Talk:Low German

At the moment, Plattdeutsch redirects to Low German languages. But isn't Plattdeutsch the same as Plattdüütsch? Gryffindor 00:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same. I changed the redirect so it points to this page. --::Slomox:: >< 02:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

And I removed the merge notice Saintamh 02:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this language just called "Low German" in English? Should this page be moved to Low German or Low German language? dbenbenn | talk 16:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "Low German" was the traditional name for Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages, which also includes the Dutch language and Dutch Low Saxon. But you'll get a lot of dirty looks from Dutch people if you still use such a term to apply to either one. This language needs to be renamed properly to Low Saxon, as it along with Low Franconian are (or at least were) considered "Low German". Actually, if I recall, the referring to Low Saxon alone (to the exclusion of Low Franconian) as "Low German" was an ideosyncratic edit owing to that most of these languages are spoken in Germany, but however, such languages are more accurately Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages in Germany (as opposed to the Netherlands or anywhere else). So, while "Low German" is still synonymous with "Low Saxon-Low Franconian", this distinction is politically incorrect, potentially very insulting, and no longer considered appropriate. However, this distinction was also historic, as Dutch, Flemings, Germans, Prussians, Austrians, Alsatians and Swiss Germans alike used to be called "Dutch" in English (hence terms like Pennsylvania Dutch which was never associated with the Netherlands). Note that, personally, I did not give these distinctions much thought before recently, and it was actually me who had created the new subcategories, using the names as they have already existed on Wikipedia. But later, in a vfd, I studied the issue and voted to agree with the renaming of pre-vfd "High Germanic" to "High German", pre-vfd "Low Germanic" to "Low Saxon-Low Franconian" (though personally I would have settled for politically-incorrect "Low German" for consistency's sake), and pre-vfd "Low German" to "Low Saxon". These names are in line with the reputable classification terminology used by Ethnologue. - Gilgamesh 03:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move of "Plattdüütsch" to "Low German"

This is normally called Low German in English. The only reason why that article wasn't called Low German in the first place was because at that time, this name was being used for the language group that is now called Low Germanic languages. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

• Support. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. 'German' instead of 'Deutsch', 'Low German' instead of 'Plattdüütsch'. dbenbenn | talk 23:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Although I can't wait for somebody to say "low" is perjorative. LuiKhuntek 23:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Low German is simply the standard name of the language in English, Plattdüütsch is an indigenous name and not an English one.--Nikostar 02:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - use English and do not use diacritics. --Henrygb 01:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - diacritics may be necessary (as in Provençal), but üü is not found in English. I prefer Plattdeutsch (which I've seen in English), but Low German is better then what we have now.--Prosfilaes 18:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

"Low German" vs. "Low German language" and "Low Saxon (language)"

I prefer Low German to Low German language because the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) recommends: If the language's name is unique, there is no need for any suffix. The name Low German is unique (at least as unique as for instance Australian English), as you can see from the pages that link to Low German. Additionally, this has the invaluable advantage of being NPOV with regard to the controversial question whether Plattdüütsch/Low German is an independent language or not.

I prefer Low German to Low Saxon because Low German seems to be more common and because Low Saxon is sometimes only applied to the variety Northern Low Saxon. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

How the concept first called "Low German" happened to be called "Plattdüütsch"

In order to understand why this article has the name Plattdüütsch and not Low German, as it would be normally called in English, we need to have a look at the evolution of how the different branches of what is currently called Low Germanic languages have been represented on Wikipedia:

From 2001-09 until 2002-12:

• Low German
  • (varieties in Germany and other countries)
• (Dutch, Afrikaans and varieties of them)

This means that in the beginning, the concept currently named Plattdüütsch already had the name Low German!

From 2002-12 to 2004-02 (after a series of edits by User:Toby Bartels):

• Low German language
  • Low Franconian language
    • (Dutch, Afrikaans and varieties of them)
  • Low Saxon language
    • (varieties in Germany and other countries)

After these edits, the name Low German language was no longer used for the concept currently called Plattdüütsch, but for the entire branch of West Germanic languages. The concept formerly named Low German (currently Plattdüütsch) was renamed Low Saxon language.

From 2004-02 to 2005-07 (after a series of edits by User:Alexander.stohr):

• Low German language
  • Low Franconian language
    • (Dutch, Afrikaans and varieties of them)
  • Plattdüütsch
    • Low Saxon language
      • (varieties in Germany and other countries)
    • East Low German
      • (varieties in Germany and other countries)

That is to say, when the article Plattdüütsch was created in order to describe the same concept that previously had the name Low Saxon (and still before that, Low German), the name Low German was not available any more since it had been made the name of the entire group of languages.

