Talk:Low German/Archive 4

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)