Talk:German language

Archives

---

1. January 2003 – September 2006
2. October 2006

incorrect redirect

in my opinion hochdeutsch should redirect to standard german instead of here. I would change it myself, but I don't know how.

nm figured it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadowdrak (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

"Spoken in [...]"

Currently the infobox of the German language says the following: "Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Italy, France, Luxembourg, Argentina, Brazil, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Denmark, Namibia, South Africa, Mexico, Canada, USA and 35 other countries.".

I think we should edit this and go with the way the English language article does it. ie listing the countries where it is official, not dying and not a minority language + "and other countries".

So that would mean: "Austria, - Belgium (official, but also minority) -, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland and other countries."

Are there any objections? Rex 14:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections, but if you do it I will make the same changes to the Dutch language article, as well as every other European language article which does the same thing. Ameise -- chat 14:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't care if you did that. Seems kind of fair. (Sorry to disappoint you, Mike.) Rex 14:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why purge valuable information? Ulritz 16:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because infoboxes should be kept short. I'd say any language's infobox should only list the countries where the language in question really predominates (in this case, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg, plus maybe Belgium because of having official status there) with an "and other countries" if necessary, while more detail can be given in the body of the text. —Angr 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit taken back by this whole Luxembourg as a German speaking language bit. If you define Dutch as an independant language, so is Luxembourgish. There are so many non-german words used in Luxembourgish and time has made it develop in its very own way. It may have been a german dialect once but that was way back in the days of Low German. By the way, Luxembourg is officially a French speaking country and all of the people in Luxembourg are speaking French, whereas Luxembourgish is only used by a very small majority. Besides, there are strong political feelings involved in making us a german-speaking country. No real Luxembourger will accept that.

Well, you're sure you're from Luxembourg? That does not sound like the Luxembourg I know... German IS official language (with French and Luxembourgish), additionally Luxembourgish is the national language. Moreover, in contrast to Dutch, Luxembourgish cannot be considered a fully independent language. French might be a prefered language of the government (dating back to the code civil), which is why most street signs are French, but German on the other hand has a stronger presence throughout the print media, the church, the elementary and professional schools and others. I've visited Luxembourg numerous times and every single time I realised that this small country is much larger concerning lagnuages and is truly trilingual. The citizens are randomly mixing German, French and Luxembourgish, even within one single newspaper, shop window or discussion and nearly everbody is able to speak all three of them more or less fluently. At last, I want to add, that the German dialects of Baden, South Tyrol, Holstein etc. all feature "non-german words" in their specific vocabularies, which, however, does not render them "less German". --BlueMars 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, you wrote "By the way, Luxembourg is officially a French speaking country and all of the people in Luxembourg are speaking French, whereas Luxembourgish is only used by a very small majority."

Now, is it possible that somewhere on this globe there is (hidden away in some secret corner) a second country that is also called Luxemburg/Luxembourg/Letzebuerg? The Luxemburg I know has the official languages French, German and Luxemburgish (in alphabetical order) and practically all natives of Luxemburg speak Luxemburgish as their first language. Many Luxemburgers have a limited knowledge of French and High German (Standard German). When speaking German (Standard German) the very close relationship between Luxemburgish and German gives them the advantage of being ablet to express themselves effortlessly, though not necessarily always correctly. In the worst case, a word-to-word translation of Luxemburgish into Standard German will do.

Furthermore, the number of French loanwords in Luxemburgish is not so high as to hamper mutual intelligibility with Standard German. Many of those loanwords exist in German as well, though most of them are obsolete or dialectal.Unoffensive text or character 13:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, I am a native "Letzeburger". There is, however, a very very large minority of foreigners living in Luxembourg, thankfully so, that do not speak Luxemburgish at all. The problem most of us DO have with being assembled to German (again) lies very much deeper, though.

As for being trilingual, it has its drawbacks, too. Most of the Luxembourgers are not fluent in German (as they do a literal translation from their native language most of the time) and their French is not really perfect, either. As for being a French speaking country, we belong officially to the "pays francophones" and you won't be able to manage for long in Luxembourg without French (try to buy something in Luxemburgish or German and you know what I mean)

Sorry for being anonymous in my first posting. It was largely an emotional reaction more than any logical reasoning. I made my studies at a university in Austria, so I might be more friendly toward German as a language than most of the "Letzeburgers".

Blue Mars, why do you say: "Moreover, in contrast to Dutch, Luxembourgish cannot be considered a fully independent language." Now this is something someone has to explain. I am not sure about the "mutual intelligibility" between German and Luxemburgish either. I guess you may be right for the regions located geographically near our country, but other Germans won't understand a word of what we are talking about. Exactly the same is true for Dutch :). Luxembourgish is a very independant language with it's own literature, folk songs, poetry and everything else you may expect in a language.Mtravellerh 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thats kind of a modern problem, 100 years ago most Luxemburgians, Austrians, Bohemians, Swiss and many other people (sometimes even Dutch and Yiddsih people) considerd themselves "Deutsch" because they spoke a German language. German is not only standard (High) German but a whole system of Dialects which form a dialect-continuum reaching from Vienna to Amsterdam. Nowadays, after Bismark unified and monopolized his definition of "Germany" and after the Nazi aera everybody is eager to emphasize he is not German. Comming from the region of Frankfurt I certainly better understand Luxemburgish than many dialects like of Kiel or Vienna. And in Trier they speak almost Lexeburgish and nobody consider it to be a proper language.

I think english simply lacks the right vocabulary to denote this dialect continuum, "German" is a wrong translation, since Danes, Suedes and English themselves are not less Germanic than Germans... lanx --217.224.5.152 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mtravellerh, In contrast to Blue Mars, I do not dispute the status of modern Luxemburgish as an independent language. Yet, I consider Luxemburgish and German to be mutually intelligible, at least in their written forms. Spoken Luxemburgish is certainly unintelligible for most Germans who do not come from the Eifel region.

However, my friends in Luxemburg told me that the knowledge of French may range from "a few words and phrases" to "near perfect" and that many natives, especially those who never use French at work, feel uneasy when speaking to the omnipresent French or Belgian shop assistants in Luxemburg City. And one of my friends, who teaches French at a Lycée, usually speaks Luxemburgish when entering a shop and is occasionally taken aback by shop assistants who tell him things like "parlez Francais" (no "Monsieur", no "s'il vous plait", just plain "parlez Francais").

