Talk:Old Saxon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Old Saxon, the ancestor of modern Plattdeutsch, is a branch of Old Low German, not vice versa. Old Low Franconian (ancestor of Dutch) is another branch of Old Low German. This article doesn't take account of the place of Frisian, as forming with English a distinct branch (Anglo-Frisian, North Sea Germanic, Ingvaeonic) of the West Germanic languages. Frisian is continental, but closer to English than to the Old Low German dialects. Old Low German is not an ancestor of Old English; Low German and Anglo-Frisian are branches of West Germanic. Standard German and other forms of High German, such as the Swiss German dialects and Yiddish, are not descended from Old Saxon, and the article doesn't make this clear. Another model of the Germanic language family classes Anglo-Frisian, Low German and High German as distinct branches of Germanic, along with North and East Germanic, but with perhaps more shared features than they have with the other branches. North Sea Germanic shares features with North Germanic that they do not share with other branches.—Copey-- 05:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

False edits by User:Ulritz.[edit]

As can be read in the edit summaries, User:Ulritz's anti-Dutch bias has resulted in the removal of accurate and referenced information. Because of the 3 revert rule I cannot revert the edits now, but can assure Ulritz I will. This kind of behaviour should not be tolerated on wikipedia. Rex 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Imagine a case where any reference to the Old East Slavic language is massively converted to Old Russian/Old Ukrainian. I can assure you this wouldnt receive the acceptance of anybody knowledgeable on the topic of historical linguistics. This has been explained to you countless times before. Ulritz 15:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not alter my comments.Ever again. This doesn't concern Old Church Slavonic, this concerns Old Saxon and Old Saxon was close to Old Dutch which was attested before Old Saxon. Care to explain the true reason why you removed the reference to it?Rex 15:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The main article on Wikipedia is Old Low Franconian, and the scientific term (yes, you like thoes, right Rex?) is Old Low Franconian, and not Old Dutch. Ameise -- chat 15:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that means that I agree with User:Ulritz's edit, though I don't agree with his comments necessarily. Ameise -- chat 15:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No Antman, who once again pretends to know something on linguistics, Old Low Franconian and Old Dutch are two different things. Hence 2 articles. Rex 15:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice personal attack there, I will be sure to report it later. I would note, of course, that the header for Old Dutch says: Old Dutch (Also Old Low Franconian, strictly Old West Low Franconian). Ameise -- chat 15:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And I would note the following intros "German, also High German" and "P.A German more commonly P.A Dutch" Rex 20:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And your point is? Ameise -- chat 00:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is you have no point.Rex 10:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to your Wikipedia:POINT? (: Ulritz 12:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Show me where Ulritz. Show me where. You're having more than enough trouble controling your own huge bias I suggest you stick to that. Rex 12:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Rex, every single one of your edits that I have ever seen imparts some kind of anti-German bias, as well as some kind of pro-Dutch bias. I can give you a list of every single edit you have ever made, if you want. Ameise -- chat 17:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I want that, please give me that list with accompagning bias. I hope you like hard work because my edit count has 4 zeroes. Rex 09:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. Ameise -- chat 20:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As I thought. A lot of shouting but nothing to back it up. As always.Rex 20:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think many people would agree with me, but I take not nearly as much pleasure from bugging you as you seem to take from bugging me. Ameise -- chat 02:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Next time you accuse people, make sure you have facts to back up your claims. (Ps, the way you handled the IQ question ... typical) Rex 10:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet true; the last time I took an IQ test was, if I recall properly, 2nd grade. Ameise -- chat 14:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A simple IQ test taken as a child isn't representative for an adult, even I knew this and I have an IQ of 121. Rex 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Does that somehow change the result? I assume that the random IP who TALKed to me was you? That's harassment. Ameise -- chat 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No that IP wasn't me, I haven't got the faintest who that was. Nevertheless, of course age drastically changes the results of an IQ-test, making a few jig saw puzzles is different from a scientific test. Rex 13:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How does this belong here? Ameise -- chat 17:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned yor IQ in a ps and you made that into the main conversation, mainly because you have no point in the real discussion.Rex 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And neither do you, the only reason you are here is because you like adding Dutchness to everything. Ameise -- chat 21:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No not really, I've given my arguments, while you've done nothing at all. I suggest you leave this talk page and come back when you have a bit more other than insults to support your view. Rex 07:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I had to perform exactly one googling to find this. Instead of doing this bare minimum of research y'all spent a few dozen edits insulting one another and squabbling over who's opinion was more important. This is without exaggeration one of the lamest exchanges I've ever seen on a talkpage.
And, Rex, you're in absolutely no position to tell anyone to leave any talkpage, considering that some of the lamest comments here came from you.
Peter Isotalo 20:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Geographic distribution[edit]

Was Old Saxon really spoken on the North Sea coast? I would expect Frisian to be spoken in that area at that time, and Saxon a bit futher inland. And where was the language spoken in Denmark? -- (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Old Frisian was spoken east until the Weser, but around the mouth of the Elbe, the spoken language would have been Old Saxon instead. The language spoken in Denmark was Old East Norse. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Recording possible?[edit]

Is this language still spoken by anyone, maybe scholars? I assume it is. The reason I'm asking is because I think it would be amazing to have someone read aloud bits of the surviving texts for people to have a chance to hear the language. I'm watching a show on History about the Saxons, and they are either mimicking the language or actually speaking it. I speak German and English, so I can make fair sense of what they're saying. But I'm not sure if they're just "fudging" it or speaking the real language. I read (or tried, I should say, lol) parts of the old texts. I just can't get the phonics down. :) If anyone knows more about this, please let me know. I'm going to do some research and see if there is any way we can possibly add a recording of the language. I think it would be very cool and improve the language articles greatly! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly people who can guess the pronunciation, and many are probably pretty close, but there are no native speakers so we can never be 100% certain of all phonetic details. Is the show you're watching about the Saxons of what is now northern Germany or the Saxons of what is now England? If the latter, the people on the show are almost certainly speaking (or attempting to speak) Old English rather than Old Saxon. +Angr 00:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

IPA in the orthography section[edit]

Some of the IPA in the section is a complete mess, the random capital vowels everywhere make it very hard to read, especially given capital 'i's look like lowercase 'L's. Can someone fix it? I don't know enough about the language to be sure what the corrections should be.

(And I'm not loving all the bolded, bracketed additions in the translation of the text sample either really, couldn't that be tidier? Some of it seems completely superfluous, especially where there are questions marks in it. Not very encyclopaedic.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)