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)

I'm native German and I assure you: "Mäuse fressen Katzen" is a counterfactual statement expressing the exact same thought as "mice eat cat". The claim that "Mäuse fressen Katzen" would be understood by Germans as "Mice eat cats" is rubbish! And no, it is not correct to reply "Mäuse fressen Katzen" if asked "Was fressen Katzen". The answer is "Katzen fressen Mäuse". 79.248.238.191 (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If you put the emphasis on Mäuse, pretty much everyone will understand it as the "correct" answer. --Six words (talk) 00:18, 13 May 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

Of course in German history a capital "ß" was written SZ, see Preußen in capitals PREUSZEN in old German books, when it changed to "SS" I don't know, but I think in 1942 when the old German script Sütterlin was abolished in school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.117.149 (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Stupid! "ß" is a ligature of sz! 93.215.136.39 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, but ß was once a ligature of 's' and 'z'. It is now a separate letter; when a word is written in all capitals, it is replaced by double S. Double s is also used when ß is not available. A capital 'ß' now exists (i.e. there is a Unicode character), but it's use is still "unofficial". --Boson (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"ß" is still called "sz" in German. "ß" follows a long vowel, whilst "ss" follows a short vowel. In both cases it is pronounced as [s] like in summer, sun etc. You write "Straße" (German for street) because the vowel is a long German "a" (ah). But you write "Strass" (engl.: rhinestone) because the "a" is short like in sun. Before the recent spelling reform it was differently handled: at the end you always wrote "ß" (e.g. Straß instead of Strass).

"ß" and "ss" are both necessary in German to show that the sound is an unvoiced s ([s]). If it is voiced, however, Germans use a simple "s" pronounced as [z], like in zoom.

So you get "Maße" and "Masse", the first with a long vowel "a", the second with a short vowel "a". And if your write "Masern" the "s" is voiced like in zoom. There is no word with "s" and a preceding short vowel. All vowels before a simple "s" are long.

Since the "ß" is only a marker for preceding long vowels there is no need for a capital "ß" unless you want to write a word completely in capital letters. Nowadays, "ß" is represented as "SS". "SZ" is not any more used. Swiss Germans do not use "ß". They always use "ss".

"ß" is also called "scharfes s" (sharp s)

93.215.136.39 (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2011 (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)

English - a German dialect? No! English and German have the same ancestor. That is why! And you can find a joint ancestral word of almost any Old English and German morpheme! 93.215.136.39 (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

But the affinity between English and some German dialects is much greater than that between English and literary German. Example: Eine Katze hat gehört, dass die Mäuse geschrien haben. A Katz hat ghärt, dass die Mais gschrie have. A cat has heard, that the mice have cried.

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)

Hmm... the problem is that now we have different figures in the infobox and in the intro, each with citations... -- megA (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That might indeed be a problem, but it's got nothing to do with vandalism. I guess the problem could be that one of the sources is outdated - if so we should definitely use the newer one both in the intro and the infobox. --Six words (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is the latent anti-German policy of several editors. While the introduction of the articles about other major European languages has a length of a whole page, in the case of German it consists only of three sentences. But the editor Haldraper considered that even this is to much and brought it now on two sentences. Thereby he could write that from the second half of the 19th century to the mid 20th century German was the leading world language in science and technics. By the way the Reference (2) remains the most reliable source for the number of native German speakers (120 million). If we take into account the source (15), then French for example has 79 million native speakers, but not 110 million as specified in the Wikipedia article "World Language" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.15.234 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - there's no “anti-German policy” here. Maybe the numbers are different because the sources are looking at different things? I just checked the ethologue website and it says that there are about 90 m. native speakers of standard German; if we add the (native) speakers of all the varieties listed, we get about 120 m., but I doubt that's valid as many Germans speak both their local variety and standard German (with more or less of a “local accent”). The source Haldraper introduced isn't ideal as it's a high school's website, but I think the sources used on the website would be considered reliable sources: a 1998 Encarta Encyclopedia article by Bernard Comrie, a 1997 article in Language Today and the SIL International's 1999 Ethnologue Survey. Newer sources may cite different numbers and of course we should use the newest numbers available, but please don't make this into some anti-German conspiracy - it's not. I don't understand your second point - where did Haldraper write anything about the German language in 19th and 20th century? --Six words (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything anti-German either. the sentence "German is one of the world's major languages and the most widely spoken first language in the European Union." ist still in the lead and isn't exactly anti-German... -- megA (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I still hope that, in spite of your apparent cynicism, you will accept the idea that a single sentence - and this with an erroneous figure - cannot suffice as intro to the article German Language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.76.161 (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see any cynicism in this discussion. I find that word rather offensive; please explain what you intend to say; I don't think you are using that word for what it actually means. -- megA (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That word has nothing offensive in this context. It only means that you probably try to convince others about things you maybe do not quite believe in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.19.243 (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. As I thought, you don't know what that word really means. -- megA (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Six words, you promised on the 18 February 2011 to use the newest numbers of speakers available. But the sources 1 and 2 (both from 2006) are evidently newer than the outdated and unreliable source 15 (from 1999) used by Haldraper. Therefore the prior intro should be reinstalled.