Anyway, I hope you do not feel offended when I say that, to the best of my knowledge, German is very closely related to Luxemburgish, there is a great degree of mutual intelligibility of the written standard languages and that most (or many?) Luxemburgers are more at ease with some form of Standard German than with French.

The literal word-to-word translations from Luxemburgish to Standard German you mention, do achieve a satisfactory result. You must keep in mind that in many parts of Germany, Germans do the same thing when speaking Standard German. I have never witnessed a Luxemburger groping for words or stumbling helplessly through Standard German grammar, but the Standard German they speak sound (to us Germans) funny but quite alright. I would call this fluencyUnoffensive text or character 10:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Luxemburgish language is a High German language. However, Alsatian, Yiddish and Pennsylvania Dutch are high German languages, too, so it may be up to the reader to decide whether being a "high German language" makes a language a "German dialect". Although I don't have any close friends or relatives in Luxemburg, I've visited the country numerous times. I've been in Esch, Luxemburg, Wasserbillig and other towns and cities. So my afore posted comments do indeed have some reference. In Esch (close to the French border) the vendor of a bakery greeted me in Luxemburgish and I would estimate I've spotted nearly as much signs written in French as in Luxemburgish or High German (Not only private/commercial signs, but also road sings, e.g. "emplacement d'arrêt d'urgence - Nothaltebucht") In Wasserbillig (close to the German border) I've heard no one speaking French. The guy at the gas station, the sales-woman in the supermarket, everyone spoke High German and some Luxemburgish (and there was nothing which could have indicated me being German, at least nothing that I know of;-) Perhaps the smell? :p ). Due to the lower taxes however, there are a lot of Germans buying their alcohol in Luxemburg, which surely contributes to the fact that High German is quite dominant in supermarkets, especially those near the German border. --BlueMars 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Trier (12 Kilometers from Lux.) and I think BlueMars is dead-on with his description of Luxemburg. Anonym 24 July 2007

Speakers ...

The intro says 110 million, the infobox says 100 and the German wikipedia says 120 million native speakers. Who's right? Rex 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the number is around 96 million. You can find this at this site: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=deu

which in turn cites Raymond Gordon as a source. Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International

I believe that the source is fairly reputable, but it should be double-checked

Traditionally, the number of speakers is given between 100 and 120 million. But if you look at that figure, it seems somewhat exaggerated. There are (according to Ethnologue) about 75 million first language speakers in Germany. This figure is reliable, as the population is around 80 million, but this includes at least 5 million foreigners who have German as a second language, if at all. There are (again according to Ethnologue) about 7.5 million first language speakers in Austria. And there are (according to the Swiss Census Bureau) some 4.6 milliion speakers in Switzerland. This makes a total of 87 million, approximately. The big question is, then: Where do the remaining 9 million speakers live (Ethnologue says there are some 96 million)? There may be a couple of million Germans and descendants of Germans scattered all over the world, but they will hardly add up to 9 million. Most traditionally German speaking communities in the USA, Russia, Kazakhstan, Brazil and Argentina are rapidly assimilating to the surrounding majorities. So, if I had to put forward a figure, I would make it some 90 million worldwide.Unoffensive text or character 09:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, now that I come to think of it: There is another problem with Ethnologue's figures. Ethnologue lists a number of languages for Germany, Austria and Switzerland: Bavarian (the number of speakers in Germany given as 246,050, which is ridiculously low), Franconian, Saxonian, Alemannisch, etc. Practically all German-speaking Swiss and an overwhelming majority of the Austrians are being classified as "Alemannisch" or "Bavarian". That, to my mind, means that they cannot at the same time be first-language speakers of German. To make it short: I would not rely on the Ethnologue, as the figures it gives for Central European languages seem largely to be made up and, what is worse, made up by uninformed people.Unoffensive text or character 09:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we put in a range of speakers. For instance, we may say that there are between 90 - 100 million speakers, for example. 69.109.174.162 03:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of changing the number of first language speakers to 95 to 110 million and the number of second language speakers to 20 million. This should be within the range of most serious estimates and it should make the article more consistent with respect to this point. Rex, how about removing the tag now? Unoffensive text or character 09:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You forgot those native speakers in Northern Italy, Western France etc.

You are right there, but how many speakers are we talking about? Some 500,000 in Alsace and Lorraine, some 300,000 in Italy, and probably less than 50,000 in Hungary and Romania. Numbers in Belgium and Denmark are low as well.Unoffensive text or character 09:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there figures available for some of the listed minority language countries? Brazil and Argentina are listed ahead of Canada, which may be perfectly accurate, but looking at the 2001 Census in Canada http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo11a.htm there are more than 400,000 German first-language speakers. US Census bureau reports some 1.4 million, http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf. Can we get figures and references for those other countries?

ETHNOLOGUE.COM ---- I do not think that ethnologue.com is a reliable source for today's number of speakers, because they sometimes rely on really outdated data. I surfed their website reading a lot of entries on variouse languages and sometimes I had absolutely no clue where and how they made up with some figures. The most reliable source would be recent census data, given the condition that the census was completely democratic and free. --El bes 22:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the negative view of Ethnologue. It is terribly inaccurate in many ways. Thus, i really wish that Wikipedia would give up on using it as the primary reference for languages. Data is available to some extent with the UN based on national censuses submitted by different countries. While the UN notes that there are many problems in comparison between countries because of different methodologies, extent, and scope of their census questions, the available fiugres certainly don't compare well with Ethnologue. IMHO we should put more confidence in the UN. See partial list at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dybcensus/V2_table5.pdf

Definition of dialect?

I hate to interrupt a really good edit war, but may I ask whether there is a mutually agreed upon definition of the term "Dialect"? Thx (joel johnson)

You're not interrupting anything, the edit war has been over for a month and a half. And the answer to your question is no. —Angr 05:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, Angr, I think there is a more or less generally agreed upon definition of the term, but it's a very broad one: Dialect.

