Talk:West Germanic languages

This article

Shouldn't this article be called West Germanic language_s_? --zeno 08:53 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

Proto-West Germanic language?

As for the comment about there never being a Proto-West Germanic language...

From what I've long been hearing, these things are largely known through reconstruction. So how can it be said for certain at this point that there wasn't a Proto-West Germanic language? I'm finally getting around to signing this post. Gringo300 17:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Because it is possible for all the dialects to have diverged from Proto-Germanic at about roughly the same time. Since the dialects would form a continuum of mutually intelligible dialects, innovations would pass from one to the other without their being part of a Proto-West Germanic dialect.--Wiglaf 16:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The usual linguistic criterion for deciding whether a group of languages is descended from a common intermediate proto-language is to see whether they all share any common innovation. In this case, is there any common innovation all West Germanic languages have that is not present in North Germanic, East Germanic, or Proto-Germanic? As far as I know, there is: all West Germanic languages show gemination of consonants (except r) before j (PGmc *satjan > OS *settian, OHG sezzen, OE settan). Of course the innovation could have passed from one to the other without there having been a Proto-West Germanic language, but that doesn't mean we know it did. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 8 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

The problem here is that about 95% of the innovation shared by the WGmc. group came about after the identifiable member-dialects were already divergent. Yes, there are many changes which all the dialects made in something resembling unison. But the overwhelming majority of those were areal changes, with slightly different reflexes in each dialect. Thus, "Proto-West Germanic" is a chimera. It never existed as a language in itself, but rather subsisted through the actual dialects as spoken. As several contemporary scholars (e.g. van Coetsam, Voyles, Davis, Ringe) have suggested, we would be both wiser and more accurate to describe the Old Languages of this continuum (OE, OF, OS, OHG) as dialects of West Germanic rather than decendents of it. That one change is sufficient to clear up numerous misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.91.99 (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

77.56.91.99, you said that Ringe advocates for the non-existence of a Proto-West-Germanic, but Ringe and Taylor 2014 is pretty clear about the existence of a Proto-West-Germanic. From page 41:

"it leaves no doubt that there was for some generations a unitary PWGmc language, though it seems equally clear that there were always minor dialect divisions within it (see especially Stiles 2013)"

As for Voyles, the only work by him that I have access to in which hes mentions the existence of PWGmc is Voyles 1972, in which he is very for its existence.:

"[...] you really should believe in West Germanic" (Voyles 1972)

--Pannakoko 1:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC).

Low Saxon-Low Franconian

Why are Low Franconian and Low Saxon separate categories? Are the two groups now regarded as more separate from each other than English and Frisian, or is something else going on? Certainly, the authors of ethnologue don't hold this view [1] - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The authors of ethnologue are often wrong - especially regarding German, Low German and all those dialects. I think they constantly get a little confused because of the sheer number of it. The ethnologue guys call Low German Low Saxon - for what reason I don't know. In my opinion Low Saxon is just one dialect of Low German. That is another proof for their incompetence in that matter. --Lucius1976 21:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Low Saxon is perhaps a translation of Nedersaksisch or Neddersassisch see here.

84.135.251.67 21:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The family tree

I was just passing through an noticed that the family tree seems to give the impression that Northern Middle English descends from Middle English and was contemporanious with Early Modern English. Is this the case? 81.79.229.119 21:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No. 84.135.239.188 17:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Frisian, not Low Saxon, is closest to Modern English?

I added the "" tag to the claim that Low Saxon is the closest existing language to modern English. I didn't change the text because I don't have enough expertise in this subject area.

The reason I think Frisian (not Low Saxon) is probably the closest is because this journal article says, "... Frisian is considered to be the closest extant language to Old English", and gives this citation (I've not read this): "Nielsen H. F., 1985 Old English and the continental Germanic languages: a survey of morphological and phonological interrelations 2nd edition. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck". That seemed authoritative enough to me.

