German language from American schools. The flagship case was the Mockett Law in Nebraska, which anti-German enthusiasts repealed.

Eventually, 26 other states followed suit, banning instruction in German and of German. When the Missouri Synod Lutherans of Nebraska brought the test case, Meyer v. Nebraska, the ban on German was reconfirmed by all the courts until it reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 4, 1923, the Supreme Court held that a mere knowledge of German could not be regarded as harmful to the state, and the majority opinion added that the right of parents to have their children taught in a language other than English was within the liberties guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Nevertheless, as a language of instruction in schools, during church service, and at home, German gradually drifted into oblivion as assimilation accelerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.93.16 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So? It says that even though the Supreme Court ultimately confirmed German-Americans' right to teach their children (in) German, the German language “drifted into oblivion [due to] assimilation” - AFAIK a normal process (I remember something about the third generation usually being the first fully assimilated one, but I could be wrong there). I'm still not sure what it is you want the article to say. --Six words (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The German-speaking community in the US had the proportions of a middle-sized nation with its own infrastructure, cultural life and press, which could never have been assimilated without the crime of total elimination of the German language from American schools and from the public.

After six long years of interdiction the Supreme Court corrected this injustice, but meanwhile the means of instruction declined and the anti-German sentiment persisted further. Under this adverse conditions many people didn't speak German in the public any more.

Some authors nowadays estimate the number of German speakers in th US at about 7 - 8 million, but - because of bad experiences from the past - many of them don't declare their language knowledges at the census.

Maybe it would be useful to mention something about this facts in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.99.241 (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is really getting boring. Every time you come here you introduce some new “facts” along with your own interpretation of them and expect me (or others who undoubtedly follow this discussion) to “mention something about this” in the article. That's not how it works - if you come up with a neutral, adequately sourced improvement of our article, post it here and I (or someone else) will put it in the article. If you can't do that, at least say what specifically you want added. Make sure it is relevant and that you don't combine different sources to reach your own conclusions, so others can make it into something to add to the article. --Six words (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There should be given a fair-minded answer to the question: Why only a few Americans speak German, although the German Americans represent by far the country's largest ancestral group. So far you have avoided by all means to deal with this boring topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.30.147 (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This phenomenon is not limited to German. Although immigrants who arrive in the US often teach their native language to their children, these children are by and large fully assimilated Americans by the time they reach adulthood. They often marry outside the ethnic group, do not use their parents' native language at home even when they marry within the ethnic group, and they therefore do not pass it on to the third generation. I have seen this with Germans, Greeks, Italians, Koreans, Chinese, Costa Ricans, and all manner of Slavic speakers. Even the famed Latino/Hispanic community suffers from the degradation of Spanish speaking skills from generation to generation.

I grew up in Pennsylvania (and am of German descent), and here for many generations we had our own dialect of German, which was spoken by about a third of the state's population. During WWII, the use of German fell out of favor among all but the Old Order Mennonite and Amish communities, who were insular and thus protected from the peer pressure that drove German out of the more integrated communities. That dialect is still spoken by the Amish and Mennonites but, outside of those closed communities, only the very elderly still speak it. So now German Americans are just like other ethnic groups in this country, who lose their ability to speak the old country's language within a few generations. It is usually offered as a second language at the high school level, but as German is considered a difficult language to learn, even German Americans tend to pass it up in favor of the famously easy Spanish. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 01:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your beautifully whitewashed description has nothing to do with the history of the German language in the US. At the beginning of the 20. century in the States every sixth child was learning in a German school. After the outbreak of WWI all German schools were closed and the English language was imposed by force. And all this happened in spite of the fact that the US didn't have an official language. These horrible events don't need any other comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.197.246 (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with translation

I would like to request some help from someone who is very fluent in both English and German, on a discussion in the English Wikipedia page Talk:Planck_constant#Translation_of_plaque. The question is the translation of "In diesem Hause lehrte Max Planck der entdecker des elementaren Wirkungsquantums h von 1889 1928". There are two proposed translations:

• Max Planck, discoverer of the elementary quantum of action h, taught in this house from 1889 to 1928.

• In this house taught Max Planck, discoverer of the elementary quantum of action h, from 1889 to 1928.

Both translations are gramatically correct, however the second translation has a rather poetic or archaic tone to it in English, it is not the common word order heard in everyday speech. My question is - how does the German phrase sound to a German speakers ear? Does it sound like the first or the second translation? How would the phrase "Max Planck, der entdecker des elementaren Wirkungsquantums h, lehrte in diesem Hause von 1889 1928" sound to the German ear? We need a proper translation that is not only grammatically correct, but also conveys the same tone as the German phrase. Thanks for any help you can give. A side issue: would the use of the word "hall" be more appropriate than "house", since "house" carries the implication of "home" or "residence". PAR (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The original sentence is in perfectly straightforward contemporary German, so I would prefer the first translation.

The German word "Haus" carries the implication of "home, residence" as well. If you intend to translate the sentence as closely as possible, I would stick with "house".Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The second version is not very good English. It does not follow the normal SVO English word order and therefore does not sound like a native speaker. Its construction is parallel to the antiquated "Here lies Joe Plumber" but that construction is a relic and should not be used for new writing. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 12:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: "Max Planck, the discoverer of the elementary quantum of action h, taught in this house from 1889 to 1928." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.229.55 (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest: Max Planck, discoverer of the elementary quantum of action h, taught on these premises from 1889 to 1928. Because "in diesem Haus" is straightforward German like "in this house". But the sentence says "in diesem Hause" (e at the end), which is more sophisticated German.--Stanhopea (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, "In diesem Hause" is grammatically correct German, while "In diesem Haus", while also considered correct nowadays, is colloquial and usually not used in inscriptions (or other offical texts) like that in question. "On these premises" would be "auf diesem Gelände" or "in diesem Gebäude", which has another sense. Use whatever would be suitable in a similar English inscription. -- megA (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What are "Kranton verbs"?