I said we should use the newest numbers, not that I would find them. I don't have a copy of the National Geographic Collegiate Atlas of the World, but cited what the current SIL ethnologue report says; it's about 90.3 m., so that would be even less than what the lede says right now and also different from anything we currently cite. I'd prefer to wait for someone able to confirm any of the numbers before changing them, but if you prefer I can change it to “approximately 90 millon”. --Six words (talk) 15:08, 12 March 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)

You just proved my point as your explanation isn't what I'd call easy; if you translate that list of yours into prose and add examples you'll end up with at least a page, and you haven't even covered all the cases in which commas are required, nor have you explained when they can be used but don't have to. Sometimes commas can be substituted with parentheses or dashes, sometimes they can't. Also, full stops, commas, question marks and exclamation marks aren't the only punctuation marks, and “put them where they belong” does in no way explain their use. --Six words (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume what IP Person meant by "where they belong" is "where English would put them". There's no need to describe rules that are approximately the same as English, since this is the English Wikipedia. — Eru·tuon

Do we have to explain German punctuation at all? This is an article about the language as a whole, not an online language course. I'm still not convinced punctuation was what Osborne had in mind when he started this discussion. --Six words (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Right — punctuation isn't really notable enough for this general article, but it could be added to German orthography. — Eru·tuon 20:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

German translation

At least don't delete this without providing some help -- I know this does not go here. I'm trying to render something in German to great douchey-pretentious (Deutschey-pretentious?) effect. I need the following sentence put into the exact way it would look in German with the proper effect: "They all look the same. Tell me who to blame. For the instigation, for the instigation." (it is from a poem I that was interpreted to me once). I probably can't ever get it exactly the right way, but that's what I need help with. Sorry to ruin your Wikipedia with my personal requests. 66.224.3.237 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As a native speaker of German I could give it a try, but I would have to ask a number of questions first and I do not want to start this kind of conversation here on Wikipedia. Why don't you try at http://dict.leo.org/ ? You can ask questions there and the answers usually are quite helpful. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Map with corrections in Latin America by es.wikipedia

Author: Bestiapop. See talk in es.wikipedia. --200.74.30.45 (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Longest word

Contrary to what's stated at the beginning of the section on "Orthography" there is no longest German word. Any given "longest" word can be made longer by yet another compound. The statement should be rephrased. 87.162.26.41 (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Germany has not had much colonies!

Maybe it is noteworthy to demonstrate that german has never become a popular language outside of europe, because there was none german governement before 1871. The article should mention, that 40% of the today us-american population have german roots, but german has never become popular on the american continent or in africa for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.78.69 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

German was once a popular language on the American continent. At the beginning of the 20. century in the States every sixth child was learning in a German school. But later on German has been suppressed especially in the US. Already before WWI there was a prevailing anti-German sentiment. After the outbreak of the war the German schools were closed and everyone, which spoke German, was considered a potential enemy. Therefore many US-citizens switched from German to English. Still today it is difficult to imagine how such a discrimination didn't conduce to an uprising of the German-speaking population. The consequence is that nowadays the world-dialect of the German language is English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.225.9 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources, please, both of you. What does “the world-dialect of the German language is English” mean? --Six words (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

www.conservapedia.com/German_Americans:

German Americans had strongly opposed American entry into the World War. With rare exceptions they did not favor Germany; rather they demanded neutrality. Their position was increasingly marginalized and ignored; a small minority of Congressmen (usually from heavily German districts) voted against the war in April 1917.

During the war Germania was watched closely for signs of disloyalty, which seldom were found. One German was killed in a tavern brawl on political grounds. Nativism took on three different styles. Common acts, such as eliminating German language teaching in schools and encouraging the purchase of Liberty Loan Bonds, occurred across the U.S. Collective action, such as intimidation and violence, occurred mostly in smaller towns and rural areas where Germans compruise 5% to 40% of the population, and where local Anglo elites like newspapers editors and mayors demanded it. Symbolic action, such as changing street names (in Cincinnati, for example, German Street became English Street), was the norm in the larger cities, where city newspapers denounced violence. The :::German-American communities in cities such as Cincinnati were already in decline by 1918.[7]

During World War I, intense scrutiny of German Americans led to a debate about the definition of American culture. The central question was the status of "hyphenated Americans," a term which became nearly synonymous with German Americans and their perceived challenge to American integrity. Thus, the hyphen became a term not simply for discussing cultural minorities but also for discussing the dominant culture's relationship with Britain.[8]

In Indianapolis, Indiana, German Americans comprised over a fourth of the population and supported numerous clubs and associations to perpetuate German culture, By lobbying the school board they were able to establish an extensive program of German-language instruction in the city's primary and secondary public schools. The World War, however, generated intense patriotism and a concurrent intense hostility toward all things German. In October 1917, a new federal legislation required every German-language newspaper to file sworn translations of war-related articles with local postmasters; most smaller papers could not afford the cost and closed down. In this atmosphere, the school board responded to assertions that teaching German was promoting the enemy's culture by banning German instruction in elementary schools in January 1918. Anti-German sentiment continued even after the war, and the Indiana legislature in 1919 banned all German-language instruction in all Indiana public and private schools. The Indianapolis story was typical of cities where the Germans did not have a majority of votes. Unlike Canada and Australia, which imprisoned German citizens, the German Americans were pressured into buying war bonds but were not imprisoned.[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.115.242 (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside that conservapedia isn't a reliable source, there's nothing in this quote saying that “every sixth child was learning in a German school” (emphasis added) or that US-citizens switched from German to English, so it doesn't really prove your point. What exactly is it that you want to add to the wikipedia article? --Six words (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that reliable sources are only those of your liking. Therefore I ask you to explain me, why in the US - from 58 mil people with German ancestry (Census 1990) - only 1.4 mil speak German at home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.20.168 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, a source doesn't need to be “to my liking” to be reliable. If you follow the link to our reliable sources guideline you can check whether my assessment of conservapedia is correct (you can also ask for opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard). I don't know why people with German ancestry don't speak German at home anymore and it's not my job to guess what the reason is, nor is it your job. If you find a reliable source explaining that phenomenon (is it even worth being discussed? Does it differ from other foreign languages, e.g. do most Americans with French ancestry still speak French at home?) or saying that “German was once a popular language on the American continent but now due to anti-German sentiments isn't anymore” you're free to add it to the article. --Six words (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You cannot compare the number of 13 mil people that are of French ancestry with the 58 mil people of German ancestry. In spite of this disproportion, nowadays in the US speak more people French then German; not to mention the case of the Spanish-speaking minority.