On the other hand, it could be that Frisian is being overlooked because very few people speak it. Or there may well be some other reason to say it was Low Saxon, not Frisian. Hopefully, someone with more expertise will handle this. EMan 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Frisian is closer to English than Low Saxon is. But the sentence in question begins "Of modern German varieties", and Frisian isn't a German variety. "German" is usually taken to include High German and Low German (also called Low Saxon), but not Frisian or Low Franconian (Dutch and its closest relatives). —Angr 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Dutch Low Saxon a Low German variety or a Low Franconian variety closely related to Dutch?

84.135.197.66 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a Low German variety, although it's been influenced by contact with Dutch, while Low Saxon in Germany has been influenced by contact with High German. —Angr 08:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I love the way this is discussed like it actually exists in the real world. Forgive my OR, but this category is total ... erm ... bs. Such categories help younger readers process information, but what exactly is this category supposed to tell us? That High German is closer to English than it is to Danish? No it's not. That Saxon is closer to English than Jutish? Hilarious. And English came from a common linguistic zone that included southern Scandinavia, and the north sea coasts of modern Holland and Germany (bin to the West-North schema); you don't need to be a linguist to know this ... just read Beowulf. But of course to everyone but a few this category suggests the opposite. To my mind the only thing it tells us is that linguists have a problem communicating their intentions to general audiences and that encyclopedia and other tertiary writers are more interested in categorization than understanding reality. You'll have to forgive me though, cause I've never read the arguments of the guy who invented this category. Yeah, I'll have a guess that some guy poured through grammars and (hopefully) old writing, cheery-picked a few features to the expense of more others, and drew a big fat line through the subtle dialect continuum of pre-modern Germanic Europe. Great fun I'm sure, but little more. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the exact relation between the three languages, English, Frisian and Low German, has been debated for some time now. A lot depends on the exact quality of vowels in words like "house" and "mouse". I don't think we will ever have scientific information about the exact sounds in Low German and Frisian from the 4th. century A.D. and earlier. It is possible that English is about equidistant from the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.103.250 (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Mecklenburgisch-Pommersch

Although there is an entry in the German Wikipedia, Mecklenburgisch-Pommersch doesn't exist actually. This is a mixture of two different dialects: Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch and Pommersch. I know Vorpommersch and Pommersch sound similar but in fact they have only few things in common. Today only the first dialect is spoken in Germany, the second has somewhat died out due to World War II. --89.53.45.236 20:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Low German vs. Low Saxon

I realize that both terms can be considered correct, but seeing as Low Saxon - though a disambiguation page - directs to Low German (where the two are equated), shouldn't we be using Low German in this article? Aryaman (☼) 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should. "Low Saxon" is ambiguous, as it is often used only for the dialects of Low German spoken in the Netherlands and Lower Saxony. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The map

The map is not correct. The region of South Tyrol is not included in its entirety nor is the region of Swiss Graubuenden which is mainly German speaking. Walsar german speakers are also found in Italy. Therefore, the area of German speaking Switz. is wrong. Furthermore the border of Liechtenstein is nothing like it really looks on the map. This map is really unprofessional and not completely accurate. It needs to be updated! I don't think the portrayal of Luxembourg is right either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.81.131.243 (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a wiki, so feel free to make corrections. If you go to Wikimedia Commons, register a user name, and wait four days, you'll be able to upload a corrected version of the map, either under a new name, or as a new version of the image with this name by going to commons:File:Europe germanic languages.PNG and clicking "Upload a new version of this file". +Angr 19:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Family tree versus Subdivision conflict

"The West Germanic languages constitute the largest of the three traditional branches of the Germanic family of languages and include languages such as English, Dutch and Afrikaans, German, the Frisian languages, and Yiddish" (from article). Additionally, "Low Franconian, or Low Frankish, is a group of several West Germanic languages spoken in the Netherlands, northern Belgium (Flanders), in the northern department of France, in western Germany (Lower Rhine), as well as in Suriname, South Africa and Namibia that originally descended from Old Frankish" (Low Franconian languages). The conflict occurs with the listed four (4) subdivisions in the ISO 639-5 on the top right portion of the page; "Anglo-Frisian, Low Franconian languages, Low German, High German" when one compares it to the West Germanic Family tree listed near the end of the article;

