Talk:Low German/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Personal Observations

As a native low german speaker (westphalia) under the age of fifty, living in England, I would like to add some comments to this discussion.

I still speak my mother tongue anytime I call my family or if I visit hy hometown on the dutch border. Within my family I speak low german with my parents, almost all my older relatives, and three of my younger siblings. But I speak high german with my two youngest siblings and most of the younger members of the local community. I only know of a handful of my peergroup that have opted for speaking low german with their children. So whilst I think the number of native low german speakers is still in the higher six digit numbers if not millions, it is sadly dwindling fast.

A few years ago I met the parents of a danish friend in London and whilst they spoke no english or german and I spoke no danish, we quickly established that we each spoke a version of low german and were thus able to communicate. Also, whilst in South Africa, I was able to understand some of the Africaans based on my low german. Infact, when our host uttered an exclamation, his pronounciation was absolutely identical to that of my mother.

One contributor spoke of local variations not existing anymore. I disagree. My mother and fathers families are from a town only a few miles down the road from my hometown. I vividly remember being asked 'where do you come from' when I started work. As if I was from another planet. Only because in my familie we say 'kerke' not 'karke' (spelling of my low german is total guess work... I never used it in any written form though people often make up low german poems for wedding invites etc..) These variations are still in place and people do recognise if someone is from a town further afield. I used to vary my own low german accent depending on whom I spoke to.

As you will have noticed, I have called it low german throughout. That is because it is the only phrase that has made any sense to my english audience when I have tried to explain that high german is not my mother tongue. I believe that this whole discussion is based on a (to some extent understandable) aversion of many dutch people to be thrown into one pot with anything german. Personally, I think that this is rather sad. As someone else said... we are very much one people. I feel that I have far more in common with the low german speakers on either side of the border than with the high german speakers of my regional capital for example. The people that home in on any devision are mostly the same that cause problems in any society. Mainly of a certain age and gender. Why? Why not celebrate the heritage we have in common?

Any dutch person speaking low german should feel no more german than a german person should feel indien due to speaking an indo-european language. If someone you know names their child with a name that has bad connotations for you... it really does not take that long before the name in your mind is connected to the child, not the person you knew previously under that name.

I am curious... are any of the other participants in this talk actually native low german/dutch speakers themselves? It did not seem to me from what people have posted. As such it confirms what I think holds true for many things. Those that are converted to something are far more zealous than those that grew up with it. Food for thought there.....

Amianna 20:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a Dutchman, and Dutch speaker, and in the Low Countries, your dialect is called "Low Saxon". Dutch linguistics uses "Low German" only as a linguistic marker and the precise meaning of "german" in "low German" is explained as wel, and has not got the same meaning as "german" in general. You remark that you think you have more in common with the Dutch than speakers of High German is somewhat unrealistic to me. You might see a lot of similarities with the Dutch living near your border, but the idea that the Dutch as a whole are culturally closer is somewhat strange. I think that if you look closer you'll see that you have a lot more in common with someone from Austria than one from the Netherlands. Not just culturally, but in some cases linguistically as well.Rex 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

She's speaking of Low Saxons in the Netherlands, not of all Dutch, I guess. And I'm sure, it is true, that the Dutch Low Saxon dialects are nearer to her Westfalian Low Saxon than the dialect of Düsseldorf. --::Slomox:: >< 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A North German may be linguistically closer to an Austrian than to someone from the Netherlands, but that is only because most North Germans do not speak Low German any more. Those who do are certainly linguistically a lot closer to standard Dutch than to Austrian dialects. Simply compare the "Wenker-Sätze" in any Low German variety with those in Austrian dialects and their translation in Standard Dutch.Unoffensive text or character 08:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Lol... I know the phenomenon... When an online-friend of mine from Cloppenburg visited Vienna, we met once an old friend of mine, who came from Utrecht but lives now in Vienna for... Fifteen years, I think... They talked... I didn't even understand a bit... But I realized the Low Saxon and the Low Franconian accents seem to be pretty close... The friend from Cloppenburg told me that this is somewhat their dialect over there... Didn't know that lower german is still that widespread in Germany...

And of course there are commons between the states Germany and Austria, don't forget that Vienna was the Capital of the Holy Roman Empire, and a major City of the German Confederation... ;-) --PSIplus Ψ 14:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Low German may be called "Low Saxon" in Holland & Belgium, but the official linguistic term is "Low German" ("Niederdeutsch"), so that is what the page should say. --dllu 12:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have found all of the discussions on this page to be very interesting, and I have a personal observation of my own. The area where I live in Southern Illinois is predominantly German, and many of the elderly folks in the area speak both English and what they refer to as either Low German (if they're speaking English) or Niederdeutsch. Most of the people come from Westphalia or Hanover (I'm assuming the old Kingdom of Hanover, not specifically the city). Both of my paternal grandparents, as well as their siblings spoke the language. My maternal grandmother did not, as her stepmother was of English descent. My maternal grandfather, whose own paternal grandparents and one maternal grandparent came from the Netherlands, also spoke this same language. I guess the point of this little background story is that even though my grandfather's family (Huegen) came from the Netherlands, they still spoke the same Low German language as all of the German immigrants in this area.... so I'm not really buying the arguments stated at various points on this page that there is no "Low German" spoken in the Netherlands. Also, I have a question for anyone out there who may be able to answer it. In my area, the vowels with umlauts "oe", "ae", and "ue" are pronounced as a "long a" or "short e" for both "oe" and "ae", and as a "long e" or "short i" for "ue" (as in Huegen, which is pronounced Heeggen). Is this a typical Low German pronunciation or is it just an anglicized pronunciation? Derek J Schulte (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dialect continuum