I'm a native speaker, but usually native speakers don't have an "organized" knowledge of their own language, so I might have missed that. Anyway, I've never come across the term "kranton verb", which is used in German conjugation#Regular kranton verbs (Weak verbs) (arbeiten, to work). I've also not been able to find a definition here or on German wikipedia. So, what is a Kranton (which sounds like something out of a 1950s Japanese Sci-Fi movie)? -- megA (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

In thirty years as a Germanist, I've never come across this term. It should go. In fact that whole section looks iffy - 'Kranton verbs happen in certain endings of the verb stem' ?! --Pfold (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems someone just got away with this edit. (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

:D That guy was very thorough... (and you get 122 results on google from other sites who copied from Wikipedia...) -- megA (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the interwiki-links?

Looking through the external links section (we need to weed out some of them!) I realised that the interwiki-links no longer show at the sidebar, but are at the bottom of the page (and don't work). Does anyone have an idea how to fix this? --Six words (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, must be something with my computer, I'm editing from a different one now and everything looks fine. --Six words (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

official language of Germany

Geographic distribution - Europe

The last part of the first sentence: "German is primarily spoken in Germany (where it is the first language for more than 95% of the population), Austria (89%), Switzerland (65%), the majority of Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein - the latter princedom being the only state with German as only official and spoken language." sounds to me as if German was not the only official language in Germany, and as if there were no immigrants in Liechtenstein allowed to speak any other language than German. Anyway, to my German ear this sounds weird. I would suggest: "German is primarily spoken in Germany (where it is the first language for more than 95% of the population), Austria (89%), Switzerland (65%), the majority of Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein - the latter princedom being the only state besides Germany with German as only official language."--Stanhopea (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

German isn't the only official language in Germany. -- megA (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is. See here:http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vwvfg/__23.html77.13.137.214 (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, according to recent jurisdiction, officially recognized minority languages (Low German, Frisian, Sorbian, Danish and Romani, FTTOMH) have the same status. Besides, the above sentence "Liechtenstein - the latter princedom being the only state with German as only official and spoken language." is correct that way in any case, as abovementioned languages are traditionally spoken in Germany. -- megA (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that law I posted only differences between German and foreign languages. I didn´t know that there are exceptions.77.13.129.232 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

German originated in Northern Europe

I removed the line in the article that reads "But it [German] originated in the subcontinent (India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh). This statement was probably based on the fact that German is an Indo-European language and therefore has Asian roots but it is inaccurate to say that German originated in the subcontinent. German descended from a long line of attested languages which were spoken in Europe and was not itself imported from the Asian subcontinent. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 14:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement is just plain wrong. The Out of India theory isn't seriously considered by any academic linguist these days. The single most popular Indo-European urheimat proposal, the Kurgan hypothesis, even places the origins of Indo-European in Europe, in the Ukraine (or at least at both sides of the Eurasian border, but primarily in Europe by any current definition)! Only the Anatolian and Armenian hypotheses place them in Asia. So the (remote) origins (roots) of German aren't even necessarily in Asia at all (unless you go back to a time which only Nostratists believe they can reach). The more immediate roots of German are simply in Germany. Even the forms of (West) Germanic which Old High German descended from were by all appearances spoken in what is now Germany. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

120 million native speakers?

How did they get this number? If you ad the entire populations of Austria, Germany and Switzerland you get 98 million people. I am aware that there are small German-speaking communities elsewhere but consider the fact that almost 40 % of Switzerland's population are not German native speakers and about 10 % of Germany's population are not native German speakers either. So where are the remaining 20-30 million native speakers hiding? Aaker (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I, too, think the number is too high but a few months ago when someone reduced that number to 100 m. they were accused of vandalism and “anti-German” bias. The current SIL ethnologue report says it's about 90.3 m. native speakers, but I couldn't find a copy of its 2006 report nor of the National Geographic Collegiate Atlas of the World, so I was hesitant to change it. I'll boldly do so now and see what happens . Cheers, --Six words (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how the figure of 120 million was arrived at, but 90.3 million is almost certainly too low. That is the figure SIL Ethnalogue gives for the language Standard German (deu). To this should be added the German languages Swiss German (gsw), spoken in Switzerland, and Bavarian (bar), spoken in Austria. That brings the total to over 110 million worldwide. The old footnote indicated that a number of additional German languages were included. Languages that might need to be included are:

• Upper Saxon (sxu), Limburgish (lim), Luxembourgish (ltz), Frisian (frr), Kölsch (ksh), Mainfränkisch (vmf), Plautdietsch (pdt), Pennsylvania German (pdc), Hutterite German (geh), Saterfrisisch (stq), and Lower Saxon (nds)

--Boson (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If you find a source combining all those please add it to the article. Right now we only have this source, and while there are also entries for the dialects, we can't simply add them all up (firstly because that would be synthesis and secondly because many of those learning/speaking dialects also speak standard German). --Six words (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but we appear to have no cited reliable source for the number of native speakers of "German", as used in this article (including Swiss German, etc.). I am not sure of the extent of overlap in the Ethnalogue figures (e.g. speakers of Schwyzerdütsch and Standard German in Switzerland, where few people speak standard German as their first language). --Boson (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that helps, but if you add the (sourced) figures in the "Overseas" section, you get about 10 million additional native speakers. -- megA (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Ethnologue source includes speakers of standard German in all countries and the source in the “Overseas” section doesn't differentiate between varieties, so again, there'll be an overlap between those two statistics. I took a look at the corresponding article at de-wikipedia, it says ca. 90 - 98 m. worldwide, citing Ethnologue as source for 90 m. and Länderkunde Deutschland, Österreich und Schweiz (mit Liechtenstein) im Querschnitt. (2006) for 98 m. (the book actually says it's an estimated 97 m.: “Über 90 Millionen Menschen haben weltweit deutsch als Muttersprache. Man geht allgemein von einer Zahl von 97 Millionen aus, wobei man die mehr als 6 Millionen Ausländer die in der Bundesrepublik, in Österreich und in der Schweiz leben und die Deutsch meist nicht als Mutter- sondern als Zweitsprache sprechen, mitrechnet, da genauere Zahlenangaben über ihre sprachliche Situation fehlen.”) 90 m. seems to be a very conservative estimate, while 97 m. is ‘optimistic’. I think we could cite that book, too, and change the lede (and infobox) to “90^[1] - 97^[2] million” (with a footnote repeating the book's comment that this is probably an overestimate). --Six words (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should also use the word estimated in the text and in the infobox. I also wonder if first language (possibly with a footnote) might be a better term, rather than native (in the text). --Boson (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess native speakers was chosen to avoid using ‘first language’ twice in the same sentence, and I just couldn't think of a better sentence so I kept that wording for now. --Six words (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your credibility is sinking simultaneously with your proposed number of German speakers. German is not spoken only in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, but in Europe as a whole, from Norway to Italy and from Russia to Portugal. Nobody has counted this speakers so far. www.meetup.com/Deutscher-Verein-Los-Angeles/about/ cites: "There are about 105 million native German speakers in Europe, the most important language group in the European Union." If you add the ca. 15 mil. from the other continents, then you obtain the known number of 120 mil. native German speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.110.132 (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have said it before, but I'll repeat it for you: we cannot add up figures as that would be synthesis, a form of original research, and we cannot add what we think is true but only what is verifiable via reliable sources. I've added two reliable sources - if that's not enough to be considered credible, then I don't know what is. --Six words (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, we can add up figures, if the text clearly reflects the sources (mainly meaning that we are all agreed that there is no question of overlap or omission). What we are not permitted to do is draw conclusions other than simple arithmetic. --Boson (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'm speaking about this case, not about generalities; also please keep in mind that the Anon is suggesting to combine different sources just so we can arrive at the figure they have in mind. Combining different sources to draw a conclusion none of the sources makes is synthesis. --Six words (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So there are 15 000 000 German native speakers living outside Europe? That would be cool but I doubt it. Where do they live?? Aaker (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

