Talk:German language/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about German language. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

the mentioned "dialect" in the section "Cognates with English"

I don't know wether my subject was mentioned before or not but as a native German speaker I do not recognize the words that are named in the column "dialects" in the third table of the section "Cognates with English". I am well versed with german accents/dialects but that one seems very unfamiliar to me. I think the written examples are very unrepresentative for German dialects. Mangercratie (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems you have little to do with German dialects if you think that the written examples are "very unrepresentative". The affinity of the dialect words with English is much more visible than in the case of standard German. Therefore the section "Cognates with English" should be concentrated more on German dialects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.119.191 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to be condescending. It's you who doesn't seem to understand what Mangercratie has written. These words are "unrepresentative" in that they do not represent any distinct dialect and are thus completely unscientific. It has already been discussed, see the archive. -- megA (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What you try to qualify as "completely unscientific" is the only logic way to be followed. Maybe you know that in the 5th century AD among the invading Germanic tribes in England there were Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Swabians, Franks and others. Hence the present-day English includes many thousends of words that stem from all these tribes. The same words can be found today in the respective German dialects. Other interpretations would not be in concordance with the historical and linguistic facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.95.106 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Swabians in England? Let's stop this discussion short before it gets out of hand. Let's leave the information in the chart but structure it more clearly, so that the respective dialects are kept together and not just wildly mixed. Would that be something we can agree on? Trigaranus (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming that English has taken up words from German dialects in the 5th century AD, but that neither have changed, and words are still obviously related? Lars T. (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

English didn't exist yet in the 5th century AD. But the Germanic tribes, which just invaded the island, spoke the same Germanic dialects with those on the continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.243.194 (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is someone out there who can actually identify these "dialects", go ahead. To me, this looks like a hodge-podge of random "made-to-fit" words without scientific justification. There is no way to separate "parallel evolution" from actual parentage, if there is any. Should there be a source for which words are from what dialect and how they are actually related to English (what about English dialects, then? Should they be included as well?), fine. At the moment, this is a striking example of WP:OR and nothing more. I am tired of this discussion, too, since we have aleady been over this in the past. IMO the table should go, or be restricted to verifiably sourced examples. -- megA (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Knepflerle (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For a recently discovered example of Convergent Evolution in Biology, see [1]. Lars T. (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you! I mentioned this some time before, but nobody actually seems to care... The discussion is archived somewhere. As a native speaker, this seems to be a curious and unsourced mixture of words from several unidentifiable Upper and Mid-German dialects. Whether some examples are made up, I can't tell. The whole thing is unscientific and unsourced, IMNSHO. -- megA (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies! I offered and haven't forgotten, but have had really limited en.wp time since. I ought to get chance soon, but of course if anyone wants to take the lead or offer a hand they're more than welcome. Knepflerle (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd do it myself, but my opinions, as stated before, might seem too radical. IMHO, it would suffice to retain about 5 examples of every table (since these lists will never be complete) and lose the dialect table, since this seems OR and no distinct dialect anyway. (A way to keep part of it would be to label each dialect word with the dialect it comes from...) -- megA (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that would be a good idea for now. My ultimate plan iss to take the existing data in the tables and salvage it into a decent self-standing article, but that will take time to do the reading for the referencing properly. Take it out for now, and I can get the old stuff from the history when I get time. Thanks ;) Knepflerle (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be the best to create different columns representing different dialects. I could tell you e.g. the swabian form of each word. :D Mangercratie (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This might be interesting, but does it really belong in the "Cognates with English" or in this (general overview) article at all? -- megA (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud — "Hessa" is supposed to be a German dialect instead of an Norwegian island? Do you mean "Hessian", or a long dead and forgotten dialect, or did you pull that out of thin air? Lars T. (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to cry loud if you have nothing to say.

Any sources for your material yet? If there's no citations it will be deleted in the future. Knepflerle (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes you wonder if and how the Palatinians and the "Hessas" reached Britain...