I've read Dialect, and it completely skirts the issue of the polysemous nature of the word. —Angr 16:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we aren't going to find a really good answer for this. The problem is their really isn't a clear distinction between a dialect and a language. For example, in Chinese, Cantonese and Mandarin are not really that close, yet the entire world is convinced that Chinese is one "language." The same is the case for German. Standard German is quite different from say Schwäbisch. Compare "Sie machen unser Schiff kaputt! Wir gehen unter!" to "Dia machat onser Schiffle he! Mir gangat onter!" Yet German is also considered one language. Comparitively, Swedish, Danish, and Norweigan are much closer and a Dane can, on a good day, understand a Swede quite well. In Swedish schools they even expect students to read Danish without any instruction. Communication is not perfect here either, though. Anyway, it seems as if the definition is merely political. The Russians have for years been trying to convince everyone that Moldovan is a seperate "language" when it really differs from standard Romanian no more than other non-standard dialects. What makes something the standard dialect? Usually the one from the largest most economically self-sufficient city. Sorry, for making this so long. Much of the previous information was obtained from a book "The Power of Babel" by John McWhorter.Deman7001 07:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Examples like Swabian are one definition of dialect, roughly "a linguistic variety that is genetically related to a standard language, and whose speakers are usually educated in the local standard, but that is distinct enough from the standard as to be difficult or impossible for other speakers of the standard language to understand". Scots and Neapolitan would be other examples following this definition; this is the definition whose border to the term "language" is usually more political than linguistic. The other definition of dialect is any set of idiolects that share some common feature or features. This definition is used by theoretical linguists (syntacticians, phonologists), and is also the usual meaning in the U.S., which doesn't have "dialects" by the first definition. This page shows examples of the sort of differences found between dialects of American English: very little here deviates from the standard enough to impede intelligibility, and no variety of American English is distinct enough that a reasonable person could entertain the idea of calling it a different language. —Angr 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not even within Germany a agreed upon definition of the term 'dialect'. In some regions modern Standard German has extinguished the original local variants and is now the first language for most people (especially in northern Germany). There the local variants of Standard German are called dialects. In southern Germany, Austria and Switzerland the original dialects still exist and also the so called 'Umgangssprache' (~ everyday language) which is a mixture of the dialect and Standard German. The term 'Umgangssprache' and the term 'dialect' is often incorrectly used synonymously. Furthermore the term 'Mundard' is sometimes used as synonyme for 'dialect', sometimes used with a slightly different meaning - causing additional irritation. But those southern ("real") dialects (or languages) are not really intelligeable to people who only speak Standard German. --El bes 22:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bayreuth

I have a question, how do you pronounce "Bayreuth". I can't quite figure that out.

Roughly "bye-ROYT". IPA is [baiˈʁɔyt]. —Angr 10:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Bayreuth ? It´s a town in north bavarian, or what do you mean ?!? i AM german, but i don´t speak ENGLISH so good and my translation programm shows more than one word for "pronounce" ...the first was the same as "discribe", so in that case its a town ;)

Die Frage war, wie man den Namen "Bayreuth" ausspricht. —Angr 15:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Try with "Bei-reut", pronounced exactly the same. --80.136.129.24 09:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"32% of citizens of the EU-15 countries say they can converse in German"

This 32% percentage of EU-15 citizens does obviously include the people of Germany and Austria so I find it rather misleading that such a statement is standing right next to: "German was once the lingua franca of central, eastern and northern Europe and remains one of the most popular foreign languages taught worldwide, and is more popular than French as a foreign language in Europe." It comes out as though this figure concerns German as a second language. In addition, the statement that French is less popular as a foreign language in Europe as German is directly contradicted by precisely the same source quoted to make this remark, see: [1] page 13.

Antonius Block 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of EE

This is a pronunciation that needs to be listed. I've been listening to different recordings of a particular Richard Wagner aria, and the singers' pronunciationd of this syllable vary. --Scottandrewhutchins 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

First thing's first: Who was the singer who brought this phonological abnormality to light? Which Wagner aria was he or she singing? And how did this person manage to pronounce EE in a way that could not be accurately described as any kind of front unrounded close-mid to open-mid vowel?
Really, if we were to concern ourselves with what singers do to German - I am a member of the guilty party itself, having performed a few Schubert Lieder - or what we do to any other language, these articles would stretch thousands of pages. They would also be insufferable. I remember being at a Mexican restaurant with a group of teachers and students debating whether singers ought to linger on a pair of Ls (z.B. Hölle) longer than a single L. One very good diction coach said yes, but a grad student said no, that singers do this by false analogy with Italian. There are recordings of great singers doing both, so it may just be a matter of taste. In other cases diction choices are made out of necessity, like the near-universal substitution of an Italian R when singing German, French and even English, languages whose Rs are articulated further back in the throat and are not resonant enough for the stage.
You can see why the linguist won't learn much about a language's phonetics and phonology with a trip to the opera house, nor will the singer get much help with the fine points of German singing diction out of linguistics. Sorry :) Skotoseme 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It was James Morris on "Auf wolkigen Höh'n wohnen die Götter". He appears to pronunce "Speer" like "spear" and "heer" like "hare". Donald McIntyre pronounces them "spare" and "hare". I'm doing this for an audtion, and I don't speak German (a German aria is mandatory), and I don't want to sound stupid mispronouncing things. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as they are (I guess) non-native speakers, of course they will be a bit off when it comes to pronunciation. "ee" in German is definitely not the English "ee" or "ea", "spare" would be closer (my vowel-IPA-knowledge is too bad to look the correct definition up). At least in spoken German, the 'r' would be transformed to a schwa in that case, by the way. I'm not really up on stage pronunciation for German, though. Baranxtu 23:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary pronuciation is /ʃpe:r/ (or whatever funky R is used for German IPA - I can't remember if it's upside-down and capitalized or just capitalized) Anyway, we're talking about three vowels:

English "spear" or German "tief" /i/

German "Speer" /e/ and

English "spare" /eɪ/

So, like Baranxtu said, "spare" is close to "Speer" but not quite it. There are two problems for an English speaker: 1) This weird /e/ exists in Standard English only as part of the diphthong /eɪ/ (as in "spare" or "say"). It is only isolated by Canadians and Minnesotans, who famously do a similar thing to O (/oʊ/ > /o/as in "Minnesooota." Interestingly, German also has this sound as in "das Boot" /bo:t/...the Minnesota native in my German diction class never had a problem with these sounds....but I digress) 2) Although IPA uses the same symbol, German /e/ is more closed (that is, a couple millimeters closer to /i/) than an artificially isolated English /e/ (artifically isolated by, say, holding the /e/ vowel before closing the the diphthong /ɪ/). So it's possible that you're hearing Morris' pronunciation of /e/ as /i/ because the more closed German /e/ could more closely resemble the latter. But his pronunciation, whatever it is, should be identical for both words, so...is he singing the words in different registers of the voice perhaps? (I don't know the aria well.) Singers tend to modify vowels into oblivion, especially on high notes and especially with closed vowels like /e/. This would explain the difference, but I can see why you're unnerved.

