Talk:German language

In German the correct writing of that yiddish word is "chuzpe" instead of chutzpe. See http://dict.leo.org/?lang=de&lp=ende.

I find it hard to believe that either German or French is more commonly taught in the United States than Spanish.

--Yeah, Spanish is #1 (has this been fixed?) User:Quackberry

I have changed (in the section verb inflection) "6 composed tenses" to "4 composed tenses" and deleted "futurum preterite I & II"): There are only four composed tenses, at least in Standard German, and futurum preterite is the same as future II. What is "futurum preterite II"? --85.72.177.201 18:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)--

imho South Tyrol is not an enclave region, as it has borders to Austria. --zeno 01:54 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Deleting things

Hi 200.180.187.44 , could you please state, why you deleted this text? If there is a reason, it is ok. Please let me know, Thanks :-) Fantasy 16:02, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

German speakers

Germany approx. 82 m Austria approx. 7 m Switzerland approx 5 m Belgium, Denmark, Italy and Luxemburg 1 m France approx. 1 m Poland approx. 1 m Russia approx. 2 m

Together approx. 99 m

http://www.detlev-mahnert.de/deutsch_in_europa.html states around 100 million native speakers and 140 million total (only in europe).

http://www.rom.diplo.de/de/kultur/deutsch_lernen/dt-sprachenverbreitung.html " Die Zahl der in- und ausländischen Staatsbürger im In- und Ausland, die Deutsch als Muttersprache in Wort und Schrift beherrschen liegt bei ca. 91- 92 Millionen (Schätzung anhand der Einwohnerzahl deutschsprachiger Gebiete). Die Zahl derjenigen, die Deutsch als Fremdsprache beherrschen, wird zwischen 25 und 55 Millionen geschätzt. Deutsch ist die meistgesprochene Muttersprache in der Europäischen Union"

Where do the other 20 m German-speaking people live ? Do you want to include foreign-language speakers ? 62.104.210.101 15:35, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Most sources i know say approximately 100 million native speakers. Total is a little more difficult and could only be an educated guess.

Maybe this table can show it:

Frage: "Apart from your mother tongue, which of these languages can you speak well enough to take part in a conversation?" -

Dabei waren die 11 EU- Sprachen sowie die Antwortmöglichkeiten "other" und "none" vorgegeben)

In % Deutsch Französ. Englisch Spanisch Belgien 15,3 49,4 59,6 5,2 Dänemark 65,9 12,1 95,6 7,5 Deutschland 2,4* 17,7 70,3 2,3

   - West                2,9*     19,9             74,2             2,7
   - Ost                  0,3*       8,8             53,7             0,7

Finnland 23,9 8,2 91,7 2,0 Frankreich 12,7 6,5* 63,3 24,7 Griechenland 5,3 10,6 67,2 1,1 Großbritannien 11,9 28,4 8,7* 4,1 Irland 15,7 44,3 32,6 2,7 Italien 4,7 28,8 52,8 3,7 Luxemburg 90,1 96,5 76,4 8,5 Niederlande 65,6 25,2 93,6 3,1 Österreich 0,2* 17,0 71,7 2,9 Portugal 2,5 34,0 53,0 13,0 Schweden 32,0 13,2 96,0 7,4 Spanien 1,3 9,3 39,9 15,9*

But. Around half of all danes and dutch speak german. This already is 12 million. Maybe anouter 10 million or so in eastern europe. Those who speak german as second language must be in the 25 to 55 million range. The highest estimate of 55 million minus the lowest estimate and you have around 40 million who speak it as a second language. Thats why i came up with the 140 million speakers total.

speaking of which...

no more "famous speakers of". sorry to those who slaved over the 12 people on the list. it was clearly started as a prank, has no equivalent on other pages, and should be maintained, if anywhere, as a list of "languages spoken by" the lists of famous people. (someone really adventurous could try to migrate the "famous" lists with all their various attributes to a table in wikisource, and then set up a dynamic page which would let you see lists of famous people by whatever characteristics you like. eventually, I am sure this will emerge...)

History

Copyedit partly from Standard language. Katholic = Roman Catholic is correct!