What are the sources for the claims that LG forms a dialect continuum with Dutch and High German? And I mean "sources", not "arguments." --Pfold 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Take eg. this one: dtv Atlas Deutsche Sprache, ed. by Werner König, passim Unoffensive text or character 09:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not going to hunt through the whole book - let's have some specific page refs! --Pfold 00:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Shortly put, Low Saxon in The Netherlands sounds more like Dutch, and Low Saxon in Germany more like German, the is quite a big difference between these two. If you'd like some examples, compare: nds-nl:Nederlaand and nds:Nedderlannen. Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 13:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't want opinions or personal experience - I want references to published peer-reviewed research or standard handbooks. For example, the article by Niebaum on Westniederdeutsch in the LGL, characterises the boundary between LG and Low Franconian as a "Dialektscheide" and sees only the western end of the LG/HG boundary (i.e. the Rhenish Fan) as offering anything like a continuum. --Pfold 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about any published works about the differences between dialects in The Netherlands and Germany. But as is mentioned on this Wikipedia, the dialects in NL look to Dutch for neologisms and in DE to German (for example in Germany they say hoochladen from the German word 'hochladen'; in The Netherlands they use the English term or usually say bestand toevoegen (add a file) sometimes oplaojen from Dutch 'opladen'). This has been going on for centuries, and as you can imagine the differences because of this have become quite big. Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I confess that I have not found the word "Dialektkontinuum" in the work I named. Yet, if you look at practically all linguistic maps in the book, you will find that the isoglosses never (literally: never) coincide with the Dutch-German border. But of course, this is an argument, not a source. On the other hand, you said yourself that Niebaum speaks of a "Dialektscheide" between Low German and Low Franconian and this dialect boundary is not identical with the border between Germany and the Netherlands. Just to get it clear for me: Are you looking for a confirmation that there is a dialect continuum across the Dutch-German border, or across the Low Saxon (Low German)- Low Franconian dialect boundary? Unoffensive text or character 15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Servien, the question is not whether there is a dialect continuum, but whether anybody can name a source for this claim. I think, the fact that this continuum exists, is undisputed (or so I hope). Though you are right that dialects on each side of the political border have been diverging rather than converging for at least 150 years, they are still mutually comprehensible without any difficulty whatsoever. With the eventual extinction of most of those dialects on the German side of the border, however, there will in a few decades be a real language boundary between Germany and the Netherlands.Unoffensive text or character 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pfold, will you accept this as a source? [1]Unoffensive text or character 16:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I call a proper source - thought it's a pity C&T don't give their source. Given Niebaum's different view it would be good to find some other published sources on this to see where the preponderance of expert opinion is. It's not a matter of national boundaries but of dialect boundaries - is a specific boundary marked by enough isoglosses to constitute a barrier to communication? --Pfold 17:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is very little to be found on the mutual intelligibility of neighbouring dialects. There are certainly dialect boundaries (Dialektscheiden) where many isoglosses converge. But I do not know of any cases where this could severely impede mutual intelligibility. The only case where there are sharp dialect boundaries is that of dialect islands (Erzgebirgisch in the Upper Harz Mountains, Palatinate dialect on the Lower Rhine near Kleve and a few others).

This poster shows the Dutch dialect continuum and, if I interpret the text correctly, it also states that there are no abrupt dialect boundaries between Dutch and Low Saxon/Low German: [2]Unoffensive text or character 08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that this this idea of the dialect continuum across the LG/LF and LG/HG boundaries is an article of faith. I also suspect people look at the Rhenish fan and forget that it represents just a small set of phonemes - the LG Einheitsplural, the lack of ge- in past participles are *big* differences. To my mind, if you're speaking a variety with those features you are speaking LG, and if not then HG. Of course people living near the boundary are familiar with both varieties, but that doesn't mean they're not distinct. But I can't say I ever come across proper research on this. --Pfold 09:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the term "dialect continuum" does not necessarily imply that there are no language barriers to be found anywhere. Dialect islands like Erzgebirgisch in the Upper Harz Mountains or Pfälzisch on the Lower Rhine near Kleve are clearly not part of a continuum. There is one dialect barrier I know from personal experience: Immediately to the north of Frankfurt, a dialect is spoken that is very hard to understand for speakers of Frankfurt dialect. If I chose to speak the most basilectal form of the dialect of my home town, some 10 miles north of Frankfurt, I would not be understood in the city. But in other directions our dialect blends into neighbouring varieties more smoothly.Unoffensive text or character 12:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there are simply two problems about the classification of "Nedersaksisch". These dialects today have similarities to both Dutch and Low German dialects. So it is no wonder that both sides the Dutch and the Low German linguists often have a different opinion about the classification. However, I think the main problem is the political side of view. Dialects often do not stop at national borders and often they cannot be separated from each other easily because there are no clear boundaries. You just mentioned Niebaum. Goossens on the other hand arguments that these dialects are Dutch, they were Dutch and they are Dutch: Goossens, Jan: Zwischen Niederdeutsch und Niederländisch. Die Dynamik der ostniederländischen Sprachlandschaft, in: Goossens, Jan: Ausgewählte Schriften zur niederländischen und deutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft herausgegeben von Heinz Eickmans, Loek Geeraedts, Robert Peters, Münster u. a. 2000 (= Niederlande-Studien herausgegeben von Friso Wielenga und Loek Geeraedts, Bd. 22), S. 425 – 450. In my opinion his argumentation is rather political because I cannot find any clue in his claims. His sophisticated argumentation is too long to provide here so I will simplify it: All parts of the Netherlands have always spoken Dutch. German linguists claim that Low German was spoken in the northern parts some time ago. Goossens says there is no proof of this claim (however, there is no evidence of his, too). So his argumentation boils down to this: The Dutch dialects in the northeastern parts did not change like the other dialects in the Netherlands. So they got similiar to the neighbouring Low German dialects because of their resistance to change but they are still Dutch dialects. I cannot find any good reason why it could not be viewed the other way round: these dialects were Low German but became influenced by Dutch. So you can see it is more a political problem.

@Pfold: I see you're a German speaker (and a language buff) yourself. I'm surprised you have such a hard time accepting that there is indeed a dialect continuum between High German - Low German - Frisian - Dutch (- Afrikaans, if you will). Listen to the languages; it's really quite obvious. Also, I'm guessing you have some reference books on Germanic languages yourself, judging by the articles you wrote... --dllu 12:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Low German in The Netherlands?

Low German isn't spoken in The Netherlands, I don't know where this information comes from :S... in The Netherlands the language is called Low Saxon [Nedersaksisch = lit. Nethersaxic] (never Low German or Plattdeutsch/Platduits), this only refers to Low Saxon spoken in Germany. It sometimes is called "plat" but this really refers to any dialect spoken in The Netherlands. Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 13:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And in Germany they don't have horses, they have Pferde.

There are different naming conventions on both sides of the border. The Dutch call it Low Saxon, the Germans call it Low German, but it belongs to the same dialect group.Unoffensive text or character 15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On the German Wikipedia they call it "Niedersächsisch", Dutch "Nedersaksisch", Dutch Low Saxon "Nedersaksisch", Plattdüütsch "Neddersassisch". Historically the name is also incorrect, it would be better to rename it to Low Saxon language :-) Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 17:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

German linguists use different naming conventions. One variant is calling the language "Low German" (Niederdeutsch) and the sub-dialects or varieties of Low German are eg. North Low Saxon, Westphalian, Eastphalian etc. But anyway, I do not wish to engage myself in one of the many fruitless wars about the names of languages. I leave that to Dutch and German nationalists who seem to take quite some pleasure out of these discussions. Unoffensive text or character 09:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed extensively on this page and a decision reached on the basis of the preponderance of usage in the published English-language literature on the subject. What these varieties are called in other languages is irrelevant. --Pfold 09:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Low German. A dialect of this language is spoken in some parts of the Netherlands. If you like to call this dialect Low Saxon, go ahead.Unoffensive text or character 13:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the term Nedersaksisch is young. It is a educated term that got widerspread use with appearence of a sense of community of the Nedersaksisch dialects. Before that the dialects were mostly named after the places they were spoken (this is still the case today) or Plat or Platduits. So never Low German or Plattdeutsch/Platduits is not true. This is also illustrated by the many Google hits for Platduits that come from the Netherlands. But the term Nederduits/Low German (a educated term, that never was in vernacular use) indeed is no good name. In the Netherlands it means in a wider sense (and a bit outdated) all Dutch dialects, or in a narrower sense no Dutch dialects, but only German ones. So Low Saxon indeed is the better term. --::Slomox:: >< 16:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Common dialect = same ethnic stock (across national lines)?