www.bpb.de/wissen/08937231579775312662617270950640,1,0,Auslandsdeutsche.html#art1 cites: "Insgesamt leben im Ausland zwischen 10 Mio. (Fröschle 1987, S. 542) und 15 Mio. (VDA 1989, S. 5) Deutschsprechende und sich zum deutschen Volkstum Bekennende." 10 mil. of them are listed in this article (Table "German speaking population outside Europe"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.110.132 (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the Ethnalogue figures include speakers of standard German living abroad. We must also remember that there are a number of people living in Germany who are not native speakers of German. --Boson (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

When the source says ‘all countries’ it's a safe bet to say it also covers those who live abroad. --Six words (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The source www.meetup.com/Deutscher-Verein-Los-Angeles/about/ specifies that alone in Europe there are 105 million native German speakers, so that your theories have nothing to do with the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.124.206 (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This made me think of: "I have bicycles on my feet -- your argument is irrelevant." Trigaranus (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we need a better source than a social club in Los Angeles. We may need to add a footnote to indicate clearly what we mean by "German", even where not all sources are clear about this. The Ethnalogue is probably the most reliable academic source, but unfortunately it distinguishes between Standard German and, for instance Swiss German (called Allemanisch when spoken by native speakers in Germany, Alsatian when spoken by native speakers in France, and Schwyzerdütsch in Switzerland). So if we want to use the Ethnalogue as a source for native speakers of German we cannot (without qualification) just use their figures for speakers of Standard German (which may not include, for instance, native speakers of Swabian (a dialect of Swiss German) in Germany - unless they are bilingual (but establishing that would be original research). The Ethnalogue gives a figure of only 75.3 million (native) speakers of Standard German in Germany. This is not surprising when you think of the number of people with a migrant background, but it might also exclude some non-bilingual Swabians. The Goethe Institute talks of "about 100 million" native speakers of German.--Boson (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

About 100 million is probably very close to the actual number, considering the demographics of the German-speaking areas. Aaker (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

About 100 million is probably very close to the actual number of native German spakers in Europe. In addition you have to consider the oversee speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.124.206 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How many are these non-European native German speakers and where do they live? Also, a considerable proportion of the population of Germany, CH and Austria are not German native speakers. Hence, in Europe there are probably less than 100 million native speakers. Aaker (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See the Overseas section of this article for non-European native speakers and where they live. As I said a few inches up, about 10 million. (Beware that the statistics mentioned for Namibia, for example, only list expatriate Germans, while the CIA factbook lists considerably more native speakers.) I believe the percentage of non-German speakers in Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, France, Italy, Denmark, etc. has already been taken into consideration. What about the creoles/pidgins? But in the end, what counts are citable sources, not personal estimates. -- megA (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

www.wikinfo.org/index.php/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers#Top_20 states that there are 101 million native German speakers in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.124.130 (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And if I sign up and change that number to 202 million, it'll say 202 million, which is one of the reasons why one shouldn't use wikis as a source. 84.177.90.219 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

www.weltsprachen.net/ specifies clearly that there are 105 million native German speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.61.197 (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop suggesting sources that fail WP:RS. --Six words (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You come with your six words only to provoke irrelevant discussions. Maybe it would be better, if you could explain the difference between the 5 million US German speakers (see table in the article) and the 1,4 million speakers of your reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.120.29 (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to provoke - all I'm asking is that you understand Wikipedia's policies and edit accordingly. I'm not the one who made those policies - the community made them and we all have to abide by them. Until you do so, you're the one wasting everyone's time. I also notice that German article uses the same two sources we now use, without having enless discussions about it. If you find a better source/better sources that can be considered reliable we can use them instead, but please understand that I'm not willing to spend my time telling you over and over again that a personal website or a club won't trump published books only for you to find another dubious source that fails WP:RS. If you don't agree with our policies you can try to get them changed or you can decide to stop editing Wikipedia, you can't, however, get me to use an unreliable source in place of a reliable, just so you're satisfied and stop complaining. --Six words (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You yourself are not convinced by the arguments you are trying to present here. Therefore let it be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.84.163 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I found the following information on [1] referring to the numbers of the internet users top ten languages.

These figures are from 2011 and thus quite fresh. In the topten of internet languages German stays in the 6th place behind Portuguese and preceding Arabic. And in the end there is given the number of the world population for this language in a 2011 Estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau . According to this 2011 Estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau there is a worldwide population of 94,842,656 people speaking German. There are no further explanations on what kind of criteria this number is based but because of the precise number given I would guess that they have simply taken the number of people living in areas where German is the first language taught to children first year at school. So this number would include Gemany, Austria, South Tyrol (Italy), Liechtenstein, German speaking parts of Switzerland, Luxembourg, German speaking parts of East-Belgium and small areas in Denmark and Namibia. This number would not include areas in Europe or other parts of the world where German or some kind of a German dialect is daily spoken by the local population but not taught as a first language in school. I have no further explanation how one would get otherwise such a precise number as shown above .