Currently, the structure of that tree is still the same, but several article names have been changed (after a series of edits by myself):

• Low Germanic languages
  • Low Franconian languages
    • (Dutch, Afrikaans and varieties of them)
  • Plattdüütsch
    • West Low German
      • (varieties in Germany and other countries)
    • East Low German
      • (varieties in Germany and other countries)

That is to say, the name Low German is available again, because it is no longer used as the name for the entire group of languages. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Result

Moved. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Please verify verb conjugations of hebben and slapen

I am not a native speaker of Low German, and only de-2 of Standard German but I was able to read the Low German page in its native language and found the information about verb conjugations but it was unclear about the plurals (as in, if hebbt or hebben are both acceptable for all plurals, or if hebbt is a specific person and hebben another). If the latter is the case then the information in the Verbs category should be changed to reflect this. --Godtvisken 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm no Low German speaker either, but native German speaker, and from what I understand, Low German has one plural ending for all persons, but the ending depends on the region: East Low German has -en and West Low German -et (or vice versa). ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 21:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Added information received from a native.

Verb table

Should the verb table be removed in favor of a more general description of verb inflection? --Godtvisken 19:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of speakers

What does native to about 1,000 mean? This number is incorrect, when not the number of 'Low German only' speakers is meant. There are far more native speakers, even if they are not 'Low German only' because most of them speak German too. --::Slomox:: >< 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct, it is far more. Don't know the exact number but from what I know many speakers especially in the rural areas of Schleswig-Holstein still speak it natively, while a significant decline has happened in recent decades. Expecially in the Cities it has been fallen out of use.

"Tied" cognate

It isn't entirely accurate to say that "Tied/Zeit" has no cognate in English; "tide" is cognate, as is "time" (distantly), though the former doesn't have the same meaning, and the latter doesn't reflect the sound change as well. In short, I'm not sure how or even if the chart should be modified. Bws2002 11:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I did not realize this before. I changed it to say "tide (literally: time)", although maybe a better wording that "literally: time" could be used to note that the meaning has changed but they are still cognates. Removed "Timmerman" until someon can find a cognate for it, if there is one. --Godtvisken 00:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The cognate for Timmermann or timmern is to timber. --::Slomox:: >< 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Last Sentence in Intro

The last sentence in the introduction makes no sense and sounds unprofessional. Why ought dialects of Low German and Frisian in Denmark to be considered extinct? Should we not consider these dialects in other regions to be extinct? Can anyone with some authority on the subject say if the dialect (or language, it is unclear from the intro how we should classify Low German) as a whole is moribund or extinct? This article needs help.

Requested move: Low German to Low Saxon

See Talk:Low Germanic languages#Requested moves. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Formerly "Low Germanic languages" has been moved to "Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages"; this page should be named accordingly. Please move it. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 22:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense! I'm sorry I only discovered this discussion after the move had been made. Low Saxon is English for Niedersächsisch, which relates to one German Bundesland. As a translation of Niederdeutsch/Plattdeutsch it is simply wrong. We do usually call the Early medieval language Old Saxon, but we do not use Middle Saxon (let alone Middle Low Saxon) for the language of the high Middle Ages, and the modern language (dialect) is called Low German. Look at any standard English-language book on the history of German if you want confirmation. The consistency argument doesn't hold water: just because the language family is renamed (also controversial, but just about defensible) is no reason why the individual languages within it need to be given names which they never had before. Or are we going to move Dutch to Low Franconian, just to satisfy the desires of a few people who want the language tree to look neat? This move needs to be reversed. --Doric Loon 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have reverted this move. It was made without due consultation - the discussion related entirely to the Low Germanic Languages article, not to this one. We need a consensus here before a move is legitimate. --Doric Loon 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that the Ethnologue is not reliable at all, but it says Low Saxon, and I have no other English sources right at hand.[1] ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to continue this discussion at Talk:Low Germanic languages#Requested moves, since that's where it has been lead in the first place. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

ISO 639-2 labels it Low German; Low Saxon, with Low German first.--Prosfilaes 00:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, I think the discussion should be here. What we do with "Low Germanic languages" is an entirely different question from what we do with "Low German". As for Ethnologue, it lists dozens of German dialects as though they were languages, which doesn't inspire confidence. Low Saxon may well mean Niedersachsen in their thinking. The point is, for there to be a "low" anything there has to be a "high" one too. Low German in contrast to High German makes good sense. But there is no High Saxon language. As a state, Niedersächsisch makes sense in contradistinction to Sachsen-Anhalt etc, but "Low Saxon language" means nothing at all. --Doric Loon 11:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but according to my move requests, the moves are directly linked to each other, see Talk:Low Germanic languages#Requested moves: If Low Germanic languages is renamed to Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages, then it is at least to me quite obvious that this group should consist of Low Saxon and Low Franconian.