• Anglo-Frisian

         o English
         o Scots
         o Yola (now extinct)
         o Frisian languages

• Low German

         o Low Saxon
         o Low Franconian
               + Dutch
               + Afrikaans (in South Africa and Namibia)

• High German

         o Alemannic German
         o Austro-Bavarian German
         o German
         o Luxembourgish
         o Yiddish
         o Vilamovian

The article seems declarative in there being four subcategories, but ends stating (in part), "Note that divisions between subfamilies of Germanic are rarely precisely defined; most form dialect continua, with adjacent dialects being mutually intelligible and more separated ones not" and then removes one of the categories, making the languages listed under "Low Franconian" only dialects, and the branch itself a language.

Also note how the Indo-European language tree, and the West Germanic language tree are congruent. VMK 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viccar M Khan (talk • contribs)

Dutch is not Low German, do not readd it as being so. Thank you. HP1740-B (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dutch is traditionally classified as or with Low German, though I've noticed Wikipedia meticulously avoids calling it such (presumably for nationalist reasons).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally Frisian was also classified as Low German, but more recently classified as Anglo-Frisian as its closely related to English. Dutch is related to Low German, and a Low German Dutch dialect spoken in the east is classified as Low German. The whole thing with west-germanic languages is that they can be divided between those that did and those that didnt undergo the High German consonant shift. In that sense you can call all west-germanic languages Low German, except for High German. That would include English. Yes I can even find a minority amount of traditional sources that classify english as Low German. Contemporary classifications are different. All traditional sources that previously describe dutch as low german also included frisian as such. And that doesn't make sense. Why Would Dutch and Frisian be considered Low German and not English? No, contemporary sources mostly speak of Dutch as Low Franconion, English and Frisian as Anglo-Frisian and Low German as the dialects spoken in Northern Germany and Eastern Netherlands. All of course closely related, as Low German originates from Old Saxon. Grey Fox (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know the division is made in terms of which specific features they have or lack. High German has the consonant shift. Low German and Anglo-Frisian together are defined as having a single verb form in the plural. I don't know how to divide those two, but at least the specific characteristics of Low German are clearly defined. So that leaves Dutch/Low Franconian, which has neither of these features. Though you have to take into account that the original 2nd person plural in Dutch is now the 2nd person singular, its ending is still -t as the German 2nd person plural -t, while the other two plural endings have -en as in German. CodeCat (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a basic confusion here between the early groupings within WGmc and the later individual dialects, so the presentation of Subdivisions as

• Ingvaeonic (English, Scots, Frisian, Low German)
• Low Franconian (Dutch, Afrikaans)
• High German (German, Yiddish)

is actually nonsensical, as is the diagram lower down.

For a start Low Franconian cannot be a distinct branch until the Second Sound Shift separates Low Franconian from the Franconian dialects which comprise part of High German. High German is a post-shift cover term for two distinct groupings with WGmc, so it too cannot be a primary subdivision.

Also, while it's true that some scholars treat Old Saxon and Low Franconian as constituting Low German, I'm not sure that any modern works do (can anyone cite one?). Likewise the Tacitus-derived tribal terms are only found in older works, and everyone now uses the geographical terms (Schwarz's, I think) and at best put the older terms in parenthesis. --Pfold (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Table of dialectal characteristics

I've created a table of characteristics that appear in West Germanic but not in all languages. I think it would be useful to show the internal division of the languages, the continuum between them, and also their relationship. This is also important in light of the fact that West Germanic has been notoriously difficult to see as a 'tree'. Unfortunately I don't know how to find sources for this, so for now I'm just showing it here. I'm sure there are quite a few though, as the West Germanic dialect continuum has been studied extensively.