If you're still hearing /i/, forget Morris and follow McIntyre: closed /e/ without any trace of a diphthong. Good luck with your audition! :) Skotoseme 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I am a native german speaker, I can hardly understand the problem, but I can give advice: Listen to Theo Adam's Wotan, who pronounces very poperly. Even better in this respect: Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau's Wotan in the Karajan recording of "Rheingold".

Or if you speak or understand French: Imagine the words spelled like this: Spéer and Héer.--Vully 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to clear this up. The words Speer and Heer contain a diphthong which is pronounced [ɛɐ̯] in some dialects and [eɐ̯] in others. This is separate from the phoneme /eː/ which is sometimes written ee (e.g. Beere, Beet). The latter is always pronounced [eː]. — Timwi 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that singular Speer and plural Speere have different phonemes, even if the first surfaces with a diphthong and the second surfaces with a monophthong. —Angr 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That diphthong with [ɐ̯] is only used in certain varieties of German, but it is usually not used in singing. A closed German [eː] may indeed be similar to an English [ɪ] as in sing. -- j. 'mach' wust ☛ ☏ 10:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for all Germans, but I pronounce "Speer" [spɛɐ̯] and "Speere" [ˈspeːrə]. – Timwi 20:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you from Hamburg or nearby? —Angr 08:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for all Germans either - the pronounciation certainly varies in different areas -, but I pronounce [ʃpeːɐ̯] and [ˈʃpeːɐ̯rə], I think (I'm not really used to IPA, I hope I've made no mistake). So in my pronounciation (I am from Graz/Austria), there is that slight diphthong in plural, too, and thus the phoneme stays the same. --213.33.24.72 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The adding of links to the wiki

hey guys,

I've recently launched a completely free site to teach people the basics of German. I am wondering what the requirements of my site are before I can add a link to it on wikipedia? Thanks, Morryau 09:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL, in particular WP:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest. —Angr 09:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Angr, that explained it perfectly. My site is at http://www.jiffygerman.com I currently don't think it has much to offer, as I only just put it up, but I will be adding content over time. Is there anything on this site that would prevent it from ever appearing on wiki? Assuming content is at a suitable level.

Thanks again, Morryau 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at my site and either add it to the wiki or let me know what is needed before it is allowed to go on here? Or let me know if I can add it myself. Cheers, 58.107.172.115 03:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea for the suitability of your site regarding wiki. however, as a german, i can tell you you MUST fix up the capitalizationg on your "useful german phrases" page. the german one needs to be correct: all nouns are capitalized, and you need to standardise what you do on the english side. it's a rather important aspect of german Deguerradeguerra

It's curious that your concern for "Rechtschreibung" only applies to German. The word "standardise" is spelt in English with a "z" and the pronoun "I" as well as the names of languages including German are capitalized in English. Cakeandicecream 09:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Standardise and standardize are both correct spellings, although the first is found mostly only outside North America. —Angr 09:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. My Webster (American) only knows the z form. My only British source is Cassells who also only lists the z form. Do you have other reference? The s form applies to many other languages especially German. Cakeandicecream 15:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

All words with the -ize/-ization suffix can be spelled -ise/-isation outside of North America. —Angr 16:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Angr. I checked Webster online and found:

"Main Entry: stan·dard·ise

British variant of STANDARDIZE"

Also Wikipedia uses both spellings probably depending on the origin of the author.

My Cassells was published in London in 1978, probably too old. I'll consider the s-form as a variation sometimes used in Great Britain. In all other cases it's a mistake. The standard version is only z. Germans writing English tend to take the s-form as a carry-over from their native language. I mark it wrong. There's only one source for acceptable spelling and that's a dictionary. I know linguists at least in Germany like to report trends in a language instead of tackling the real problems.

By the way, thanks for your tip. International characters are at least discernible on my screen even though I don't understand them yet. Also Jan Hofer (ARD) must have gotten wind of my contribution to German Phonology. His pronunciation of the plural of "Stadt" in German conformed for the first time ("Tagesschau" on Thursday Dec.28th) to the accepted standard pronunciation "Städte". If he sticks to the standard I'll revise my contribution. Cakeandicecream 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cakeandicecream. The chances are not slim that the s-form is used throughout the Commonwealth of Nations. I agree that there is only one source for acceptable spelling and that's a dictionary; a dictionary of Australian English, Belizean English, British English, Hong Kong English, Indian English, Indonesian English, Irish English, Jamaican English, Canadian English, Caribbean English, Malaysian English, New Zeeland English, Philippine English, Singapore English, South African English, Trinidad and Tobago English, United States English, Zimbabwean English, etc. But lacking most of these sources I have just been sloppy and checked out the spelling using the spell checker in my word processor. Of all the examples listed above only "English (USA)" marks "standardise" as incorrect. That's reason enough for me to invalidate your assertive "In all other cases it's a mistake". --Feetonthedesk 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As a native Canadian, I can assure everyone that the -ise/-isation spelling is perfectly acceptable (I use it myself), though the -ize/-ization spelling is used by most. Thomeier 14:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

15 million speaker gap.