I'm not going to repeat the whole recent argumentation on Talk:Low Germanic languages#Requested moves, but only this: Nedersaksisch ('Low Saxon') is the official Dutch name for 'Low Saxon/Low German', so your argument that any Low variety implies a corresponding High variety and vice versa is pretty pointless. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 19:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course that is not obvious. The group has been called a variety of things, but you cannot on that basis just rename Dutch as "Low Franconian". There is a fundamentally flawed approach here. A number of you have been trying to construct neat trees for Germanic languages, which is something linguists no longer really believe in because in practice it never really works neatly. You are playing with terminology to try to make it look neater than it is. But this is not legitimate. We MUST use the terminology which is actually standard in the textbooks, not terminology which we think is better. So the only argument which will support you is if you can show a consensus in recent published literature. And despite being challenged on the other page, you have not attempted to do this. --Doric Loon 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So far, I've been the only one to cite anything at all. Nobody ever intended to rename Dutch. I'm well aware of the flaws of "genealogic" "trees". ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 21:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I have to repeat here what I've said on Talk:Low Germanic languages#Requested moves: The English language offers two equivalent names, Low German and Low Saxon (I guess it is no coincidence that these correspond to the respective autodesignations in Germany and the Netherlands). Which one should we choose? The Wikipedia:Naming conventions say nothing about such a case. I don't think the decision should be based on mere frequency (like you say), but rather on the questions like: what would native speakers do? or: what avoids confusion? (no, despite its name, Low German is really not just a simple variety of the German language like Scottish English is a variety of the English language). ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 21:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it does have something to say about the case: "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." That is the most common name usually; what the native speakers do has little use for a general audience.--Prosfilaes 00:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There are contrary examples where a lesser known name has been chosen out of consideration for the native speakers: Lapps redirects to Sami people, Hottentot redirects to Khoikhoi, Gypsy language redirects to Romani language. Then, the naming conventions also talk about a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, and the recent contribution by User:Liam D (see below) is just another perfect example of the ambiguity of the term Low German. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Move request

I have moved the page in line with the other articles, which all have been moved, and consistency can be a good argument. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, there's still an open discussion here. Let's not try to unilaterally preëmpt that discussion.--Prosfilaes 09:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Liam's comment

I'm moving the following comment by user:Liam D here because it belongs with this discussion and is not well placed at the top of this page. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 17:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• • no it would be wrong to redirect Low German to Low Saxon. Low German is still used in German linguistics (Niederdeutsch) and French linguistics (bas-allemand) to designate all the Western Germanic languages shown on that map :

• • Low German includes Low Saxon and Low Franconian languages (Dutch, Flemish, etc).
  • I agree that the term German is, with that meaning, not politically correct, but it is still used in modern linguistics, and it's not up to Wikipedia users to interfere in that. Anyway, Plattdeutsch or Plattdüütsch contain the word deutsch that means German, and even the word Germanic contains the word German. The term German is to Germanic languages what Romance is to latin languages... Even the Swiss refer to their language as Düütsch, which means German... And English use the same root to designate the language of the Netherlands: Dutch.
  • A solution would be to name the page Low German languages rather than Low German, and then make clear that this group is actually split into Lower Saxon languages and Low Frankish languages (or Low Franconian languages, Franconian being an Anglo-English way to designate what the Germans call fränkish and the French call francique).
  • The best way to call that group would be Low Westgermanic languages but this does not exist.

Liam D 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The Low German you're referring to has been moved to Low German languages a long time ago, see above. This article is not about what you've referred to as Low German, but only about what you've referred to as Low Saxon, that is to say, not about all West Germanic languages that are neither High German languages nor Anglo-Frisian languages, but only about the Easter part of them. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Most English speakers who have any idea about German affairs know the phrase Low German and know exactly what they mean by it, and there is no ambiguity, because it means only one thing. It does not include Dutch, it means only the northern dialects of Germany. Possible ambiguity only arised because of a possible confusion with Low Germanic (itself a fringe usage), but it is not hard to keep those apart. Low Saxon in this sense is hardly known to anyone in the English speaking world. Low German is the normal, standard phrase, and the one that readers will recognised. --Doric Loon 18:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You keep claiming that, so I'm sure you won't have any trouble proving it. I've shown that the name Low Saxon is really used in English in this sense and I've explained why I'd prefer it over Low German.

However we decide, the decision must not only affect this article but all of the articles mentioned in my original move request in Talk:Low Germanic languages#Requested moves, including of course the corresponding categories (and therefore I'm still disappointed that the discussion has split). If we keep this article at its current name Low German, I wouldn't like the article name Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages at all, since then the very same concept would be called Low German in the name of this article and Low Saxon in the name of the article Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 19:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well what you do with the group is up to you, but we can't name a language after a group, it has to be the other way round. Because the languages are "real" in a way that the group isn't; it is an academics' construct. I personally would call the group "the Low-German/Dutch continuum", but the existence or meaningfulness of the group is a matter of opinion, so the term can be twisted to whatever your theory happens to be.

