Talk:Low German/Archive 1

message: At the moment, Plattdeutsch redirects to Low German languages. But isn't Plattdeutsch the same as Plattdüütsch? Gryffindor 00:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is the same. I changed the redirect so it points to this page. --::Slomox:: >< 02:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, "Low German" was the traditional name for Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages, which also includes the Dutch language and Dutch Low Saxon.  But you'll get a lot of dirty looks from Dutch people if you still use such a term to apply to either one.  This language needs to be renamed properly to Low Saxon, as it along with Low Franconian are (or at least were) considered "Low German".  Actually, if I recall, the referring to Low Saxon alone (to the exclusion of Low Franconian) as "Low German" was an ideosyncratic edit owing to that most of these languages are spoken in Germany, but however, such languages are more accurately Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages in Germany (as opposed to the Netherlands or anywhere else).  So, while "Low German" is still synonymous with "Low Saxon-Low Franconian", this distinction is politically incorrect, potentially very insulting, and no longer considered appropriate.  However, this distinction was also historic, as Dutch, Flemings, Germans, Prussians, Austrians, Alsatians and Swiss Germans alike used to be called "Dutch" in English (hence terms like Pennsylvania Dutch which was never associated with the Netherlands).  Note that, personally, I did not give these distinctions much thought before recently, and it was actually me who had created the new subcategories, using the names as they have already existed on Wikipedia.  But later, in a vfd, I studied the issue and voted to agree with the renaming of pre-vfd "High Germanic" to "High German", pre-vfd "Low Germanic" to "Low Saxon-Low Franconian" (though personally I would have settled for politically-incorrect "Low German" for consistency's sake), and pre-vfd "Low German" to "Low Saxon".  These names are in line with the reputable classification terminology used by Ethnologue. - Gilgamesh 03:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

message: This is normally called Low German in English. The only reason why that article wasn't called Low German in the first place was because at that time, this name was being used for the language group that is now called Low Germanic languages. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move of "Plattdüütsch" to "Low German"

message: *Support. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: ===="Low German" vs. "Low German language" and "Low Saxon (language)"====
I prefer Low German to Low German language because the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) recommends: If the language's name is unique, there is no need for any suffix. The name Low German is unique (at least as unique as for instance Australian English), as you can see from the pages that link to Low German. Additionally, this has the invaluable advantage of being NPOV with regard to the controversial question whether Plattdüütsch/Low German is an independent language or not.
I prefer Low German to Low Saxon because Low German seems to be more common and because Low Saxon is sometimes only applied to the variety Northern Low Saxon. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I prefer Low German to Low German language because the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) recommends: If the language's name is unique, there is no need for any suffix. The name Low German is unique (at least as unique as for instance Australian English), as you can see from the pages that link to Low German. Additionally, this has the invaluable advantage of being NPOV with regard to the controversial question whether Plattdüütsch/Low German is an independent language or not.
I prefer Low German to Low Saxon because Low German seems to be more common and because Low Saxon is sometimes only applied to the variety Northern Low Saxon. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Low German" vs. "Low German language" and "Low Saxon (language)"

message: In order to understand why this article has the name Plattdüütsch and not Low German, as it would be normally called in English, we need to have a look at the evolution of how the different branches of what is currently called Low Germanic languages have been represented on Wikipedia:
From 2001-09 until 2002-12:
*Low German
**(varieties in Germany and other countries)
*(Dutch, Afrikaans and varieties of them)
This means that in the beginning, the concept currently named Plattdüütsch already had the name Low German!
From 2002-12 to 2004-02 (after a series of edits by User:Toby Bartels):
*Low German language
**Low Franconian language
***(Dutch, Afrikaans and varieties of them)
**Low Saxon language
***(varieties in Germany and other countries)
After these edits, the name Low German language was no longer used for the concept currently called Plattdüütsch, but for the entire branch of West Germanic languages. The concept formerly named Low German (currently Plattdüütsch) was renamed Low Saxon language.
From 2004-02 to 2005-07 (after a series of edits by User:Alexander.stohr):
*Low German language
**Low Franconian language
***(Dutch, Afrikaans and varieties of them)
**Plattdüütsch
***Low Saxon language
****(varieties in Germany and other countries)
***East Low German
****(varieties in Germany and other countries)
That is to say, when the article Plattdüütsch was created in order to describe the same concept that previously had the name Low Saxon (and still before that, Low German), the name Low German was not available any more since it had been made the name of the entire group of languages.
Currently, the structure of that tree is still the same, but several article names have been changed (after a series of edits by myself):
*Low Germanic languages
**Low Franconian languages
***(Dutch, Afrikaans and varieties of them)
**Plattdüütsch
***West Low German
****(varieties in Germany and other countries)
***East Low German
****(varieties in Germany and other countries)
That is to say, the name Low German is available again, because it is no longer used as the name for the entire group of languages. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How the concept first called "Low German" happened to be called "Plattdüütsch"

message: Moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: Should the verb table be removed in favor of a more general description of verb inflection? --Godtvisken 19:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verb table 