BTW; I just checked the first two examples, and they are both wrong: In Hessian, allone is "allaans", not "allon", and home is "haam", not "hom". Go figure... -- megA (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably you have serched at the wrong adress in Hesse.

So? My Hessian is sourced, yours apparently not. -- megA (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. I've just looked through the table of High German Consonant Shift changes in the article which conflates orthographic with phonetic shifts, and includes shifts not even part of the HGCS (palatalisation of /g/ in Old English). As for the meaning of "German words follow the rules of High German consonant shift, which is a German phenomenon", mixing up High German, Standard German and the glaring tautology... I think the article is ripe for a pruning. Knepflerle (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

45 minutes later, 15k of material less, two new articles - I think this article is better for it. Knepflerle (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaaahhh... room to breathe and grow again! ;-) -- megA (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

German a "fundamentally SOV" and "CP-V2, SOV" language.

Now I normaly would not care but since it really bugs me I have to ask you.
Not only to claryfy this to me but also to some wiki articles who lack the class of this one.
This is not an attack to the people who work on these articles but I don't really have the knowledge nor do I know if I am that right.
So it is more a request to help.

Out of interest I found the category Linguistic typology where most articles use german examples (and in my eyes right).
But after some klicks I found V2 word order where german is placed in the category CP-V2, SOV.
Now shoot me if I am wrong but isn't the most common used main clauses case anything else but SOV (normaly SVO) ?
I agree with Subject Verb Object which states "Some languages are more complicated: in German and in Dutch, SVO in main clauses coexists with SOV in subordinate clauses (See V2 word order.)" and I even know that main clauses of SOV are possible still I don't get the classification at all.
And what bugs me even more is that even if it would be SOV (which I still don't belive) it would not mean that it is some kind of "standard" in german. So I don't really get the classification.

And then I found Time Manner Place (where you can read my comments - I made some argument errors and decided to let the pros deal with each other...) and read "German uses V2 word order in main clauses and other circumstances, but is fundamentally SOV." which was changed on to "German (which is fundamentally SOV but uses V2 in certain circumstances, especially main clauses"
Now shoot me again but I don't see the word "fundamentally" really working here.
If my language would be "fundamentally" SOV I think I would know as well as the german wiki page which says something very different "Die deutsche Sprache ist demnach eine SPO-Sprache mit Verbzweitstellung, auch wenn einige weitere Stellungen möglich sind. Diese verändern dann aber den Sinn des Satzes. Ebenso verhält es sich bei den slawischen Sprachen." (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satzstellung). The comments of the autor explain Talk:Time_Manner_Place it thru "Can the most common word order for German be SVO, yet still be irregular? YES." which to me has not much to do with his conclusion that some parts are fixed in german (which I know - but don't see the connection).