But on the other hand when you compare the number of German worldwide population with the worldwide population of other languages it is quite obvious that the figures are based on first and second (or even third) language command. So I think there is something wrong with the number of German speakers and considering the fact that there are more than 75 million users of this language in the internet the number is way too small. That there should be not more than 20 million people in the age group between 3 and 99 years having an acceptable command of the German language who don't use the German language facilities on the internet seems to me highly unlikely.

--Eusc (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Low Saxon

Hello. I'm from Germany and I think that Low Saxon should not stand in the section with the dialects. It is historically an own language and today it is officially recognised as one, because it is protected by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It doesn't belong to the High German dialect continuum. My English is not good enough but could someone please change that section and make it correct? The way it is now, it's just not true. Bedankt un véle Gröten uut Plattdüütschland. 134.102.143.69 (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

German translation

At least don't delete this without providing some help -- I know this does not go here. I'm trying to render something in German to great douchey-pretentious (Deutschey-pretentious?) effect. I need the following sentence put into the exact way it would look in German with the proper effect: "They all look the same. Tell me who to blame. For the instigation, for the instigation." (it is from a poem I that was interpreted to me once). I probably can't ever get it exactly the right way, but that's what I need help with. Sorry to ruin your Wikipedia with my personal requests. 66.224.3.237 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As a native speaker of German I could give it a try, but I would have to ask a number of questions first and I do not want to start this kind of conversation here on Wikipedia. Why don't you try at http://dict.leo.org/ ? You can ask questions there and the answers usually are quite helpful. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of translation, I want to share a true story, told me by a teacher of German in China, about using capital letters for nouns. The first page of the textbook was beginning with the sentence: „Monika liegt im Bett mit Fieber“. The teacher noticed a slight commotion among the students, and one of them said: „The German culture obviously differs from ours. Surely, it does happen in China too, that a woman goes to bed with a man, but we do not put that in school textbooks.“ It was obvious for the students that since „Fieber“ started with a a capital letter, it stood for „Mr. Fieber“. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.31.194 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in the right box

Hello, as a native speaker of German, I just wanted to inform you that there is a mistake in the right box. In the second line (below "German language"), the given translation "Deutsche sprache" has to be "Deutsche Sprache" as "Sprache" is a noun and german nouns always start with a capital letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.78.80.108 (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed it. --Six words (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes in 1996 to German

German students studying English, here in the UK and in Germany too, have often made the additional point that the adoption of the "ß" in place of a doubling of the letter "s" was a socio-political and linguistic device to obliterate or erase the thought to be malignant SS. The Hitlerian "Schutzstaffel". The veracity of this claim would be difficult to prove. Perhaps, like many events within a language, and its use by native speakers, the truth will remain a mere trace (hearsay, opinion, hypothesis, rather than historically verified fact). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburgh fuller (talk • contribs) 11:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I call this an urban legend. Ich901 (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The truth is actually, as clear as it can be. The "ß" is actually about 600 years older than Hitler, was further developed during the 19th century and formally established in its standard form by 1906. Rules about when to use it were already formulated in early-to-mid 19th century. So you can safely call WP:CB on this one. -- megA (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced assertions in Vocabulary section

1. From the article: Even today, some low-key non-academic movements try to promote the Ersatz (substitution) of virtually all foreign words with ancient, dialectal, or neologous German alternatives.

As a reference, the reader is directed to the general homepage of the Verein Deutsche Sprache (VDS), insinuating that it were the aim of this association to substitute "virtually all foreign words". This is however not the aim of the VDS; they just have a policy against the exaggerated import of English words. From their homepage:

Dabei verfolgen wir keine engstirnigen nationalistischen Ziele. Wir sind auch keine sprachpflegerischen Saubermänner und akzeptieren fremde Wörter - auch englische - als Bestandteile der deutschen Sprache. Gegen fair, Interview, Trainer, Doping, Slang haben wir nichts einzuwenden. Prahlwörter wie event, highlight, shooting star, outfit, mit denen gewöhnliche Dinge zur großartigen Sache hochgejubelt werden, lehnen wir ab. Dieses "Imponiergefasel" grenzt viele Mitbürger aus, die über keine oder nur eingeschränkte Englischkenntnisse verfügen.

The core sentence from above translated into English: We...accept foreign words, also of English origin, as components of the German language.

2. From the article: Overall, German has fewer Romance-language loanwords than English or even Dutch.

That may be correct, however, there is no source for this claim; it is moreover not clear what is meant by "loanwords": Loanwords in a strict sense (e.g. Keller, Fenster), or in a wider sense, comprising also what is often called foreign words in German (e.g. Information, Fakultät)? Another sentence of this paragraph moreover suggests that also the scientific vocabulary is referred to:

The modern German scientific vocabulary has nine million words and word groups (based on the analysis of 35 million sentences of a corpus in Leipzig, which as of July 2003 included 500 million words in total).

It is a well-known fact that words of Latin and Greek origin also dominate the scientific vocabulary of the German language. Generally, I have the impression that the amount of Latin influence on the German vocabulary is strongly underestimated. Although Romance-derived words are admittedly much less used than in English (since Germanic equivalents are much more frequent than in English), their quantity is impressive and cannot be treated here in a speculative, non-sourced way. Levimanthys (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Went ahead and made some changes. References still missing however...Levimanthys (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight of 1996 orthography reform

In my opinion, the orthography reform of the 1990s is given too much weight. For example, in the History section, there are three paragraphs: Origins, Modern German, and Reform of 1996. As if the small reform of orthography was as important as to justify its own section in this context! Then, further down the arcticle, the reform is treated extensively in the Orthography section. A brief mentioning of the reform (with the addition that it gave rise to controversies) with a link to the article on it should be sufficient, shouldn't it? Levimanthys (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I moved the extensive section on the spelling reform from the History section to the Orthography section. It is really not that important for the history of the language, at least not more important than Middle High Germam, Humanism, Luther, or Campe, that all don't have their own section and in part are not even mentioned. Levimanthys (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

There is currently one sentence describing German quotation marks: Written German also typically uses an alternative opening inverted comma (quotation mark) as in „Guten Morgen!”.

