Talk: Germanic languages
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
To Rmhermen on Burgundian see Burgundians for people. The language is very difficult, but a website from ch/Switzerland gives info in German. 'Lex Burgundionum" = Burgunderrecht= Laws of the Burgundians - one of the oldest Germanic law records, by Gundobad + 516 , Laws written down are based on tribal Germanic custums. and by king Sigismund + 523/4 "Prima Constitutio". Burgundian soldiers , originally from Baltic Sea, Vistula to Rheinland , Worms area had soldiers as "hospites" in Roman service. Then came to (later)Burgundy, Swabia (Schwaben), Switzerland, Savoyen. , settled in 443 :"Sapaudia". and 457 in province Lugdunensis. Language remnants are very sparse, a Burgunder king daughter married Theoderic the Great. Some history in "Niebelungen Lied" and in later Switzerland in: "Burgundische Eidgenossenschaft" see external Swiss link in German[[:http://www.Snl.ch/dhs/externe/project/textes/D8028.html|http://www.Snl.ch/dhs/externe/project/textes/D8028.html]] user:H.J.
- Me again (boring day at work) -- the lex Burgundiorum (Burgundiarum?) is written in Latin, as are the other extant law codes
| Contents |
Location
All the West-Germanic languages seem to be located East of the East-Germanic languages. --AxelBoldt
- All the East-Germanic languages do not exist any more.
Gothic is the known East-Germanic language. From the 1st century BC to the 5th century AD, they did live to the east of most other Germanic speakers, in what is now Poland, Ukraine, the Balkans and thereabouts. Later, some of them settled in Spain and Italy. (And legend has it that they may have lived in Sweden at an earlier date.)
The other possible East-Germanics are guessed from a few tiny fragments and proper names, and the fact that those tribes at one stage lived close to the Goths (in what is now Poland). Except maybe the Lombards. I don't know much about them except they later lived in northern Italy. Do scholars really think they spoke East-Germanic?
Linguistic Markers
The page includes this quote:
- 3. The presence of two distinct types of verb conjugation: weak (regular) and strong (irregular). English has 161 strong verbs; all are of native English origin.
If I should be nitpicky, at least "take" is a strong verb with a non-native english origin, instead being a scandinavian/old norse borrowing. The scandinavian languages are also germanic, though, so maybe it's unnecessary to edit this.
Non-Indoeuropean Roots
Is the quote of up to 80% non-indoeuropean roots correct? I have seen quotes of ca 30% elsewhere. And who were the Battle Axe people??
I could not find any sources to prove 80% and Battle Axe people, so I would propose to delete this item 6 at all. -- Vassili Nikolaev
What about removing the information about German dialects? They are also in the article High German. And it does not make sense to see them in such an overview (imho) --zeno 08:50 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)
I agree; this page is too detailed with Low German, High German, and North Germanic holding the information. I'll shorten it, tell me if it's good now. -- Toby 01:17 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
Low German
Regarding "Low German": On Low German, it's explained how the term is used in at least 3 senses. The table now reflects the sense adopted by Wikipedia for that article -- which I adopted (and has spread to other language wikis) on the grounds that it was a real linguistic category but had no other name. (I would move discussion there, if any.) -- Toby 01:35 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
Toby asks: How about "traditionally" for Yiddish/Hebrew? Sounds good! Sebastian 09:40 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
Great! I'm glad that that works out. -- Toby 02:09 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
I deleted "Burgundian", as it was an old French dialect. --zeno 00:44 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
Comparison of Selected Terms
Action is a bad example, as it is derived from Latin. Work (Latin: opus, Afrikaans, Dutch & German: werk) is a better word, but I don't know any other equivalents.
- Swedish has cognates "orka"(vb. cope,manage,handle etc.) and "yrka"(vb. demand). It also has the word "Verk", although technically, it is a low german borrowing, and not a cognate. It is a more exact translation, though.
- I might have been wrong. It seems like it is a true cognate...