Anyway I hope you help me, him and wiki by helping those articles (w. references and text).
I really don't mind if I am wrong it would just be great to hear it from more than one person. :)
Regards and thank you very much! (and sorry if I am wrong here but I really dont get the wiki structure for these cases... 79.192.227.92 (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that you need some training in syntax to understand what's trying to be said here. When someone says German is "fundamentally" SOV, what they're trying to say is that the mainstream view among syntacticians is that German is SOV at deep structure; in other words, the word order of subordinate clauses is the underlying word order, and the V2 order is derived from it. Note that German is SOV even on the surface of main clauses in cases where the main content verb of the sentence is non-finite (an infinitive or participle): "Ich kann das Buch lesen" and "Ich habe das Buch gelesen" both have SOV order (where V is interpreted as the content verb rather than the auxiliary verb). Where it gets confusing is in sentences like "Ich lese das Buch" which on the surface is clearly SVO, but according to syntactic theory, the underlying structure of this sentence is "ich das Buch lese" (the same as in a subordinate clause, cf. "Ich weiß, dass ich das Buch lese"), but in a main clause the inflected finite verb gets moved to the second position in the sentence, so "lese" gets fronted to the position after "ich". In "Ich kann das Buch lesen", the underlying structure is "ich das Buch lesen kann" (again the same as in a subordinate clause), but only "kann" gets moved to 2nd position, while nonfinite "lesen" stays where it is. In subordinate clauses, there is no fronting, and the verbs stay put. —An gr 09:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, this is one of those instances where I think syntactologists (rather than syntax itself) willieslap us in the face. Deep structure may be a lovely concept, but in a way I can't help feeling that in this instance, it fires elks at rifles. I believe the problem is that the Chomskian concept of synchronic language analysis often presents the syntactic interpretation of underlying structures in a way that appears as a causal and thereby historical explanation. The fact that deep structure analyses syntax in its particular way does not bear on the diachronic development of a structure. Language typology (especially SOV/SVO/etc. analysis) traditionally claims an influential position in language grouping (into families), which is a diachronic problem, but which is disregarded by the exclusively synchronic Chomskian grammar. Generally, in order to justify this importance, one has to focus on the simplest kind of clause, i.e. elementary sentences that have nothing besides those three components (S, V, O). Now deep structure may interprete SOV as the "fundamental" structure of German. I use the word interprete because this "fundamentally" SOV structure is used a logical tool for further analysis of German syntax. However, this does not mean that the "basic" (that word was still free) structure of German is SOV. Why not? 1) Because elementary main clauses follow SVO. 2) The emergence of subsidiary clauses appears to be universally secondary to the prior concept of main clauses. 3) The analytic auxiliary construction in German that moves the content verb to the final position certainly had a foundation in more "primitive" (sorry) clauses that have "to be" and "to have" as main verbs. (Note that the infinite concept verb in these instances is in fact a participle, i.e. an verb-derived adjective.) There is no "moving" in basic sentences such as "Ich baue ein Haus" / "Er sieht den Hund" etc. So don't mix up the results of deep structure with language typology. Trigaranus (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that any of this is syntacticians' fault, but I do agree that no good can come of confusing an argument relating to syntactic theory with one relating to historical linguistics and/or typology, or of confusing syntactic deep structure with an older stage of the language. This confusion happens even more in phonology than in syntax, and probably causes more trouble there too. —An gr 15:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I thank you much for your explanations and links! I still see it somewhat like "Trigaranus" (if I understood his point of view correct); there are different kinds of classification which classify from a different angle. I wrote some people in my university and they said something similare. Also they said, without a ref. to deep structure german has a general SPO - V2 word order in most main clauses and is such a language from a surface view classification (as german wiki also less accurate says) and that the word "fundamentally" is a bad choice of words anyway. However, I am now happy and richer in knowledge and as said thank you much ! :) 79.192.229.112 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would clarify that all Germanic languages (except English) are V2, though they differ on whether they are also SOV. (German and Dutch are, the rest not.) I agree that the word 'fundamentally' is simply misleading and should be eliminated. Nevertheless, it is important to describe German typologically as an SOV, V2 language (Hindi is SOV, but not V2; Kashmiri is V2 and SOV; the Scandinavian languages are V2 but SVO). The criterion is not simply "what's the most neutral way to say 'Johann saw Maria'?" but rather depends on a complete analysis of the verbs' positions. See Hamm, Sternefeld, von Stechow for an intro, and Gereon Müller's work for more advanced discussion (among many others). In German, only the *finite, agreeing* verb shows up in second position, not any of the others, which all end up after the object (and other elements): participles, infinitives (including IPP). So it's not just about embedded clauses. Consider also how infinitival imperatives and definitions work: how do you say "build a house" in German? "Ein Haus bauen" (not *"bauen ein Haus"). The latter would be normal for a VO language like French, English etc, but not for an OV language. See also Martin Haspelmath's typology work, for example. Hope this helps. Cheers! Mundart (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to consider incomplete sentences, you can say "Bauen eines Hauses". Hah! -- megA (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

New articles for the watchlist

I've split off material from this article into two new articles: Names for the German language and German cognates with English. Please add these to your watchlists and improve them if you have time - both could do with at least a little work. Knepflerle (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