This is only half of the truth. There are two different pairs of quotation marks. The mentioned Gänsefüßchen („…“), which are almost exclusively used in hand written text. The second are the Guillements (»…«). In books there might be slightly more Guillements than Gensefüßchen, but sometimes even both are used, when they have to be stacked. In Switzerland and Lichtenstein are also using the French Guillements(«…»), which are pointing to the outer sides.

For details one can have a look at the corresponding Wikipedia article. It might not fully acknowledge the role of Guillements, but other than that those informations are correct.

The article is currently locked, so I can't replace the upper sentence with a statement, that quotation differs from English and a link to the mentioned article. -- 78.53.223.217 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Mistakable sentence

Quote from the section "Noun inflection": Inflection for case on the noun itself is required in the singular for strong masculine and neuter nouns in the genitive and sometimes in the dative. Both of these cases are losing ground to substitutes in informal speech. The dative ending is considered somewhat old-fashioned in many contexts and often dropped.

One must distinguish here between the wide-spread loss of the genitive case in informal speech and that of the dative ending. The genitive is not much used in colloquial German (des Mannes > von dem Mann), but there is no tendency to avoid the dative. Only the noun ending (dem Manne) is usually lost, but the dative as such is stable because the article retains its dative form.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.226.12 (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

2nd most spoken language in Europe - numbers needed!

"It is the language with the largest number of native speakers in the European Union, and is the second-most spoken language in Europe, just behind English and ahead of French." The second part of the sentence is confusing. The first bit is clearly about native speakers in the EU but does "second-most spoken language in Europe" (i.e. EU plus the rest) also include second/foreign-language speakers? In any case, numbers are needed to support this. As a mother tongue, German comes before English and French but ranks behind Russian in Europe, and the latter should be very wide-spread as a second or foreign language in Eastern Europe.--Colomen (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mistakes

I discovered two mistakes in the section "Phonology"# "Consonants". First, it says, "y only in loanwords, generally as a vowel." Not quite true, for instance in Bayern 'Bavaria'. Second, it says,

     "to laugh" → lachen, "through" and "thorough" → durch, "high" → hoch, "naught" → nichts...

The "→" should be replaced by something else, because "→" suggests that the German form is derived from the English, which is not true; both the English and the German are derived from Proto-Germanic, as are cognates in Swedish etc.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"Bayern" is indeed a special case, as it was officially changed in 1825 from "Baiern", during a period of infatuation with Greece and the "Greek" letter y. Since then "bayerisch" refers to matters regarding the state, while "bairisch" refers to culture and language. -- megA (talk)

This is true, but one could maybe add that y is indeed used sometimes in proper names, as in Bayern, but also Meyer and the like. Apart from proper names, y is occurs only in borrowed words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.228.119 (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Should we ask for semi-protection?

For two months now the line “German is representative for all Germanic languages [...]” is being added to the article by an IP editor and neither edit summaries nor requests on the editor's talk help make him discuss the changes or at least add a source. I know that IP editors sometimes add valuable information to articles so semi-protection might stand in the way of good edits, but I don't see many other options to stop this behaviour. The editor doesn't have a static IP, so blocking him wouldn't be practical. Does anyone see other options? If not, would other editors agree with semi-protection or would you think this was too drastic for a bit of borderline vandalism?--Six words (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, semi-protection for one month should do the trick. —Stephen (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt, IMO. The sentence doesn't even MEAN a thing... -- megA (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gents, the semi-protection I asked to be put on the article has evidently expired. And Daftie Duck is back at it. Shall we ask for an extension of the SP, or is there something else we can do? I don't feel like baby-sitting a twerp who's found out how to use a computer keyboard all the time. Trigaranus (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean, if at least that sentence had any meaning at all... "German is representative..." representative how? Has it been elected by its constituency? Does it have power of attorney? I feel assaulted by a Koan! -- megA (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when are constructive contributions classified by your editors as borderline vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.115.86.34 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been explained numerous times by several editors why this particular contribution is not constructive; whether you agree with this or not it should be clear to you that you have no consensus at all for your edit. However, every day that goes by that this article remains semi-protected because of your continued intransigence, we miss out on truly constructive contributions from other IP editors who cannot edit the article. If we could unprotect this article without you resuming your unwanted behaviour, we could all benefit from their input. Knepflerle (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The truth cannot be suppressed by dictatorship and semi-protection. The purpose of my "unwanted behaviour" is to reveal the facts. If you will continue to delete this contribution, then I'll be constrained to inform the leadership of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.14.148 (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you perhaps at least try to explain to us what "German is representative for all Germanic languages" means? Tty29a (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There's so much wrong with those three sentences alone. Firstly, there's no dictatorship here, it's standard practice to cite sources if other editors ask for them. Over months now you've refused to cite any, so you can't expect this contribution to stay in the article. Secondly, you seem to be the only one who knows what those “facts” mean, yet you refuse to discuss them here - that doesn't help getting your information into the article. Thirdly, there's no “leadership” of Wikipedia that could help you, the community decides on content issues. If your contribution is really improving the article convincing other editors should be easy. As soon as you start quoting reliable sources others will listen and either try to include them or give detailed explanations why they don't think this information belongs in the article. Six words (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't want our time wasted by an utter git ranting on about "truth" and "dictatorship" and making the most ridiculous threat on the entire encyclopedia ("inform the leadership"!). What use do you expect this to be? Du schaffst es nicht einmal, einen verständlichen Satz beizutragen, geschweige denn ein Argument. Either you make a point, or you will be handled as the troll you are being. It is simple, and it is your choice: if you tell us what you mean by it and why (because nobody outside that head of yours has got that), we will be curious. If you go and reinsert your mantra, you will be blocked and / or the page semi-protected. Suit yourself, and quit the clownage. Trigaranus (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who is somehow accustomed with the topic German and Germanic languages can grasp the meaning of the cited sentence. Maybe some biased people could find this contribution as not constructive. But that's their problem. Sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.9.13 (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm, no. What you add to the article has to be both correct and understandable, and right now it looks like that's not the case. You want this information in the article, so sourcing and wording it correctly is your problem and yours alone. --Six words (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply not true. You, IP editor, are the only person who understands what the sentence means. Why are you so reluctant to explain it to us, if our understanding is lacking? I'm inclined to think you're trolling, because it's so patently obvious that the people who have responded above know very much indeed about German and about languages in general. Or perhaps you would like to provide the sentence here in German? Maybe you're simply mistranslating something? --bonadea contributions talk 08:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There simply are German and Germanic languages, but not "something else" and Germanic languages. Did you get it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.245.25 (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Flags