Another source that describes clearly the suppresion of the German language in a supposed democracy with no official language is:

www.everyculture.com/multi/Du-Ha/German-Americans.html:

However, when World War I broke out, the German element was so discredited in the United States that when Congress declared war in April 1917, within six months legal action was brought not only to dampen considerably German cultural activities but also to eliminate the German language from American schools. The flagship case was the Mockett Law in Nebraska, which anti-German enthusiasts repealed.

Eventually, 26 other states followed suit, banning instruction in German and of German. When the Missouri Synod Lutherans of Nebraska brought the test case, Meyer v. Nebraska, the ban on German was reconfirmed by all the courts until it reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 4, 1923, the Supreme Court held that a mere knowledge of German could not be regarded as harmful to the state, and the majority opinion added that the right of parents to have their children taught in a language other than English was within the liberties guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Nevertheless, as a language of instruction in schools, during church service, and at home, German gradually drifted into oblivion as assimilation accelerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.93.16 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So? It says that even though the Supreme Court ultimately confirmed German-Americans' right to teach their children (in) German, the German language “drifted into oblivion [due to] assimilation” - AFAIK a normal process (I remember something about the third generation usually being the first fully assimilated one, but I could be wrong there). I'm still not sure what it is you want the article to say. --Six words (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The German-speaking community in the US had the proportions of a middle-sized nation with its own infrastructure, cultural life and press, which could never have been assimilated without the crime of total elimination of the German language from American schools and from the public.

After six long years of interdiction the Supreme Court corrected this injustice, but meanwhile the means of instruction declined and the anti-German sentiment persisted further. Under this adverse conditions many people didn't speak German in the public any more.

Some authors nowadays estimate the number of German speakers in th US at about 7 - 8 million, but - because of bad experiences from the past - many of them don't declare their language knowledges at the census.

Maybe it would be useful to mention something about this facts in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.99.241 (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is really getting boring. Every time you come here you introduce some new “facts” along with your own interpretation of them and expect me (or others who undoubtedly follow this discussion) to “mention something about this” in the article. That's not how it works - if you come up with a neutral, adequately sourced improvement of our article, post it here and I (or someone else) will put it in the article. If you can't do that, at least say what specifically you want added. Make sure it is relevant and that you don't combine different sources to reach your own conclusions, so others can make it into something to add to the article. --Six words (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There should be given a fair-minded answer to the question: Why only a few Americans speak German, although the German Americans represent by far the country's largest ancestral group. So far you have avoided by all means to deal with this boring topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.30.147 (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

SOV or SVO

I've just seen the addition of the SOV category. I remember bringing up that point somewhere (else?) before, but I don't remember which page. German, in my book, is clearly a SVO language. The phrase-final verb is never finite, but normally a participle or an infinitive. The finite, agreeing verb is, if at all, as good as never final. As far as I know, the safest way of determining basic component order is to try a simple sentence consisting of verb, subject and object: "Ich esse einen Kuchen" (I eat a cake, sorry I'm feeling peckish) has three components, it's a basic statement sentence, and it is SVO. If you go for the Perfekt form "Ich habe einen Kuchen gegessen" (I have eaten a cake), the finite verb is still in the same slot. Can someone please tell me how German is SOV? I have been told before, but it was not something that stuck. Trigaranus (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with a so-called "fundamental" structure. Those claiming it's SOV take the subordinate clause "(weil/obwohl/etc.) ich einen Kuchen esse" as the "fundamental" structure and any main clause as derived from this structure by moving the verb to the second position. I don't understand it either, as I don't understand the phlogiston theory...
Here's a quote from the word order article: German, Dutch and Frisian have SOV in subordinates, but V2 word order in main clauses, SVO word order being the most common. Using the guidelines above, the unmarked word order is then SVO.
But isn't German V2?: Ich | bringe | dir | einen Kuchen - Einen Kuchen | bringe | ich |dir - Dir | bringe | ich |einen Kuchen etc. -- megA (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It does sound a bit bollocksy. One might just as well make a case that it really is VSO, because -- and this is a world of fun! -- this is what happens if you start a sentence with certain adverbs ("Gestern ass ich einen Kuchen." - Yesterday I ate a cake). German is a relatively highly inflective language, so naturally there is a considerable amount of freedom and variation. V2 also only takes you that far: it does not account for subordinate clauses. For all I know, word-order-based typology is meant to be a simple matter of establishing the default word order, not of covering all possible ones (otherwise why not say that English is verb final owing to constructions like "away he ran"). The default word order in German is undoubtedly SVO. So here's what: I am going to remove that cat and dare anybody who thinks otherwise to state their case here on the discussion page. Trigaranus (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind for sure. I just presented the argumentation of the SOV advocates, I think otherwise myself. (And I would've called "Gestern aß ich einen Kuche" V2 again, but that's not the point right now...) -- megA (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the cat. The arguments about what is or is not self-evident (espcially since none of us, I suspect, is expert in syntactic typology) are irrelevant. The SOV article lists German as an SOV language, so for the sake of consistency within WP the cat is appropriate as a means of cross-referencing. Ideally, of course, the issue itself should actually be addressed, on the basis of suitable sources, in the article, not just implied in the cat. --Pfold (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny that the word order article classifies German as SVO, then... -- megA (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't see what's surprising about an inconsistency between two articles, particularly as the statements about German in both of them seem to be unsourced. --Pfold (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If they're not sourced, they shouldn't be used as an argument for a category. I remember from a lecture a few years ago that it's (was?) debatable whether German is SOV or SVO, so I guess you guys could find sources for both. Find sources and then categorize the article accordingly, for now I'll remove the category. --84.177.85.189 (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, the cat is an internal content-neutral cross-referencing feature of WP. The fact that German is mentioned in the SOV article is something that needs to be signalled on this page, whatever the failings of this article or the SOV article on the substantive point. Given that the entire word order section here is unsourced, complaining about an unsourced cat is, frankly, bizarre. --Pfold (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Wikipedia policy asks for sources when something is likely to be challenged - as long as the content of that section isn't questioned, there's no need for inline citations (even though it certainly wouldn't hurt to have some). Whether German is SOV or SVO was questioned, so unless it's sourced it shouldn't be added; it's not true that categories needn't be sourced (or supported by sources) - if it were, we wouldn't have this template: {{Category unsourced}}. --84.177.85.189 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