History section

The History section in the article is now longer than the "main" article History of German(!), and a good fraction of it is word-for-word duplication. The duplication is pointless, and the history section here could do with some streamlining to what is most relevant and important to readers trying to get a brief introduction to the topic. Anyone suggestions or volunteers? Knepflerle (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the History section here should be a summary of History of German. Anything duplicated should be deleted here and kept there, and anything too detailed for a summary should be moved there from here. —An gr 11:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

When the History section states "from the 6th century, the earliest glosses (Abrogans) date to the 8th" B.C. or A.D. should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.179.253 (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. —An gr 09:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Substitution of Ü and Ö

I read that if it's too difficult to produce Ü and Ö in speech it is acceptable to replace Ü with "ee" and Ö with "ay". Is this true? YoshiroShin (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes you sound a bit Yiddish, but fine! :-) The thing is that the sounds ü and ö are the rounded counterparts to unrounded [i] and [e], if that's what you meant. In some varieties, most notably Yiddish, they became unrounded. Trigaranus (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Most rural dialects have or had no rounded vowels. A few decades ago it was not uncommon to come across people who would substitute /ü/ by /i/ and /ö/ by /e/ when speaking (or attempting to speak) Standard German. Today these mergers occur far less frequently and saying "scheen" instead of "schön" or "miede" instead of "müde" certainly sounds a bit strange. As most Germans have never heard Yiddish spoken, one would rather think of a Polish or Russian accent. Anyway, I would always advise a learner to practice ü and ö rather than replace them with i or e. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Texas German apparently unrounds these vowels, at least to judge from local name pronunciations like [ˈkeɪnɪɡ] for Koenig and [ˈmɪlɚ] for Mueller. I doubt these are simple anglicizations, since English speakers unfamiliar with German are more likely to use spelling pronunciations like [ˈkoʊnɪɡ] and [ˈmjuːlɚ]. —An gr 09:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting point is that in German poetry -- even formal poetry -- ü and ö are considered to rhyme with i and e. —An gr 09:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is called "unreiner Reim" in German (I think the English word is oblique rhyme) and though the name suggests that it is somewhat improper, it is, as you said, quite normal even in the most formal poetry. It is not even an eye-rhyme (linke English put/but, which can be found in poetry as well), but for a German, /ö/ and /e/ rhyme quite naturally.

Still, substituting the rounded vowels by unrounded ones in normal speech is not a good advice to a learner. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! YoshiroShin (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea that these pronunciations are Yiddish only work if you understand that Yiddish originated as a rural southern German dialect. One of my German professors once complained about a classmate's tendency to say "ieber" instead of standard "über" commenting that there was nothing to be done about it because her family were from Bavaria and that's just how she heard it. Danwaggoner (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just reading your funny dicussion about my home-language and now i got to raise my voice!^^ Please don't try to pronounce the umlauts correctly, it always sounds weird. Don't substitute it with "ee" for "Ü" and "ay" for "Ö"! thats waaay wrong! You just can't compare it to any vocal in english. If you really want to pronounce it correctly, there's just one advice: Listen very often to umlauts and try to form that sound. It will sound funny but hey, the umlauts just seem to be funny to those who don't speak them. So keep on trying and, if possible, listen to what you said (just record and listen to it). It will get better and better and you will get more and more used to it. @all native english-speaking: pleeeaaase don't try if u can't. you will make a fool of yourself^^. a wrong pronounciation (98% of english speaking people do it wrong^^) sounds to germans kind of cute and cuddly. they won't take you serious ;) Try, try, try, learn, learn, and so on.... (if u are interested) I mean, the english pronounciation ain't easy for germans, but 70% are able to speak proper. We just learned, so you should do too :D greetz --90.135.221.143 (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious?

Although it wasn't me who removed the "dubious" tag, I'd be in favour of doing that. The language in question is a standard variety of High German, which is defined by the High German consonant shift. How is that dubious? Trigaranus (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I have (re-)removed the tag. There's nothing dubious about German being a High German language. —An gr 22:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What about other dialects?

Specifically, what about the Böhmisch dialect(s) used in Bohemia? How do they fall within the categories? There's nothing in Wikipedia about them except as it relates to Böhmische immigrants to the U.S. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

105 million?