Judging by their language, it is possible to argue that people who speak Niederdeutsch/Nedersaksisch actually come from the same ethnic stock despite the fact that they are divided in national terms into Germans and Dutch (depending on which side of the border they live). Niederdeutsch/Nedersaksisch is very much an organic dialect - a mother tongue for the people who speak it - and the fact that it is spoken across a national border is not there due to some kind of colonial situation (example being the prevalence of the English language in Ireland).

Are the speakers of Niederdeutsch/Nedersaksisch (a 'multinational dialect') an example of the same ethnic stock divided by national lines similar to the speakers of a common shtokavian dialect in the former Yugoslavia (spoken by 85% of the Serbs, 70% of the Croats and all Bosniaks and Montenegrins)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.46.5.68 (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the language is based on a common ethnic stock, the Saxon one. But not only. In eastern parts of the language area it is more based on linguistic characteristics. The eastern dialects are the language of immigrants into Slavic areas. These immigrants came mostly from Low Saxon areas, but also from other areas like the Netherlands, Belgium or to a lesser degree from the more southern parts of Germany. Today there is not much awareness left for the ethnic Saxon background. People mostly see themselves as Germans or Dutch at first. So there is near to zero ambition in ethnic reunification or something like that.

At the Dutch/German border the border is younger than the language disposition. In the east it was more colonial. --::Slomox:: >< 16:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I find the Niederdeutsch/Nedersaksisch dialect situation fascinating, because it is a real world example of a discrepancy between ethnicity (common origin of the speakers of the dialect from the Saxons, despite the lack of any political significance of this) and nationality (division of the speakers of the dialect between Germans and Dutch in terms of nationality) in the European context...--24.80.113.166 19:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have always been told that Low-German phrases and words were spoken in the West-Country of England (Somerset, Bristol) previously. I am told that my grandparents used such terms and that at least one of their parents were fluent. Some phrases such as 'How bist do' (How are you doing) still persist with some locally to me (Dorset), particularly of the pre-war generation. I would be interested to read what others think of this.

Interesting, I wasn't previously aware of this. I think it might have a historical basis. From the end of the 9th century until the beginning of the 11th, a large part what is now England was divided in two (imagine a line running roughly from London to Chester or look up the articles on Wessex and Danelaw). The northern part fell under the control of the Vikings, the southern part under the Saxon kings (Alfred the Great and those who followed him). The Saxons were in the British Isles before this, but their influence was stronger in the South - in the North they were pushed out by later invaders from Scandinavia.

I discovered through talking with Norwegian friends that there are parts of northern English dialect which are very close to modern Norwegian equivalents - for example a Yorkshire phrase meaning roughly "how are you" (sounds like "how do debra?" - I'm not from that area, if there's someone who is who can give a better version of it, feel free) is almost identical to the Norwegian "ha du det bra?" (meaning "are you well?")

If fragments of Norse have been preserved within northern dialects, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Low German could have been assimilated into southern dialects in the same way (though they are perhaps less apparent, the dialects in the Southeast have been weakened by urbanisation, more so than the North and West) --Wren-3^talk 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't sound very likely. A good share of England is of Saxon descent, but I don't think there are dialects with any apparent alikeness after 1500 years. And they don't got assimilated into the dialects... Saxon language was the sole basis for those dialects. Some single phrases don't make a relationship between the languages, it's maybe just mere chance. How bist do is nothing I have ever heard in any Low German dialect. And if there were other phrases with resemblance of Low German phrases it's more likely they were introduced by single modern (modern in the sense of 16th century till today) immigrants, than that they endured all the 1500 years of separation. And this sounds especially likely, when he is speaking about one of his grand grandparents being a fluent speaker. --::Slomox:: >< 23:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I too would use "bist" for present tense, second person singular (however for this question I would use "Hoo geat" the cognate of "How goes it?", the last "t" is both grammatical and a swallower of the "t" from "het"/"et"/"it"; the Dutch transcription is "Hoe giet't?"). English "do", German "du" or Dutch "doe" sound rather similar to me. Anyway, if someone would ask me How bist do?, I would understand it, not only that, I would assume that the asker speaks Plat (and probably we could speak Plat, but it would easier to speak English; somewhat easier for me; a lot easier for the Brit). The point is that I wouldn't be able to deduce from the question whether Dutch, English or German would be the preferred Dachsprache. For the record, I was born in Nijverdal and raised half Dutch, half Plat.

To return to the subject: a common dialect does not indicate the same ethnic stock, Liubice (Free City of Lübeck) was a slavic city, but her dialect of Low German has been printed/written most. Note that even the self description didn't change, compare de:Wendischer Städtebund and de:Wendischer Münzverein to wendish. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that even the self description didn't change But Hamburg and Hanover (both members of the Wendischer Münzverein according to the article) were never Wendish. So I wouldn't put too much weight on the name.

You are right, 'How bist do' could be Dutch Low Saxon, but still these are only three words. That doesn't mean much. The facts are: people from Northern Germany and neighboring areas settled in Britain 1500 years ago. They brought in their language. The language changed much over the course of 1500 years. The language of the people left in Northern Germany and neighboring areas too changed. There are still many common linguistic features. Even more so in rural and conservatice dialects. And of course more so in Saxon areas than in areas settled by Danes or Norsemen. But they are much too far apart to communicate apart from single words or very short and simple sentences. The farer you go back in history the closer the two languages will be. In 500 it was the same language. In 1000 it was perhaps still possible to communicate. In 1500 many features today distinct were still common features. Today few is left. --::Slomox:: >< 02:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ermmm, members of the Wendischer Münzverein are (OK: were) Wendish (perhaps not linguistic, but definitely ethnic). Perhaps Hanover never spoke Slavic, but Hamburg did. But that isn't my point: language is only a part of ethnicity, people can change ethnicity without changing language and change language without changing ethnicity.

If there wouldn't have been contacts after 500 CE, English and continental dialects would probably not be mutually intelligible. And I would expect "How bist dtho" anyway ( the sound shift 'th', 'dh' -> 'd' never crossed the sea, as far as I know). Erik Warmelink (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamburg was _never_, not linguistical nor ethnical nor in any other sense (except in the sense of "belonging to the "Wendischer Münzverein"), Wendish. Hanover wasn't too. But I agree to your point, that language and ethnicity do not match always and can change.

I don't know whether there are English dialects with the th->d sound shift, but I do know, that there are many dialects, which abandoned the th sound. I don't have my Atlas of English Language at hand right now, so I can't tell which dialects. --::Slomox:: >< 16:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamburg attended the first meeting of the Hanse as a "lübisch-wendisch" city (An dem ersten Hansetag in Lübeck nahmen die folgenden Städte als Vertreter der jeweiligen Regionen teil: Für das lübisch-wendische Drittel: Lübeck, Hamburg, Stralsund (snip)). Hamburg was known as a part of the Wendish third or (later, when the Hanse grew) fourth/quarter; for example de:Datei:Extent of the Hansa-optimiert.jpg. See also de:Hamburg-Rahlstedt#Neu-Rahlstedt. Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

On the "th"-sound: thanks, I didn't know that. Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch - link fix needed

I've changed Mecklenburgisch-Pommersch into Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch because this is the right name of this dialect. For all of those who understand German look at this page [3]. There I wrote some more detailed info about that subject. If you need an Internet ressource have look at http://www.ins-bremen.de/. There you can find a brief history of Low German but also brief descriptions of those dialects that are spoken today. I didn't fix the link because I think first of all the article Mecklenburgisch-Pommersch must be renamed into Mecklenburgisch-Pommersch. Then we should do the link fixing. --89.53.11.120 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

South America?