	Old English	Old Frisian	Old Saxon	Old Low Franconian	Old Central German	Old Upper German
Palatalisation of velars	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
Unrounding of front rounded vowels	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
Loss of intervocalic *-h-	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
Class II weak verb ending *-(ō)ja-	Yes	Yes	Partial	No	No	No
Merging of plural forms of verbs	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial	No	No
Loss of the reflexive pronoun	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Reduction of weak class III to four relics	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Monophthongization of *ai, *au	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial	No	No
Final-obstruent devoicing	No	No	No	Yes	No	No
Dipthongization of *ē, *ō	No	No	Partial	Yes	Yes	Yes
High German consonant shift	No	No	No	No	Partial	Yes

CodeCat (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Change from *e > *i

Dear CodeCat, I really appreciate your contributions concerning Proto-Germanic, but today you were wrong. You reverted my contribution:

• Proto-Germanic *e becomes *i before syllabels with i or j (cf. OHG. and Old Saxon. biris, Anglo-Saxon birest „you bear" vs. Old Norse berr and Gothic baíris)

Saying: i-mutation of e is a Proto-Germanic change, not West Germanic. - Here you mixed something up. I think you had in mind the following change from Indo-European to Proto-Germanic: /e/ > /i/ when followed by a syllable-final nasal — *en "in" > *in; *séngʷʰeti "(s)he chants" > *sengʷidi > *singwidi "(s)he sings"

This is accurate, but it simply refers to a different case. My contribution was accurate and I will restore it. Best regards to the Netherlands--DownUnder36 (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I had in mind the change of e to i when i or j follows. That is a common Proto-Germanic change and there are sources for that as well. The Proto-Germanic form was *biridi. CodeCat (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell a source for this? As to my knowledge the second person present tense of this verb was Proto-Germanic *berezi (not *birizi) from Pre-Proto-Germanic *bʱéresi. The "e" in the first syllable in Proto-Germanic is to be recontructed from the converging evidence of Gothic and Old Norse (see article); the form *biridi refers to the 3rd person anyway. Bammesberger (1986) reconstructs this form as *ƀeređi, also with /e/ in the first syllable. Best regards--DownUnder36 (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Gothic evidence isn't any good in this case because e and i merged in Gothic, becoming i normally and ai before h and r. As for Old Norse, it's very likely that the alternation between e and i was levelled out by analogy. But the i-mutation is still visible in other words where there was no such analogy, such as *giftiz < *gebaną "to give" or *midjaz < PIE *medhyos. Old Norse also has -i- in those words. -e- did not alternate with -i- via PIE ablaut, so i-mutation is the only other explanation. As for a source, D. Ringe's 2006 book "From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic". CodeCat (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Still not convinced. Proto-Germanic /e/ didn't give Got. /i/ in any position but as you say has been preserved as "aí" (probably pronounced /ɛ/) before h and r (and also before hʷ). So if Western Germanic languages shift Prg. /e/ to /i/ in one of the environments where Gothic didn't (or just modified /e/ to /ɛ/ and if they do so also in contrast in Old Norse, than this change is specific for these langauges and presumably a later change than similar /e/ > /i/ shifts between PIE and Prg. Or what should be inaccurate with the example given in the article? - I know the famous book of Ringe 2006, who acually focuses on the changes between PIE and Proto-Germanic. I just searched for arguments in our debate but didn't find one (which page?). - And YES my first posting of last night wasn't as friendly as it could have been.--DownUnder36 (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: I want to tell further sources on this as soon as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DownUnder36 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If e didn't become i anywhere in Gothic, then what about all the instances where it did become i? See for yourself; i and ai are in complimentary distribution in native Germanic words. I don't think this article should give WP:UNDUE weight to a minority position, the majority agrees that i-mutation did occur in Proto-Germanic or at least demonstrably in Proto-Northwest-Germanic (because the merging levelled out the effects in Gothic). CodeCat (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As to me, all arguments have been exchanged now. I am curious about more views on this question and will look for further references myself.--DownUnder36 (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The reconstruction of Proto-West-Germanic

Dear Codecat, you removed the complete paragraph of the article about the reconstruction of Proto-West-Germanic. Your removal included the following sentence (fully attested with literature/references) which has been part of the article since months:

"Several scholars like H. F. Nielsen (1981, 2001), G. Klingenschmitt (2002) and K.-H. Mottausch (1998, 2011) have published reconstructions of Proto-West-Germanic morphological paradigmas and many authors did reconstruct some Proto-West-Germanic morphological forms or lexems."

