Talk:Low German

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Archives /Archive 1

Contents 1 Personal Observations 2 Dialect continuum 3 Low German in The Netherlands? 4 Common dialect = same ethnic stock (across national lines)? 5 Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch - link fix needed 6 South America?

[edit] Personal Observations

As a native low german speaker (westphalia) under the age of fifty, living in England, I would like to add some comments to this discussion.

I still speak my mother tongue anytime I call my family or if I visit hy hometown on the dutch border. Within my family I speak low german with my parents, almost all my older relatives, and three of my younger siblings. But I speak high german with my two youngest siblings and most of the younger members of the local community. I only know of a handful of my peergroup that have opted for speaking low german with their children. So whilst I think the number of native low german speakers is still in the higher six digit numbers if not millions, it is sadly dwindling fast.

A few years ago I met the parents of a danish friend in London and whilst they spoke no english or german and I spoke no danish, we quickly established that we each spoke a version of low german and were thus able to communicate. Also, whilst in South Africa, I was able to understand some of the Africaans based on my low german. Infact, when our host uttered an exclamation, his pronounciation was absolutely identical to that of my mother.

One contributor spoke of local variations not existing anymore. I disagree. My mother and fathers families are from a town only a few miles down the road from my hometown. I vividly remember being asked 'where do you come from' when I started work. As if I was from another planet. Only because in my familie we say 'kerke' not 'karke' (spelling of my low german is total guess work... I never used it in any written form though people often make up low german poems for wedding invites etc..) These variations are still in place and people do recognise if someone is from a town further afield. I used to vary my own low german accent depending on whom I spoke to.

As you will have noticed, I have called it low german throughout. That is because it is the only phrase that has made any sense to my english audience when I have tried to explain that high german is not my mother tongue. I believe that this whole discussion is based on a (to some extent understandable) aversion of many dutch people to be thrown into one pot with anything german. Personally, I think that this is rather sad. As someone else said... we are very much one people. I feel that I have far more in common with the low german speakers on either side of the border than with the high german speakers of my regional capital for example. The people that home in on any devision are mostly the same that cause problems in any society. Mainly of a certain age and gender. Why? Why not celebrate the heritage we have in common?

Any dutch person speaking low german should feel no more german than a german person should feel indien due to speaking an indo-european language. If someone you know names their child with a name that has bad connotations for you... it really does not take that long before the name in your mind is connected to the child, not the person you knew previously under that name.

I am curious... are any of the other participants in this talk actually native low german/dutch speakers themselves? It did not seem to me from what people have posted. As such it confirms what I think holds true for many things. Those that are converted to something are far more zealous than those that grew up with it. Food for thought there.....

Amianna 20:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a Dutchman, and Dutch speaker, and in the Low Countries, your dialect is called "Low Saxon". Dutch linguistics uses "Low German" only as a linguistic marker and the precise meaning of "german" in "low German" is explained as wel, and has not got the same meaning as "german" in general. You remark that you think you have more in common with the Dutch than speakers of High German is somewhat unrealistic to me. You might see a lot of similarities with the Dutch living near your border, but the idea that the Dutch as a whole are culturally closer is somewhat strange. I think that if you look closer you'll see that you have a lot more in common with someone from Austria than one from the Netherlands. Not just culturally, but in some cases linguistically as well.Rex 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

She's speaking of Low Saxons in the Netherlands, not of all Dutch, I guess. And I'm sure, it is true, that the Dutch Low Saxon dialects are nearer to her Westfalian Low Saxon than the dialect of Düsseldorf. --::Slomox:: >< 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A North German may be linguistically closer to an Austrian than to someone from the Netherlands, but that is only because most North Germans do not speak Low German any more. Those who do are certainly linguistically a lot closer to standard Dutch than to Austrian dialects. Simply compare the "Wenker-Sätze" in any Low German variety with those in Austrian dialects and their translation in Standard Dutch.Unoffensive text or character 08:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Lol... I know the phenomenon... When an online-friend of mine from Cloppenburg visited Vienna, we met once an old friend of mine, who came from Utrecht but lives now in Vienna for... Fifteen years, I think... They talked... I didn't even understand a bit... But I realized the Low Saxon and the Low Franconian accents seem to be pretty close... The friend from Cloppenburg told me that this is somewhat their dialect over there... Didn't know that lower german is still that widespread in Germany...