But the language is a well-established entity and we know what we call it. You ask for sources. Well, most of my books on German affairs are in German of course, but just reaching out to what is on the shelf next to me, I can confirm that "Low German" is the term used in the classic works which we all studied with: Arthur Kirk, Introduction to the historical study of New High German, Wright, Middle High German Primer, M.O.Walshe, Middle High German reader, J.G. Robertson, history of German literature; or if you want something bang up to date, the new 10-volume Camden House History of German literature (one volume still in press) or the Gentry Companion to Middle High German Lit (2002); they all talk about Low German. A quick glance down the abbreviations at the front of the Oxford English Dictionary shows that it uses LG = Low German in its etymologies. You will notice I have deliberately not gone to linguistics text books but rather to more general works, because my point is to show that this is what most English-speaking non-specialists say. But just in case my book collection is untypical, I went to the British Library on-line catalogue and did a quick search. Putting in "Low German" gave me 273 hits. "Low Saxon" produced just 7. And I am not convinced any of those 7 are really evidence of what you want them to be. --Doric Loon 05:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with "Low German"—I merely recognize that today it can be an insensitive term. However, it is absolutely undeniable that Low German is the same thing as Low Saxon-Low Franconian, and that it includes Low Franconian. The linguistic boundaries don't honor the Germany-Netherlands international border (northwestern Low Saxon veers into the Netherlands and southeastern Low Franconian veers into Germany), and Low Saxon and Low Franconian are more closely related to each other than to any other language family, including Frisian or High German. This article, however, is talking only about Low Saxon to the exclusion of Low Franconian. If you want to argue about the use of the name "Low German", go to Talk:Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages and discuss it there. This article must properly be renamed Low Saxon languages. - Gilgamesh 08:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The dialect continuum between Low German and Dutch makes categorisation problematic, but traditionally the term Low German does not include Dutch. If you want to see how general linguists use these terms, have a look in the prologue and apparatus to the Oxford English Dictionary, or indeed in any other major dictionary. They have to compare all Germanic languages in their etymologies, and they use the terms Low German and Dutch as distinct entities. (They do not use Low Saxon at all!) I really can't see what can be insensitive about the term Low German when used in this conventional way - we are in the middle of a football world cup here in Germany, and who do you think the North Germans are cheering for? The same team as the south Germans! There is an argument about whether Low German is a dialect of German or whether the two Germans are in fact two different languages, but there is no argument that the Low German speakers are ethnically and politically German. The term is only insensitive if you try to make it include Dutch, which really is silly. --Doric Loon 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Do the sources you've named only mention the term Low German, or do they just prefer it to Low Saxon (like the ISO)? In any case, the name Low Saxon is also used in English, as I've shown, and as I've already said, I don't think that the article name needs to be the more frequently used term – there are contrary samples (see above). If we keep Low German, two questions remain:

1. How do we handle the Low German speakers in the Netherlands who don't call their speech Low German, but Low Saxon?
2. What is a fitting name for the article Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages? Its present name is based on the Ethnologue. What about a descriptive name like Low Franconian-Low German dialect continuum (or vice versa)? I guess that Low German speakers sensitive about their speech not being considered a dialect would strongly disfavour that name.

― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 16:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

None of those surces seem to know the term Low Saxon at all, as far as I can see. But that is not surprising, since it seems to be a relatively new pseudo-PC term (in English, if not in German). I don't doubt that there are alternative terminologies in English which I have not encountered, but if in years of studying Germanic philology I have never heard a term then it is not wide-spread. Low Saxon just doesn't have a significant status as an English term. The title of the article SHOULD be the most commonly used term, and certainly it should be a term which most English speakers who know about the subject would be expecting. I don't think the fact that there are some Low German speakers in the Eastern Netherlands affects this, any more than the presence of High German speakers in Eastern Belgium affects the naming of the German language article.

As for naming the group article, I have no preference, but if you feel the two article titles should harmonise, the articles on the individual languages should be the starting point, and not the other way around. I don't think any Low German speaker would have a problem with you speaking of Low German dialects or a dialect continuum, because obviously that refers to the relationships within Low German (or within the Low German-Dutch continuum), without prejudice to the relationship with High German. --Doric Loon 05:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Have we forgotten that Low Franconian languages veer into Germany as well? And as they are more similar to Low Saxon dialects than to High German, wouldn't these German Low Franconian dialects be considered "Low German" too? And if, as Low Franconian dialects, they are more closely related to Standard Dutch than to Low Saxon, would that necessarily disqualify the German Low Franconian dialects as being "Low German", or would it qualify Dutch as being "Low German"? The political distinction between the Netherlands and Germany is relatively young, only a few centuries old, and through most of that time, a contiguous "Germany" did not itself exist as a political entity. The Netherlands and Germany were formed out of the Holy Roman Empire, and they congealed into a separate Netherlands and Germany largely by circumstance. That is not to discredit the very important cultural differences they have now (just as those that also exist between Netherlands and Belgium, between Sweden and Denmark, between Czechia and Slovakia, between Russia and Ukraine, etc.), but as far as linguistic differences go, there are few. It has always been my understanding that Dutch and all the Low Franconian dialects are just as much part of the Low German continuum as the Low Saxon dialects are. To say that Low Saxon is Low German and that Dutch is not Low German, you end up having to split a great deal many hairs. If you only define Low German as those dialects in the Federal Republic of Germany, it attempts to draw a linguistic border at the international border, but they don't match—not even close—and that's politics, not good linguistics. - Gilgamesh 07:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

@Gilgamesh: It seems to me that you are misunderstanding Doric Loon. He does not question the separation of the different varieties (which in itself is questionable enough). I think we all agree that there are (1) the varieties spoken from certain parts of France almost to Cologne, including standard Dutch; (2) the varieties spoken mostly in Northern Germany and Northeastern Netherlands; (3) a group that is composed by the former two (that group may be questionable – its wikipedia article still cites no reliable sources). We agree that (1) is called Low Franconian, but we don't agree how (2) and (3) should be called, though I think we agree that their names should harmonise (which is to say nobody likes the current names):

	(2)	(3)
Current names	Low German	Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages
Doric Loon	Low German	Low Franconian-Low German dialect continuum?
Gilgamesh	Low Saxon	Low German languages
me	Low Saxon	Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages

Note that Gilgamesh's terms seem to be essentially the Dutch usage.