As to the new book of Wolfram Euler I suggest at least a discussion about the quality of this contribution before simply removing the whole sub-paragraph. His book has received very positive comments and recommendations by Prof. Alfred Bammesberger, Prof. Jürgen Udolph and Prof. Hans-Dieter Pohl. They all confirm both the quality and novelty of this book. We can discuss Eulers example sentences here before including them into the article. However, the simple fact that there is now a comprehensive scientific book about Proto-West-Germanic seems obviously relevant and should remain part of the article. Best regards, DownUnder36 (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: Here are the sample phrases for further discussion:

Proto-West-Germanic (around 5th Century CE):

• χwaz sōkiþ, sa finþiþ. (= Seek and you shall find.)
• eχu, eχu, rīki furi eχu. (= A horse, a horse a kingdom for an horse.)
• sīþŭ kwemeþ, ak kwemeþ. (= You <pl.> are late, but you are coming after all.)
• wurđō ganōǥă kweđină, nu dēþi seχwēm. (= We've had enough of words, now let's act.)
• berχtă sunnō bringiþ it ana dagă. (= Bright sun brings it to light.)
• χūsă mīnă burg mīnŭ. (= My home is my castle.)

The same phrases in Proto-Germanic (around 100 BCE):

• χwaz sōkīđi, sa finþiđi.
• eχwan, eχwan, rīkjan furi eχwan.
• seiþu kwemeđe, ake kwemeđe.
• wurđōn ganōχan kweþinan, nu dēþinz seχwaime.
• berχtan sawel bringiđi it ana dagan.
• χūsan meinan burgiz meinō.

I can't in good faith consider that source "reliable" on account of the reconstruction it contains. Here are the problems I can find purely on linguistic merits:

• The form *eχu contradicts the earlier mention (in this article) that labiovelars are delabialised non-initially. The expected form, which evidence confirms, is *eh (Old English eoh, not eohu). The same applies to *seχwēm further down, which should be *sehēm.
• The loss of final -ą is applied inconsistently. The final vowel is shown in *kweđină (< PG *kwedaną), while it's apparently lost in *rīki (< PG *rīkiją).
• The character đ is used to denote a dental fricative [ð], but this article says that this sound became [d] in West Germanic, which again is confirmed by evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of [ð] in West Germanic at all.
• The second velar of *ganōǥă is indicated to be a fricative, but Old English and Dutch evidence unambiguously shows that the first was also a fricative, thus the first should also be written ǥ.
• The adjective *berχtă apparently shows the neuter nominative ending, but *sunnō is feminine. Reflexes of the PG nominative feminine *berhtō are expected here. The fact that the correct ending is shown in *mīnŭ means that the author knew what the right ending was, but forgot to apply it in a grammatically correct way.
• The same problem is also seen in *ganōǥă and *kweđină, a masculine accusative or neuter nominative/accusative singular, while the noun they agree with, *wurđōn, is in what seems to be the genitive plural. They should all be in the nominative/accusative plural neuter here.
• No distinction is shown between the genitive plural ending -ō in *wurđō and the n-stem feminine nominative singular -ō in *sunnō. These two forms had distinct endings in PG (-ǫ̂ for the first, -ǭ for the second) and in the West Germanic languages (OE -a, -e, OHG -o, -a). So it makes no sense at all to merge them here.
• Effects of i-mutation are not shown in *kweđină, even though it's a common Proto-Germanic feature. It's not shown elsewhere either, like in *furi, but it's plausible that it was allophonic so that is not a huge problem.

I don't know if the Proto-Germanic reconstruction came from the same book, but if it did, that kind of makes things worse:

• The loss of final -n with nasalisation is not shown in many of the forms, even though this was a common Proto-Germanic change.
• Sievers' law is not shown in *rīkjan, which should have syllabic -ij- because the stem is long.
• *ake and *seχwaime have final -e, which was lost earlier in Proto-Germanic.
• Change of unstressed e to i is not applied.
• I-mutation of e is also applied inconsistently, resulting in *seiþu instead of reconstructed *sīþu, *meinan instead of *mīnan, and *kweþinan instead of *kwiþinan. But it is applied in *bringiđi.
• *burg- was a consonant stem, so its nominative singular was not *burgiz; *burgz is a more likely candidate.
• Verner's law is not applied to the strong past participle *kweþinan, which should have the voiced alternant -d-.