And of course there are commons between the states Germany and Austria, don't forget that Vienna was the Capital of the Holy Roman Empire, and a major City of the German Confederation... ;-) --PSIplus Ψ 14:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Low German may be called "Low Saxon" in Holland & Belgium, but the official linguistic term is "Low German" ("Niederdeutsch"), so that is what the page should say. --dllu 12:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dialect continuum

What are the sources for the claims that LG forms a dialect continuum with Dutch and High German? And I mean "sources", not "arguments." --Pfold 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Take eg. this one: dtv Atlas Deutsche Sprache, ed. by Werner König, passim Unoffensive text or character 09:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not going to hunt through the whole book - let's have some specific page refs! --Pfold 00:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Shortly put, Low Saxon in The Netherlands sounds more like Dutch, and Low Saxon in Germany more like German, the is quite a big difference between these two. If you'd like some examples, compare: nds-nl:Nederlaand and nds:Nedderlannen. Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 13:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't want opinions or personal experience - I want references to published peer-reviewed research or standard handbooks. For example, the article by Niebaum on Westniederdeutsch in the LGL, characterises the boundary between LG and Low Franconian as a "Dialektscheide" and sees only the western end of the LG/HG boundary (i.e. the Rhenish Fan) as offering anything like a continuum. --Pfold 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about any published works about the differences between dialects in The Netherlands and Germany. But as is mentioned on this Wikipedia, the dialects in NL look to Dutch for neologisms and in DE to German (for example in Germany they say hoochladen from the German word 'hochladen'; in The Netherlands they use the English term or usually say bestand toevoegen (add a file) sometimes oplaojen from Dutch 'opladen'). This has been going on for centuries, and as you can imagine the differences because of this have become quite big. Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I confess that I have not found the word "Dialektkontinuum" in the work I named. Yet, if you look at practically all linguistic maps in the book, you will find that the isoglosses never (literally: never) coincide with the Dutch-German border. But of course, this is an argument, not a source. On the other hand, you said yourself that Niebaum speaks of a "Dialektscheide" between Low German and Low Franconian and this dialect boundary is not identical with the border between Germany and the Netherlands. Just to get it clear for me: Are you looking for a confirmation that there is a dialect continuum across the Dutch-German border, or across the Low Saxon (Low German)- Low Franconian dialect boundary? Unoffensive text or character 15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Servien, the question is not whether there is a dialect continuum, but whether anybody can name a source for this claim. I think, the fact that this continuum exists, is undisputed (or so I hope). Though you are right that dialects on each side of the political border have been diverging rather than converging for at least 150 years, they are still mutually comprehensible without any difficulty whatsoever. With the eventual extinction of most of those dialects on the German side of the border, however, there will in a few decades be a real language boundary between Germany and the Netherlands.Unoffensive text or character 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pfold, will you accept this as a source? [1]Unoffensive text or character 16:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I call a proper source - thought it's a pity C&T don't give their source. Given Niebaum's different view it would be good to find some other published sources on this to see where the preponderance of expert opinion is. It's not a matter of national boundaries but of dialect boundaries - is a specific boundary marked by enough isoglosses to constitute a barrier to communication? --Pfold 17:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is very little to be found on the mutual intelligibility of neighbouring dialects. There are certainly dialect boundaries (Dialektscheiden) where many isoglosses converge. But I do not know of any cases where this could severely impede mutual intelligibility. The only case where there are sharp dialect boundaries is that of dialect islands (Erzgebirgisch in the Upper Harz Mountains, Palatinate dialect on the Lower Rhine near Kleve and a few others).