But in that case, there's even less call to remove the cat, since it can simply be tagged unsourced. --Pfold (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the response turned out to be longer than planned. But it has sausages (and sources) in it!

First of all: the SOV language article is about as sourced as my claim to the papacy, so I wouldn't set too great store by it. The example used there is not even SOV (as in a subordinate clause) but rather a bracing verb structure (SVOv) in which the object is indented into a two-part verbal brace, and the finite verb is, surprisingly, still as V2 as ever. Go that article!

Secondly, most sources I have are German and therefore not entirely suitable for references on the English WP. German grammarians seem loath to call German SOV, only saying what megA said, namely that there is a strand in modern generative grammar that posits SOV as the "fundamental" structure (whatever they mean by it). Instead, they (the German grammarians, e.g. Thorsten Roelcke, Sprachtypologie des Deutschen) emphasise the multiplicity of German structures while at the same time naming SVO as the default order. The most detailed book on the topic that I have (ever seen) is by Hans Altmann / Ute Hofmann, Topologie fürs Examen - Verbstellung, Klammerstruktur, Stellungsfelder, Satzglied- und Wortstellung, and they say the same thing. I'll add a short (translated) quotation:

"There is considerable discussion (my emphasis) in academic literature about the question which of the three verb position types is to be regarded (diachronically or synchronically) the FUNDAMENTAL type, which the derived one. Regarding German, this question is usually answered with the verb-final type being the fundamental one, since in this case the arrangement of all sentence components (Satzbestandteile) is most consistent (am folgerichtigsten), e.g. in following coherent laws of serialisation.* The assumption that verb-final was also the fundamental structure historically is without any evidence in the sources. Apparently all three types have existed since the earliest written records, albeit less strictly grammaticalised and less distinctly assigned to specific functions." (p. 25)

*I assume this refers to other word order elements aside subject, verb or object, such as noun-adjective order etc.

This is the only place where this huge monography on sentence topology addresses the "fundamental" type before returning to the business of the day of analysing German word order, i.e. its variedness. It seems like generative linguists are making a mistake in trying to determine the "fundamental" German sausage while leaving aside the fact that Germans, for time immemorial, have been known to make a variety of sausages. And we are making a mistake in turn by just agreeing to accept generative grammar as the more meaningful tool because it is more complex. With the situation at present being

• on the one hand a rather wobbly case fo SOV being the "fundamental" order, though not one observable outside subordinate clauses (made by generative grammarians, and normally misunderstood as referring to verbal clause bracing), and
• on the other hand a rather ubiquitous identification of German as using various orders, with the default order being SVO (made by Joseph Greenberg (!) and most German grammars, and btw. any German WP article referring to German word order).

Phew. It's a controversy, and I am not taking the generative grammarians' side in it. If SVO is good enough for common sense and for Greenberg (who, for all I know, is the chap who came up with SVO/SOV/VSO/etc. in the first place), it's good enough for me! And now I need a coffee. Trigaranus (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it would be really nice to see a condensed version of this in the artcle! --08:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm no authority in this. But:

• A systematical view should rather call German SOV - I'll explain that later on, and the alternative that caused me to write "rather" is not SVO.
• A beginner of German language may very well start with learning SVO; but if he keeps his eyes open, he will see that this is not the case. Just the same, I learnt a) that Latin has no word order and b) that the only thing near to a word order is the position of the verb, to wit at the end. I think what I discovered was that a) Latin does have a word order, even though it suffers no simple description and certainly includes exceptions (proving the rule) for poetical or rhethorical reasons, b) that the verb, of all things, really can be put in anywhere.
  