There are just so many holes that can be poked in this that it should not be present in this article and should definitely not be presented as representing the current state of scientific research. It has all the hallmarks of a hobby project that you might find on the personal web page of someone who loves Germanic and wants to try their own hand at it. Not only does it disagree on rather fundamental research of the Germanic languages, but it doesn't even agree with itself on some points. It's just sloppy and badly researched, and it cannot be considered a reliable source.

For comparison, this is what I would come up with, with the problems worked out. This is original research so it should not appear in the article, but it gives an idea of what it should look like:

Proto-Germanic	West Germanic	Notes
hwaz sōkīþi, sa finþidi	hwaz sōkīþ, sa finþid	Final -z is not lost in monosyllables in OHG (Seen in (h)wer), so it must have been present in WG too.
ehwą, ehwą, rīkiją furi ehwą	eh, eh, rīkī furi eh	The ending -ī of *rīkī was long, because it was not lost like other instances of -i and -u after a long syllable.
sīþu kwimidi, ak kwimidi	sīþu kwimid, ak kwimid
ganōgō wurdō kwedanō, nu dēdinz sehwaim	ganōgu wurdu kwedanu, nu dēdī sehēm	I assumed here that -ō > -u was not yet lost, but it was lost after long syllables in all of WG, so it was lost here too. For the -ī in *dēdī, see above.
berhtǭ sunnǭ bringidi it ana dagą	berhta sunna bringid it ana dag	I assumed here that -ǭ was shortened just as -ō was, but it became a low vowel instead; all WG languages attested have -a.
hūsą mīną burgz mīnō	hūs mīn burg mīnu

CodeCat (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your immediate answer. Right now, I don't have the time to answer in detail. My first impression is that you describe a somewhat later stage of West Germanic (around 600 CE?) than Euler did (about 400/450 CE), which could explain some of the differences. As I am in occasional contact with him, I will ask Euler`s opinion on your views. Two things are sure: 1. Euler is all but an amateur in linguistics and 2. the very positive comments of Bammesberger, Udolph and Pohl on this book are authentical. As to the moment, I think it is a good solution not to include the example sentences under discussion in the article but only mention the work of Nielsen, Klingenschmitt, Mottausch and also Euler (all known to you?) on the topic. As to me, I am not a linguist. My goal is to get excellent information on this subject in Wikipedia, and here, a lot remains to do. One example: The colored map used in this article (and in half a dozen more articles) shows about 50% of former East Prussia (today part of North Eastern Poland) in green as former "East Germanic" arae. This is clearly incorrect: The area was Baltic speaking - one incorrection among (still) pretty many. DownUnder36 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Codecat! Now I have received Euler's answer. He appreciates your educated remarks and agrees with them in one point (out of eight) concerning West Germanic and in two points (out of seven) concerning Proto-Germanic. Off course you are right with berχtŭ sunnō instead of berχtă sunnō. It's a typo as you have assumed yourself: "The fact that the correct ending is shown in *mīnŭ means that the author knew what the right ending was...". As to Proto-Germanic you are right with *rīkijan instead of *rīkjan and with *kweđinan instead of *kweþinan. Euler regrets these mistakes and asserts to be fully aware of Siever's and Verner's law. There are three further points which are open to debate. One is Proto-Germanic *burgiz vs. *burgz. As you write, the word once was an consonant stem; but later it became influenced by the i-stems and as to Euler it is impossible to decide if the nom. sing. form in the PG period showed (more recent) *-iz or (more archaic) simply *-z. The same applies to (later) final *-ą vs. (earlier) final *-an and to PWG *ganōǥă vs. *ǥanōǥă.