Isn't the number given for native speakers slightly high? According to other Wikipedia articles, it's the language of over 95% of Germans, and about 90% of Austrians and 65% of Swiss, which together come to the low 90 millions. Are there still over ten million native German speakers in Russia, the Americas and elsewhere? 41.241.9.16 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

All such figures are bound to be rough estimates; but it seems likely to be approximately correct. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Alone in Europe there are at least 100 million native speakers of German (see also Italy, France, Luxemburg, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Slovakia, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Slovenia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.192.11 (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Word Order

I'm sorry, but as a German I would have to comment onthis section. Quite often in the past I have been surprised that English speaking people speak proper English (sic!) without always knowing the appropriate why they express something in a certain way and not differently. Same goes for German; moreover, languages live and change; rules don't always follow up fast enough. So, all these sentences are grammatically correct. But:

   Heute gibt mir der alte Mann das Buch.
   Der alte Mann gibt mir heute das Buch.

are most likely to occur.

   Mir gibt der alte Mann das Buch heute.

is not very likely to be heard, unless someone would express _in writing_ that it is I who receives the book.

Sorry to interrupt here, but the important information here is "heute", not "mir". ("It is today that the old man etc".) -- megA (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Der alte Mann gibt mir das Buch heute. 
   Mir gibt heute der alte Mann das Buch.
   Das Buch gibt mir der alte Mann heute. (stress on heute)
   Das Buch gibt der alte Mann heute mir. (stress on mir)
   Das Buch gibt mir heute der alte Mann. (stress on der alte Mann)

Don't stand a good chance of being spoken by a native speaker.

That depends a lot on region and cultural background. As a native speaker myself, I live in the North, and these sentences are used liberally without distinction from "commoner" examples. "Also, der alte Mann gibt mir das Buch heute (und nicht morgen)." - "Das Buch? Das Buch gibt mir der alte Mann heute, natürlich!" It depends greatly on the context and on the education of the speaker. You cannot generalize it that easily. -- megA (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally, we do express the emphasis not so much through positioning the part to be emphasized at a certain location within the sentence but by means of the "melody" of the spoken sentence.

Yes, but that's colloquial and regionally different. It should at least be classified as such. -- megA (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Der _alte_ Mann gibt mir heute das Buch (the old man, not another man)

Der alte Mann gibt _mir_ heute das Buch. (It is I who receives the book, not someone else)

Der alte Mann gibt mir _heute_ das Buch. (... today, not tomorrow).

Ggreetings, Lost Boy (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should look for a quotable source on the preference in usage of stress vs. word order in spoken German (the situation is clear in written German, where you can't use stress for emphasis)... -- megA (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

amended some passages. The whole section confuses syntax, argument structure, and information structure and requires a lot more work. See whether you are fine with the new wording. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The following bit: "In German, nouns and articles are declined as in Latin thus indicating whether it is the subject or object of the verb. The above example in German would be Der Mann biss den Hund or Den Hund biss der Mann with both having exactly the same meaning" bothers me, because it's only unambiguous when either the subject or the object is masculine singular, which is the only form that distinguishes nominative from accusative. The sentences Die Männer bissen die Hunde or Die Frau biss das Schwein, are ambiguous and would almost always be interpreted as subject-verb-object unless there was some pretty heavy contextualization to clarify who's biting whom. An gr 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

German in Luxembourg

As a luxembourger I cannot agree with "...together with Liechtenstein, Luxembourg (D-A-CH-Li-Lux) constituting the countries where German is the majority language."

There are few people in Luxembourg who speak German as their mother tongue. The linguistic situation in Luxembourg is quite complex. Most people in Luxembourg speak the Luxembourgish_language.

I do not think that Luxembourgish can be considered to simply be a German dialect as it is separately standardized. Its evolution and use does not depend on German.