@Doric Loon: If you are saying that with respect to the name of the language they speak, the relevance of the Dutch Low Saxon speakers is comparable the relevance of the German-speaking Community of Belgium, then you haven't gotten my point. There is an important difference: The Dutch Low Saxon speakers don't use the name Low German for their own language, but Low Saxon (a name that is also used in Germany, see [2]). The German-speaking Community of Belgium, however, simply use the name German for their own language.

However, I'm fine with Doric Loon's position now. Keep the name Low German (and note at the beginning of the article that it's called Low Saxon by Dutch Low Saxon speakers). This would require Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages to be moved again, as well as the other pages mentioned at Talk:Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages#Requested moves (see now why I wanted to keep this discussion there? ;) including, of course, their corresponding categories. I'd propose the name Low Franconian-Low German dialect continuum. The problem is that we'll hardly find any source that uses that exact name, but then, it's a descriptive name composed by the well attested names Low Franconian, Low German and dialect continuum. Do we have prejudices for that? ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 17:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not prejudices, but just an objection. You see, the Low Saxon language are in a different situation than the Low Franconian languages. For example, Low Saxon is only spoken natively by 3 million people (and I think that's a very positive guess) Dutch alone is spoken by 22 million people natively.These 3 million speakers (mostly elders) are scattered over Northern Germany, it is very hard for me, to imagine a genuine dialect continuum between the two. Rex 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Research issue

I'm a bit confused here J. 'mach' wust, first you suggest the name Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages naming ethnologue as a reputable source ... then later you add a template saying that the source isn't reliable. I mean I agree that ethnologue is not the most trustworthy source, but it is a much used source on wikipedia, who uses the term. Would you care to explain :-) ? Rex 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, you've revealed my inconsistency. I've never claimed the Ethnologue to be most trustworthy, but I've just used it as a source. The article would benefit if there were better sources. I haven't found any so far.

In the best case, we could have a history of how the term has been used in different places and different times. The modern German source I've added to the article doesn't mention it at all, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were different in 19th century German sources (and certainly not in Nazi German sources). However, such a history of the term's usage would require many reliable sources, but for now, we should have at least one. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not a very big issue for me, I just was surprised. I mean you introduced the term, supported it, and then you opposed/questioned it! You're turning into me! Rex 18:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of speakers

I've done a little google search to get an idea on the number of native speakers of Low Saxon, I normally don't rely on Ethnologue, as I believe it is often inaccurate but what I found there was astonishing ... it said there were 1,000 native speakers.Personally I don't believe that it's that low, but the reason I did a quick survey was because I don't trust the 3 million either. 1,000 vs 30,000,000 that's a huge difference. Yet we list 3 million ... does anyone have a reference or perhaps a realistic idea of the number of speakers?  Rex  20:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know who wrote down there were 3million native speakers?

At the moment the number in the article is 150,000. The problem is: There is no census data or something like that, because the language often is seen as a dialect (despite the linguistic facts and the fact it is dying, cause the gap between Standard German and Platt is much too big to do shifting between it [normally you can use several degrees of formality between dialect and standard according to context, Platt doesn't allow this.]). And the second question is: Whom do you consider a native Platt speaker in an area, where all speakers of Platt are familiar with Standard German (or Dutch in the Netherlands)?

The number 1,000 is just plainly wrong (I notified ethnologue about this some time ago, but they didn't react). 150,000 is also too low. In 1984 there was a survey (only 2000 people) about the abilities in Platt of the inhabitants of the Platt speaking areas in Western Germany (Eastern Germany and the Netherlands were not included). These areas have roundabout 18 million inhabitants. 20% said, they speak Platt very well. When we consider this as native, we have 3.5 million natives. But there are plenty people that have learned Platt as mother tongue, but switched to Standard German later and don't use their mother tongue any more (I think such people have stated good or some Platt abilites in the survey [36%]). These are natives, but should they be considered natives if it is about the number of speakers of Platt? So every number is only made up of wild guesses. --::Slomox:: >< 12:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Low German/Low Saxon

If I may be allowed to jump into the fray--as a near-native speaker of German who has lived several years in in Schleswig-Holstein/Luebeck area (and consequently picked up some Platt along the way), I vote for the use of Low Saxon/Niedersaechsisch as a primary designation for the article.

Although Platt/Niederdeutsch/Low German are of course the most familiar terms to most people, Low Saxon is the most accurate, as we are not only describing the Low German language in Germany itself, but also the language spoken by many in the Netherlands as a secondary language. In the Netherlands, it is known almost exclusively as "Platt", and any reference to "Low German" would be confusing. Given the fact that Platt crosses the border so indescriminately, "Low Saxon" is the only possible choice, with "Platt", "Plattduutsch", "Low German" or "Niederdeutsch" as alternates.