Anyone know why we need 20 flags in the infobox? What do they add to the article? --John (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Most language articles use flags in the infobox (but some articles with a long list of countries like French language and Spanish language have a collapsed list). While I don't think we need them, I also don't think they hurt. --Six words (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Swiss German

Swiss German is translated into German in German TV (captions).Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Die Tiroler Kolonie Pozuzo, Peru

The source should be quoted in the article or removed rather then listed in External links Xx236 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 November 2012

Please add to bibliography, after Lockwood:

• Joseph Salmons. A History of German: What the past reveals about today's language. Oxford University Press, 2012. ISBN-10: 0199697949 | ISBN-13: 978-0199697946

Add to external links: History of German Histling (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: No need, this may go into the realms of Linkspam. Mdann52 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice site based on an Oxford University Press book.Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

POV map - multiple issues

commons:File talk:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG Xx236 (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Caption German language and ethnicity in central Europe, 1929. contains probably OR. The same map is used in many Wikipedias and different years are assigned, eg. 1945.Xx236 (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced informations

According to Germany only 81% people in Germany are Germans. Minorities create "ghettos".

Please source your "95%".Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

German is a world language or a supra-regional language, so the lead contains POV.Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

'Problematic map'?

What exactly is the 'problem' with that map? That it reveals that some areas that today are part of Poland used to have German speaking majority back then? Right? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean "It reveals a tabu in Poland"? One of the best known Polish movies is The Promised Land (1975 film) which shows the story of a Polish, German and Jewish businessman in Łódź. I'm not sure if the history of German minority in Poland during WWII makes German people proud - they were drafted, joined Nazi police forces, participated in the Holocaust, delivered Polish "terrorists".Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The map doesn't reveal Polish minority in Ruhr. We call such attitude bias or POV.Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The map uses German geographic names and this Wikipedia is English.

Łódź was called Lodz by local Germans, see de:Lodzer Zeitung, not Lodsch.Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No map in this article shows the Baltic Germans.Xx236 (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny you would come up with Baltic Germans. Thought that if you as a Pole dislike Polish Germans, me as an Estonian should dislike Baltic Germans? No way, pal. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the map, it's highly problematic original research, initially created by a user who was indef banned from German (and I think English) wikipedias for pushing extreme far-right POV which "trivialized Nazism". See discussion here, here, here (there's several other places as well). Please do not restore it.Volunteer Marek 14:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not OR, multiple sources have been provided, see the file description on commons.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it's OR and SYNTH based on abuse and misrepresentation of some sources and reliance on some other non-reliable sources. And please stop trying to make this into some kind of Poles vs. German thing, that's ridiculous and says more about your own mindset then the reality of the situation. It was actually German an Dutch users (on respective Wikipedias) who were the first to point out the problems with this map. Oh yeah, I forgot, those must've been "far left" German users or something.Volunteer Marek 18:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Audio Example

As I clicked on the audiofile from "Goethe's Faust", I was a little disappointed, because I feel that, though german has a huge variety of interesting dialects, the listening example should be in standard German, without the Bavarian dialect you face here, because it is meant to show people the exact sound of the standard language, which is thrown overboard by the Bavarian dialect, since the pronunciation of the "r" usually is a guttural sound, not as rolled as in the example. - Sept. 15th 2011, Malte Wendt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.108.86 (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be a lot more disappointed if we removed the sample just because a tiny bit of the speakers regional accent breaks through. He is using standard German (if you think this is Bavarian you've probably never heard Bavarian) - the only bit of Bavarian is the "rolled" r you complain about, which is something some people cannot "switch off". This is a voluteer project - most of the editors who are contributing sound clips aren't professionals, and this sample is rather good in my eyes. You're welcome to upload your own version of this text (or any other "public domain" text), and if it's better we can replace the sample, in the meantime let's keep this one. --Six words (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha, just seen the name of the chap who wrote the comment...! No Malte, not everything that diverges from Northern German convention is either wrong or from the south. ;-) (Sorry, but I've simply taken your comment and your name to suggest that you are a) from the north and b) not familiar with Bavarian.) No Bavarianity, Bavaritude, or inability on the speaker's part here. In conventional Bühnendeutsch (stage German), the r is pronounced with the tongue tip. This mode was long considered the most refined of German pronunciation, though it has fallen out of favour over the past decades. The speaker's performance there is perfectly exemplary; he might even be a trained stage actor. Trigaranus (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The speaker does sound a bit Franconian, despite his correct pronunciation. (I'd just love to hear a Bavarian rendition of Faust!) Actually, when I learnt Bühnendeutsch, we were taught to not to use tongue-tip r, but rolled uvular r [ʀ] (gerolltes Rachen-r). Unfortunately, I don't have the Siebs here... -- megA (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, despite the alveolar "r", the speaker is neither bavarian nor franconian, but rather from Middle-Hessen which is audible by 1) the melody 2) the sonoric pronounciation of initial "s". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.44.236.20 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, he's all over the place! -- megA (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, if a Northerner would speak the Faust text, he would usually be recognised as a Northerner. There is hardly any accent-free standard German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.227.189.40 (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