I suggest removing Luxembourg from that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.202.204 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Luxemburgish is not only a German dialect, but it is quasi the same dialect with that of the nearby Trier in Germany. The mutual influence of neighboring dialects is also a logical fact. It doesn't matter if you come from Rhineland, Saarland or Baden, you can understand easily what the Luxemburgers say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.79.240 (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference between Luxemburg speech and Trier speech is that the former has an army. Language boundaries are basically political boundaries, cf Dutch and German, Hindi and Urdu, Croatian and Serbian, or Trierian and Luxemburgish. On purely linguistic grounds, we are dealing with a dialect chain Jasy jatere (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As amusing as the old chestnut about the difference between a language and a dialect is, it isn't terribly accurate. Austria has an army, and yet Austrian German is considered a dialect of German, not a separate language. On the other hand, Iceland has no army, but Icelandic isn't considered a dialect of anything else. The real difference between Luxembourgish and Trier German is that the former has a written standard and the latter doesn't. An gr 15:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If Luxemburgish has a written standard, then it is a German dialect with a written standard and nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.79.240 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Which makes it a language. Voilà! -- megA (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a tricky question. Most people would consider Bokmål (the main variety of Norwegian) and Danish as two different languages. However, Bokmål is based on Danish and is in fact much closer linguistically to Danish than the other Norwegian variant (Nynorsk). Still, Bokmål and Nynorsk are considered to be one language while Bokmål and Danish are considered to be two different languages. American English has a written standard but is still considered a variety of English, although the USA has an army. Alsatian and Swiss German were until recently considered German dialects but are now more often considered languages, I guess the same goes for Luxembourgish (how would it otherwise be possible for Luxembourg to have both German and Luxembourgish as official languages). I think we should classify languages and dialects in the same way as they are normally classified by the linguistic community. Aaker (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

90 % of the Luxemburgers can anyway speak Standard German, so that this discussion is senseless. Like the Bavarians or the Tyroleans they speak at home traditionally their dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.116.108 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just how exactly and by whom is Swiss German "more often" considered a language? It has no standard, it isn't taught at school, it has no official status, it's even called Swiss 'German'... -- megA (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Just like Brazilian Portuguese, don't many softwares offer the ability to be set to Swiss German? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as in Portuguese, that's because of slight differences in spelling. In Switzerland, the official language is High German in its Swiss variety. (alongside French, Italian, and, with different status, Romansh) But thats not Swiss german, which is an umbrella term for those dialects spoken in that region. -- megA (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

These criteria merely say, that Swiss German is not a standard language. Moreover, Swiss German is not a dialect of Standard German. Anyway, the topic here in this section is German in Luxembourg, not German in Switzerland. -- Sinnierer (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was asking Aaker, who brought ths up in this very discussion: "Alsatian and Swiss German were until recently considered German dialects but are now more often considered languages," so please read before posting. Again, how exactly and by whom is "Swiss German "more often" considered a language? And there is no such thing as a "standard" language vs. "non-standard" language. You may also refer to the Swiss German article, where at no point it is called a language, but an umbrella term for Alemannic dialects spoken in Switzerland. The official language is Swiss High German, which is a marginally different variety (in terms of orthography and vocabulary) of High German, as is Austrian High German. -- megA (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

spoken in... / map

isn't this map somewhat exaggerated? Every major language is spoken in many countries and still the particular country wouldn't be seen as part of the "sprachraum" in question. Shouldn't the map just show the countries where German has an official status whatsoever?

Try to shorten the list. I will support you. But I expect that it would not take a day until somebody put "Botswana - 57 speakers" or something of similar importance on the list again. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The official status is only a political category. In North America the number of people with German ancestry is almost as high as in Germany itself. In the US the people of German ancestry represent the greatest ethnic group. So I think that your opinions are from "Botswana".

This list is actually about spoken language, not ancestry. Concerning ancestry, we are all East Ukrainians. And don't forget to sign your posts. (four tildes (~)) -- megA (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't help if you confound facts with fairy tales like the Kurgan hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.243.212 (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Now it seems that the old map with red dots has been pulled out once more from the relict room. But on the US territory this red dots should be inserted additionally in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Montana and Texas. This observation is also valid for Canada, South Africa and Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.116.108 (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Excessive multiple infinitives

Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur wohl erschossen worden sein sollte.