This poster shows the Dutch dialect continuum and, if I interpret the text correctly, it also states that there are no abrupt dialect boundaries between Dutch and Low Saxon/Low German: [2]Unoffensive text or character 08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that this this idea of the dialect continuum across the LG/LF and LG/HG boundaries is an article of faith. I also suspect people look at the Rhenish fan and forget that it represents just a small set of phonemes - the LG Einheitsplural, the lack of ge- in past participles are *big* differences. To my mind, if you're speaking a variety with those features you are speaking LG, and if not then HG. Of course people living near the boundary are familiar with both varieties, but that doesn't mean they're not distinct. But I can't say I ever come across proper research on this. --Pfold 09:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the term "dialect continuum" does not necessarily imply that there are no language barriers to be found anywhere. Dialect islands like Erzgebirgisch in the Upper Harz Mountains or Pfälzisch on the Lower Rhine near Kleve are clearly not part of a continuum. There is one dialect barrier I know from personal experience: Immediately to the north of Frankfurt, a dialect is spoken that is very hard to understand for speakers of Frankfurt dialect. If I chose to speak the most basilectal form of the dialect of my home town, some 10 miles north of Frankfurt, I would not be understood in the city. But in other directions our dialect blends into neighbouring varieties more smoothly.Unoffensive text or character 12:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there are simply two problems about the classification of "Nedersaksisch". These dialects today have similarities to both Dutch and Low German dialects. So it is no wonder that both sides the Dutch and the Low German linguists often have a different opinion about the classification. However, I think the main problem is the political side of view. Dialects often do not stop at national borders and often they cannot be separated from each other easily because there are no clear boundaries. You just mentioned Niebaum. Goossens on the other hand arguments that these dialects are Dutch, they were Dutch and they are Dutch: Goossens, Jan: Zwischen Niederdeutsch und Niederländisch. Die Dynamik der ostniederländischen Sprachlandschaft, in: Goossens, Jan: Ausgewählte Schriften zur niederländischen und deutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft herausgegeben von Heinz Eickmans, Loek Geeraedts, Robert Peters, Münster u. a. 2000 (= Niederlande-Studien herausgegeben von Friso Wielenga und Loek Geeraedts, Bd. 22), S. 425 – 450. In my opinion his argumentation is rather political because I cannot find any clue in his claims. His sophisticated argumentation is too long to provide here so I will simplify it: All parts of the Netherlands have always spoken Dutch. German linguists claim that Low German was spoken in the northern parts some time ago. Goossens says there is no proof of this claim (however, there is no evidence of his, too). So his argumentation boils down to this: The Dutch dialects in the northeastern parts did not change like the other dialects in the Netherlands. So they got similiar to the neighbouring Low German dialects because of their resistance to change but they are still Dutch dialects. I cannot find any good reason why it could not be viewed the other way round: these dialects were Low German but became influenced by Dutch. So you can see it is more a political problem.

@Pfold: I see you're a German speaker (and a language buff) yourself. I'm surprised you have such a hard time accepting that there is indeed a dialect continuum between High German - Low German - Frisian - Dutch (- Afrikaans, if you will). Listen to the languages; it's really quite obvious. Also, I'm guessing you have some reference books on Germanic languages yourself, judging by the articles you wrote... --dllu 12:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Low German in The Netherlands?

Low German isn't spoken in The Netherlands, I don't know where this information comes from :S... in The Netherlands the language is called Low Saxon [Nedersaksisch = lit. Nethersaxic] (never Low German or Plattdeutsch/Platduits), this only refers to Low Saxon spoken in Germany. It sometimes is called "plat" but this really refers to any dialect spoken in The Netherlands. Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 13:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And in Germany they don't have horses, they have Pferde.

There are different naming conventions on both sides of the border. The Dutch call it Low Saxon, the Germans call it Low German, but it belongs to the same dialect group.Unoffensive text or character 15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On the German Wikipedia they call it "Niedersächsisch", Dutch "Nedersaksisch", Dutch Low Saxon "Nedersaksisch", Plattdüütsch "Neddersassisch". Historically the name is also incorrect, it would be better to rename it to Low Saxon language :-) Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 17:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

German linguists use different naming conventions. One variant is calling the language "Low German" (Niederdeutsch) and the sub-dialects or varieties of Low German are eg. North Low Saxon, Westphalian, Eastphalian etc. But anyway, I do not wish to engage myself in one of the many fruitless wars about the names of languages. I leave that to Dutch and German nationalists who seem to take quite some pleasure out of these discussions. Unoffensive text or character 09:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed extensively on this page and a decision reached on the basis of the preponderance of usage in the published English-language literature on the subject. What these varieties are called in other languages is irrelevant. --Pfold 09:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Low German. A dialect of this language is spoken in some parts of the Netherlands. If you like to call this dialect Low Saxon, go ahead.Unoffensive text or character 13:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the term Nedersaksisch is young. It is a educated term that got widerspread use with appearence of a sense of community of the Nedersaksisch dialects. Before that the dialects were mostly named after the places they were spoken (this is still the case today) or Plat or Platduits. So never Low German or Plattdeutsch/Platduits is not true. This is also illustrated by the many Google hits for Platduits that come from the Netherlands. But the term Nederduits/Low German (a educated term, that never was in vernacular use) indeed is no good name. In the Netherlands it means in a wider sense (and a bit outdated) all Dutch dialects, or in a narrower sense no Dutch dialects, but only German ones. So Low Saxon indeed is the better term. --::Slomox:: >< 16:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common dialect = same ethnic stock (across national lines)?

