Talk:German language

Archives

---

1. January 2003 – September 2006
2. October 2006
3. November 2006 – September 2008
4. Archive 4
5. Archive 5

Official status

namibia 1984-90, surely 1884-1990 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.70.209 (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been 1984-90. "Namibia" or "South-West Africa" did not exist before ~1919. German was official language in "German South-West Africa" before that. After WWI, German lost this status, only to regain it in 1984 as a gesture of self-government granted by the South African occupation (officially this was called "mandate"). In 1990, Namibia became independent and languages like Afrikaans and German were associated with Apartheid and colonialism. Oddly, English did not suffer from this stereotyping and was rather considered a "neutral" language and thus declared the only official language of Namibia... --Gliese876 (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Consonants

The section on consonants needs to be completely replaced/rewritten. At present, it is just a list (alphabetical, at that!) of spelling->sound rules, it's not phonology. A WP section on phonology shouldn't be stating that "letter X is pronounced Y" - that belongs, if anywhere, in orthography. I'll make a start by grabbing the table and footnotes from German phonology. --Pfold (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

noun position doesn't matter - subject or object

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

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

Third most studied language in the world?

Where is evidence that German is the third most studied language in the world? This claim is totally unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.118.40 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim of the world-status has been corrected. German is the third most studied language in the US (http://www.vistawide.com/languages/us_languages.htm) and the second most known foreign language in the EU (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_237.en.pdf). I do not know how high German scores on a global level, should be fourth or fifth after English, Spanish, French, and perhaps Arabic. --Gliese876 (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

English is today the most studied foreign language in the EU, but the most spoken foreign language in the EU is still German. As a spoken foreign language in the world, Spanish lies far behind English, French and German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.115.76.104 (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Source pls! --Gliese876 (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

According to www.language-capitals.com/top_ten_lang.php the top world languages are: 1. English 21 %, 2. French 15 %, 3. German 14 %, 4. Chinese 12 %, 5. Spanish 10 %, 6. Russian 10 %, 7. Italian 10 %, 8. Japanese 9 %.

A better language map?

This map from 1880 is used on the German Wikipedia. As I've gathered, the 1928 map currently used on the article here has been subject to much dispute concerning original research and verifiability, whereas this one is a genuine map from a publication (Andrées Weltatlas), verified and more accurate. It also shows the distinction between Low and "Upper" (actually High) German, which might be of further importance. Yes, Dutch is "again" listed as German dialect... it's an 1880 map, unedited, and shows the 1880 point of view. An explanatory note could be added in the caption. (There is, of course, a Low Franconian/Low Saxon dialect continuum, and this has already been discussed here in the past.) I still think this is a far more verifyable, clearer and scientifically valuable map than the user-created (OR?) one shown in the article right now. -- megA (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I think either map will do for the article. They both have their shortcomings. The self made map seems to overstress the German presence eg in Masuria and the many small dots representing the thousands of German speaking villages and village clusters all over Eastern Europe are a bit exaggerated in size.

The other map seems to underestimate the presence of the German language. To give an example, it shows the maximum extent of Masurian Polish, inspite of the fact that Masurians were largely bilingual. So were many Kashubians and Upper Silesians. Furthermore, where the other map seems to exaggerate size and importance of German language islands, "your" map largely ignores them.

We must keep in mind that maps cannot be neutral. They cannot "show things as they really were". They must simplify and interpret the facts - or what the maker believes are facts.Unoffensive text or character (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your points. I'd still rather recommend an actually sourced map (even if it's 130 years old and from a historical POV) instead of a "home-made" one. And I'm not an expert, but I see a lot of language islands on the 1880 map. But now that you mention it, it's indeed surprising to see large areas of the German empire devoid of the German language. -- megA (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot source the claim, but I think at that time people tried to show the "original" language of the various parts of the German Empire. Thus, in Masuria, Upper Silesia, Lusatia and Southern Schleswig, they showed Polish, Sorbian, Danish and Frisian exclusively, even though (with the exception of Upper Silesia) most people there were bilingual.