For more arguments why it should be called "Low Saxon", you can browse Reinhard F. Hahn's website: http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/low-saxon/lowsax.htm

I would suggest that a link be established (if it hasn't been already) to the Institut fuer niederdeutsche (yes, I know) Sprache in Bremen, an excellent organization that promotes Platt through the schools, radio programmes, etc. Here is the URL: http://www.ins-bremen.de/ Thanks,--Cbrodersen 16:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you overemphasize this. Calling people in the Netherlands German is not that problematic. They considered themselves for long time up until the 20th century as German. The term Low Saxon has also its problems (East Low German is not really Saxon in first line etc.). The best term would be "Platt", as it makes no statements on the "nationality" of its speakers, but I think this is no optio as it is not a term used by any scientist. And you should notice that Low German includes also Low Franconian, which is not Saxon. --::Slomox:: >< 11:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article it indeed should be something like Platt as the article is about he modern regional language and not the theoretical linguistic divisions made by the terms Low Saxon and Low German. You Englishmans should coin a new name for modern Platt ;-) --::Slomox:: >< 11:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you the Dutch never considered themselves to be Germans.  Rex  12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See de:Niederländisch (Name) or the anthem Wilhelmus van Nassouwe ben ick van Duytschen bloet. They considered themselves to be Duits, Dutch, Düütsch, Deutsch. --::Slomox:: >< 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, learn to read our anthem properly, I could go on for days about the actual meaning of "duits" in the context of its time (which isn't German) but apart from all that. The Dutch anthem is about William of Orange, not the Dutch people. In fact the anthem is "sung" by william.  Rex  13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the fact, that duits doesn't mean 'from modern day Germany' or anything like that. In fact we are one people, one folk, in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria and Switzerland (even in England the term theodisc was used in very early times, they were Saxons). All the borders inbetween this area are more or less arbitrary. The people of Kerkrade are no others than the people of Hertogenrade on the other side of the street. I am not saying, that Netherlanders are all German, but if you like that better: Germans are all Dutch ;-) I understand if you feel uncomfortable, when it seems, that Germans want to incorporate you (yes, bad experiences in the past with some of them...), but it is the opposite. I, for example, also feel uncomfortable, when at the opening ceremony of the soccer world cup there were this group of people performing in Lederhosen. As a Lower Saxon I feel so not-represented by Bavarian Lederhosen. Grachten and dikes as in the Netherlands would represent us much better (But perhaps you are from Limburg and don't feel much closeness to dikes ;-). And be aware of the fact, that the term plattduytsch was coined by Cornelis Lettersnijder, a dutchmen, who wrote a New Testament in goeden platten duytsche, in good vernacular dutch. --::Slomox:: >< 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No I'm afraid that's a bit of a warped view on reality. No matter how much the German wikipedia rants on and on (and it does) its views on the Dutch and their relation to Germans is often based on information provided between 1933 and 1945.No offence at all.  Rex  22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I should have had a look on your user page before trying to make my point again. Now I see, that you have a specific view on this topics and I won't do any more words. --::Slomox:: >< 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that Dutch and German are one people, one folk, is plain nonsense. Don't be surprised if such an assertion will provoke a harsh reaction from a Dutchman (or a Swiss, etc.). The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland are different countries with different national identities. The status of German and Dutch as independent languages is indisputable. The status of Low German, however, is disputable. There is a strong tradition of considering it a language of its own, yet in German Linguistics, many enumerate Low German (as spoken in Germany) along with other German varieties. What difference is there between the status of Low German (in Germany) and Swiss German? I'd say it's only politics, not linguistics. Both are very different from standard German, but nevertheless, standard German is dachsprache to both. By the way, I think the importance of the dachsprache to Low German is very clearly illustrated by the Low German wikipedia having split up into a wikipedia with German dachsprache (plattdüütsch) and another wikipedia with Dutch dachsprache (nedersaksisch).

And as I've said, platt is also a problematic term since that selfdesignation is appearently also used by speakers of Middle Franconian/West Middle German varieties that are certainly not Low German.

In the end, I think we'll have to deal with the name Low German anyway, since it seems to be the most common name in English, though we must point out that it's called differently in the Netherlands (I'm just going to do so). One of the reasons why I would have preferred Low Saxon is that this designation avoids any Dutchman to be called German, whereas I don't think the Low German speakers in Germany would have troubles being called Saxons. By the way, Slomox, why would you say that East Low German is not really Saxon? East Low German was brought to its current place by Low Saxon settlers, as far as I know, so consequently I wouldn't see any problem with calling it Low Saxon.

Anyway, I have the impression that the division between East Low German and West Low German is just as problematic as the association of Low German and Low Franconian, since I haven't found either in linguistic literature. They would just describe the different varieties of Low German without distinguishing a Western group and an Eastern group. However, that's another discussion... ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 20:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

East Low German is not only Saxon, but there also were Hollandish and High German settlers. But the Saxons dominated. This was not meant as a major concern. I intended to write, that 'Saxon' nonetheless is fine to me, but forgot to note it ;-) I only wanted to relativize that only possible choice comment.