The other remarks Euler rejects: For example PWG *eχu "horse" is ascertained by OHG. ehuscalc = Old Saxon ehuskalk "groom" (literally "horse-servant"). PWG *kwemeđe you come instead of *kwimid is sure because of the OHG equivalent which shows the old "e" and not "i" in both positions. For the same reason, the PG form cannot be reconstructed as *kwimidi but should be *kwemeđe. PWG *dag instead of *daga or *dagă is clearly wrong with the Erfurt runic inscription of the 3rd century CE (found in 2012) showing ka[m]ba and not *kamb "comb" for masculine a-stems. Euler also rejects PG *sīþu and *mīn- instead of *seiþu and *mein-: The preservation of *ei is indicated by *teiva "god" in the Negau inscription, by the existance of the Eihwaz ("yew-tree") rune representing PG *ē2 in contrast to the Isaz ("ice") rune and by some further evidence. Furthermore, PG *seχwaime (and analogically *ake) should have preserved final *e, because final *m in the OHG successor would have been lost otherwise.

Euler sees some more errors in your reconstructions but suggests to discuss them directly with e-mail. You can get in touch with him by sending a short notice to his publisher: info@verlag-inspiration.de. As he appreciates your remarks, Euler also wants to have a free copy of the book sent to you; he would also do so himself if the publisher shouldn't. DownUnder36 (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC) DownUnder36 (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

hy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.189.170.220 (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Traditional

Article reads:

The West Germanic languages constitute the largest of the three traditional branches of the Germanic family...

What is meant by "traditional" here? Is there a "modern" classification which is different? Is there a question as to the validity of the three branches? As far as I know, no. So the word "traditional" is unnecessary here.

Map caption reads:

The traditional distribution of the Germanic languages in Europe...

I have no idea what "traditional" is supposed to mean here. The map clearly shows German ending at the Oder-Neisse line. This is a post-1945 phenomenon -- before then, there were millions of German-speakers in modern Poland, Kaliningrad (Russia), and the Czech republic. I will improve the caption. --Macrakis (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I see what was intended by the "traditional branches", but the wording isn't good. I think West Germanic is still accepted as a grouping, even if Proto-West-Germanic is questioned. --Macrakis (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The "traditional" view has been that Proto-Germanic split up in West Germanic, East Germanic and North Germanic. It's in many ways a workable structure, but according to "modern" linguists historically it is doubtful that a Proto-Westgermanic language ever existed. They think that after East Germanic broke off, the remaining Northwest Germanic language broke into North Germanic, North Sea Germanic (Ingvaeonic), Weser-Rhine Germanic (Istvaeonic) and Elbe Germanic (Irminonic). The latter three constitute the West Germanic languages. Frisian and English are Ingvaeonic, Dutch is Istvaeonic with some Ingvaeonic influences, and German is a mix of Irminonic and Istvaeonic.--Watisfictie (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Family Tree

The family tree is deeply unsatisfactory. For a start, it is ensourced. But more to the point it is, to be blunt, ludicrous: the Rhine-Weser group apparently consists only of Dutch and no Central German dialects, and all the German dialects are grouped as Elbe Germanic. --Pfold (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankish_language#/media/File:Altfr%C3%A4nkische_Sprache_600-700.png is a map sourcedly showing most of the area appearing as Central Franconian in other maps was part of Old Frankish and the one of Rhine Franconian as Elbe Germanic. Sarcelles (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should rely on an "own work" map on WP based on books solely devoted to Dutch (and therefore not about High German), I suggest looking at Chris Wells's German a Linguistic History. Fig. 3 on p. 39 has *all* Central German dialects derived from Weser-Rhine Gmc, and only Alemannic & Bavarian coming from Elbe Gmc. This is the standard view stated in a standard work, not something I would regard as idiosyncratic, and certainly you would need *much* better sourcing if you want to diagree with it. --Pfold (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Another source - the diagram from Maurer's seminal work: Elbgermanisch", "Weser-Rhein-Germanisch" und die Grundlagen des Althochdeutschen --Pfold (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Old Frankish and Langobardisch/Lombardisch