This huge gap of 15 million native speakers has got to go. It's simply too big. Someone needs to get respectable references on the number of speakers.Rex 21:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Read texts

Does anybody know a wiki-based site where English-German texts (copyright free) are read, both in German and in English, as mp3-files for example? If not: Is there anybody interested in to found such a site? Contact directly via delabarquera@aol.com - "Wikipedia-fellow" Germany: Delabarquera --172.158.188.44 14:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you find something on 'gutenberg' [2]. Grimms' fairy tales? (I hope there will be more audio files some day.)84.178.116.95 21:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Another postman image

Could we please stop adding inaccurate images (R9tgokunks?) created by the postmann dude. He wasn't banned on the German wiki for nothing you know.Rex 18:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a better image? The image you deleted should be complemented with its exact source and with a comment explaining that it shows other Germanic languages, like Dutch, too. A version acceptable to be shown here would not have Netherlands and Flemish region in grey. LHOON 22:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need another image? I don't mind AT ALL if people want to insert an image which shows former German speaking areas in Eastern Europe, but I simply can't tolerate it that separate languages are included as German. These images, created by Micheal Postmann, are all controversial. Apparantly, the positioning of German in Eastern Europe isn't even correct either. If someone wants to insert a similar image, they have to make sure it's sourced and accurate. Rex 22:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is that Postmann guy, anyway? LHOON 11:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I heard he was a wikipedian from the German wikipedia who made a lot of these maps, (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Postmann_Michael) and was banned for"(POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus." (POV based on untrustworthy sources, revisionism concerning National Socialism) ... I strongly support we remove all his maps from commons and this wikipedia.Rex 14:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello/Hallo

The German word for "hello" is "Hallo" and NOT literally "Guten Morgen/Guten Tag/Guten Abend". (Same statement in German: Das deutsche Wort für "hello" ist "Hallo" und ist NICHT identisch mit "Guten Morgen/Guten Tag/Guten Abend") --84.174.219.137 04:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're making the literal translation error. You have to look for equivalent use. Germans mostly say Guten Morgen/Tag/Abend when greeting someone, and native English speakers in those same circumstances will usually say hi or hello. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is, German has a formality difference here that English doesn't have. Yes, in German you say "Guten Tag" or "Guten Abend" when greeting someone, but usually only to someone you don't know well (someone you'd call Sie). Saying it to a friend or acquaintance sounds silly, or at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek; to people you'd call du you're far more likely to say "Hallo" or "Grüß dich" or even just "Hi". (This applies to the northern half of Germany. In the south and Austria there are greetings like "Grüß Gott" and "Servus", but I don't have a feel for how formal or informal they are.) —Angr 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

People use Guten Morgen/Tag/Abend formally and informally, and Grüß dich/Grüß Gott informally too of course, but "Hallo" is not used as much, at least not in my experience. Perhaps it does depend where you live. My point was only that "Hallo" is not used in Germany in the same way or with the same frequency "hello/hi" are used in English. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)::

That's definitely wrong. "Hallo" is used in the same way as "hello" in English and has nothing to do with "Du" or "Sie". --84.174.225.31 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [3]

"Definitely" is not a word that should be used in case of a tongue spoken by millions in dozens of dialects, I think.--Sodala 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I cannot really say that Guten Tag/Abend/Morgen are very common here. Most common really seems to be hallo here in this area -- which is Hannover/Brunswick, Lower Saxony. Guten Tag/Abend/Morgen exist, but especially younger people use them rarely. But you might hear e.g. n'abend or just morgen. I'd say I for example never say Guten Tag/..., I'd say even my parents never do. Under friends or people knowing each other na/moin/hey/hi are also pretty common, grüß dich maybe too.

I agree with Angr. Combine the circumstantial with the formal/social distinctions, and a one-word translation seems problematic. Hallo is commonly used, but of course not precisely the same way hello is used in English. One example of hallo is when calling someone from afar or trying to get someone's attention - but it can be the equivalent of the English hello when used in an informal greeting too. Saying "Hallo, Thomas." is perfectly common - saying "Hallo, Frau Sowienoch." is not quite as common as a greeting, but might be used, as mentioned above, also when trying to get the attention of someone you siez.

Guten Tag etc. is commonly used, but not in the exact same way hello gets used in English either. In addition to the ones mentioned by Angr, alternative formal greetings include regional variants such as saying Mahlzeit around noon (even if you already had lunch), Tag (not very polite, but it's used in formal situations too), or Grüezi/Grüessech in Switzerland, There are plenty of other informal greeting words, local and social varieties including hei, hoi, moin moin, hallihallo, Tagchen, hallöchen, schalömchen, na du, was läuft, ciao, salut etc. Should hallo be added to the box, should the usage be specified, should that entry be removed because it's too ambiguous, or what are the suggestions? ---Sluzzelin 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Schalömchen"???? Oh dear oh dear... —Angr 08:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it about time to say Auf Wiedersehen, Tschüss, Tschö, Pfüati, Pfüa Gott, Ade, Adschee or even Tschö mit ö to this discussion?Unoffensive text or character 09:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Angr. "Guten Tag/Guten Abend" is used mostly at an entrance when visting (especially when several people are present or you don't know the person good) or you don't know the people/the person in question. "Hallo" is much more informal; younger people often prefer the shorter "hi". "Hallo" has apart from that a very specific use: If you want to indicate your presence if noone can be seen yet (For example if your neighbour has left his door ajar <knock on door frame> Hallo ? Hallo ?!) or if you hear some noise and ask if someone is present ("Hallo ? Jemand hier ?"/"Hello ? Anybody out there ?" ). --136.172.253.189 09:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Austria - In Austria the use of the phrases 'Guten Tag, Guten Abend, etc.' are very little in use and sound very German-German, but 'Hallo' is used very often - of course only with people you adress in informal way. --El bes 22:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As an addition to what Angr said: in Franconia (what anybody besides Bavarians would call "southern Germany") "Grüß Gott" is only used in a quite formal way, like greeting someone significantly older than yourself. If younger people are greeting themselves with "Grüß Gott", they want to make fun of themselves or older ones. "Servus" is simultaneously used as "Hello" (also often "Hi", "Hey") and "Bye" (98% "Ciao"). "Guten Tag" is some sort of "stiff upper lip" greeting in my area and nobody says "Guten Morgen" besides meaning "why the hell is nobody greeting? I'll make a point", in every other situation one would use a short form like "Morgn", "Murgn", "Murche" etc. 'nuff babbling :o) --Sodala 22:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Infobox

I strongly agree with Angr that the infobox should not be overloaded with too much information. Its purpose is to give a general idea, detailed information should be found in the article itself. As Germans have been emigrating for centuries, it is not surprising that traces of German settlements can be found in almost all countries of the western hemisphere. It is fruitless to name them all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unoffensive text or character (talk • contribs) 09:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

best

Of course it's true that best doesn't occur as an adjectival surface form in German, but it is the lemma form cited in the dictionary, and it occurs as a neuter noun. On the other hand, perhaps besser would be better. --Pfold 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Which dictionary is that? I've never seen a German dictionary that listed best as a German lemma. Duden lists it as best... with the ellipsis indicating the missing ending, while Wahrig lists it as beste. —Angr 20:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest they had the bare form (though actually Langenscheidt does, with a cross ref), but that they don't include an ending - my 1968 Wahrig has best..., Collins has best-, which seems to me the appropriate way to give a bare morpheme, as we do with -heit. --Pfold 11:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

"Best" is standing alone not a german word. You can only use it as part of a longer word, i.E. "bestmöglich". But alone it's "Der/Die/Das Beste" (The Best).--84.142.128.75 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

German or English as the standard language in the USA

There is a legend popular in Germany that the official language in the USA was dependent on one vote somewhere. This is a pure legend known as the "Muehlenberg-Legende" and can be looked up in the German Wikipedia or under http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/zwiebelfisch/0,1518,295157,00.html where an English version is also available.