The question here, as I perceive it (and to say that the "Germans make a variety of sausages" does not solve the problem, though it earns a laugh), is something like: "How to explain German to a mathematician." And the answer to this question is obvious enough: Tell him 1. that the usual place of the verb is at the end; 2. that main clauses are an exception in fetching the flected verb (which is, in practice, mostly - i. e. in composite tenses - only a less important part of the verb) to the second place of the sentence. - All other ways of putting it need to include more exceptions, as in a basical oddity about the end place in subclauses, or the oddity of separation, etc. etc.
Now why do I still hesitate to speak of SOV (or, for that matter, SVO): Because there is no rule, not even one with exceptions, that puts the subject first place. It may be statistically so that the majority of first parts are subjects; it may not. But anyway, this is not more than mere statistics; and to say that German sentences usually have SOV or SVO is the exact equivalent of saying: English sentences always begin with the subject. (Though this one did.) To call Gestern ging ich ins Kino a constructional exception is the exact equivalent of calling Yesterday I went to the movies a constructional exception. However, and this is indeed a difference: English always has a subject in front of the verb (except in real exceptions such as neither do I); German only accidentally has a subject in front of the verb which, if only for the reason to explain the difference, leads rather to speaking of anything but SVO even if these accidents should form a majority. The thing is: The most important part of the sentence is put first place; and if there is no real stress, then we rather choose freely. Narrations for example - and these are frequent examples of usage of speech, aren't they? - will often take the temporal adverbial. Simply speaking, what comes in English first place mostly comes in German first place - and if this doesn't happen to be the subject, then the subject comes later on.--91.34.196.254 (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

German language in Namibia

The "Handwörterbuch" source used for the "overseas" table lists 30,000 expatriate German citizens (who obviously speak German) in Namibia, but doesn't mention Namibian speakers. The CIA factbook lists 32% of the population as speakers of German in Namibia, which would amount to almost 700,000. (English 7%, Afrikaans 60%, indigenous languages 1%) Is there any possibility to "reconcile" these figures? -- megA (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

On word order

The article claims as of May 13th 2011:

"For a sentence without an auxiliary this gives, amongst other options:

   Der alte Mann gab mir gestern das Buch. (The old man gave me yesterday the book; normal order)
   Das Buch gab mir gestern der alte Mann. (The book gave [to] me yesterday the old man)
   Das Buch gab der alte Mann mir gestern. (The book gave the old man [to] me yesterday)

   Gestern gab mir der alte Mann das Buch. (Yesterday gave [to] me the old man the book, normal order)
   Mir gab der alte Mann das Buch gestern. ([To] me gave the old man the book yesterday (entailing: as for you, it was another date)) "

All options but the first one sound wrong to German ears. It is true that you may deviate from the normal word order of the first sentence. However, changes in word order are _contextual_. For example, I'd say "_Dieses_ Buch gab mir gestern ein Mann" to stress to some other person that it was not another book, explaining to him the funny stories around my book collection. But the declarative sentence "Das Buch gab mir gestern der alte Mann" is wrong if you write it down just like that and do not provide contextual clues as to why you changed the word order. And I'd use the word order "gestern gab mir der alte Mann das Buch" only to stress that this was _yesterday_, continuing "..und heute nimmt er es wieder weg" (...and today he takes it from me).

The general rule is that you may put any word you want to emphasize at the place you'd give to the subject in English if and only if you have a purpose for doing so that is evident from other parts in the text.

You go on and write:

"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."

Nevertheless sentences may sound plain wrong if you use unconventional word orders out of context.

79.248.238.191 (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph on word order according to my understanding of the German language. I'm native German. Please argue your case if you think I am wrong.

79.248.238.191 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The section needs rewriting. As it stands, it implies that, in an affirmative sentence, the verb is preceded by one word, and that this word is normally the subject, unless the speaker/writer wishes to stress something else particularly. The verb is in fact normally preceded by a single element, which is often a phrase consisting of several words. Even in unstressed (unmarked) word order, this need not be the subject; it is often an adverbial phrase (stressed or otherwise).

Just to take some fairly random examples from this week's Spiegel (7 May 2011):

• Pseudosoziales Tätermitleid und Nachsicht empfinden die Prügler doch bereits als eine Art Freispruch zweiter Klasse. [p. 8] (verb preceded by unstressed object)
• Eine bayerische Landesregelung zur sogenannten nachträglichen Sicherungsverwahrung hatten die Richter . . . für verfassungswidrig erklärt. [p. 23] (verb preceded by unstressed object)
• Ihr Parteifreund, der Umweltminister Norbert Röttgen, hat den Konservativen in der Union das traurige Schicksal der Dinosaurier vorausgesagt ... [p.25] (verb preceded by rather long subject)
• Anfang des Jahres verschwand K. für einige Wochen . . . [p. 33] (verb preceded by adverbial phrase).

