Talk:Middle Low German

MLG and Middle Dutch

While it's certainly the case that the term Low German, particularly in older works, sometimes includes Dutch, I have two reservations about this point being made in this article, even though it's sourced (though admittedly not from a linguist): it's not all clear to me that

1. the precise terms Middle Low German and mittelniederdeutsch are used to include Middle Dutch - having looked through a number of standard handbooks, I can't find any evidence of such usage;
2. this usage is found in modern linguistic scholarship (the last 50 years, say), as opposed to older works (Lasch in 1914 mentions the ambiguity, but she includes nothing on Dutch in her MLG grammar).

I don't think the point should be removed entirely, but my view is that it should be downgraded to a caveat about older works. Or can someone find suitable recent sources to support the current wording? --Pfold (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"(High German:..)" should be "(Standard German: ...)"

"(High German:..)" should be "(Standard German: ...)". This has probably been done by a native German speaker (like myself). Most native German speakers don't know the differences between "Hochdeutsch" / High German and Standarddeutsch (Standard German) because "Hochdeutsch" is a very common word. --77.189.31.143 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

High German too has both meanings as Hochdeutsch, and "Standard German" is a High German variety, i.e. High German isn't wrong. "Standard High German" however is more precise and addresses both issues. --23:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Phonology

It's good to see some work being done on this article, but I have two concerns about the Phonology section.

1. Lasch's work may be seminal but it's 100+ years old and predates all modern phonological theory. I don't think we should be using neo-grammarian sources on phonology where there is up-to-date stuff available. Possible modern sources include Cordes's Mnd. article in the Cordes/Mühn Handbuch or the articles by Niebaum on Mnd. graphology and phonology in both editions of the Sprachgeschichte volumes (ed. Besch et al.) - most of his article from the 2nd edn is on Google books, certainly enough of it to serve as a basis for updating of this section.
2. I'm afraid I think the whole "specific notes" section is irrelevant for anyone consulting the English WP about MLG. If there were a separate article on MLG phonology it could possibly be justified, but this level of detail (and from an out-of-date source) is unwarrented in my view. I realise someone has put a lot of work into this section, but that doesn't make it relevant.

Another minor point: the phonology section is going to have to talk about dialects, so I would say the Dialects section needs to be moved up in the article.--Pfold (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Do as you think fit. --Ubel (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"Middle Saxon"

Who calls this language Middle Saxon and where? The two sources cited for the lead do not, and searching for "Middle Saxon" or "Mittelsaechisch" at Regesta Imperii or Google Scholar gets results on Anglo-Saxon Middlesex as far as I can see.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Same results on Jstor. --Pfold (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it, along with some other what appears to be linguistic activism that we've seen from minority languages/dialects around here (insistence on linking to Standard German rather than German language).--Ermenrich (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Jan Terje Faarlund, From Ancient Germanic to modern Germanic languages, in: Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Hanbook: Volume 2 / Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien: Ein internationales Handbuch: 2. Halbband / La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques: Manuel international: Tome 2 (= HSK 20.2), 2001, p. 1706

for example does. --12:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:3719:8009:1482:4A44:1F22:4448 (talk)

Quote in context? Also: you’re edits have conveniently left out dudesch as a form used for Middle Low German and Köbler’s self-published dictionaries are not reliable sources.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Quote: 1. it's not my task to provide it. 2. here is is: "Old and middle versions of Low German are usually called Old and Middle Saxon, and Old Dutch is sometimes referred to as Old Low Franconian." So Middle Saxon is properly cited and even with a modern, scientific/linguistic source.

dudesch was and isn't sourced. Hence: . --12:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Of Course it’s “your task” to provide a quote for verification, see WP:BRD and WP:VERIFY among other policies. And ”usually known”? That is a demonstrably false statement. Does he mean In Dutch? It is certainly not the case in German or English, as the searches by Pfold and I have shown.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I was able to check the source at de Gruyter via the Wikimedia library. That is the sole mention of "Middle Saxon" in the article and I challenge anyone to find Middle Low German referred to as "Middle Saxon" anywhere else.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That particular issue aside, I'm not sure that the "autonym" is being correctly stated. Lasch writes:

Wo man die heimische sprache im gegensatz zum lateinischen braucht, da schreibt man "to dṻde." Sonst werden die bezeichnungen Sassenlant, sassesch, sassesche sprâke gebraucht [...] Mit dem 16 jh. tritt nedderlendesch dem hochdṻdesch gegenüber (uth dem hochdutzschen in sassche efte nederlendesche sprake, Narrenschiffübersetzung, 1519, Zarncke 205 b. - uth hochdüdescher in nederlendescher sprake, Narrenschiff, druck von 1519, nachrede. Vgl. chronik des J. Oldecop s. 173), doch bleibt sassesch die üblichste bezeichnung im 16. jh. im lande selbst während hd. seite niederländisch, Niderland gewöhnlich ist. Die bezeichnung niederdeutsch scheint von hd. autoren ausgegangen zu sein.

It seems in the 16th century (i.e. at the end of the Middle Saxon period) there was a term for the language, but its entirely unclear when and where this was used. Lasch is also discusses the people who spoke the language., as is clear from her inclusion of Sassenlant. Morever, the Mittelniederdeutsches Woerterbuch by Schiller and Lübben, clearly indicates that dudesch was a common name for the language [1]. On the other hand, it has no entry for "sassesch" or "sessesch" or anything like that at all, just "Sasse" (Sachse) [2], [3].

Given these issues, I see no reason to highlight the term "sassisch" over any other term used for the language in the Middle Ages.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

None of the above comment makes any sense. The quote by Lasch provided by Ermenrich himself explicitly disproves his position, and yet he somehow continues to insist on it. Lasch does not say that the term sassesch only appeared in the 16th century. His attempt to discredit Lasch's statement by criticising it for lacking a specification of when and where the term was used is irrelevant; it is not an editor's business to argue with a reliable source. It's obvious that she means it was generally used in the Low German area during the Middle Low German period, as far as can be attested. Schiller-Luebben says that dudesch meant 'deutsch', but not that it meant specifically 'niederdeutsch'; it may well have been a common term used for both Low and High German, which would make it less precise than sassesch and hence less worthy of being highlighted. Schiller-Luebben can't be used to discredit Lasch either, it does not claim to include every MLG word in existence. Köbler, which includes many more words, does include sassisch/sassesch. [4] --62.73.69.121 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not "discrediting" Lasch. But I do seem to have misread her, as I would agree re-reading it that she says that Sassisch was a common term. However, I think that the previous sentence still implies that "to dṻde" was the more common term.

The argument that Schiller-Luebben "does not claim to include every MLG word in existence" is bizarre - it's a dictionary of the Low German language. Dictionaries generally aim for completeness. Köbler is a self-published internet page, it does not meet WP:RS.

My concern here remains that the name and autonym questions are being misused to promote Low German (or "Low Saxon") dialect activism rather than actually document how scholars discuss this language. It's especially liable to cause confusion as the modern "Sächsisch" refers to Upper Saxon German in common parlance.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)