The distinctions between Austria, Germany etc. are more or less products of state-bound nationalism. From the people living there, Bavaria is closer to Austria than to the remainder of Germany. I don't understand and don't like this tendency to culturally center around the capital of a political state, even if this does not match the reality of the cultural landscape.

One example: Uganda recently has decided to do primary school education in the native languages for first three classes. But there was great argueing, that this would fasten the local cultural ties and jeopardise the creation of a single Ugandan nation. But why should Uganda, a country, whose borders were shaped by British officers without considering culture or languages, why should this country form a single nation? Why is 'I am proud to be a Ugandan!' better than 'I am proud to be an Acholi!'? I plainly don't understand it. Hope, this non-European example amkes my point clearer. --::Slomox:: >< 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You're free to dislike national identities, but it's no use denying them. And I wouldn't be so sure that Bavaria is closer to Austria than to the rest of Germany, since apart from insitutional and cultural ties between Bavaria and the rest of Germany, there are also linguistic differences between Austria and Bavaria, and not only in lexical innovations (for instance a flat tyre of a bicycle is called Platten in Germany but Patschen in Austria, see [3]), but also in functional words (for instance the frequent use of the particle fei in Bavaria, but not in Austria, see [4], or the use of nei 'into' in Bavaria, but eini in Austria, see [5]). Anyway, I guess the difference between the neighbouring Low German varieties across the Dutch-German border is likely to be greater than the difference between the neighbouring Austro-Bavarian varieties across the German-Austrian border because the latter share the same dachsprache, standard German, but the former don't (which caused them to split up into two different wikipedias). ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 11:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not "denying" or generally "disliking" national identities, I only say they are overdone. Our cultural ties are thousands of years old, our national identities were formed in much shorter times. I don't see black and white and I am not mandating to create a new "pan-Germanic nation", far way, but I don't understand why there is so much emphasis on the made-up borders in a continuum. And, by the way, do you want to 'triez' me with repeating the 'two Low Saxon wikipedias' thing ;-) --::Slomox:: >< 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We agree about the basics, that's good! What is triezen? I just think that it's a very illustrative sample for the real impact and not made-uppance of national borders (which, by the way, are just as well a part of our cultural ties). ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 09:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kollumerlands

I've deleted Kollumerlands, because it doesn't exist. I had done it before, but something or someone put it on the page again. Kollumerlands doesn't exist, it is a part of the Groningen dialect Westerkwartiers. This has official been confirmed by the University Groningen. It's sometimes called Kollumerlands, because it is also spoken in a part of the Frisian municipaltly Kollumerlân & Nijkrûslân, but is still is a part of the Westerkwartier dialect. See also nds-nl:Westerkwartiers for more information. If you can't speak/read the Groningen dialect (which should be very likely), then you should ask me, then I'll translate it and make an article about it. Grönneger 1 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

There's an awful lot of talk on this page about people's preferences, terms that people from this or that country might not like, and arguments from first principles. All of this, to my mind, is entirely irrelevant.

The study of Germanic linguistics is a well established branch of scholarship in English-speaking countries. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to replace the established terminology of a subject on the basis of their own opinions and arguments, whatever merits they may have.

The question here is not "what term do we want to use?" but "what terminolgy is used in English-language scholarship?. Three widely used handbooks on the history of German (Keller, Wells, Waterman) all overwhelmingly use Low German. I think it's the job of those who want a move to show that any move they're proposing is to a term that is more widely used in published research and specialist handbooks than the current page title. Page tiles need to be supported by reputable sources in just the same way as the content of the articles. --Pfold 21:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Do these handbooks have a name that corresponds to the topic of that article? ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 22:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I need to look go through them more carefully when I get time. Actually, I'm not sure it's as clear cut in any of the books as I first thought! Though my basic point remains - let's decide this on sources, not on personal beliefs. --19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Politics has a lot to do with this. The Low Franconian languages are linguistically under the wider Low German umbrella (in contrast to High German, but not including English or Frisian which are in the separate Anglo-Frisian family). However, it seems that people from the Netherlands don't want to be associated as being "German", and many Low Saxon speakers in Germany simply call their language what translates back into English as "Low German" or "Low". And if you look at the map of the entire language area in this article, you can see that the international boundary between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany does not correspond at all with the linguistic boundary between Low Saxon and Low Franconian. You are right—traditionally and accurately, that group is called "Low German", but this article here is about the eastern group at the exclusion of its Low Franconian sibling. But we can't very well call this article "Low German" at the exclusion of Low Franconian, especially when its speakers in the Netherlands do not call themselves nor their language "German" (they are "Low Saxons"), and as far as I understand, the Low Franconian dialects that veer into Germany are just as easily referred to as "Low German" or "Low". We have to agree on the terms to use here—unfortunately, politics involving the foreign relations of the Federal Republic of Germany are involved in this debate. Personally, I don't see why they should be. If Netherlands citizens don't want their language to be under the umbrella of "Low German" in an academic sense (which they are certainly entitled to do in a social naming sense), they should find a time machine and go back in time and change their language so that it's not Low German. - Gilgamesh 18:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Few of us, individually, are in a position to influence the terminology used by scholars publishing in English in the future, and none of us can change what the usage has been to date. To choose a terminology that is not used but is prefered by a particular section of the editors of this page because of their particular sensitivities or to show respect for others' sensitivities, however justified, is not NPOV. Making a serious attempt to establish what the professional usage is offers us a way to avoid factionalising the discussion.