--Boson (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Anon, “I'm a native speaker” isn't a valid argument - you're not ‘every German’, so what sounds wrong in your ears can sound right in someone else's ears. Also, what sounds wrong to you can still be correct (meaning ‘permitted by German grammar’) and what sounds correct in your ears can be terribly wrong (actually many of our biggest “Sprachsünden” sound correct to us). I don't think your edits have made this section better, and here's why:

• I don't understand why the full stop at end of the first paragraph was replaced with a colon.
  “In subordinate clauses the verb is supposed to occur at the very end, but in speech this rule is often disregarded:
  Ein alter Mann gab mir gestern das Buch, das ich letztes Jahr verloren hatte.”
  The colon implies that an example will follow where “the rule is disregarded”.
• Boson correctly points out that the section reads like the verb must be the second word in an affirmative sentence; while the former wording didn't explicitly say that “In normal affirmative sentences the inflected verb always has position 2” means the verb is the second “Satzglied” (constituent?) and the first “Satzglied” can be more than one word, it now actually says the verb can be preceded by “any word the writer wishes to emphasize”.
• This also makes it sound like word order decides what a speaker (or writer) emphasises - that's not necessarily true. Think of this sentence: Ich gebe ihm das Buch. Depending on intonation, the emphasis can lie on each “Satzglied”!
  Ich gebe ihm das Buch.
  Ich gebe ihm das Buch.
  Ich gebe ihm das Buch.
  Ich gebe ihm das Buch.
• Substituting “das” mit “dieses” is possible, but not needed.
• I understand why you want to expand the examples (you're trying to provide context) but that's not really needed and makes it harder to compare them at a glance.

For me that's enough to revert to the earlier version (which is what I'm going to do). --Six words (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am Anon who rewrote the part on word order some time ago. I concede that my wording may have been and probably really was suboptimal. Sorry.

If I was a non-native speaker of German and read the article in its current form I'd get a wrong understanding that is too easy-going on word order. What many of the current examples try to confer is "inverted word order" where subject and verb change places with each other (sometimes changing the places of other words as well), cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Grammatik#1._Satzbauplan_.E2.80.93_Hauptsatz. This article of the German Wikipedia also claims (as did I want to convey) that the German word order in a main clause simply is subject-verb- (and so on). You cannot invert word order as deliberately as the current article seems to imply. Inversion is a means to emphasize something and in some instances to connect to the last sentence in a more fluent and elegant way. The examples provided by Boson may be examples of inversion in search for elegance but I cannot comment on most of them as they are out of context. Most certainly the sentence "Eine bayerische Landesregelung zur sogenannten nachträglichen Sicherungsverwahrung hatten die Richter zwar für verfassungswidrig erklärt (...) from http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-78413701.html is an instance of connecting to the prior sentence in an elegant way - the prior sentence already had the topic of Sicherungsverwahrungen which the current sentence refers and connects to by putting the part of the sentence that is about the Sicherungsverwahrung at the front of the sentence. There might be other reasons for inversion as well but I cannot come up with any right now. Anyway, inversion for elegance and in order to connect to the prior sentence are among the subtleties of the German language and it certainly should not make anyone think that German word order is free wheeling as this article suggests. Inversion for emphasis is far more important. Note that the German article on inversion reads (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_%28Sprache%29):

"Die Inversion ist auch eine rhetorische Figur und dient der Hervorhebung der Bedeutung der umgestellten Teile: Voranstellung des Prädikatsnomens, z. B.: Groß sind die Werke der Götter. (...) So wird in der Lyrik die Inversion auch benutzt, wenn man einem Wort eine hervorgehobene Bedeutung verleihen will und - besonders in der Liebeslyrik - eine Person anspricht, wie bei Johann Wolfgang Goethes Willkommen und Abschied: Dich sah ich, ... (anstatt Ich sah dich...) "

(Fuzzy translation: Inversion is a rethoric means to emphasis the importance of the words that got reordered: Great are the deeds of gods. (...) Inversion is also used in lyrics and especially in the lyrics of love to speak to another person (of special value to the person speaking, Anon) as is exemplified by Goethes Welcome and goodbye: "You I saw" instead of "I saw you")

It is true that a _speaker_ may emphasis words by means of intonation. However, the _writer_ does not have this option, which is one reason why you _hear_ inverted word order much less than you see it _written_. It is important to distinguish the means of emphasis in spoken vs in written language. Anyway, that you may confer emphasis by intonation does not invalidate the argument that word order is a means to emphasize something. It does not even invalidate the stronger claim that you may not use a certain word order for anything but to emphasize a certain word (btw, I did not want to convey this stronger claim; but inversion very, very often is about emphasis - not strong emphasis, but subtle).

You cannot do anything wrong if you use simple subject-word-etc word order in German. Everyone will understand you and most of the time it is good use of the German language. But there are many traps if you use inverted word order as freely and with as little context as current examples and claims suggest you can and Germans may often wonder about the word order in use or even think you are claiming counter-factual nonsense, e.g. if you say "Mice eat cats". Therefore the current version of this article and especially the claim "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." is plain wrong. True is a much weaker claim: Under certain circumstances a word order deviating from the subject-before-verb-rule renders English sentences unintelligible or leads to misunderstandings where they are intelligible (and even elegant) in German if proper context is provided.

If you wonna leave context away - fine. But than, please, stop before it gets complicated or wrong. This article needs rewriting as far as inverted word order is concerned in that it suggests you may order words deliberately. You may not. 77.7.54.91 (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

120 million native speakers?