This sentence construct makes no sense in German.

"It is suspected that the deserter has probably been shot" translates to:

"Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur wohl erschossen worden ist."

There is an infinitive too much in the above German sentence. It translates to "It is suspected that the deserter was probably supposed to have been shot".

It's either
"...wohl erschossen worden sei" (has probably been shot (indirect speech)),
"...wohl erschossen worden ist" (has probably been shot), or
"...wohl erschossen werden sollte" (was probably supposed to be shot). -- megA (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong. There are contexts in English where "...was supposed to have been shot" is correct, and in those contexts you'd say "...wohl erschossen worden sein sollte" in German, wouldn't you? But I think the entire context has to be past tense, so it would be better to begin with "Man nahm an, dass...". An gr 20:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Man nahm an, daß der Deserteur wohl erschossen worden sein sollte"
"It was suspected that the deserter was probably supposed to have been shot." - I think there is a supposition and/or a "suspected" and/or a "probably" too much... I'm staring at the sentence and try to let it make sense... it's a bit easier with the past tense, though. -- megA (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the point of this example sentence is to show how verbs can pile up at the end of a dependent clause, the most disposable word is wohl. How does "Man nahm an, dass der Deserteur erschossen worden sein sollte" sound? An gr 06:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe I'm seeing a problem where there isn't any. It's definitely awkward and would be replaced with e.g. one of the variations I mention above in actual situations, but it seems gramatically correct. A nice life example I remember was a professor of musicology who loved to pile infinitives this way, slowing down considerably towards the end: "Dieses werden wir erkennen können... wollen... müssen." - "We will have to want to be able to recognize this." (It doesn't work that nicely in English, where you have to think the whole thing over before sayin it...) -- megA (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, if I heard that, with the pauses, I wouldn't interpret it as "Dieses werden wir erkennen können wollen müssen" but rather as "Dieses werden wir erkennen (1) können, (2) wollen und (3) müssen", as in "We will be able to - we will want to - we will have to - recognize this..." An gr 11:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The way he said it, it was clear he meant it as concatenated infinitives. -- megA (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Tenses

you skipped some tenses, you mentioned present and past tense, but you miss some, eg. (in german)

Futur I (Ich werde ins Kino gehen.)
Futur II (Ich werde ins Kino gegangen sein.)
Präsens (Ich gehe ins Kino.)
Präteritum (Ich ging ins Kino.)
Perfekt (Ich bin ins Kino gegangen.)
Plusquamperfekt (Ich war ins Kino gegangen.)-- Jorumpl (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Each tense is mentioned in this subsection. --Six words (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong sentences

Er wusste nicht, dass der Agent einen Nachschlüssel machen lassen hatte.
(Because hatte can't be in the end of the sentence.)

Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur wohl erschossen worden sein sollte.
(Because then the Deserteur is probably shot, you can't say then "sein sollte".
The second sentence is right: Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur erschossen worden ist/wurde. Maxorius (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the second sentence, but there's nothing wrong with the first sentence. It's a dependent clause in pluperfect (de:Plusquamperfekt), so of course "hatte" goes to the end (where else would you put it)? --Six words (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, he is right about the first sentence. There's a rule of German that when a dependent clause contains two infinitives, one of which is lassen or one of the modals like können, sollen, etc., the inflected verb comes before the infinitives rather than at the absolute end. The correct sentence is "Er wusste nicht, dass der Agent einen Nachschlüssel hatte machen lassen." An gr 10:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that the first sentence is definitely wrong (correct order: "hatte machen lassen"), and I still get headaches from the second one. -- megA (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, "hatte machen lassen" is colloquial. Depending on where you live it may feel correct, but it's not. It may become clearer if you use a simpler sentence as an example.