I know there are quite a few descendants of German emigrants living in South America, but does anybody know the sizes of these "communities"? Is it really fair to list Brazil and Uruguay (or the Netherlands, for that matter) as countries where Low German is spoken? You might as well say that German is spoken in England because there are tens of thousands of Germans living in London. --dllu 12:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Plattsnacker gifft dat överall op de Welt. If you understand high german, here is a link to several TV coverages from german NDR television about the worldwide use of low german.[4]--Kowa63 (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for renaming to Low Saxon language

I'd like to request renaming 'Low German' to 'Low Saxon language', linguistically and politically it's more correct. 'Low German' in the Netherlands and Germany mostly refers to Low Saxon dialects spoken in Germany. Low German is, as mentioned, limited to Germany while it's spoken in countries from The Netherlands, Denmark, untill Poland and Ukraine. Also because the term 'Platdüütsch' was mentioned on the page, people will get the impression that is only about the German Low Saxon dialects, this is VERY confusing. Because of this confusing factor most interwiki links directing to this article are incorrect (some direct to West Low German, which isn't the main group Low Saxon, or they are not linked at all). Also the lable 'language' is missing, this is done in every other language article. I hope this can be solved a.s.a.p. Servien 12:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Linguistically more correct"? - see the discussion in the Archive. Those who propose this always offer arguments and opinions, never sources. The preponderance of usage in English linguistics books is very clearly 'Low German', no matter where the boundaries are. That ought to be the end of the matter unless someone can come up with a significant number of reputable sources that say otherwise. --Pfold 13:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, linguistically correct. In both of these countries the gouvernments use Low Saxon for refering to this language. Including the whole of the EU, which uses the English term Low Saxon not Low German. If you check your sources correctly you might find that "Low German" does not refer to Low Saxon spoken in The Netherlands it generally refers to Northern Low Saxon (for example if you search the net for 'Low German' you'll find a lot of info about German Low Saxon dialect but not Dutch Low Saxon dialects. Also you'll find that Ethnologue doesn't list Low German under 'language names' but it does list Low Saxon. Wikipedia is also supposed to be neutral in case of 'political' or 'offensive' article names or text and opt for the neutral variant (being Low SAXON). There has been such a lot of discussion about this title because it's simply offensive or at least confusing to a lot of people. The same is the case with titles such as Holland for the whole of The Netherlands, to some this is 'offensive' or at least irritating, this is because the whole of The Netherlands is divided in provinces and two of these provinces originally formed one region called 'Holland', to use this name for the whole of NL is incorrect and offensive. The name Holland is used more in English than "The Netherlands" in that case should Wikipedia choose for the title Holland? Servien 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that that you do really mean politically more correct, not linguistically more correct. To clarify, by linguistically more correct I mean in accordance with the linguistic usage of English-speaking academic linguists in peer-reviewed publications. Web searches are not a defensible method for establish correct terminological usage in an academic discipline. (Ethnologue itself is not obviously peer-reviewed and is very muddled about Germanic.)

There's perfectly simple method to make to your point and convince me and others - cite half a dozen published books or articles in English on historical linguistics in which the term LS is used exclusively or predominates over LG. --Pfold 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have never heard anybody non-Dutch use the term Low Saxon, and certainly no linguist. The fact is, Low German is the internationally accepted linguistic term for this language. Plus Low Saxon is problematic in German, because it would translate to "Niedersächsisch", which obviously is not quite the same. In fact, if you read German, look up de:Niedersächsisch in the German Wiki and you will see that it is not used as a synonym for "Niederdeutsch" in German, but used to describe the Low German dialects spoken in the Netherlands. You are simply switching those two terms around: LG isn't a sub-category of LS; it's the other way round.

If you want a short linguistic explanation: The term Low Saxon implies that there must exist a High Saxon language too, which there doesn't. You could perhaps call the dialects spoken in Saxony "High Saxon", but they are just that: dialects of High German.

P.S.: There is no reason to open another discussion on the exact same topic as above... --dllu 21:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, nevertheles let me correct some things. First of all: High Saxon exists. I don't know the proper name in English, in German it is called "Obersächsisch" which is merely spoken in Saxony today. A literal translation would be something like High Saxon. So "Niedersächsisch" (I'm just using the German terms to avoid any confusion) can be considered a certain counterpart to "Obersächsisch" if you refer to Low and High just like in High and Low German. However, Obersächsisch is in deed a High German dialect while Niedersächsisch is a dialect group of Low German. In Low German philology it is often called West Low German. East Low German doesn't belong to Low Saxon (Niedersächsisch). So your statement is a misinterpretation: In fact, if you read German, look up de:Niedersächsisch in the German Wiki and you will see that it is not used as a synonym for "Niederdeutsch" in German, but used to describe the Low German dialects spoken in the Netherlands. "Niedersächsisch" are those Low German dialects that are spoken mainly in the north western parts of Germany. The status of Nedersaksisch which is spoken in the Netherlands is somewhat complicated. Some linguists say these dialects belongs to Low German, others claim they are merely Dutch dialects today. The fact is, Low German is the internationally accepted linguistic term for this language. I can't say it any better. For those who don't believe that, have a look at English dictionaries such as the OED, Webster, or MED. You will only find the term Low German. I can also deliver another example: Oliver M. Traxel: Low German Loanwords in Middle English. A Comparison between the Electronic OED (Second Edition) and MED, in: Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 128 (2005), p. 41-62. --89.53.14.103 22:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Broad sense of "Low German"

It says, "3. A non-specific term for any non-standard variety of German; this use is only found in Germany and is considered not to be linguistic."

This is also the way Harpo Marx uses it in his autobiography ("Harpo speaks"), Harpo's father was from Alsatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.102.29 (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But the Germans don't use the English "low German" in this sense, do they? I'd be surprised if the German word has the same ambiguous meaning as the English low? -Acjelen 22:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The normal colloquial term for "Low German" is "Plattdeutsch" or just "Platt", so the double meaning of English "low" is lost in German. Yet, "Platt" is an ambigous term, as it is informally used for many middle German dialects as well. It may also be pejorative.Unoffensive text or character 07:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Harpos mother was from East Frisia, she spoke Plattdüütsch. The father from Alsatia won't have called his tongue Plattdeutsch or Low German. So Marx fits the use specified in point 1.

The Term Plattdeutsch can have derogative meaning, cause in context of talking platt can mean something like insipid, unintelligent (it's related to the English word platitude). So some few people do use the word derogatory. But the vast majority is familiar with the term Plattdeutsch as a name of a specific language (and in this name the meaning of Platt was common originally) and won't use it derogatory nor do they perceive it as derogatory (at least not until you make it clear through the context, that it is derogatory). The German term Niederdeutsch which is the exact corresponding term to English Low German has no derogatory meaning at all and is not even used in colloquial speech. It's more a scientific term. The above-metioned point 3 has no basis in this form. It does speak about the English term "Low German". For this term the definition is not true. It is not true for the exact corresponding term Niederdeutsch too. It is to some degree true for the term Plattdeutsch, cause several non-standard forms of German, which are not part of the linguistic entity covered by this article, are called Platt or more rarely Plattdeutsch too. But the word any non-standard variety of German is wrong. You will have a hard time to find anybody in Bavaria ever having heard anybody calling the local dialect Plattdeutsch.