What disturbs me is the argument which supported the use of Low Germanic - the "I know this is non-standard, but I prefer it" argument. Incidentally, am I the only one who is struck by the fact that so many of the pages on Germanic languages cite no sources? --Pfold 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

With respect to Low Saxon vs. Low German, I was under the impression that both terms were used. That'd leave room for the NPOV argument to decide which one to use (or other arguments). That impression, however, was based on the Ethnologue.

Up to now, the Ethnologue also remains the only source for the group composed of Low Franconian and Low German. I consider the article about that group to be much more controversial than this article. Not only is the name of that group controversial, but rather its very existence as a linguistic concept. The concept represented by this article, in change, seems to be widely established in linguistics, and its name, Low German, seems to be far less controversial (according to the literature you and Doric Loon alluded to).

@Gilgamesh: Do you have English sources for the term Low German as an umbrella term embracing Low Franconian? And Dutch people are no Saxons, they are Dutch, or Franconian at best, but certainly not Saxon. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, Go here and skip over the links that link back to Wikipedia, and it's mentioned several times. You see...though the Franconians and Saxons were separate groups, they spoke the same language where they lived in proximity, and only diverged relatively recently, in the past millennium at best. High German, however, diverged from the Low languages much longer ago, maybe two millennia ago. But what is notable is that both Saxons and Franconians spoke High and Low languages that were more closely related to one another by region than by historic nation. In fact, the modern regions of Saxony Proper and Franconia Proper are both in the south today, with Franconia in particular being part of Bavaria and having a High German dialect. The traditional languages of Lower Saxony and the Low Countries (Low Franconia) also remained the same by proximity, diverging gradually within the past millennium. So genetically, Low German encompasses both Low Franconian and Low Saxon, just as High German includes both High Franconian and High Saxon (along with the Alemannic dialects and such). This demonstrates that the traditional distinctions between Saxons and Franks were not greatly-pronounced linguistic divisions, but rather of identity. Indeed, though Low Franconian and Low Saxon are easily extinguished at their eastern and western extremes, the border dialects between the two groups share a great deal of transitional features. It's a no-brainer that Dutch Low Saxon is closest to the traditional dialects of Lower Saxony in Germany, but it may not be so obvious that the Limburg Low Franconian dialects do not end at the border with Germany, but there would also be considered Platt. - Gilgamesh 09:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys: sources means peer reviewed publications, not web pages. --Pfold 10:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem with Low German, except that it creates so much "laymen" confusion. Then again, Low German was once proposed to be the hypothetical ancestor of both Low Saxon and Low Franconian ... which is was not as Low Saxon and Low Franconian never had a common ancestor after the high German consonant shift, to me it just indicates that a language has not experienced the HGCS or the AFSS ... but I'm convinced others will not grasp this so easiliy Also, some claim the terminology used in this article is based on politics, but werent the terms invented by those early german linguists as well?  Rex  10:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Two points, I'd like to clarify: The language "High Saxon" is not derived from Saxon. They only took the name. And Platt actually meant vernacular, not low. --::Slomox:: >< 13:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

One more clarifacion: The designation platt is also used by speakers of West Middle German varieties, see [6]. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 13:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've now spent some time looking more closely at the terminology used the main English-language handbook as well as the Modern German Dialects book edited by Charles Russ. There seems to be a clear difference between the way the terms are used for oldest stage of the language and more recent ones. For the modern situation, Low German is the almost universal term for the dialects of nothern Germany - it is not used to encompass Low Franconian. Low Saxon is used but much less frequently. For the older period LG certainly is used to cover the combined Saxon and LFranconian dialects, and is more rarely used as a synonym for Old Saxon. However, given the paucity of texts, especially for Old Low Franconian, it is not always posible to tell what meaning is being given to LG (though it's explicit in Waterman's map, for example) Typically the early stages of "Low Saxon" are called Old Saxon and Middle Low German. I haven't come across Middle Saxon or Middle Low Saxon. The authors are entirely aware that the terms are problematic but their own usage does seem to have a clear tendency.

My suggestion is this:

1. We abandon the Low Franconian-Low Saxon page - look at how little information it contains, with not a single common innovation nor a single isogloss apart from the sound shift. (Incidentally, Martin Durrell's article on Wetsphalian in Russ gives half a dozen isolglosses separating Westphalian from all Franconian dialects, Low and otherwise.)
2. We keep this LG page as a LG page but incude the info on both meanings that are given to the term.
3. A Low Saxon page redirects to this one - this term is only occasionally used by specialist and I would be very surprised if it were known to the non-specialist. There is no evidence in any text that the term Low Saxon cannot be replaced in any context by the more common LG, where the modern language is referred to.

--Pfold 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)