Der Agent hatte einen Schlüssel gestohlen. → Er wusste nicht, dass der Agent einen Schlüssel gestohlen hatte. NOT [...] dass der Agent einen Schlüssel hatte gestohlen.--Six words (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"...dass der Agent einen Schlüssel hatte gestohlen" is wrong because it ends in just one non-finite verb, a past participle. The bit about putting the "hatte" before the non-finite verb applies only when there are two (or more) infinitives. (And they do both have to be infinitives, you don't do the trick in "...dass der Agent eine junge Frau kennen gelernt hatte" either, even if you follow the (temporarily valid) Neue Rechtschreibung of writing "kennengelernt" as two words.) And this isn't colloquial; it's required by Duden 4: Die Grammatik (5. Auflage, 1995), § 1353. Examples given by Duden are: "...obwohl er die Arbeit nicht hat erledigen können", "...weil sie die Angaben hätte überprüfen sollen", "...als ich die Vögel im Garten habe zwitschern hören" (contrasted with "...als ich die Vögel im Garten zwitschern gehört habe" with one infinitive and one past participle), "...weil sie die Kinder draußen hatte spielen lassen", "...weil sie ihn längst hätte eintreten lassen sollen", "...weil ich das Muster bereits hätte ausgesucht haben müssen", "...weil der Vorschlag hätte überprüft werden sollen". It applies also in main clauses when "haben" itself is an infinitive, as in "Er wird wegen seiner Verpflichtungen nicht haben kommen können" and "Sie wird ihn nicht haben eintreten lassen können". It applies optionally to forms of "werden": "...weil sie sich das Paket wird schicken lassen" or "...schicken lassen wird", "...weil diese Kinder immer werden spielen wollen" or "...spielen wollen werden", and so on. An gr 19:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked this and (as much as it hurts me to say this) you're right! Duden is very strict about this, and though other reference works like CanooNet say that in some cases hatte can be at the end, it is not the usual form. --Six words (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I've found a solution for the Deserteur sentence, which has been driving me (and, hopefully, others too) mad:
Man nimmt an, daß der Deserteur wohl erschossen worden sein dürfte.
This eliminates the alternate "ought to be" meaning of sollte (implying a necessity), which I think is irritating and/or misleading. The "dürfte" version has the required meaning (possibility), but is less equivocal. -- megA (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
What about: Wahrscheinlich ist der Deserteur erschossen worden. Or: Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur erschossen wurde/worden ist.
(Probably translated): Probably the Deserteur has been shot.Or: ....,that the Deserteur has been shot/ was shot. Maxorius (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2009 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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:[2][3][4][5]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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_(Sprache)):

"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)

As I see it now nothing has been done in the last 2 years for now I have something add to the Article making an improvement regarding the importance of the first word in the sentence.

--Ard Seethorn (talk) 01:50, 18 Dec 2013 (MEZ)

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)

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)

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)

Wrong you are I think, and understandable hardly, young padawan... -- megA (talk) 17:19, 10 September 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)

This is an old discussion over here as well. You have already been told why here on German Wikipedia, even in English. What is it you didn't understand there? For more information, see the relevant discussion on the image talk page. Frankly, I'm surprised this unsourced and badly researched map is still in the article... -- megA (talk) 17:30, 10 September 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, Roß
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

Separable vs non-separable prefixes

Is it a general rule that separable prefixes are stressed (UM-fahren - er fuhr den Polizisten um) and non-separable prefixes are unstressed (um-FAHren - er umfuhr den Polizisten)? If so, then maybe it should be added as a simple way to distinguish between the two. -- megA (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting observation! As a German native (originally from Bavarian Swabia), I have no idea if there is a acknowledged "rule" concerning this question. However, I tried to think of as many examples for separable and unseparable prefixes as I could and each and every one of them confirmed your statement. I'd suggest waiting for another German native to confirm this as a general rule before adding it to the article. -- LadyLanquist (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Line in infobox?

Why is there a line in the infobox between Liechtenstein and Italy? -- megA (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

German is a minority language in all the countries below the line. --Pfold (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's an official language in Luxembourg and in Belgium, which gives it the same status as in Switzerland, but I see that the line is gone anyway. -- megA (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

German Dictionary

I suggest to add Glosbe to external links, i.e. English German Dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.126.251 (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)