noun position doesn't matter - subject or object

The position of a noun in a German sentence has no bearing on its being a subject, an object, or another argument. In a declarative sentence in English if the subject does not occur before the predicate the sentence could well be misunderstood. This is not the case in German. That's not true as it stands: Mäuse fressen Katzen would always be understood as mice eat cats, while in theory it could also mean mice are being eaten by cats (by stressing the first word). The reason for that is that usually Subject and Object are identified by endings, while both Mäuse and Katzen are plural forms of feminine nouns which aren't being altered in their endings to indicate their place in the sentence. --ComradeMicha (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing is since we all know folkloristically that cats eat mice and not vice versa, we would understand Mäuse fressen Katzen as cats eat mice, though the speaker might get an odd look for a somewhat comical sentence structure. But even this, not necessarily. If there has been a question: Was fressen Katzen? (What do cats eat?), the answer "Mäuse fressen Katzen" (Mice do cats eat) would be o.k. But yes, the structure Subject-Flectedverb-Object-Restoftheverb (or in the subclause, Subject-Object-Predicate) is more common than any other, which is not Anglicism but just the German language; and yes, if the flection including articles, adjectives etc., plus context, plus pronunciation and articulation, does not suffice for clarity, the first of all will be interpreted as subject. --93.134.250.161 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm native German and I assure you: "Mäuse fressen Katzen" is a counterfactual statement expressing the exact same thought as "mice eat cat". The claim that "Mäuse fressen Katzen" would be understood by Germans as "Mice eat cats" is rubbish! And no, it is not correct to reply "Mäuse fressen Katzen" if asked "Was fressen Katzen". The answer is "Katzen fressen Mäuse". 79.248.238.191 (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If you put the emphasis on Mäuse, pretty much everyone will understand it as the "correct" answer. --Six words (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You can put as much emphasis on Mäuse as you want, "Mäuse essen Katzen" will never be a correct translation for "Cats eat mice". --95.113.152.206 (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm also native German and I think "Mäuse fressen Katzen" would be unterstood in that context. Another example: Jim spielt Basketball (Jim plays Basketball). "Was spielt Jim?" "Basketball spielt Jim!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.117.150 (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(I am german too...) The sentence `Mäuse fressen Katzen´ would only be understood, if there was a related situation/question or such. Spoken as a normal expression `Mäuse fressen Katzen´ would be understood as a `carnivorational´ display of odd rodent behavior. But: the whole matter of positioning the noun makes me always wonder how awkward it must be to learn our inorderly language from scratch!--139.30.128.76 (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

German is a West Germanic language classified alongside English and Dutch.

This sentence sounds like: "The tail is wagging his dog". Normally one would say: English is a West Germanic language classified alongside German and Dutch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.190.116.220 (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In a discussion about English, yes, but this is an article about German. The largest living West Germanic languages in Europe are German, Dutch and English, so it makes sense to describe German in these terms. Making English the subject of the sentence would be confusing, even though it is equally true. --bonadea contributions talk 11:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

German cognates with English

"German cognates with English" was a good article. But the editor Knepflerle proposed that this article should be deleted. Because of the fact that many English words have a great affinity with those of German dialects, he probably feared that English could be considered by the readers as a German dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.241.5 (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

For information, see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_German_cognates_with_English -- megA (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I proposed the article for deletion, but many people took part in the discussion and there was a consensus for removing it.
2. The list has not been deleted per se, it has been moved to the Wiktionary project. If you want to read or edit it now, you can do so here ,at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:List_of_German_cognates_with_English
3. The main problem with the article was nothing to do with any "fear", it was the complete lack of sources. The writer was asked many times to provide the sources required by WP:V, but none were ever provided. Unsurprisingly, this led to the article containing numerous errors, as detailed at the deletion discussion. We want to make sure that readers can rely on our information to be correct.
4. It would be much easier to discuss matters together if you registered for an account here. Editing through an IP that is constantly changing means it's hard for us to leave you messages regarding the articles. If you register, you'll also be able to start articles yourself and keep a watchlist of articles. To sign up, click here.

Best, Knepflerle (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

An objective discussion about this article is not possible because the responsible censors and editors are completely jaundiced. Everything that's not of their liking will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.8.89 (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't that there's "censors" here, it's that your comments just don't make any sense. I took a look at those deleted edits and from what I understand you're trying to say that English is a dialect of German and "they" deleted the cognates article because it somehow proved that - sorry, that is nonsense. Anyway, the article hasn't been deleted but moved to here (as Knepflerle already told you). --Six words (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is senceless as long as you make politics instead of historical linguistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.235.238 (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

From a historical linguistics point of view it is nonsensical to claim that English is a dialect of German (if that is in fact what you are saying - and I agree with Six words that it seems to be the gist of the removed text). Nothing to do with politics. That comments were removed from this talk page was also because they used potentially offensive language, which is specifically disallowed. --bonadea contributions talk 12:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The list of cognates indicates that many English words are rather akin to that of German dialects then to that of Standard German. In contradiction to Mr Knepflerle I think that this fact should not be hidden by the simple deletion of the article. That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.235.238 (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be suitable if you provided sources and if you removed the errors. I'll say it one more time for clarity: provide a table with sources for the entries, and nobody will complain! Knepflerle (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The list has some questionable entries and if I had known about it I too would have suggested to delete it unless you (or other editors) provided sources. You ‘pop-etymology’ approach (“that's self-evident”) isn't compatible with Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. Count yourself lucky it was transwikied and stop complaining.--Six words (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And here I always thought English was a French dialect... -- megA (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is doubtless the most hilarious suggestion that I've heard so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.206.221 (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There are far more words in English stemming from French than from German. Besides, I've got a user account and you are just a number, so my opinion counts more than yours. Ha! -- megA (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity that your opinion about the topic cognates is not foundet on appropriate knowledges.

German and English have the same Germanic origin and tens of thousands of related words represent the basic vocabulary of both languages.

The English loanwords from French, which in many cases are pronounced very differently in comparison with the original, have not influenced the Germanic structure of the English language at all. So you cannot formulate a single English sentence using only loanwords. Additionally many loanwords are only synonyms of original Germanic words: storm - tempest, go down - descend, sight - view, little - petit, finding - trove et al.

Besides not all Romance loanwords are stemming from French but also directly from Latin. and the latter can be found in German too.

I think that the enumerated facts should change your preconceived opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.39.160 (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

English - a German dialect? No! English and German have the same ancestor. That is why! And you can find a joint ancestral word of almost any Old English and German morpheme! 93.215.136.39 (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

But the affinity between English and some German dialects is much greater than that between English and literary German. Example: Eine Katze hat gehört, dass die Mäuse geschrien haben. A Katz hat ghärt, dass die Mais gschrie have. A cat has heard, that the mice have cried.

