Talk:Standard German

message: The article claims the term "Standarddeutsch" (Standard German) is increasingly used in favor of "Hochdeutsch". This claim seems unverified to me, as a native German I have never ever heard or read "Standdardeutsch" anywhere. "Hochdeutsch" (High German) is always used to refer to the standard language. Nobody in Germany cares about the fact that linguists may have a problem with this usage. Ewok (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be made clear to students of German Philology in Vienna. However, it has not yet been made clear to the other 90 Million speakers of German who stubbornly cling to the term Hochdeutsch. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Standarddeutsch'' instead of ''Hochdeutsch''?

message: To avoid any confusion, I've been proposing the term "Lutheric" for present Standard German (in German: Lutherisch). Hellsepp --Hellsepp (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's fine for your own personal communication, but until the name achieves widespread popularity independent of you, it's not appropriate at Wikipedia. +Angr 13:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: it is also misleading. Luther did have influence on the emergence on Standard German, but his effect is usually overblown. The real standardization took place a full century after Luther and was only loosely connected to his Bible. --dab (𒁳) 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

text: In German, the term "Lutherdeutsch" (Luther-German) does exists. But it could specifically be Martin Luther's German or more generally be "Standard High German". www.swp.de/suedwesten/staedte/besigheim/lutherdeutsch-im-alltag_-schwaebisch-in-der-freizeit-17381215.html uses it in the general meaning, hv-schortens.de/plattdeutsch-ist-unbezahlbarer-vorteil/#more-704 ("das auch als Lutherdeutsch bekannte Hochdeutsch") mentions it in this meaning. -12:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not "Lutheric"?

message: Someone might want to work on the Origins section, which has, for instance:
:It is thus the spread of Standard German as a language taught at school that defines the German Sprachraum, i.e. a political decision rather than a direct consequence of dialect geography, allowing areas with dialects of very limited mutual comprehensibility to participate in the same cultural sphere albeit used mainly in informal situations or at home and also including dialect literature, and more recently a resurgence of German dialects in mass media.
Around that my head I can't wrap. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins revision 

message: According to Ethnologue, Standard German is under the East Middle German family group. I think we need to expand a lot about the history of Standard German. Komitsuki (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But Standard German is separately under the High German languages family according to this article. Komitsuki (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Middle German? 

message: All the articles about German have this "it's pluricentric" sentence, but it was clearly added without reviewing the content of the articles and it doesn't make much sense.
I'm not saying "standard" and "pluricentric" can't co-exist.  What I'm saying is that this article (like the rest) doesn't make any effort to explain how they co-exist in the case of German.
The article talks about many "varieties" of standard German.  So, there are multiple standard Germans?  I.e. there is no one "standard German", but various?
I really can't understand this article.  Every paragraph contradicts itself.
Is it true that there is one standard written German, and no agreed way to pronounce it?  Is that what the article is trying to say?
The article says: "regional variants are permissible in contemporary Standard German".  Who is the authority that decided that regional variants are part of Standard German?  Is there an official international body that standardises the German language including pronunciation?  (Council for German Orthography?)
If not, the article mentions "the Duden series".  If that's the most recognised authority on German pronunciation, is it the real "Standard German" pronuncation? --Gronky (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "pluricentric" mainly means Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. It doesn't refer specifically to pronunciation. --Boson (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it standard or pluricentric? 

message: This map mostly follows modern borders - established after the end of the war - and cannot possibly contain in each colour-shaded area the speakers that speak a specific variety. Austria, for example is an extremely new country, whose borders were decided by politicians with little concern for the people on the ground - Its borders and the borders of Austrian German can't be so near-identical. And what about the Germans in the Sudetenland who still speak German? Granted that many moved to Germany after the war and again with the end of the Cold War. But the fact remains that German is still spoken in these areas. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: @User:Kwamikagami: Please provide WP:SOURCES for your claim that Standard German has no native speakers. Otherwise, that claim is WP:OR and must be removed from Wikipedia. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFF does not count as a source in any way.
And please stop edit-warring over such a silly question. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 19:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking my lead from you and the other editor who claims to know about this.  And please keep the discussion in one location.  (I answered at Talk:Austrian German.) — kwami (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there any sources for the (rather preposterous) claim that Standard German has no native speakers? 

message: is vandalising articles on German language by removing a map which is referenced by peer-reviewed author Ammon, obviously for ideological reasons - "German minorities must not exist, for the have been justfully erased". -- PhJ (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: PhJ, there is no sizable German speaking minority in all those places in Eastern Europe per government census data form those countries, also this map is based on an original map created by user Postmann Michael, who was blocked for, quote: "POV from doubtful sources, playing down Nazism. Harms Wikipedia (POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus. Schadet der Wikipedia). Postmann Michael's maps are constantly are criticized on German Wikipedia, and at this point you are defending a map that is created by a user blocked for Nazi apologetics. Per the 2011 Polish census, in the City of Łodź, there is only 263 individuals who declared a German ethnicity in a city of 700,000, yet that city is marked on the map in a big blue area as if it was bilingual, extreme misrepresentation to say the least. --E-960 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Talk:German language#E-960's vandalism. -- PhJ (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-960's vandalism (extremely bias discussion title posted by user PhJ)

message: Nillurcheier, this phrase should be removed from the image caption for the map showing the national and regional standard varieties of the German language. I could understand such a phrase being used for a historical map which shows Europe, etc. before 1945, but to tag on this statement for a map showing contemporary distribution of the Standard German is unnecessary. Are we going to add similar statements to every modern European map, for example Sweden... after the loss of Finland in 1809; Poland... after the German and Soviet invasion in 1939; United Kingdom after the Irish independence in 1921. Germany is not the first and only European country to have lost significant territories and/or experienced population shifts. There were many, but in the case of Germany, I see constant references to past borders, etc. even for the most current topics. --E-960 (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can easily agree that a current map plus a historical would do it. The losses in 45 were extraordinary, but of course caused by the Nazis starting world war II. The German and the english page on German language have a 1900 language distribution map in addition to today's. Let's copy that and the issue seems to be set. Best Nillurcheier (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, a historical map is appropriate, but adding these tag on statements to a contemporary map is not the best approach, as it paints everything in light of some historical event, even when dealing with current topics. --E-960 (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a main article :German language which has various maps including one that depicts the extent of the German speech area before 1945 (see German_language#Early_New_High_German). This page is specifically about the standardized language, the map has present-day borders and is about the areas where Standard German is the official language, so historical information that is not directly related to the standard language is somewhat off-topic (NB not only the speech area has changed in the aftermath of WWII, but also many borders). So no objection from my part for a removal of this phrase. –Austronesier (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:   "expulsions of the Germans"