The rumor started about 1840 from a book by Franz Lohers published in 1847 called "History and Achievements of the Germans in America". At the beginning of the 19th century the number of immigrants from Germany was actually less that popularly assumed. In 1830 there were less that 33% in Pennsylvania and less than 10% nationwide.

USA had never had a vote to determine the official language niether nationally nor in a state. The legend is based on a petition to the House of Representatives from Jan. 9th 1794 by immigrants living in Virginia requesting that the laws should also be published in German. The responsible committee turned it down with a vote of 42 to 41. The speaker of the House was Mr. Muehlenberg. His comment afterwards were that the sooner the Germans become Americans the better.

Cakeandicecream 15:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard this story, the Muhlenberg legend, countless times from old and young, well and poorly educated people. I have made the experience that with most people you better just let it pass. They will never believe that a story we Germans have been cherishing for two centuries is false.Unoffensive text or character 15:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vielen Dank Unoffensive. Zu spät hab ich es in der deutschen Ausgabe nachgeschlagen. Meinen ursprünglichen Beitrag habe ich dann entsprechend angepaßt.Cakeandicecream 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

German of Luxembourg and Liechtenstein

Do Luxembourg and Liechtenstein have their own dialects of German? This needs to be addressed in the article. Gringo300 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Luxemburgish was traditionally considered a dialect of German. Only recently it has gained the status of an official language, so that now, similar to Dutch, the local dialects are part of the Germanic dialect continuum but they are no longer regarded as dialects of the German language. Furthermore, on the German side the use of local dialects has decreased dramatically, so that there is now evolving a sharp linguistic boundary between Germany and Luxembourg.

The Liechtenstein dialect is an Alemannic dialect that is very similar to the dialects of eastern Switzerland and of Vorarlberg in Austria. Both in Switzerland and Liechtenstein (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, in Vorarlberg), all generations use the local dialect as the only means of everyday communication, but there is no independent Liechtenstein variety of German.Unoffensive text or character 10:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

rf. Swiss GermanUnoffensive text or character 10:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

Can someone tell me the 'undisputed' no. of total speakers of German and French? Which of them have more speakers? Please quote the number in numericals. Maharashtraexpress 15:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the number of people using it as a first language?

I'm afraid there is no undisputed number. Currently, there are some 80 million people living in Germany. But how many of them have German as their first language? Only the Germans (some 75 million, I believe)? All Germans? What about the millions of dialect speakers? In Switzerland it's even harder to decide: some 5 million Swiss are usually counted as speakers of German, but their first language usually is a dialect that is quite different from Standard German. Then there are millions of Germans all over the world, many of them have been living oversees for generations. Who can count them? Who can even estimate them? Who knows anything definite about their first language (English, Spanish, Portugese, German or some exotic dialect of German?). Unoffensive text or character 07:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Toilette

In one of the tables the translation of "Where is the bathroom?" is given as "Wo ist der Toilette," which means where is the toilet. While getting the point across, a toilet and a bathroom aren't quite the same thing. The more appropriate translation should be "Wo ist der Badezimmer?" Badezimmer, of course, meaning bathroom. 67.142.130.18 05:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't Americans mean toilet when they say bathroom? Why would anybody be asking for the real bathroom in a restaurant or on board a plane? Unoffensive text or character 07:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(after e.c.) "Wo ist das Badezimmer?" (or "Wo ist das Bad?") would be asked when looking for the room with bath/shower facilities, in your hotel room, while looking at a new apartment, when studying blueprints of a house etc. It would only very rarely mean, Where is the bathroom? in the sense of Where is the can? While most English speakers prefer euphemisms and wouldn't be so crudely specific to actually name the toilet in their question, it's very common practice in German to ask Wo ist die Toilette? (alternatively: das Klo or das WC) when looking for a room with a toilet. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, "toilet" is an euphemism itself, and originally referred to the process of washing and dressing. Femto 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Toilette (french) is mostly being used to ask for the lavatory (that is what this discussion is about, right?), but it can also mean the place to put makeup on or clean your hands (Room that has a mirror and a sink). People often add to the question the sentence that they are NOT looking for the lavatory, if they are looking for the place zum "frischmachen" (basic cleaning, makeup). Badezimmer = Bathroom is used the same way as Toilette but its a German word and not a "foreign" one, which was "germanized" and causes headaches to average people, because foreign words are often misspelled, since they don't follow German pronunciation and spelling rules(Toilette would be spelled "Tolette" if it were a German word). WC (water-closet) is french again and straight forward. If you ask for the WC, 99.9% chance that the person is looking for the lavatory. "Klo" is short for "Klosett" (and french again) and is vulgar language, slang. Men might also ask for the "pissoir" (french) which is also straight forward. It's more used in an attempt to be funny by pretending to be "high class". I am not a language professor, but my bet is that it must have been used commonly in aristocratic circles in the past. I was born in Berlin (Prussian so to speak). There are probably a lot more ways to ask for the "stille Örtchen" (a descriptive phrase being used for the same thing) depending on the area and the form of German spoken there. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

roy wrote: Badezimmer = Bathroom is used the same way as Toilette but its a German word and not a "foreign" one. I have never heard the word Badezimmer used to mean "WC", but then of course there are dozens of ways to refer to the "stilles Örtchen" and there may be social milieus that say "Badezimmer" when they mean WC. But I am pretty sure it is not in common use. Unoffensive text or character 12:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Often used slang words for Toilette are 'Scheisshaus' or Donnerbalken (Thunderbar). Marian (194.114.62.66 11:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

The toilette room is different than the bathroom in many cases in german. In any case, in german it is much more common than in english to say what you mean.

