Talk:Germanic languages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lombardic (again!)[edit]

I removed Lombardic from its absurd position straddling E & WGMc and it has been reverted. The reason for removing it was quite simple and has been discussed before. Every major handbook on the history of German says Lombardic is West Germanic. Some editors of this page hold the opinion (as they're entitled to do) that it either is or might be EGmc. However, they are quite unable to support this so far with even a single source. never mind a match for the dozen or I listed some time ago on this Talk page. Since the EGmc claim flies in the face of the unanimous view in the handbooks that Lombardic is West Germanic, it really has no place on this page at all - if there were anything to it, the Lombardic page would be the place - let alone in a table which attempts to summarise the accepted view of the relationship of the Gmc languages. The idea that the note (whose claim, after all, would also seems to be untrue) somehow excuses this doesn't count as a reason to revert in my view.

I appreciate that people are attached to their opinions, but if you can't back them up with citations, what basis have you got for objecting to their removal from this page in favour of a view thoroughly supported in the published literature? --Pfold 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there actually a meaningful difference at this stage between "East Germanic" and "West Germanic"? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted because your edit summary implied that sources had been requested for a year, when there wasn't even a {{fact}} tag on it, and because simply removing Lombardic from the table doesn't solve anything. If the majority of scholars hold Lombardic to be West Germanic rather than East Germanic, then move it to the West Germanic column of the table. But keep the note explaining that there is a dispute about the issue. —Angr 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lombardic must have been quite close to Gothic dialects: Therefore an East Germanic language, however in the last decades strongly influenced by South and West Germanic neighbours. There is no secret about this. ;-) 2001:9E8:AAA7:D500:9C6D:600B:9D4F:E525 (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

map[edit]

the map is very distorted; the north is inclined towards the left: it gives a wrong perception of Europe as it is in reality. The results: France seems almost at the same latitudes than Germany on the map, which is far from reality! Maybe it would be better to find a map that is not so much distorted to give a better perception of how Europe really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that much "twist" is necessary in order to get Iceland and northern Norway on the map. And those are more important to a map of the Germanic languages than France! —Angr 04:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the map has Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales coloured the same as England it could give the false impression that the various Celtic languages found in these countries are Germanic or that Germanic languages are the only ones spoken in these places. In contrast, Belgium doesn't have the entire area within its border coloured like this and so accounts for French being spoken in addition to Dutch. There is also the problem of the map not being labeled with dates despite being in the history section. From the way it looks I've assumed it represents the spread of Germanic languages currently spoken in Europe, but if it's supposed to represent the spread Germanic languages much earlier than ~1850 then it becomes very flawed with respect to Celtic languages. 02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltyman (talk • contribs)

The map is wrong in many places. East Frisian is only spoken in a tiny portion of Lower Saxony and not on the North Sea Coast. Frisian is spoken in northern Germany and not southern Denmark as it shows. It also has the island of Ruegen the wrong color as the rest of Germany. The map implies that only English is spoken in Ireland and Scotland. Not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.146.129 (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the map implies that English is spoken in Ireland and Scotland, which is true. Colors showing where languages are spoken are not meant to imply exclusivity. +Angr 15:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map "The present-day distribution of the Germanic languages in Europe" is wrong about the northern part of Norway: A large majority, also in the counties of Troms and Finnmark, speak Norwegian. (It is only in the two municipalities of Karasjok and Kautokeino that Sami speaking people is a majority of native speakers.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.163.110 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the map is also wrong about Alemannic German, namely regarding Switzerland and Alsace-Lorraine.2001:9E8:AAA7:D500:9C6D:600B:9D4F:E525 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atleast call "German" "Standardgerman"! (EDIT: even better: Neuhochdeutsche Schriftsprache)[edit]

In the Article is a Vocabulary comparison Table where it is assumed that the "Standargerman" spelling is called just German! That is much too imprecise.

