This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
German language was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated.
Review: October 13, 2006.
Remember that article
talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters.See talk page guidelines.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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.[1]
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.
ISBN978-3-11-091654-6.
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.