Point 3 only could be true, if you refer to the English term in English use and write low German with a small first letter. But then mentioning it in the definition list is pointless.

@Acjelen: I'd be surprised if the German word has the same ambiguous meaning as the English low? It may surprise, but it is true to some extent. the German term corresponding to English low is nieder or niedrig. It has quite the same meaning and has the same ambiguity. But it is not ambiguous in the word Niederdeutsch, cause for the second meaning it would have to be niederes Deutsch.

And one more point: If we speak about Plattdeutsch, we speak about use of words in the High German or Standard German language. The endonym is different and the Low German language use is different too. --::Slomox:: >< 13:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The German word definitely has the same ambiguous or negative connotation as the Englisch "low".

As a matter of fact, I have been wondering about the explanation of the term at the beginning of this article: ""Low" refers to the flat sea coasts and plains of north Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, as opposed to High German and the mountainous areas of central and southern Germany". To tell the truth, this explanation sounds a bit euphemistic to me. Is there any evidence for this?

The idea that "High" German became the standard language particularly after Luther, the language spoken in church and in school, as opposed to the "Low" German spoken by the plain people, sounds more convincing to me. Low German definitely had this derogatory connotation for centuries, people feeling ashamed of not speaking High German when they had to visit some administrative office, for instance.

I don't mean to be a prophet on the chances that Low German may survive, but there has been a bit of a change during the past years (at least in East Frisia) towards a lot more Low German self-confidence. Agencies like the "Ostfriesische Landschaft" (http://www.ostfriesischelandschaft.de/ol/index.jsp?id=6) try to promote the use of Low German in families, schools, and in legal and administrative documents. Anna (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a certain confusion at work. In linguistics, one distinguishes on the one hand betweeen "Niederdeutsch, Mitteldeutsch, and Oberdeutsch" which should be translated as "Lower, Middle, and Upper German". Those are the dialects. "High German" (indeed, like in High Church) is the Standard or Prestige Variety - which, by the way, is based on Eastern Middle German dialects, not on Upper German. Nobody actually ever should have identified "Upper" and "High" German, since they are quite distinct. Only because Low German has had a Prestige variant earlier (when it was an important lingua franca in Northern Europe, some people got the idea that Upper and High German must be related, since Upper German - in contrast to Low German - hardly ever has been written (it sometimes is, though). Hartmut Haberland (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

since Upper German - in contrast to Low German - hardly ever has been written (it sometimes is, though) What about Middle High German or Early New High German? Most MHG literature was written in Upper German dialects, e. g. Minnesang. You won't find that kind of poetry in Middle Low German literature because singers from that region also used MHG.--89.53.38.242 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There indeed is much confusion. @Anna Christians: At the time the terms Hochdeutsch and Niederdeutsch were coined, the idea behind these terms was geographic. Grimm says: zunächst hat das wort und das dazu gehörige substantiv Hochdeutschland eine rein geographische bedeutung und ist in dieser seit dem 15. jahrh. nachweislich gäng und gäbe. Negative connotations are of later date.

@Hartmut Haberland: The same. High German may be used quite often for the standard language as written today, but this is colloquial use of the term. Th historical, etymological meaning of the term Hochdeutsch is German of the lands of higher elevation (which is equalled with German that underwent the second Germanic sound shift). Mittel- and Oberdeutsch are of later date and are subdivisions of Hochdeutsch. The correct term for what you call "High German" is Standard German. --::Slomox:: >< 12:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Also in English it used to be common to call South Germany "High Germany". I have never heard this in modern use, but at school I did learn an old song about "the cruel wars in High Germany", referring I suppose to the 30-years war. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Consonants table

The table is too wide at the moment, and with un-necessarily large font size. Can someone (who knows how to do this; I don't!) edit the table to constrain it to the page width, please - MPF 16:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Subdivisions

Is it commonly agreed, that only subdivisions recognized by ISO should go into the infobox? Cause the subdivisions present now in the box have nothing to do with linguistics. ISO does not recognize based on linguistic evidence but based on "who asks gets it, if it's not made-up entirely". The more linguistics-based subdivisons are different. --::Slomox:: >< 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

missverständlicher Passage

at first I'm form the german wiki an my writen english is...problematic...so please can someone correct translate the topic? thanks.

'"Low" refers to the flat sea coasts and plains of north Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, as opposed to High German and the mountainous areas of central and southern Germany (including Alsatian spoken by most German-French residents of Alsace, France in addition to French), and the Alps (Switzerland and Austria).'

sorry, but no one in the south really can speak "High german" (my birthplace is in east germany, brandenburg/Havel, and i learned high german in the school). Bayern (never(!) translate a name) and Baden-Württemberger speak dialects auf South German/Upper German. Pfälzer, Rheinländer, Sachsen and other peoples of mid german federal states speak different dialects of central german. Thats a twice times important fact, 'cos you have great problems to understand a Bayer, if he speaks his dialect and you maybe have greater problems to understand a Sachse, when he speaks sächsisch... so please soeone correct that (when my englisch would be better, than ich would do that...but...yeah...you know) -- User:Shadak from Germany 16:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tut mir Leid, aber schon im Deutschen unterscheidet sich der wissenschaftliche von dem alltäglichen Wortgebrauch. Für Sprachwissenschaftler ist Bayerisch eindeutig eine hochdeutsche Sprachform. Ein Sprachwissenschaftler meidet den Terminus Hochdeutsch, wenn damit Standarddeutsch oder Schriftdeutsch gemeint ist. Im Englischen kommt das Problem nicht erst auf, denn High German existiert nur mit der wissenschaftlichen Bedeutung. Also: Upper German + Central German = High German. Übrigens: Bayern heißt auf Englisch Bavaria - manchmal soll man eben einen Namen übersetzen. --Doric Loon (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Übersetze keine Eigennamen ist ein Axiom, das als Mem einige Popularität gewonnen hat, aber nichtsdestotrotz so schlicht falsch ist. Ist gibt ein breiten Bogen von sozialen Konventionen, die für bestimmte Eigennamen Übersetzungen verbieten, zulassen oder auch erzwingen. Hängt immer vom Einzelfall ab. Bayern kannst du aber getrost übersetzen. Zum eigentlichen Thema Hochdeutsch hat Doric Loon ja bereits alles ganz korrekt gesagt. --::Slomox:: >< 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And that's why Baden-Württemberg says: "Wir können alles. Außer Hochdeutsch." [5] but linguists say: Yes, you can [6]. By the way, what about that sentence: A non-specific term for any non-standard variety of German; this use is chiefly found in Germany and is considered not to be linguistic. (I know it has already been discussed.) I've never heard about that meaning before (though I speake German). von Polenz (Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, vol. II, p. 146) says that "Hochteutsch" was used "im Sinne von 'gehobenes Deutsch'" "im Gegensatz zu Schlechtteutsch, gemeines lantliches Deutsch, burgerisches/bäurisches/niedriges Deutsch". I would never call Bavarian "Niederdeutsch", I can't remember that anyone has ever said that. --89.53.59.107 (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to disambiguate the chapter on disambiguation. Obviously, no German will ever refer to his dialect as "Low German". He may use the term "Platt", which in the north means "local Low German dialect" and in many parts of central Germany is used to denote any local dialect or non-standard variety. In eastern and southern Germany, this term is not in use. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort but I think we should be more specific here. AFAIK Platt is only used for Low German and some West Central German dialects [7]. --89.53.59.107 (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's exactly what I wrote. At least that's what I tried to write. If my English is unidiomatic or the meaning obscure, do not hesitate to correct. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, my humble English is really too bad to do that. There is just one thing: any non-standard variety of German: that could also mean slang ('Umgangssprache'), sociolects etc, i.e. variety might be confusing here. Maybe we should write (some) West Central German dialects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.53.27.233 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