How did they get this number? If you ad the entire populations of Austria, Germany and Switzerland you get 98 million people. I am aware that there are small German-speaking communities elsewhere but consider the fact that almost 40 % of Switzerland's population are not German native speakers and about 10 % of Germany's population are not native German speakers either. So where are the remaining 20-30 million native speakers hiding? Aaker (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I, too, think the number is too high but a few months ago when someone reduced that number to 100 m. they were accused of vandalism and “anti-German” bias. The current SIL ethnologue report says it's about 90.3 m. native speakers, but I couldn't find a copy of its 2006 report nor of the National Geographic Collegiate Atlas of the World, so I was hesitant to change it. I'll boldly do so now and see what happens . Cheers, --Six words (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how the figure of 120 million was arrived at, but 90.3 million is almost certainly too low. That is the figure SIL Ethnalogue gives for the language Standard German (deu). To this should be added the German languages Swiss German (gsw), spoken in Switzerland, and Bavarian (bar), spoken in Austria. That brings the total to over 110 million worldwide. The old footnote indicated that a number of additional German languages were included. Languages that might need to be included are:

• Upper Saxon (sxu), Limburgish (lim), Luxembourgish (ltz), Frisian (frr), Kölsch (ksh), Mainfränkisch (vmf), Plautdietsch (pdt), Pennsylvania German (pdc), Hutterite German (geh), Saterfrisisch (stq), and Lower Saxon (nds)

--Boson (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If you find a source combining all those please add it to the article. Right now we only have this source, and while there are also entries for the dialects, we can't simply add them all up (firstly because that would be synthesis and secondly because many of those learning/speaking dialects also speak standard German). --Six words (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but we appear to have no cited reliable source for the number of native speakers of "German", as used in this article (including Swiss German, etc.). I am not sure of the extent of overlap in the Ethnalogue figures (e.g. speakers of Schwyzerdütsch and Standard German in Switzerland, where few people speak standard German as their first language). --Boson (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that helps, but if you add the (sourced) figures in the "Overseas" section, you get about 10 million additional native speakers. -- megA (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Ethnologue source includes speakers of standard German in all countries and the source in the “Overseas” section doesn't differentiate between varieties, so again, there'll be an overlap between those two statistics. I took a look at the corresponding article at de-wikipedia, it says ca. 90 - 98 m. worldwide, citing Ethnologue as source for 90 m. and Länderkunde Deutschland, Österreich und Schweiz (mit Liechtenstein) im Querschnitt. (2006) for 98 m. (the book actually says it's an estimated 97 m.: “Über 90 Millionen Menschen haben weltweit deutsch als Muttersprache. Man geht allgemein von einer Zahl von 97 Millionen aus, wobei man die mehr als 6 Millionen Ausländer die in der Bundesrepublik, in Österreich und in der Schweiz leben und die Deutsch meist nicht als Mutter- sondern als Zweitsprache sprechen, mitrechnet, da genauere Zahlenangaben über ihre sprachliche Situation fehlen.”) 90 m. seems to be a very conservative estimate, while 97 m. is ‘optimistic’. I think we could cite that book, too, and change the lede (and infobox) to “90^[1] - 97^[2] million” (with a footnote repeating the book's comment that this is probably an overestimate). --Six words (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should also use the word estimated in the text and in the infobox. I also wonder if first language (possibly with a footnote) might be a better term, rather than native (in the text). --Boson (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess native speakers was chosen to avoid using ‘first language’ twice in the same sentence, and I just couldn't think of a better sentence so I kept that wording for now. --Six words (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your credibility is sinking simultaneously with your proposed number of German speakers. German is not spoken only in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, but in Europe as a whole, from Norway to Italy and from Russia to Portugal. Nobody has counted this speakers so far. www.meetup.com/Deutscher-Verein-Los-Angeles/about/ cites: "There are about 105 million native German speakers in Europe, the most important language group in the European Union." If you add the ca. 15 mil. from the other continents, then you obtain the known number of 120 mil. native German speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.110.132 (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have said it before, but I'll repeat it for you: we cannot add up figures as that would be synthesis, a form of original research, and we cannot add what we think is true but only what is verifiable via reliable sources. I've added two reliable sources - if that's not enough to be considered credible, then I don't know what is. --Six words (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, we can add up figures, if the text clearly reflects the sources (mainly meaning that we are all agreed that there is no question of overlap or omission). What we are not permitted to do is draw conclusions other than simple arithmetic. --Boson (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'm speaking about this case, not about generalities; also please keep in mind that the Anon is suggesting to combine different sources just so we can arrive at the figure they have in mind. Combining different sources to draw a conclusion none of the sources makes is synthesis. --Six words (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So there are 15 000 000 German native speakers living outside Europe? That would be cool but I doubt it. Where do they live?? Aaker (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

www.bpb.de/wissen/08937231579775312662617270950640,1,0,Auslandsdeutsche.html#art1 cites: "Insgesamt leben im Ausland zwischen 10 Mio. (Fröschle 1987, S. 542) und 15 Mio. (VDA 1989, S. 5) Deutschsprechende und sich zum deutschen Volkstum Bekennende." 10 mil. of them are listed in this article (Table "German speaking population outside Europe"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.110.132 (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the Ethnalogue figures include speakers of standard German living abroad. We must also remember that there are a number of people living in Germany who are not native speakers of German. --Boson (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