"Toilette" in German never means Bathroom (brit. Engl.). Only North Americans seem to be fussy about the word "toilet" and use "washroom", "restroom", "bathroom" etc. instead. "Klo" (loo) is, like in Brit. English, colloquial, but definitely not vulgar. Anonym 23 July 2007

Well, if anybody who is invited in a German house would ask "wo ist das Badezimmer?", he would earn a fuzzy look, just if one had asked for the bedroom. In many German households bed- and bathroom are no-nos for guests (who stay for no longer than a day - or just the night :o) hihi). They may only be entered with the expressis verbis permission of its owner, like when getting a tour through the house. For some Germans getting a glimpse into a unknown bedroom is the same as surprising someone fairly known who is putting his pants on. --Sodala 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, I am a native german and I think, that you are putting way to much interpretation in the sentence "Where is the bathroom?". I CAN say "Where is the bathroom" in order to use the toilet OR use the bathroom itself, e.g. when a shower or mirror or sink is needed. When you say that sentence, whilst being a guest in a typical german household, nobody will look fuzzy or will say anything. They will think that you have to use the toilet or have to use the sink. No more no less. Alternatively you can say that you have to use the toilet. That is a bit more tricky. When you are somewhere noble or high class, you might not say that you are going to take a piss or a shit, which is exactly what "i have to use the toilet" implicates. But in most homes and in most situations it's totally fine and often used.

So: The version where you are never wrong and never misunderstood: "I have to go to the bathroom", or the alternative "I have to go to the restroom". Besides: Very few people really say that. They actually say: "Wo, bitte, ist das Badezimmer?", or "Entschuldigung, aber wo ist die Toilette?", or in english: "I'm sorry, but where is the bathroom?" or "Please excuse me, but where can I find the toilette?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.53.201.63 (talk) 20:16:18, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Spoken in Iceland

Why is Iceland listed for 'countries spoken in'? --66.41.102.194 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For many languages, the "spoken in" section of the language info box does simply make no sense. Languages like English, German, Chinese or Italian (to name a few) are spoken all over the world in countless places and by countless groups of immigrants. As in probably every other country in the world, there certainly is a German community in Iceland. But I think we should limit the countries named in the "spoken in" section to those where at least some clearly defined areas or regions are German speaking.Unoffensive text or character 10:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

antiquated Town Names

A lot of old german names of towns out of Germany are not longer used in the common german language. Never hear or read Ofen and Agram instead of Buda and Zagreb. A lot of german have to take a look in a lexica when you talking about Pressburg and Laibach. I think it's better to mark this names as outdated. Marian (194.114.62.66 11:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

I don't think so. Many foreign towns and cities have names translated into German. Although nobody says "Leberteich" for Liverpool, especially many eastern Europe cities are pronounced in German. One reason surely is that the German names are easier to pronounce for Germans (just like "Laibach" instead of "Lijbliana", not even thinking of the Polish names of "Warschau" or "Breslau"). I personally have met Czechs learning German in school who are using the German names of Czech towns themselves when speaking German. No German would say "Praha" for "Prag" or "Budapeeschd" for "Budapest". Interestingly, in my 1938 Brockhaus dicitonary no "New York" or "New Orleans" can be found - only "Neu York" and "Neu Orleans". --Sodala 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I use to say Ljubljana and Bratislava, actually I have never heard the German names. It is possible that in some areas they are still used (I don't know), but a lot of Germans probably wouldn't understand them. Mondschein 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Many 'traditional' german townnames are still in use, but not all. The examples Breslau, Warschau, Prag are absolut commmon in the actual german language but Angram, Ofen, Laibach & Pressburg not. 1938 Brockhaus dicitonary : Maybe you can also read in this edition that germans are superman and other national socialist nonsens ;) Marian 13:08, 7 Sep 2007 (UTC)

Autmomat a german word ?

Autmoat isn't a real native german word. In the Year 1917 Josef Čapek used in his story "Opilec" at the first time the word 'Automat'. Capek was a Czech and he used two old greek words in 'Automat' (Auto..~self & ..mat ~ animate).

I also doubt that it is a German word...--84.142.128.75 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if its a german word, but i read ETA Hofmann "Der Sandman" from 1817 in german and i found the word "automat" several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.67.253 (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Syntax

The third paragraph contains the example: "Should he move into the house that he just had renovated?". My source (A Practical English Grammar, Third edition, Sixth impression [October 1983], ISBN 0 19 431336 0) states that the present perfect tense is used with just to express a recently completed action. It does emphasize, however, that this is a special idiomatic use of the present perfect and I am loath to insert "has" without first acquiring consensus about the rule's global validity. Feetonthedesk 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this sentence is wrong the way it is. The form "someone (just) had something done" implies that they hired someone to do something for them. In this case it seems like a perfectly acceptable assumption to make. If you do change it to "has", I would suggest you swap positions with "just" because it would flow better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually thinking about it more, even in the first case the adverb placement is problematic. The adverb needs to come after the helping verb. A better version might be "that he had just had renovated." or just without the second "had". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Missleading map

I relly can't understand why the entire European union is colored. Yes, there are many who speak German as a second language in some of the European countries (The Netherlands, Denmark, Slovenia, Sweden) but absolutly not in all of them. Moreover, a country with non native speakers is usually not coloured (if the language is not an official or ex-official language). Take a look at the maps of the English and the French language. If the same rules for coloration were used for English the whole world would be coloured!

The map should definitively be changed. Aaker 18:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If I am reading the legend right, the image indicates that German is an official language of the EU. I think the colors should be changed at the very least to make it easier to read, especially since many people can't tell the difference between shades of orange. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Irish is also an official language of the EU, should the entire union be coloured at the article about the Irish language as well? It would be quite missleading IMO. Aaker 20:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The map for "Knowledge of German in the European Union and candidate countries" on [4] and on [5] show Switzerland as having no German speakers when in fact German is one of three official languages of Switzerland (including French and Italian). And, out of these 3 natively spoken languages, German is by far the largest.

Also, I agree the shades of orange/red, need to be changed so that it is clearer as to which percentages go to which country.

German is still the fastest growing web language (but will be eventually passed up by Chinese), and is the the #1 foreign language in Eastern Europe, so this map is on the conservative side to the actual number of German speakers in Eastern Europe, which is a lot higher. 63.24.98.39 06:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It ist really quite obvious that the map only covers EU countries. Switzerland, as you may know, is not a part of the EU. - Chincoteague 06:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As am easterm European I can tell you that English is just as popular as German amongst the older generation and way more popular than German amongst the younger population. Many people do not like the German language becuase of the stigma that is attached to it.