The ionfobox lacks many dialects. how can they be added to the infobox ? Sarcelles (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How specific do you want to be? Every village speaks its own dialect. The infobox seems to be confusing. I think it's more important to rearrange it: LOw German -> West Low German/East Low German plus some dialect areas (e. g. [West LG:] Westphalian, Eastphalian, Northern Low German / [East LG:] Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch, Märkisch-Brandenburgisch [I have no idea how they are called in English]) --89.53.27.233 (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The dialects mentioned in this article maybe are enough.

Sarcelles (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Niederdeutsch/Niedersachsisch/Plattdeutsch

What is the difference between Niederdeutsch/Nederduits (Low German), Plattdeutsch/Platduits (synonyms?) and Niedersachsisch/Nedersaksisch (Low Saxon)? It's very confusing!

Low German/Plattdeutsch:

• The North German dialects + East Low German (only in Germany)
• The North German dialects + East Low German + the North East Dutch dialects

Low Saxon:

• North East Dutch dialects (only in The Netherlands)
• North East Dutch dialects + North German dialects (without East Low German)
• Synonym for Low German

The articles Low German and West Low German don't actually tell you very well. Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 12:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you're running an interwiki bot, the interwiki links on the page Low German (on other Wikipedias as well) aren't updated because the interwiki link differ on the different Wikipedias. Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 12:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right. This is confusing, indeed.

In modern German linguistics, Niederdeutsch (Low German) and Plattdeutsch mean the same. Scholars use Niederdeutsch, others rather use Plattdeutsch. Both names refer to the dialects of Northern Germany.

In older linguistics, Niederdeutsch included Dutch (and all Low Franconian based dialects). This point of view is not supported anymore. In older linguistics, scholars made statements about the subdivision of the Germanic languages which modern linguists would not make anymore. Too many doubts have arisen, especially about the languages that traditionally were called West Germanic.

Niedersächsisch (Low Saxon) is more complicated:

In some cases, it is a synonym of Western Low German or Westniederdeutsch, i.e. Westfalian, Eastfalian, Northern Low Saxon (coastal dialects).

In other cases it is a synonym of the whole Northern German dialect area, with or without the Dutch language and dialects.

So when you read Niedersächsisch or Low Saxon, you cannot be sure what definition is followed (except it is stated explicitely).

This is why one should prefer Westniederdeutsch or West(ern) Low German. In this case, you can re-use the definiton of Low German in its present meaning.

I do not know how current linguistic call the dialects in North Eastern Netherlands. But I know there is a trend to avoid references to tribes and peoples. So instead of talking about (for instance) Ingvaeonic one says Coastal dialect or something similar. Or one describes the geographic positon: North Eastern dialects in the case of the dialects in North Eastern Netherlands.

Nedersaksisch makes the problem complicated because in current German linguistics Niedersächsisch is rather vague and current linguistics exclude Dutch from Low German.

--MaEr (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, the concept Niederdeutsch/Plattdeutsch/Low German is clear to me now (am I right though in saying that Niederdeutsch doesn't include the dialects from North Eastern Netherlands? If that's the case shouldn't the article be changed a bit?). The dialects spoken in North Eastern Netherlands are called Nedersaksisch, this concept was previously only used by linguists but is now a common name for the language. In this context it almost always refers to West Low German and Nederduits/Platduits refers to Low German. Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You said: "am I right though in saying that Niederdeutsch doesn't include the dialects from North Eastern Netherlands?".

There are several ways to draw a line between Low German and Dutch. Some linguists simply use the national boarder, others use dialect boarders between "Franconian" and "Saxon", near the river IJssel. Both approaches have their pro's and con's.

The national boarder as a linguistic boarder seems to be arbitrary. But it regards the fact that the dialects are heavily influenced by their standard languages and that the dialect continuum is disappearing.

If one uses the IJssel or another dialect boarder to draw a line between Low German and Dutch, one can examine the common historic linguistic background. Originally, there was no clear language boarder between NE Netherlands and NW Germany.

To me, it seems to depend on what one wants to examine: today's sociolinguistic situation in this region (for instance) or medieval manuscripts from this region.

--MaEr (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dutch Low Saxon version of this article has it has Nederduuts (Low German), divided into Nedersaksisch (Low Saxon) and Oost-Nederduuts (East Low German). Hence it should be called Low German only in this article and its native name mostly used in the Netherlands should be Nederduuts.

Sarcelles (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Consonant Table

User:Undead warrior thinks my removal of the consonant table in the current revision constitutes vandalism. I suggest replacing the current table, which is simply a table of all the pulmonic consonants possible, with something similar to the one for Standard German. Munci (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the removal without using the proper methods is vandalism. Now, the proper methods are being used. Please discus the removal of the table. Undeath (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The term High German

This is getting stupid. Anyone who doesn't know that High German is the established term for all the German dialects that are not Low German shouldn't be editing this page. Any reader who is not familiar with the term can follow the wikilink - nothing else is required. If they're still puzzled, they can ask on this page. What they shouldn't be doing is deciding that it needs a source, because they think it "sounds like nonsense." In any case, there are no "standards documents" for this sort of established linguistic terminology. --Pfold (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• No. That's not how wikipedia works. All statements must be verifiable. See WP:VER. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to enlighten people who are unfamiliar with the subject material. By your own admission, you are not aware of any reference to support the claim of this section. Therefore, I'm replacing the tag, in the hope that someone more familiar with the subject, can cite a reliable source for this claim. Please don't remove it unless you can provide such a reference. Thanks. Ogranut (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Basic knowledge does not have to be verified every time it is referred to. Once on its own page is enough. I would define basic knowledge as things you can look up in a standard dictionary. So for example if you look up "High" in the Oxford English Dictionary (the regular pocket edition) you will find the definition "situated far above ground, sealevel, etc; upper, inland, as ... High German". --Doric Loon (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since it is easier than arguing the point again and again, I have just included that OED definition as a footnote in the article, and also in two other related articles. Perhaps we can drop this now? --Doric Loon (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The OED has many definitions of "high". Why you chose that one is unclear. Unless there is a clear historical etymology, we must not present a hypothesis as a fact. So I've kept your contribution, but placed it in a context to make it clear that it veracity is in need of confirmation. Ogranut (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why I choose that one is because it specifically mentions "High German". --Doric Loon (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a hypothesis, it's a plain fact. If you need a source for this very well known plain fact: [8]: zunächst hat das wort und das dazu gehörige substantiv Hochdeutschland eine rein geographische bedeutung und ist in dieser seit dem 15. jahrh. nachweislich gäng und gäbe (first of all the word [hochdeutsch] and its corresponding substantive Hochdeutschland have a pure geographical meaning and it is demonstrably known and well attested in this meaning since the 15th century).