I moved "Lombardic" to the upper german branch, since it definitely underwent the second germanic vowelshift according to runic inscriptions. The wrong classification as an east germanic language seems to be copy&paste error, that meanwhile has spread throughout international wikipedia version. --Zinnmann 13:20, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yiddish
- I am fairly sure that Yiddish does belong; to call it a "pidgin" implies that during the development of Yiddish, it was a contact language that involved Hebrew speakers meeting German speakers. Hebrew was long dead as a spoken language well before the Diaspora. Yiddish is in fact just a relatively ordinary dialect of German that developed in isolation from other German speakers, and developed a distinctive vocabulary to reflect the culture of the people who used it. Yiddish is largely intelligible to other speakers of colloquial German.
- Yiddish does belong. Its grammar and basic vocabulary are typically German; it has a regular sound rule in which German "au" corresponds to Yiddish "oy" (which would be written äu in German), e.g. heraus:aroys. The fact that it has borrowed lots of words from Hebrew, Slavic, and other languages doesn't make it less Germanic. -phma 18:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Not sure about Angloromany, which strikes me more as a jargon, a secret Romany-derived vocabulary attached to an English base, rather than a pidgin. Smerdis of Tlön 17:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- While some might rightly question whether it counts as a separate language, "Ebonics" is definitely a variety of English, and therefore counts as a Germanic language, at least if English itself qualifies. For if admixture of alien vocabulary means that a language ceases to be Germanic, English also should be dropped from the list; it has far more Romance and Latin words than Yiddish has Hebrew or Slavic words. Smerdis of Tlön 20:34, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- My friends from Berlin say that they can understand spoken Yiddish well enough to get the general idea of what's being said (if not every single word.) It ought to stay. Kwertii 23:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
More on Non-IE Roots
Quoting from the page: "The abundance of non-IE roots. There are many Germanic roots that are not found in other IE tongues. These include words for universal actions such as "bite" and "chew" and all words about ships and the sea, except "boat". These roots may have been borrowed from the so-called Battle-axe people, of which the Norse, Angles, Frisians, and Franks had been a part when they were living on the Vänern Sea. The Aesir would later come from Jutland before landing in Sweden and supplanting the language with Indo-European words."
Any references for the rather strong claim that the Norse, Angels, Frisians and Franks all were living by the Vänern lake in Sweden at some stage and can be positively identified as the battle-axe people? This may be one historical theory, but I think it can't be stated as a fact. It's notoriously difficult to connect spoken languages to pre-historical archeological findings. I propose this gets removed again. 82.73.105.231 01:27, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- While a speculative connection can be referenced in wikipedia, I don't think this belongs as this assertion on the Germanic languages page. I haven't seen this reference on other pages yet, so don't know how to evaluate those. Perhaps best would be to put a reference to any such pages from the location in this page. Anyway, I'll remove the section identifying these prehistorical people with particular language groupings. Martijn faassen 21:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I've seen a lot of pages where you have contributed this particular theory. Could you cite references to consensus historical theory? I'll remove again until you do such. Martijn faassen 22:20, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- This theory in my opinion should not be part of the page on Germanic languages. Reference such a theory (as theory) if you like, but don't keep putting it back as fact in the middle of this article. Martijn faassen 22:38, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Tok Pisin
- Tok Pisin is not a pidgin any more, just like Afrikaans isn't any more. Morwen 21:58, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
---
Theudish
Theudish language, as far as I know (and as Google shows) is not real; Google suggests that it is a micronation's conlang, so I have deleted its link from this page and edited its page. Anyone know more about this?
A puzzling paragraph
I can't make heads or tails of this paragraph, currently included in the article:
- "Many of the present-day divisions between Germanic/Baltic and Celtic/Slav peoples are rooted in the imperial structure of the Roman Empire's division between West and East, as well as the subsequent division called the Great Schism, which had most Celts within the influence of Rome and Latin Catholic; while Slavs revolved around Byzantium and Greek Orthodox. In turn, the Germanic people were under influence by the Celts and the Balts were revolving around the Slavs, as Mediterranean culture spread northwards. This cultural osmosis and subsequent split is primarily responsible for the classification of these peoples and their languages as parallel, but otherwise, the differences aren't so great along the borders of their cultural spheres, at least.
Surely the Roman Empire and the East-West Schism have nothing to do with origin of a separate Germanic language family, because that origin came far earlier in history. Are these "divisions" supposed to be cultural as opposed to linguistic divisions? But if so, isn't this really part of European history rather than historical linguistics?