When the source says ‘all countries’ it's a safe bet to say it also covers those who live abroad. --Six words (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The source www.meetup.com/Deutscher-Verein-Los-Angeles/about/ specifies that alone in Europe there are 105 million native German speakers, so that your theories have nothing to do with the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.124.206 (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This made me think of: "I have bicycles on my feet -- your argument is irrelevant." Trigaranus (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we need a better source than a social club in Los Angeles. We may need to add a footnote to indicate clearly what we mean by "German", even where not all sources are clear about this. The Ethnalogue is probably the most reliable academic source, but unfortunately it distinguishes between Standard German and, for instance Swiss German (called Allemanisch when spoken by native speakers in Germany, Alsatian when spoken by native speakers in France, and Schwyzerdütsch in Switzerland). So if we want to use the Ethnalogue as a source for native speakers of German we cannot (without qualification) just use their figures for speakers of Standard German (which may not include, for instance, native speakers of Swabian (a dialect of Swiss German) in Germany - unless they are bilingual (but establishing that would be original research). The Ethnalogue gives a figure of only 75.3 million (native) speakers of Standard German in Germany. This is not surprising when you think of the number of people with a migrant background, but it might also exclude some non-bilingual Swabians. The Goethe Institute talks of "about 100 million" native speakers of German.--Boson (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

About 100 million is probably very close to the actual number, considering the demographics of the German-speaking areas. Aaker (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

About 100 million is probably very close to the actual number of native German spakers in Europe. In addition you have to consider the oversee speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.124.206 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How many are these non-European native German speakers and where do they live? Also, a considerable proportion of the population of Germany, CH and Austria are not German native speakers. Hence, in Europe there are probably less than 100 million native speakers. Aaker (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See the Overseas section of this article for non-European native speakers and where they live. As I said a few inches up, about 10 million. (Beware that the statistics mentioned for Namibia, for example, only list expatriate Germans, while the CIA factbook lists considerably more native speakers.) I believe the percentage of non-German speakers in Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, France, Italy, Denmark, etc. has already been taken into consideration. What about the creoles/pidgins? But in the end, what counts are citable sources, not personal estimates. -- megA (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

www.wikinfo.org/index.php/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers#Top_20 states that there are 101 million native German speakers in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.124.130 (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And if I sign up and change that number to 202 million, it'll say 202 million, which is one of the reasons why one shouldn't use wikis as a source. 84.177.90.219 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

www.weltsprachen.net/ specifies clearly that there are 105 million native German speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.61.197 (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop suggesting sources that fail WP:RS. --Six words (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You come with your six words only to provoke irrelevant discussions. Maybe it would be better, if you could explain the difference between the 5 million US German speakers (see table in the article) and the 1,4 million speakers of your reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.120.29 (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to provoke - all I'm asking is that you understand Wikipedia's policies and edit accordingly. I'm not the one who made those policies - the community made them and we all have to abide by them. Until you do so, you're the one wasting everyone's time. I also notice that German article uses the same two sources we now use, without having enless discussions about it. If you find a better source/better sources that can be considered reliable we can use them instead, but please understand that I'm not willing to spend my time telling you over and over again that a personal website or a club won't trump published books only for you to find another dubious source that fails WP:RS. If you don't agree with our policies you can try to get them changed or you can decide to stop editing Wikipedia, you can't, however, get me to use an unreliable source in place of a reliable, just so you're satisfied and stop complaining. --Six words (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You yourself are not convinced by the arguments you are trying to present here. Therefore let it be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.84.163 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And you stop talking nonsense and learn the basic rules of Wikipedia. And come back when you have understood them. This has gone on long enough. -- megA (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I know the basic rules of Wikipedia and therefore you should not use a potentially offensive language like "stop talking nonsense!". Your user account doesn't mean that you can present any aberration as fact, as you did in the chapter "German cognates with English". The less you can afford to delete contributions from others, simply because they speak clearly against your own theories, as you did in Archive 3, "Definition of dialect?".(megA wrote on 28 August 2008: "Buddy, it happens I am fluent in Italian and I have effortlessly held conversations with Romanians. So don't make up theories about things you know nothing about." My answer has been deleted: "Hey! Don't tell me white lies, ragazzo. I speak Romanian like a mother tongue, but this knowledge didn't help me further in Italy (Per favore - va rog, grazie - multumesc, ragazza - fata, capire - intelege, camminare - merge, parlare - vorbi, leggere - citi, ogni giorno - fiecare zi, convoglio - tren, sedia - scaun, tavolo - masa). Maybe you discussed with Italian-speaking Romanians.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.244.150 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge the maps

can someone please merge this with this ? In Brazil, the areas which are shown in the first map has little german influence compared to those who are missing from the second, which is where most of the de-BR people live --Hagnat (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Map correction

Hi,

Why is the Dutch language area mapped out? Dutch is also a German dialect. In this table you find below you can see that the simularity comes in groups. Frisian and English on one side, and Dutch and German on the other side. The different orthographies masquerade the pronounciation. But the pronounciation of the listed words is very simular. If you want to redraw this map, please exclude the Frisian language area and include the Dutch language area. Reason: Frisians don't speak German or anything close. Dutch however is a German dialect, even if it has it's own orthography. Kind regards --Kening Aldgilles (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Frisian	English	Dutch	German
dei	day	dag	Tag
rein	rain	regen	Regen
wei	way	weg	Weg
neil	nail	nagel	Nagel
tsiis	cheese	kaas	Käse
tsjerke	church	kerk	Kirche
tegearre	together	samen	zusammen
sibbe	sibling	verwante	Verwandte
kaai	key	sleutel	Schlüssel
ha west	have been	ben geweest	bin gewesen
twa skiep	two sheep	twee schapen	zwei Schafe
hawwe	have	hebben	haben
ús	us	ons	uns
hynder	horse	paard	Pferd
brea	bread	brood	Brot
hier	hair	haar	Haar
ear	ear	oor	Ohr
doar	door	deur	Tür
grien	green	groen	Grün
swiet	sweet	zoet	süβ
troch	through	door	durch