Westfrisian and Lowgerman get their own table columns even though almost no one speaks this language any more. the bavarian language, on the other hand, is alive! 320luca (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only answering the last exclamation: linguistic vitality is not a major criterion here, otherwise we wouldn't have Gothic here, which is considerably deader than the rest. We just want a to give a broad yet concise sample of the major branches, and High German varieties are already represented by Standard German. –Austronesier (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second what Austronesier said. Also: the normal name for "Standard German" is "German," just as the normal name for "Standard French" is "French," "Standard Italian" "Italian," etc. There is no need to specify "standard" in this context.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a need to specify because the Name is not German but Standardgerman or Hochdeutsch. (not to be confused with uppergerman) 320luca (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no standard on how to write word in bavarian, so german can not represent the Upper german language(s). 320luca (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the name is "German" (or Deutsch if you prefer). Are you telling me that Duden is wrong [1]? "Standard German" would only be necessary if we were discussing German dialects, which we are not (Low German is generally considered a separate language by linguists, as is West Frisian, which is spoken in the Netherlands anyway). Furthermore, (standard) German is a standardized Upper/High German variant for the most part (with Middle German elements), so, yes, it is quite representative of Upper German. I notice you aren't insisting we add "standard" to any other languages on the table, all of which also have dialects.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Duden is neither wrong nor right, but it is but one Dictionary of Spelling among others.
If Low German is a seperate Language in which they dont write "Fliege" but "Fleeg", how can we then let German stand and not be more clear in the Table?
Readers are already assuming that the "Germans" (whoever they are...nobody seems to be sure on WP) all have one Standard on how to write "proper" German, when in fact these Words in the Table are only written this Way in Standardgerman.
Im a Native Speaker of Bavarian and Standardgerman is not representative of my Language.
That is not just i who is of that View but also Prof. Dr. Robert Hinderling im his Works.
(Im not interested in the other Languages.)
)
320luca (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Low German has been differentiated from High German by the use of low. We don't include Bavarian on this table for the reasons already explained to you. The point is to show a wide range of differences caused by sound changes, hitting all the major branches, not represent every dialect or sub-variant of Germanic. Adding "standard" to "German" would be as redundant as adding "standard" to Danish or Dutch here.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People not invested in Linguistics will then assume the whole "Germanspeaking" Countries write the same ie. speak the same, which is not the case in Switzerland, Austria, Southtyrol, Bavaria, etc...
But i dont fault you or me for arguring over this pointless Topic, afterall we just didnt accept yet that the whole of Austria and Southtyrol is not german anymore.
It id just that the Law, Politics, Wikipedia are slow to catch up.
Today German is only spoken and written in Germany. (But im not German, so i wont dictate it to the Discriminated on how they shoulf feel up there.) 320luca (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as 'Standardgerman'!
Dyḗwsuh₃nus (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standarddeutsch 320luca (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to discourage your contributing, but, to be blunt, there is simply no point in a non-specialist who is not familiar with the English-language literature of the subject trying to "correct" the local (in some cases highly qualified) experts who are familiar with that literature. --Pfold (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your Honesty. I wont correct anybody, they need to understand it themselves. 320luca (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


EDIT: An even better Word would be "neuhochdeutsche Schriftsprache" in case of German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 320luca (talk • contribs) 23:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't. You appear to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - Wikipedia is not here to fight your battle against the German language in Austria and South Tyrol.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions at the article Southtyroleans (created by the OP of this discussion) need the attention of the editors of this page.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox map[edit]

The infobox map European Germanic languages includes Irish, Welsh, Cornish, and Manx which are Celtic rather than Germanic languages. Perhaps understandably since they are not Germanic languages they are not mentioned anywhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.66.115.96 (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn’t. Are you sure you’re linking to the right map?—Ermenrich (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Click to zoom in (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Germanic_languages_with_dialects.png) and you can see grey labels for "irish" in the centre of the Republic of Ireland, "welsh" in southeast Wales, and "cornish" in Cornwall.
The grey area in northwest Scotland is also somewhat misleading since for the most part people who report being able to speak Gaelic are <15% of the population. Only the Outer Hebrides have >50% Gaelic speakers. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-gaelic-language-plan-2016-2021/pages/4/ 73.66.115.96 (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)\[reply]
See Cornish dialect, Irish English, Welsh English, and Manx English.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elfdalian on family tree[edit]

Elfdalian should be under Daleclarian dialects on the family tree Cinnamon338 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germanic_languages&oldid=1222696472"