In the absence of some kind of clarification, would it perhaps be sensible to delete this paragraph? Opus33 00:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- This has Kenneth Alan's work written all over it. My understanding is that he is no longer actively editing, having left when other users contested his murky but suspect notions about Germanic peoples, languages, gods, and mythologies. It can safely go. The difference between Germanic languages, Celtic languages, and Baltic languages are profound; and at any rate not all Germanic speakers ended up in the Western half, as the history of the Crimean Goths manifests. Smerdis of Tlön 00:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, I've done the deed, hoping not to put anyone into a state of rage. Thanks for your advice, Smerdis. Opus33 00:35, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Kenneth Alan is at it still, though he's claiming he's not editing anymore.
I've seen him add this in a minor edit: These are chiefly found in Insular Germanic and Insular Nordic tongues, while the typically Indo-European roots are found chiefly in the Continental Germanic and Continental Nordic.
- This seems to claim that non-IE words like 'bite' and 'chew' are not typically found in continental Germanic languages. If the examples are anything to go on, this is bogus, as words with the same roots exist in continental Dutch and German. I'll remove this. Martijn faassen 21:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with being a positive contributor. Why not stop being a negative detractor, Martijn Faassen?
I wrote what makes sense; those words would be BEST preserved in the maritime affected languages, rather than continental, because the metamorphosis of continental languages occurs in greater extent replacing what may appear native, NON IE ROOTS. In maritime communities, people more often attempt to preserve their unique heritage and do not take to kindly to conversion to continental ways. Case in point, the Norman Conquest brought a language to the British Isles that the people resented because not knowing it restricted the general populace's power in their own home. The Norse left Scandinavia for Faeroes, Iceland, Greenland etc. to escape encroaching Danish control in their daily lives, which meant a continental influence like language. Doing this would have the highest concentration of older terms, most of them maritime, in the isles and insular tongues. Anglo-Frisian speech would most likely have given the inspiration for much insular talk in the Low German tongues, obviously, for the degree of connection in location and time. The Hanseatic League would no doubt use many of these terms when doing business in their time, but the fact remains, the Low German background received most of it's maritime terms from the Anglo-Frisians, just as the Swedes, Goths and Danes learned theirs from the Norse. Of course there are always invented terms and slang, from any time period that has no roots, but for the most part, is what the article is referring to. No need to scream "bogus", when the facts of historical lexicography are blatantly clear. Lord Kenneš 07:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
You are deliberately leaving out the other part to my reference of Non IE Roots, the fact that most of these terms are about ships and the sea. It seems you wish to discredit me by distorting the facts of my behaviour. Lord Kenneš 07:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- The current edit just didn't make any sense. I am a native Dutch speaker so I know the examples ('bite', 'chew') exist in Dutch, and I also know they exist as very basic words in German. The text was definitely implying the wrong thing. This isn't helped by your history of making unsubstantiated statements and dodgy etymology. Martijn faassen 10:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps I sent the wrong message by forgetting to reword it appropriately, and that, I confess is part of my editorial laziness(I have had that problem for a long time, explaining things in full composition rather than a brainstorm and rough draft-I'm getting better though), but not a sign of scholarly weakness(I am a very deep student, perhaps my studies are beyond my expression, and do not provide adequate presentation of what I know because I'm still into learning about the subject when writing about it to pay attention to what I'm showing-thinking one thing and doing another). Sorry if I presented a confusion, but this confusion is the source of what you have been using against me in my "history" here at Wikipedia. Lord Kenneš 12:58, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
No Original Research
This post concerns the following passage, recently deleted by Martijn faassen and restored by its original author, Kenneth Alan:
These are chiefly found in Insular Germanic and Insular Nordic tongues, while the typically Indo-European roots are found chiefly in the Continental Germanic and Continental Nordic.