Where does Old Frankish fit in the article? I'm surprised that Langobardisch/Lombardisch are here, but the similarly extinct West Germanic tongue is not. That's kind of funny, because I think most people have the idea of Langobards/Lombards as an East Germanic tribe like the Burgundians, or at least might wonder why Burgundians are East, with the others West and perhaps not vice versa, or not the same between them either way, because those two seemed to have been related, judging by a common history after the Völkerwanderung, whereas Goths and Vandals rather disappeared. I don't think anyone confuses the category Goths and Vandals belong to and at least the former have their own version of the Bible to judge. One wonders how the Vandals and Alans conducted government in the dual kingdom at Carthage, with one Germanic and the other Iranian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.234.42 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yiddish is no more of a "daughter language of German" than Luxembourgish is

Rather, Yiddish is a sister language of the various High German dialects that formed the basis of Standard German, just as Moselle Franconian (Luxembourgish) is. I have rewritten the lede accordingly. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

For Yiddish not to be a daughter of German dialects, it would have to be a direct descendant of some branch of West Germanic - which it isn't - and it would have to be able to trace its origin back to prehistoric Northern Europe - which it can't. --Pfold (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Just about nothing in what you said is even slightly correct or even relevant. Please go read about daughter languages, the Yiddish language, the Germanic languages, historical linguistics, a language is a dialect with an army and navy, among other things. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

For that matter you don't even seem to have replied to the original point which is that German, Luxembourgish, and Yiddish are sister languages descended from Old High German. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we make the inflection tables consistent with those in Wiktionary?

After browsing a while through the Proto-West Germanic (PWG) Wiktionary entries and this article i noticed that the noun inflection tables here and in wiktionary are not in agreement with eachother. For example: here short -a is retained (as in *dagă), as are nasal vowels (as in *dagą) reflecting the earlier PWG after loss of word final z. While wiktionary reflects the later stage of PWG where both -ă and -ą are lost leading to *dag. Whouldn't it be better to have both be the same? 77.248.144.142 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Asjen

The coverage here is actually more accurate than Wiktionary's, assuming a Proto-West-Germanic stage. At the very least, those nasal ą's should not be dropped until the languages have already diverged. Old English infinitive form for most verbs is -an(from -aną), but the strong past participle is -en(from -anaz). Without the nasal vowel, there would be nothing to render these different results. Cynemund (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

"Respectively"

The sentence "The language family also includes Afrikaans, Yiddish, Low Saxon, Luxembourgish, and Scots, which are closely related to Dutch, German and English respectively" is problematic: you can't have five things related "respectively" to three things.

I would guess it's supposed to say something like "The language family also includes Afrikaans (closely related to Dutch), Yiddish, Low Saxon, Luxembourgish (all three of which are closely related to German), and Scots (closely related to English)" --Crink (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed —Tamfang (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Except that Low Saxon is grouped historically with English as N.Sea Germanic. --Pfold (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Expanding the comparison tables?

I'm just writing to talk about perhaps expanding the vocabulary comparison tables on West Germanic languages since it doesn't really explore the breadth of West Germanic much. This comes after I made the addition of West Riding dialect, one of the many traditional Anglic Languages considered part of broad definitions of "English", which was quickly reverted.

Looking beyond Anglic, there are no exemplars of the wider modern German dialect continuum beyond Standard German. Moreover, while Afrikaans is an officially recognised distinct language, it developed from the broader Hollandic dialect as Standard Dutch. As a result its inclusion here over exemplars of the seperate West Flemish dialect group for example, is slightly perplexing if the objective is to give an overview of West Germanic vocabulary/word forms as a whole. The spectrum of West Germanic isn't covered even in a loose sense and thus I believe this needs to be rectified with more inclusions.

I would propose adding exemplars of Low and High German dialects, perhaps Wymysorys, as a start. Maybe removing Afrikaans since it essentially represents a second helping of the same narrow part of West Germanic as Standard Dutch insofar as its presence on the table is concerned. Additionally, we already have historical examples of Germanic in the form of the Proto-Germanic and Proto-West-Germanic on the tables, so is the addition of Old English and Old High German really necessary?

What do you think? Fendditokes (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)