I agree with Pfold that this fact is too well known to be in need of a reference. If we need to reference every fact not known to people unfamiliar with the subject, the first sentence of this article alone would require 20+ references. --::Slomox:: >< 01:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. If this url is a reliable one, then let's cite that as a reference (although a paper from a reputable academic linguist would be better). The best wikipedia articles do indeed have 20+ references. There's nothing wrong with that. The superscript + footnote format means that the refs don't interuppt the flow of the text, and it allows people to check the veracity of the material. An encyclopaedia article is for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the subject. Other people have no need to look at it. This is wikipedia policy so don't blame me for it! Also, I would point out to the clever so-and-so who put the OED definition of "high" as a ref, that he/she risks being blocked per WP:POINT. Ogranut (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That was me. Thanks for the "clever" - I'll ignore the "so-and-so". The point is clear. You wanted evidence that the phrase "High German" has to do with geographical height. I gave you an OED definition which says (uncontentiously) that "high" sometimes means mountainous, and then adds (the point you wanted proved) that "High German" is an example of this. Why is that a WP:POINT issue? --Doric Loon (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm (who wrote the dictionary I linked to) are reputable academic linguists. Actually two of the most reputable linguists of all times. But it would be easy to name 20 additional sources, if the Grimms are not reputable enough for you. Cause actually nobody denies the simple fact, that the high in High German originally stands for altitude.

(And btw, I spoke of 20+ references for the first sentence, not for the whole article) --::Slomox:: >< 10:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Grimm's definitions are rather old (cf. Low German), if you need something up-to-date: "'Hoch' bzw. 'nieder' sind hier noch rein topographische, sprachraumbezogene Begriffe, 'Hochdeutsch' bedeutet also nicht 'Einheits-, Schrift- o. Oberschichtsprache wie in nhd. Zeit. Das Spätmittelalter benutzt für Ndd. bzw. Hd. die Termini 'Niederländisch' bzw. 'Oberländisch'" (Paul et. al., Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, p. 4), cf. Frangk, Ein Cantzley und Titel Buechlin [...]. "Erstes Gliederungskriterium ist die Entwicklung der germanischen Verschlußlaute p t k. In den niederdeutschen (und niederfränkischen) Mundarten bleiben diese als p t k erhalten, während in den hochdeutschen Mundarten (unter diesem Terminus werden die mitteldeutschen und oberdeutschen Mundarten zusammengefasst) in diesen Fällen - dialektal jeweils in unterschiedlichem Umfang - die Zweite oder Hochdeutsche Lautverschiebung eintrat." (Niebaum/Macha: Einführung in die Dialektologie des Deutschen, p. 220). In fact, the German Hochdeutsch has two meanings: a) standard variety and b) those defintions I provided above, i. e. a geographical term (cf. Bußmann, Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft, p. 281). Obviously it's the same in English (cf. terms like Middle High German - Middle Low German). --89.53.20.82 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those excellent references. On your last point, though, no it's not the same in English: we never use "High German" to mean the standard language, so there is no ambiguity for us: we only use it in its technical linguistic sense meaning "south German". Note also that the noun form "High Germany" used to be used in English to refer to the south, as in the old song:

O Polly dear, O Polly dear,

The rout has now begun

And we must march away

At the beating of the drum:

Go dress yourself all in your best

And come along with me,

I'll take you to the cruel wars

In High Germany.

--Doric Loon (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I just looked up the Webster, it says : german: [...] "the literary and official language of Germany - called also High German", p. 951. The definition of High German seems to be similiar to Hochdeutsch: "high german n, cap H&G [trans. of G hochdeutsch] 1: German as natively used in southern and central Germany - see MIDDLE HIGH GERMAN, OLD HIGH GERMAN; compare BENRATH LINE, LOW GERMAN 2: ³GERMAN 2b" (p. 1068, that's just the defintion I quoted first). So my question would be: is this just an old definition or a literal translation of Hochdeutsch? --89.53.45.143 (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess I don't speak for the whole English language community then. OK, so both meanings exist in English too. But if you Google for High German and for Hochdeutsch and do some statistics on which meanings crop up more often, I think the pattern in English will be different from German, and will be mostly what I said before. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've just read only a few books about German that are written in English (hence my bad English, I guess). However, all these books use either German or Standard German when referring to the standard variety. That's why I asked that question because I have no idea why Webster defines High German like this. --89.53.15.89 (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsensical opening statement

Low German or Low Saxon ... is any of the regional language varieties of the West Germanic languages.

Really? Including Swiss German and other High German dialects? Not to mention Frisian and English in all their various regional forms. And how do the Dutch feel about it? Could the editor responsible please change it to something meaningful and accurate; otherwise I shall remove it. Koro Neil (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I reverted to an earlier version. The original first sentence (restored here) was split into two, each in its own paragraph, probably because it was a tad unwieldy. However, the split was not carefully thought out, and resulted in the wildly inaccurate form I have cited here.

Koro Neil (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Phonology

It seems that this paragraph only contains the pronunciation of a certain dialect. So some of the discriptions seem to be rather strange (at least to me), e. g. /ur/ is pronounced as in "hurry". I would never say it like that. The word "stur" (obstinate) is pronounced [stuːɘr]/[ʃtuːɘr] (/u/ as in tool), "Uröllern" 'great-grandparents' [uːɘrœlɘrn]. /or/ would be [oːɘr] (cf. Ohr, engl. ear), "Door" [doːɘr], engl. gate, /oo/ is pronounced [oː] or [ou]: Boot 'boat'. Most dialects use writing conventions of Standard German, cf. Klaus Groth:

Ik wull, wi weern noch kleen, Jehann,

Do weer de Welt so grot!

Wi seten op den Steen, Jehann,

Weest noch? bi Nawers Sot.