I urge Mr. Alan to provide some citations to published work that makes this claim. The Wikipedia instructions to contributors make it very clear that we are not supposed to be presenting our own ideas/research; see Wikipedia:No original research. If the claim can be supported by published scholarship, then it should stand, and if it is Mr. Alan's own idea (no matter what its merits), it should be deleted. Opus33 15:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you, hypocritical lawbook fascist. How many more times are Wikipedian individuals working on their projects going to be downtrodden by POV original research of geek Wikipediholic cliques who are here to spend their free time like it's a club with sects and they push people around? A Nerd Fraternity? Haze me all you want, it won't phase me. Lord Kenneš 17:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Fellow editors--from the above it seems clear the we've got a big problem on our hands. I hope you will join me in the task of dealing with Mr. Alan's irresponsible editing. If there is someone out there knowledgeable enough to navigate the rather complicated Wikipedia legal system, I think it would be very much worthwhile to make an effort to get Mr. Alan banned. Opus33 19:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
The above material got the following responses --Opus33 22:25, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- The Kenneth Alan fan club meets at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kenneth Alan. Diderot 19:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, Diderot, I've now copied this over. Opus33 22:25, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Also, Martijn faassen replied to Kenneth Alan's remarks as follows:
- I've told you the same on original research many times. It doesn't seem to help. What is actually going on is not that we are fascists and push you around, but that we are actually right about this and you're not playing by the rules of this community. This is why you keep stumbling upon people who question your contributions and ask for references. It's hardly a clique, as certainly I myself only know about the others due to our shared opposition to your style of editing. Martijn faassen 21:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree, it's pushing the rules that I'm whining about. Lord Kenneš Alansson 23:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to attempt a rewrite of Non-Indo-European roots of Germanic languages soon, using Theo Venneman's research as a base. That will hoprefully clairify this business about root words. Diderot 13:18, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Why was the Comparison of Selected Terms replaced? is the new one considered 'better'? Could the person putting it explain the specificly the 'Yiddish' spelling of words used in the table? why does it have both 'w' and 'v'? Yiddish has only one such sound, the transcription seems inconsistant.
The new one is better. It uses cognates or their development and avoids Latinisms and modernisms. The Yiddish may be inconsistent due to various sources from which the words were taken. I suggest if anyone knows better they regularize the transcriptions.
Why is American English listed under Commonwealth English?
Why is American English listed under Commonwealth English? Taco Deposit 16:50, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
Reversion
How does one revert a page? The last edit has made a hash out of the table. Cheers Io 14:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I found out in the meantime. Now reverted to last good version. Io 14:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comparability of Terms
Some notes on the comparison of terms table: For English "Home":
- I believe the dutch "Thuis" is short for "te huis", i.e. "at house", and is not the same word linguistically as "Home".
- In Afrikaans, the word "Heim" is rarely used (it occurs in some compound words (e.g. "heimweė") and sounds archaic on its own). The word "Tuis" (like the dutch "Thuis") is used.
For comparability's sake, the dutch "Thuis" should probably be changed to a like word, or left blank. Perhaps a note should be added that some words are not generally used but are included for comparability's sake. Perhaps these can be flagged with an asterisk. --User:not signed up yet 02:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Also in this section I do not understand why all terms in all languages are capitalized. Even Yiddish which in its native script does not have a miniscule/majascule distinction! While some of these languages may once have capitalized certain words I believe German is the only one still capitalizing all nouns. I think the table should reflect this or just get rid of all the capitals. — Hippietrail 02:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tree
I think the tree got a bit large and unwieldy. Maybe the English dialects should be moved to a page of their own, as was done with the German dialects. By the way, is there really a linguistic difference between "Commonwealth dialects" and "American dialects"? I am not aware of any.
I guess this shows the limitations of the tree notation. A tree works well for languages - they are not mutually intellegible, and so they evolve more or less in a tree-like shape. But a tree does not work so well for dialects which are mutually intellegible -- dialects are related to each other in a network, they mix with their neighbors all the time. Of course it's hard to draw the line between language and dialect, but maybe it would be a good idea to limit the tree on this page to the higher levels, where a tree notation actually makes sense. --Chl 16:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, there are differences between some Commonwealth and some American dialects (f'risntance, in Australia, the diphthong represented orthographically as AI is pronounced [ęi], not [ei], and many Rs are silent, whereas most are pronounced in most American dialects, though this generalisation is inaccurate because it's based on politics, not pronunciation). However, any grouping of Englishes by 'Commonwealth' vs 'British' vs 'American' is pure nonsense, based on politics and not pronunciations (because they alliterate, y'see). Canadian English generally shares a lot more with American English than it does with Australian English. --Kesuari 06:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
page move
moved to Germanic languages for consistency with other language family articles (Italic languages, Anatolian languages etc.) dab 10:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