Judging by their language, it is possible to argue that people who speak Niederdeutsch/Nedersaksisch actually come from the same ethnic stock despite the fact that they are divided in national terms into Germans and Dutch (depending on which side of the border they live). Niederdeutsch/Nedersaksisch is very much an organic dialect - a mother tongue for the people who speak it - and the fact that it is spoken across a national border is not there due to some kind of colonial situation (example being the prevalence of the English language in Ireland).

Are the speakers of Niederdeutsch/Nedersaksisch (a 'multinational dialect') an example of the same ethnic stock divided by national lines similar to the speakers of a common shtokavian dialect in the former Yugoslavia (spoken by 85% of the Serbs, 70% of the Croats and all Bosniaks and Montenegrins)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.46.5.68 (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the language is based on a common ethnic stock, the Saxon one. But not only. In eastern parts of the language area it is more based on linguistic characteristics. The eastern dialects are the language of immigrants into Slavic areas. These immigrants came mostly from Low Saxon areas, but also from other areas like the Netherlands, Belgium or to a lesser degree from the more southern parts of Germany. Today there is not much awareness left for the ethnic Saxon background. People mostly see themselves as Germans or Dutch at first. So there is near to zero ambition in ethnic reunification or something like that.

At the Dutch/German border the border is younger than the language disposition. In the east it was more colonial. --::Slomox:: >< 16:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I find the Niederdeutsch/Nedersaksisch dialect situation fascinating, because it is a real world example of a discrepancy between ethnicity (common origin of the speakers of the dialect from the Saxons, despite the lack of any political significance of this) and nationality (division of the speakers of the dialect between Germans and Dutch in terms of nationality) in the European context...--24.80.113.166 19:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have always been told that Low-German phrases and words were spoken in the West-Country of England (Somerset, Bristol) previously. I am told that my grandparents used such terms and that at least one of their parents were fluent. Some phrases such as 'How bist do' (How are you doing) still persist with some locally to me (Dorset), particularly of the pre-war generation. I would be interested to read what others think of this.

Interesting, I wasn't previously aware of this. I think it might have a historical basis. From the end of the 9th century until the beginning of the 11th, a large part what is now England was divided in two (imagine a line running roughly from London to Chester or look up the articles on Wessex and Danelaw). The northern part fell under the control of the Vikings, the southern part under the Saxon kings (Alfred the Great and those who followed him). The Saxons were in the British Isles before this, but their influence was stronger in the South - in the North they were pushed out by later invaders from Scandinavia.

I discovered through talking with Norwegian friends that there are parts of northern English dialect which are very close to modern Norwegian equivalents - for example a Yorkshire phrase meaning roughly "how are you" (sounds like "how do debra?" - I'm not from that area, if there's someone who is who can give a better version of it, feel free) is almost identical to the Norwegian "ha du det bra?" (meaning "are you well?")

If fragments of Norse have been preserved within northern dialects, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Low German could have been assimilated into southern dialects in the same way (though they are perhaps less apparent, the dialects in the Southeast have been weakened by urbanisation, more so than the North and West) --Wren-3^talk 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't sound very likely. A good share of England is of Saxon descent, but I don't think there are dialects with any apparent alikeness after 1500 years. And they don't got assimilated into the dialects... Saxon language was the sole basis for those dialects. Some single phrases don't make a relationship between the languages, it's maybe just mere chance. How bist do is nothing I have ever heard in any Low German dialect. And if there were other phrases with resemblance of Low German phrases it's more likely they were introduced by single modern (modern in the sense of 16th century till today) immigrants, than that they endured all the 1500 years of separation. And this sounds especially likely, when he is speaking about one of his grand grandparents being a fluent speaker. --::Slomox:: >< 23:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch - link fix needed

I've changed Mecklenburgisch-Pommersch into Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch because this is the right name of this dialect. For all of those who understand German look at this page [3]. There I wrote some more detailed info about that subject. If you need an Internet ressource have look at http://www.ins-bremen.de/. There you can find a brief history of Low German but also brief descriptions of those dialects that are spoken today. I didn't fix the link because I think first of all the article Mecklenburgisch-Pommersch must be renamed into Mecklenburgisch-Pommersch. Then we should do the link fixing. --89.53.11.120 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South America?

I know there are quite a few descendants of German emigrants living in South America, but does anybody know the sizes of these "communities"? Is it really fair to list Brazil and Uruguay (or the Netherlands, for that matter) as countries where Low German is spoken? You might as well say that German is spoken in England because there are tens of thousands of Germans living in London. --dllu 12:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)