Cognates: antworten

This entry states that "-wort" = "word" and that therefore the second syllable is not cognate with English. Is there an etymological source for Antwort/antworten? It seems to me quite likely that the form -wort might be the product of false etymology (in other words, nothing to do with Wort at all, but rather an+twort). It is suspiciously similar to Swedish "svar" (verb: "svara", and "ansvara" = take responsibility for) which has nothing to do with Swedish "ord". Furthermore, Köbler's etymological dictionary (http://www.koeblergerhard.de/derwbhin.html) gives "wort" as the MHG and OHG forms of "Wort", while "Antwort" had "antwurt/antwürte" and "antwurti" respectively. The false etymology theory might also explain why it is "die Antwort" despite "das Wort". Though, as everyone knows, etymology is the science in which the consonants don't count for much and the vowels for nothing at all :-) --Dub8lad1 15:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense... the old english version of answer is "andswaru", which is pretty close to ansvara and antwurti. As for the die/das thing, might be something, but unfortunately sometimes things change in a language "just because". If you are right, I think antwort might be the only case where wort doesn't equate to word in english--Shadowdrak 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wanderlust

Is 'wanderlust' actually a borrowing? The word makes sense in English as well -- to wander, and lust. Antman -- chat 02:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually a borrowing, according to the OED ("a[dopted from] Ger[man]", first citation 1902). It can be pronounced with a [v] and written with a capital letter as in German. Lust generally has a stronger sense in English (OED: "Lawless and passionate desire of or for some object"), and English does not seem to form compounds of the form [verb + lust]: eatlust ? kill-lust ? CapnPrep 09:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course. If you'll excuse me, I have a little bit of eatlust, so I'm gonna get something to eat. Antman -- chat 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Continual POV-pushing of incorrect maps marking Dutch as German.

Hopefully this is the last time I replace a map which somehow want to create the illusion that the Dutch language (and Frisian for that matter) was somehow German untill the First World War. I carefully advise people to make a very clear distinction between the Continental West-Germanic dialect continuum and the German language ."Continental", "West-" and "-ic" have a reason you know. Dutch isn't German, it never was, and will never will be a part of German. Thank you very much. Rex 14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's not part of German, just like American English and British English aren't the same language. You seem to be hell-bent on making sure that no one thinks that Dutch and German have no relation whatsoever, based on what you've said in the past ("Dutch and German are not related", etc)... another instance is that instead of doing what I've suggested on numerous occasions (Replacing "German" with "West Germanic" in the map, omg!), you insist on removing any suggestion that there might be ANY relation between the two languages, and removed the Dutch portion entirely. Even wiped clean the area of the Netherlands that speaks Low Saxon, which is Low German. Antman -- chat 03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

just ignore him! Who cares about Dutch anyway?

The funny thing is that he does not quote any sources. Dutch clearly belonged to the dialects labeled as tiudisc - which later became Deutsch, as the English name of these dialects language still shows. He confuses Standard High German with German. -- Zz 12:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

German Einstein translation needed

To use in the Hermann von Helmholtz article, could you translate this for me:

”Ich bewundere den originellen, freien Kopf Helmh[oltz].”

-Albert Einstein, August 1899

Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 18:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved here. --Sadi Carnot 16:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

The article states that The history of the language begins with the High German consonant shift during the Migration period, separating South Germanic dialects from common West Germanic.

This blatantly ignores that Low German is German, too. Compare the slightly, but distinctively different wording in History of German. Interestingly, a reference to German as the perceived language of the (ordinary) people - "tiudisc" - is not included in the article. Additionally, South Germanic is hardly a commonly used term.

Further, it is interesting to see that Low German is not spoken in the Netherlands, as implied by a certain gentleman, since he excludes it from the maps. He seems to believe that the language changes from Low German to Low Saxon when crossing the Dutch border and that Low German and Low Saxon are two different languages. -- Zz 12:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Germany and French in Alsace and Lorraine

The process of replacement of the local dialects by standard French did by no means start in 1639. More than 90% of the local population spoke dialects of German until at least the 1950s. Before the 1950s most non-bourgeois Alsatians would have had only a very elementary knowledge of French. The middle classes, which made up only a small percentage of the total population, were usually able to read and speak French, though they did not normally use it as an everyday language either. What happened in the 1950s was that Alsatians increasingly decided to identify with France and - for obvious reasons - to reject everything German. The influence of modern mass communication may have accelerated this process, as it did in other parts of France. Unoffensive text or character 16:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's very interesting but would require some sources to be incorporated into the article. I had always "heard" that the process pre-dated the end a of the 2nd world war by a long shot. I don't have any sources either and may be wrong. 193.132.242.1 14:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I will not put it in for the reason you have named: I have no valid sources. But for a brief overview, have a look at this: Since the annexation of Alsace by France in the 17th century and the language policy of the French Revolution up to 1870, knowledge of French in Alsace increased considerably. With the education reforms of the 19th century, the middle classes began to speak and write French well. The French language never really managed, however, to win over the masses, the vast majority of whom continued to speak their German dialects and write in German (which we would now call "standard German").

If during the 19th century, "the middle classes began to speak and write French well", that means that prior to the 19th century, not even the middle classes spoke or wrote French well.

And keep in mind that when the text says "annexation of Alsace by France in the 17th century", this is an oversimplification, as France only gained control over a small part of Alsace in the Peace of Westphalia. The rest of the country was occupied town by town, village by village in a process that took about 150 years. Unoffensive text or character 15:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Cognates with English"

Is it just me or are there two lists containing exactly the same information in "Cognates with English"? I don't dare to edit this part, maybe I overlooked differences. Can somebody familiar with this article please read the mentioned part of the article? Regards 89.245.91.43 11:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"one of the world's major languages"

What's a "world's major language" anyways? And with what neutral criteria is German one of them? Miskin 11:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Er... you're serious? Unless the definition of major has changed, it should be pretty obvious what that phrase means. From the article, "Worldwide, German accounts for the most written translations into and from a language." I am pretty sure that fact alone satisfies the requirements for German to be called a major language("Great in number, size, or extent"). Remember: there are no stupid questions, only stupid talk page posts.