Talk:German language

Umlaut (linguistics)

Would someone have a quick look at Umlaut (linguistics)#Marking please? As written, it appears to suggest that the mark is historic. I don't speak German but even I know this to be nonsense. Thank you. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Your concern isn't entirely clear to me (nor why you're asking here instead of at Talk:Umlaut (linguistics), but that's secondary). Is it that you're interpreting "originally" to mean that the mark was originally used but no longer is? I can see it being read that way, but I can also read it another way, to indicate that that was the umlaut mark's original purpose, but that it is now used in words that involve no phonological umlaut, as in foreign borrowings such as Büro and imaginär, or perhaps even in native words like Bär (Middle High German ber). Perhaps that was what was intended. If so, then it should be reworded to remove the ambiguity. Largoplazo (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The current text is ambiguous. I feel it needs the attention of a German speaker to tease out the nuances. (Yes, I should have tried asking at the article talk page first. Feel free to transfer the conversation there.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I will remove the passage completely. That page isn't even about the diacritic nor German (or Germanic) umlaut, but the linguistic phenomenon in general. So it's quite off-topic. –Austronesier (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

"Wie gehts" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wie gehts has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 22 § Wie gehts until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

"Deutschgesprachen" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Deutschgesprachen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 22 § Deutschgesprachen until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

poor article contradicts itself in multiple ways

• intro: "or more precisely High German" and table with "Language family ... High German" vs. ISO 639-3 in the talble: "nds – Low German"

  Low German is not High German

• nativename in the table: "Deutsch" vs. bar – Bavarian etc. in the table

  in the various dialects like Bavarian the term for German is different, e.g. in ksh – Kölsch it's Dütsch (cp. WT)

• WP speaks of "High German languages" (plural), yet this is only "German language" (singular). German is broader than High German, so it should be German languages, or German here is short for Standard German which already has a more proper article.

date=June 2023

I am moving this here sic erat from a cleanup hatnote posted by this anonymous user. Dylanvt (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Cluster

From the article:

The Low Franconian dialects [...] Nevertheless, topologically these dialects are structurally and phonologically far more similar to Dutch, than to German and form both the smallest and most divergent dialect cluster within the contemporary German language area.

Niebaum 2011, p. 98.

• Niebaum, Hermann (2011). "Wege und Schwerpunkte der deutschen Dialektologie" [Ways and focuses of German dialectology]. Einführung in die Dialektologie des Deutschen [Introduction to the dialectology of German] (in German) (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer. ISBN 978-3-11-091654-6.

As for the source:

• That's not properly cited, as it lacks the other author Jürgen Macha and as the year or edition is wrong (1st 1999, 2nd 2006, 3rd 2014 - 2011 could only be a reprint or a re-release as e-book or something)
• Quoting from the 3rd ed. as here the text is (basically) the same and as this can still be viewed online:
  Hermann Niebaum, Jürgen Macha, Einführung in die Dialektologie des Deutschen, 3rd ed., 2014, p. 104 ([1])): "Auf der Karte sind ebenfalls drei Hauptgebiete, erkennbar, die sich, wie Nerbonne/Siedle (2005:[...]) festellen, „im Wesentlichen mit den Verteilungen des Nieder-, Ostmittel- und Oberdeutschen (Cluster 1, 4 und 5) nach traditioneller Einteilung decken, sowie ein heterogenes Gebiet im Westen, das in etwa Ripuarisch (Cluster 3) und Niederrheinisch-Westmünderländisch (Cluster 2) entspricht.“

Thus:

• The source doesn't state that Low Franconian is the smallest and most divergent cluster. It's stating that Ripuarisch + Niederrheinisch-Westmünsterländisch form a heterogeneous area. So both the dialect(s) and the degree of comparison (superlative vs. positive) aren't sourced.
• Article stated: "within the contemporary German language area". There's a difference between "in Germany" and "in the German language area". The German language area also comprehends Austria and Switzerland. As the source only considered Germany, the wording in the article wasn't correct.

-06:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)