/i/ is pronounced [ɪ] (ik, 'I'), [iː] (wi, 'we'), /e/ [ɛ] (Welt 'world'), [eː] (seten, 'sat') or [ə] (Jehann). There are lots of examples (/ee/ → [eː], cf. HG "Seele" 'soul', /ll/ short vowel: wull, cf. HG "wollen" etc.) Today, there are lots of writing systems, most of them contain pronciples that can be found in (Standard) German orthograpy, cf. Kellner, Birgit: Zwischen Anlehnung und Abgrenzung. Orthographische Vereinheitlichung als Problem im Niederdeutschen, Heidelberg 2002; Nerius, Dieter: Zur Funktion und Struktur der Schreibung des Niederdeutschen. In: Vulpius Adolatio. Festschrift für Hubertus Menke zum 60. Geburtstag. ed. by R. Peters, H. Pütz, U. Weber. Heidelberg 2001. p. 527–534. Maybe it should be mentioned what dialect is described in this section.--89.53.56.102 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dutch intelligibility

My german teacher in high school (who spent a good portion of his life in north germany) says that low saxon is basically just dutch dialects spoken in north germany. Is this true? To me, it seems much more like dutch than standard german. If it isn't just basically a dialect, is it more similar to and/or has a higher intelligibility with german or dutch? I mean would someone speaking low saxon more easily understand a high german or a dutchman?--143.236.168.14 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.236.168.14 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Low Saxon is not a Dutch dialect nor a German dialect. It is indeed correct, that Low Saxon resembles Dutch more closely than German on the surface. That's cause of the High German consonant shift. Do you know the concept of paraphyly in biology? The relation of Low Saxon and Dutch is paraphyletic. That means, they are only related by the common lack of the High German consonant shift. So, actually the Continental Western Germanic languages are divided into three centers (or better four with Frisian, but I omit Frisian, cause it does not relate to the matter of similarities between Dutch, German, and Low Saxon): Nether Frankonic (from which Dutch derived), Saxon, and Upper-Frankonic-Alemannic-Bavarian-Thuringian (from which the German language derived, you could actually subdivide this group further, but German is a partial blend of these four groups, so I will call them one group). A triangle and all of the three corners are related to each other to the same degree. If you take the tree model as a base, Nether Frankonic (Dutch) is related more closely to Upper-Frankonic-Alemannic-Bavarian-Thuringian (German). It was only due to the High German consonant shift that Nether and Upper Frankonic took different developments. But if you take the wave model as a base, Low Saxon is more closely related to German, cause there was more borrowing between them than between Dutch and German or Dutch and Low Saxon.

would someone speaking low saxon more easily understand a high german or a dutchman? That's a question with no answer. There are Low Saxons in the Netherlands and Low Saxons in Germany. The Low Saxons in Germany do understand German better, the Low Saxons in the Netherlands do understand Dutch better. But this is not caused by linguistic proximity, but by governments teaching only the standard languages and media only presenting standard language content. That means, that all Low Saxons are actually bilingual. You won't find a single really monolingual Low Saxon anywhere. They do not exist any more in our times. So nobody to judge about your question. Additionally it will depend on dialect. I am quite sure, that Low Saxons from Western Lower Saxony in Germany would find Dutch more easy to understand (if they had no previous contact to any of both languages), but speakers of the easternmost dialects most likely would find it easier to adapt to the regular sound changes of the High German consonant shift than to the lexical differences to Dutch. So they would prefer German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slomox (talk • contribs) 15:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanx, that's exactly what I wanted to know--143.236.168.14 (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but it's not just the consonant shift that makes Low German similiar to Dutch. There are some words, that sound or at least look the same: e. g. "he/hei" - "hij" 'he', "trecken" - "trekken" 'to draw', '(to) pull', '(to) migrate'. These words do not result from the consonant shift. "stahn gahn", "sitten gahn" is not possible to say in High German (*stehen gehen, *sitzen gehen): "Denn ick denk, dat geiht woll wedder œwer, / Wenn wi man irst sitten gahn." (Fritz Reuter, East Low German) But it's also possible to use this combination in Dutch: "Oudere mensen hebben te weinig kracht in hun spieren om bij het zitten gaan nog een zachte landing te kunnen maken." Dutch and Low German have influenced each other, cf. Teuchert, Hermann: Die Sprachreste der niederländischen Siedlungen des 12. Jahrhunderts, Neumünster 1944. Due to these similarities Dutch loan words could be assimilated very easily in LG. LG has become more similar to HG today (vocabulary, syntax) while Middle Low German was very similar to Middle Dutch. Most of the words were similar or even the same. I mean would someone speaking low saxon more easily understand a high german or a dutchman? Hard to say. It depends on what dialect you are speaking. Furthermore LG has become more similar to HG. But someone who can understand Middle Low German would have less problems to understand Dutch ;-) --89.53.35.17 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would rather say (but that's just me, not thorough research), that Low German dialects in Germany wander in the direction of High German and Low German dialects in the Netherlands wander towards Dutch ("wander" like Brownian motion). It's a Sprachraum, e.g. I speak both (or neither) Low German and Dutch as a "mother tongue", the "fahren" on the Autobahn is standard in Low German, it took an "immigrant" from Holland to make me (and other "pop music" listeners who tried to speak Dutch in that setting) realize that in Dutch one can only "varen" on water, not on roads. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

the "fahren" on the Autobahn is standard in Low German There is no standard, and that's not always true, e. g. in Mecklenburgisch Middle Low German "varen" is only used in the way you described it for Dutch: "ick fohr [that's "varen" today] mit dat Schip" vs. "ick führ [that's MLG "voren" 'to guide'] mit dat Auto". "Ick fohr up de Autobahn" is not possible to say, only "ick führ up de Autobahn". However the first verb is only used by seamen, others use "führen" in both sentences. Let's have a look at the etymology of "fahren" and "föhren": "föhren" does not correspond to High German "fahren", that's "fohren" (Middle High German/Middle Low German "varen"), but to HG "führen" (Middle High German vüeren, Middle Low German voren). Today at least in some dialects "föhren" means both, "fahren" and "führen".

I would rather say (but that's just me, not thorough research), that Low German dialects in Germany wander in the direction of High German and Low German dialects in the Netherlands wander towards Dutch That's exactly what happens, cf. Niebaum: Staatsgrenze als Bruchstelle? Die grenzdialekte zwischen Dollart und Vechtegebiet, in: Kremer/Niebaum (ed.): Grenzdialekte, p. 49 - 84. --89.53.73.97 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On fahren/fohren: You're right. However, Dutch has "rijden" (cognate of "ride" a horse). Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess this difference between is quite "young". In LG it is, because "varen" originally meant "go", no matter if you just walk, sail or drive (cf. "fahren" in High German): "Mit godes hulpe hebbe yk ghedacht / Eyn schip to buwe myt swarer dracht / Dar yk neen arbeyt denke an to sparen / Dar in vele narren moghen varen." (I guess you can understand that passage easily nevertheless I try to translate it though it won't be that accurate: I want to build a big ship with God's help, I will spare no efforts, many fools will sail with it), "eyn lauwe wolde iagen varen" (a lion wanted to go hunting), cf. Middle Dutch: "Dat ic met hu te hove vare" (Reynart, who obviously wants to walk, not to sail). --89.53.5.230 (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, quite young, even ISBN 9001968228 (© 1987) still gives "gaan, zich bewegen, zich ergens heen begeven" as the first meaning, but all examples for that meaning are figurative. In the LG that I speak, "varen" still can literally mean "to go". Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's quite interesting, I just use "fohren" (= varen) if it's a rapid movement, otherwise "führen". --89.53.16.39 (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

External links

I suggest that the number of German Links should be at least double the number of Dutch ones. It should reflect the number of speakers in the respective countries.Sarcelles (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? Links are not there for representation but to provide additional information about the subject. If Dutch sites do that better, add Dutch sites. If German sites do it better, add German sites and if Mongol sites do it best, add the Mongol sites. But I propose to delete most of the external links, cause links to for example single writers or musicians provide no general information about the general topic Low German/Low Saxon. --::Slomox:: >< 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)