What in interesting observation about German dialects and English! This would be expected though if the dialect were Low German. Which dialect is it that you used in the example? Also, with regards to English being a dialect of French, this is not true but it is a common misconception. This is due to the British habit of spelling words like colour as if they were French words, and can be attributed to the unspoken wish that all Englishmen have to be French. ;-) Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 15:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Excepting the English loanwords there is no common ground between English and French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.190.124.217 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

English is de facto a mixture of two old North German dialects (Low Saxon and Anglish), which - in the course of time - has incorporated many loanwords from other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.216.22 (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Languages

Apparently the article hasn't received an Importance rating in “WikiProject Languages”. I recommend Top Importance; it is about the 11th biggest language in the world, by number of native speakers, after Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, English, Arabic, Bengali, Portuguese, Russian, Japanese, and Punjabi (approximate order).--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

welcom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.5.122 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Arno Schmidt "canonical"???

I agree with the canonical Goethe, Lessing, Schiller, Heine among the German literature subheading. But, what the heck, qualifies Arno Schmidt in this rubrication? I'm quite a Wikipedia newbie, but maybe one of the more experienced Wikipedians may omit Schmidt from that row. Dissmores (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

88.65.81.80

88.65.81.80 Please stop reverting valid edits. It would appear that English is not your first language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archlinux (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Latin standard ?

Article states that Latin (or is English the ment language ?) comprices 26 "standard letters". I believe that for instance the "Æ" -letter was used in Latin, if so standard Latin uses atleast 27 letters. In any case the phrase "26 standard letters" possible could be written more clearly. Standard Latin or standard English ? Or am I wrong about the "Æ"-letter and too meticulous ? Boeing720 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"Æ" doesn't have any linguistic significance beyond that of "AE", it's a purely "typographical" device. --Pfold (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There are Latin scripts that have Æ as a separate letter, such as Danish or Norwegian, but the ligature does not occur in the original Classical Latin alphabet. It is a medieval innovation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

German dialects

The mostly wide spoken German dialect in the world is English and not Bavarian. But English is a dialect with several armies and navies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.18.203 (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Native Speakers

This page was deeply messed-up, by a bad reference in the Infobox. I removed the bad reference as that makes the page look much better, almost correct, except I am not sure the Infobox is complete. The bad reference appeared right after the second language speakers. Here is the bad reference:

| authorlink = National Geographic | title = National Geographic Collegiate Atlas of the World | publisher = R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company |date=April 2006 | location = Willard, Ohio | pages = 257–299 | isbn = 978-0-7922-3662-7}}</ref> (55 million (2005) in EU claimed by Eurobarometer

I could not figure out how to fix this. If you can clear this up, please do. Nick Beeson (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

L2 speakers

The currently given number of 80 million L2 speakers is suspiciously high, especially considering List of languages by total number of speakers – as an IP has recently synthesised, this would mean close to 200 million speakers worldwide all in all, a figure not usually encountered. Ever since Kwamikagami had added the number of second language speakers to the infobox back in 2005, it has been subject to constant seemingly arbitrary manipulation. (I'll never understand how uncommented changes to figures can go through completely without a reaction on a heavily watched article like this one.) Eventually, in 2007, after a "consensus change" to 20 million speakers discussed on talk, that number was changed to 35 million speakers by R9tgokunks, who finally added a citation. It was in December 2007 when this figure, after having been lowered in the meanwhile to 28 million for the hell who knows what kind of reason, was raised to 80 million by an IP, whose only rationale was a reference to the "authority" of the German Wikipedia, where 80 million foreign-language speakers are claimed without any source; it is basically a Fantasiezahl. In any event, I have to assume that the cited source gives no more and no less than 35 million speakers and therefore I am changing it back to that figure. Of course, it would be great if somebody could actually verify this figure or report what exactly the source cited really says. That's the problem with offline sources, which only the addition of quotations can remedy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a useful compilation of sources. Almost all sources give a far smaller figure of L2 speakers than 80 million, only the Eurobarometer survey reports 55 million for Europe alone. On the reasons for the vast discrepancies I can only speculate. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It seams that some people did not hear yet from the notion of German-speaking Europe. The number of 55 million L2-speakers refers only to the European Union (see the diagram "German foreign language EU"). If you want to get the figure for whole Europe, you have to add at least the German speakers from Norway, Serbia, Bosnia, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. But the worldwide number of German L2-speakers is surely higher than 80 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.99.249 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Vocabulary

German dose not have a biggest vocabulary because German has 330.000 words and Farsi (Persian) has more than 346.000 words according to this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehkhoda_Dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.176.244 (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Useful links

• Page views per country (breakdown per language): https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerCountryBreakdownHuge.htm
• The German language in the world in 2012: https://www.goethe.de/resources/files/pdf19/StADaF_DE_2012.pdf
• German Studying in 2010 (and variation between 2005 and 2010): https://www.goethe.de/resources/files/pdf19/5759818-STANDARD.pdf
• German Studying in 2005 (and variation between 2000 and 2005) : https://www.goethe.de/resources/files/pdf19/1459127-STANDARD1.pdf

--Loup Solitaire 81 (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Top-importance, C-class article

I see this article is currently rated as a top-importance article by more than one WikiProject, and has most recently received a quality rating of C class from most of those projects. (I might rate this article today as a B-class article, but I will defer to the judgment of other editors on that issue.) I note that this article is very frequently read by visitors to Wikipedia, and I wonder who is interested in going over the article with fresh eyes and with sources at hand to see what needs to be done to bring the article up to good article status and then to featured article status? Who is interested in doing steady improvement work on this article about the German language for readers of English Wikipedia? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

¿How do you nominate it then?

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The good article nomination process is described in the good articles section in project space, especially the nominations page. I have taken one article, IQ classification, through the good article process, and I'm currently working with other editors on updating and revising English language with the same goal in mind. Some of the sources I'm looking up about Germanic languages for updating the article on English would of course also apply to updating this article about German. Are you interested in looking over this article together and seeing what can be improved? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Controversial dispute regarding general aspects regarding the categorisation of German languages and the {{infobox language}}

Please check the ongoing controversial discussion in Talk:Swiss_Standard_German#It_is_a_variety_of_Standard_German_.5Bcitation_needed.7Creason.3Dcontradicted_by_info_box.5D_.E2.80.93_Why.3F about general aspects regarding the categorisation of German languages and the {{infobox language}}! Thanks a lot! -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)