message: It isn't entirely accurate to say that "Tied/Zeit" has no cognate in English; "tide" is cognate, as is "time" (distantly), though the former doesn't have the same meaning, and the latter doesn't reflect the sound change as well. In short, I'm not sure how or even if the chart should be modified. Bws2002 11:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I did not realize this before. I changed it to say "tide (literally: time)", although maybe a better wording that "literally: time" could be used to note that the meaning has changed but they are still cognates. Removed "Timmerman" until someon can find a cognate for it, if there is one. --Godtvisken 00:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cognate for Timmermann or timmern is to timber. --::Slomox:: >< 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tied" cognate 

message: I have moved the page in line with the other articles, which all have been moved, and consistency can be a good argument. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it, there's still an open discussion here. Let's not try to unilaterally preëmpt that discussion.--Prosfilaes 09:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move request

message: I've deleted Kollumerlands, because it doesn't exist. I had done it before, but something or someone put it on the page again. Kollumerlands doesn't exist, it is a part of the Groningen dialect Westerkwartiers. This has official been confirmed by the University Groningen. It's sometimes called Kollumerlands, because it is also spoken in a part of the Frisian municipaltly Kollumerlân & Nijkrûslân, but is still is a part of the Westerkwartier dialect. See also nds-nl:Westerkwartiers for more information. If you can't speak/read the Groningen dialect (which should be very likely), then you should ask me, then I'll translate it and make an article about it. Grönneger 1 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kollumerlands 

message: I'm sure I shouldn't be, but I'm astonished at the amount of politics and misunderstanding around this issue.
The Neddersassishe language is called "Low German" in English on exactly the same basis that the language of Lancaster County Pennsylvania is called "Dutch".  Namely: ignorance and meta-ignorance.  People call it "Low German" because it never occurs to them that it might not be the best term, nor would most of them care if the point were made to them.  "It's good enough.  Everybody knows what I mean."
It seems to me that perpetuating slovenliness is not something an encyclopedia should aim at, however.  
So I suggest that the article should be "Low Saxon (Neddersassisch, Platt)", with "Low German", "Plattdeutsch", "Plautdietsch", "Missingsch", et al. pointing to it.  
Low Franconian/Niederfrankisch is a different language and should have a separate entry.  To me, the two languages are as far apart as German and Dutch (I can just about puzzle out the Solingen flavor of Niederfrankisch, but only if I'm given a running start and a following wind). Katzenjammer 21:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested it, but it doesn't get that much support. In Dutch linguistics, Low German is a pure linguistic term for the languages unaffected by the High German consonant shift. What's listed as Low German here is called Low Saxon.Rex 21:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our personal opinion of the article or its name does not matter at all. What matters is how it's described in the relevant literature, in this case, in English linguistics. As you can easily observe in the relevant literature cited in this article and on this talk page, the usual point of view in English linguistics is to speak of Low German (that doesn't include Low Franconian). If you know relevant sources that have another point of view, please provide them – it can only improve the article. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Names for things aren't cast in stone, you know.  Defending a clearly-incorrect status quo merely because it's the status quo is neither praiseworthy nor good scholarship.  Consider, for a moment, the poor science exposed in The Mismeasure of Man.  Simply because nobody had contradicted it while it enjoyed a classist currency didn't mean it was good science.  Should every encyclopedia compiler have put their brains on the shelf and jumped off the bad-science cliff merely because others were doing it?  Katzenjammer 15:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not the place to promote a point of view that disagrees with the relevant sources. A promotion of such a point of view is called original research and Wikipedia's official policy is  Wikipedia:No original research. Of course, if your point is supported by relevant sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources), then it isn't original research. So where are your relevant sources? ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 16:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You're free to believe whatever you want. You're not free to put whatever you believe in a wikipedia article.  ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 01:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand your question. Whether I agree or not doesn't have any imporance. This is not a matter of personal opinion, but of verifiable linguistic publications. In these publications, Low German seems to be more common than Low Saxon. Low Saxon is sometimes used synonymously to Low German, sometimes to West Low German, sometimes to Northern Low Saxon. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But I don't think we WANT an article on Low German in the sense of "Germanic languages lacking the SGCS/HGCS". That presupposes a classification of the languages which is controversial and I suspect completely outdated. What WOULD be good, and somebody suggested it further up, is an article on different theories for classifying Germanic languages. There you could write to your heart's content about how "Germanic languages lacking the SGCS/HGCS" MIGHT be a classification which some people may find useful, and how "Low German" MIGHT be a good term for it - though "Low German(ic) Languages" would be better. But I doubt if there is any such thing and I rather resent the way what I call the "Wikipedia tree mentality" is trying to force us into thinking in this category. --Doric Loon 17:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse me? No longer used in current linguistics?! When did this happen? Yesterday? :-) Rex 19:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then maybe we ought to expand the High German consonant shift article?Rex 20:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But surely we have to have something on the matter ...  
Rex 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics, Politics 

message: how about an explanation of why it is called "low" german, and what low refers to. that was why i looked at this article, and i was not given any love here.
:It's explained in the first paragraph. Do you think it needs further explanation? -- j. 'mach' wust ☞ ☏ 09:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it was you who added that information; thanks! -- j. 'mach' wust ☞ ☏ 09:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please explain what "low" means in "Low German"

message: I don't see any reason why it can't list more than one name.. I'm sure it differs by region
--Godtvisken 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were the names Nedderdüütsch and Nedersaksisch removed?