As to the question which map to use in the article: On a second thought I must say I also prefer the sourced map, for the simple reason that it is sourced.Unoffensive text or character (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Reichskommissariat

I've got involved at Talk:Reichskommissariat#Realm's Commissionerate of Ukraine over a suitable translation of "Reichskommissariat". Another editor proposes "Realm's Commissionerate" and, for several reasons, I disagree. Knowledgeable input would be highly desirable. Wearily, Folks at 137 (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? the page is empty, apart from templates, as is the history... -- megA (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Writing system: das scharfe s

In the article it is written that ß always would be written as SS when using capital letters, which ist not correct. In official typography it is recommended to write SZ, SS remains only an alternative writing often used because of its German look opposite to SZ which might look strange in German words. --Fritzizqui (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that recommendation is obsolete. SZ was only ever the rule in those instances where a distinction was needed between words with ss and ß, but even in those cases it has been abolished since the 90ies. Trigaranus (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, really a long time ago SZ was used everywhere. --77.4.122.136 (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's just like that. According to German orthography rules, "ß" in capital letters is to be written as "SS". Greetings, Lost Boy (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

German cognates with English

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missed becoming the language of the United States by one vote

I'm hearing that there was a vote following the American Revolution to select the official language of the union and that English won over German by only one vote. If someone can find the appropriate sources for that that should be included in this article. __meco (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this is simply an urban legend. See:[1][2][3][4]. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We actually have an article about this, at Muhlenberg legend. Knepflerle (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The word Muhlenberg is a barbarism. The man's name was Muehlenberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.115.239 (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we ask for semi-protection?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

German colony, principally in southern Chile

Why the map that shown in the article is not marked with the German colony, principally in southern Chile? They are very important in the architecture, food, and manners of some towns and cities of the south, many of which have been established in almost all the country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.65.94 (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor's vandalism over a period of semi-protection

The first section of the article on 12 February 2011, 16:40: German (Deutsch [ˈdɔʏtʃ] ( listen)) is a West Germanic language, thus related to and classified alongside English and Dutch. It is one of the world's major languages and the most widely spoken first language in the European Union. Globally, German is spoken by approximately 120 million native speakers and also by about 80 million non-native speakers. Standard German is widely taught in schools, universities and Goethe Institutes worldwide.

The same section modified and shortened by the editor Haldraper on 14 February 2011,14:39: German (Deutsch [ˈdɔʏtʃ] ( listen)) is a West Germanic language, related to and classified alongside English and Dutch. Spoken by approximately 100 million native speakers,[15] German is one of the world's major languages and the most widely spoken first language in the European Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.220.146 (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't vandalism. You're free to disagree with the change and argue that it should be reverted (policy based arguments for that would help), but calling it vandalism is over the top. Are there policy based reasons for reverting it? --Six words (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation

Should Punctuation be added? especially for the "umlaut"[spelling] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osborne (talk • contribs)

I know this is ‘nit-picky’, but there's a difference between punctuation marks (fullstops, commas,...) and diacritics (the dots that turn a, o and u into umlauts, French accents, ...). German punctuation is difficult (just like the punctuation of other languages) and I don't know how we could explain it here in a few sentences, umlauts aren't that difficult to explain but they already an entire article devoted to them; without knowing what you'd like to add I don't know how to answer your question. --Six words (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact German punctuation is rather easy.

• Put a fullstop, exclamation mark, question mark, three dots, etc. pp. where they belong. (Note: German grammar wants exclamation marks for imperatives, and allows fullstops only in such with exceptionally little emphasis, but I think this is somewhat diverging.)
• A semicolon may separate what would be grammatically distinct sentences but are put into one sentence without any of the conjunctions typically used for this. (comma possible if they have the character of enumeration).
• Fill enumerations with commas where none of these conjunctions are used (indent possible to indicate hesitant language; semicolon possible for subdivision or if some of the things to be enumbered have subclauses); put subclauses away from the main clause by commas (practically always and as far as I know the main difference to English); do the same to insertions (parentheses or indents as well possible); do the same to denn-clauses (engl. "for" with the meaning of because, which are, technically, no subclauses, therefore verb at second place btw; semicolon as well possible); do the same to infinitives with the character of subclause if they are not very small (facultatively in New Spelling); do the same to grammatically full sentences, merged into one with conjunctions (facultatively in New Spelling).
• A quote followed by its indication looses its fullstop at the end, replaced by a comma after the quote, such as: "Es ist heute sehr schönes Wetter", sagte er. --93.134.250.161 (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)