Talk:Middle High German

message: Ezh claims:In contexts where "tailed z" is used in contrast to tail-less z, notably in standard transcription of Middle High German, Unicode ʒ is sometimes used, strictly speaking incorrectly. Unicode offers  ȥ "z with hook" as a grapheme for Middle High German coronal fricative instead.
--—Random832 14:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "ȥ" be used throughout this article? 

message: Might it be nice to put in a comparison with modern German in the tables of words/articles etc, to show how far MHG differs? I would do it myself, but I don't know how to do tables - so if anyone can help me, I'd be happy to supply the text. 88.104.2.23 (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to modern German 

message: I've seen several Middle High German texts which use the macron over nasals, but this article doesn't mention that at all.  What does it represent?  76.232.72.2 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a few MHG MSS use something like a macron as an abbreviation to indicate a following nasal, but that has no phonological significance. You won't see this in edited texts. --Pfold (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of macron 

message: The text makes mention of "primary" and "secondary" umlaut in the context of these three vowels, but it doesn't really explain what this means. Can this be elaborated? CodeCat (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary and secondary umlaut; e, ë and ä 

message: If anything can be done to wrap text around the many small tables that appear, it would help with non-mobile readers coming to the article. The overly linear nature of the current information requires much scrolling to get past what many might consider the most esoteric aspect of the article (the alphabet and grammar). Will make some other changes, in the spirit of good pedagogy—e.g., giving the example text first, so readers will understand what precious attainment lies at the end of a long trek through learning a & g. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: White space in article

message: Please avoid edit warring; discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can read here , the map is based on the "research" of Walter Kuhn, a Nazi who used Volkskunde and Ostforschung for Nazi Propaganda. Not mentioning this would be a clear violation of NPOV. There's other maps that don't claim a total occupation of German settlement and show the mixed settlement of Slavs and Germans  but they aren't transferable to Commons. Als long there's no better map it is necessary to explain why the map used is biased and has faults. And mentioning that Kuhn was a Nazi is the context you asked for.--Chianti (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  This map on the very same German article is far less one-sided, as that article notes. It is a jpg file, and comes from an atlas published in 1904 1905 (the plate is from that edition), and the author died in 1913, meaning it will be in pulic domain everywhere, it should be transferable to commons, and can serve as a replacement for the Kuhn map. Direwolf202 (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

text: P.S. You can find a reliable csource against his work in Eduard Mühle: Für Volk und deutschen Osten. Der Historiker Hermann Aubin und die deutsche Ostforschung. Düsseldorf 2005, p. 265, it's the first citation in the German article :de:Deutsche Ostsiedlung.--Chianti (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only been the first citation since you or your fellow-traveler added it there in the last couple of days. Unless you can show why the map is wrong, there's no reason to mention it. The map makes no claim that everyone in the areas shown spoke German, just that that was the extent of German settlement.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read and understand what I wrote. I explained what is wrong with the map and why. It suggests a complete colonization with no remaining Slavs which ist completely wrong. As long there's not a better map or the better map cannot be transferred to Commons it is the least to mention the source ot the data for the wrong map. Do you seriously want Nazi POV in the Wikipedia without comment?--Chianti (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godwin's law?