Names of German language in other languages

Is this section necessary? I think it would be better to have these translations in the Wiktionary. --Bkell 03:28, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am removing (commenting) the Latvian entry because it seems highly improbable that vāciešū (or its Lithuanian cogante vokiečių) has anything to do, etymologically, with the Indo-European root of deutsch. They should probably be classified under a heading of their own. Any idea ? Philippe Magnabosco 16:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it is one of the most interresting sections of the article, it should be expanded with a small text, explaining why these differences occur. -Pedro 17:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I object the paragraph beginning with reference to Austria-Hungary. First, it's a factual non-sense, as there was no such thing as Austria-Hungary in the mid nineteenth century.
Secondly, Prague was never primarily German, if not for the brief period of 18th century, and even for that time, its "primary Germanity" could be disputed. I suggest rephrasing the entire paragraph to something more easily maintainable as true. --Marcvs 07:32, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say the Habsburg Empire. I agree Prague used to be Czech, and was later Czech, so the German character was an "interuption" of sorts, but according to my figures, in 1815 there were 50,000 German speakers in Prague, only 15,000 Czech speakers. (A. J. P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918, p. 24.) By 1848 there were more Czechs, but German was still the primary language of public discourse. Lets not forget that Prague was called Prag at the time.

However, I was too categorical in my paragraph, and am more than wiling to see it rewritten to reflect some moderation.

Peregrine981 13:27, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

German is also the most commonly used language on the Internet after English.

First I dont know what precisely it should mean, second methodology of statistics which I had seen was not convincing. Wether German is second as stated in aticle or fifth as in [1] [2] or any other number from 2nd to lets say 10... it all doeas not make much sense. Wikimol 00:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

recently? gimme a laugh!

Until recently, however, German was printed in Gothic black letters (Fraktur, or Schwabacher) and written in Sütterlin.

This is true if recently means 70 to 90 years ago. :) -- Daniel FR 22:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seems recent, in the life of a thousand- or so year-old language, but "recently" is fairly unencycopedic; the correction by User:J. 'mach' wust in response to the above comment by User: 217.186.189.246 is good for that reason. --Jerzy (t) 18:24, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Mutual Intelligibility

Removed

Many dialects aren't understandable for someone who knows standard German.

as (poorly stated) and redundant to

Only the neighbouring dialects are mutually understandable.

Someone better informed may be able to effect a more accurate harmonization.
--Jerzy (t) 18:24, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

I've more or less reverted your edit and added some explanations. I hope it isn't redundant any more. J. 'mach' wust 10:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

language vs (language)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) requires "German language" instead of "German (language)", and the rule is followed for hundreds of other language, so I'm at a loss as to why this article has been moved. Stan 05:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right, the "German language" form is standard. I don't know why it was moved, either. I've moved it back. Kwertii 17:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spelling reform of 1996

I realised that an edit of mine concerning the Spelling reform of 1996 wasn't quite balanced (and quickly improved by Martg76). However, on second thoughts, the present article is not the place to duplicate an overview of a debate that is covered in larger detail in German spelling reform of 1996, so I referred the entire topic to that article.

composite words and genitiv case

I'm a German speaker and have no idea why the genitiv case is supposed to be waning. This is not the case. Everyone will still say: Das ist das Rathaus der Stadt (This is the council building of the town). Any possession would be expressed that way. On the other hand many dialects don't have a genetiv case, but that is not a new development. It has been decried lately that the dativ case is disappearing and often being merged with the akkusativ case. As to composite words, the example (Donaudampf...) is the one always given to state what a complicated language German is. The translation makes it purposely sound worse and could be done easier: service cap of a Danube steam shipping captain. It should also be stated, that such long composites are grammatically possible but not in use. After 1945 new words have hardly been created by composites. In my opinion the reason is the total loss of self esteem, understandably, of the scientific community and also, the preference of English for marketing reasons. The creation of new German words like Fernseher, Flugzeug, Sauerstoff, Stickstoff etc. instead of using Latin or Greek roots reflect a different state of mind at the time these things were invented or discovered.liebheit@t-online.de

I think the reason for the perceived decline of the genitive is that it is less used in ways other than to designate a relation of possession as in Peter's book. Examples are constructions such as wir gedenken des Papstes ("we commemorate the pope"), where a lot of people these days tend to say wir gedenken dem Papst, or wegen des... ("because of"), which is colloquially more often than not being replaced with wegen dem. Excessive use of von dem/von der rather than des/der may occur more frequently now than it once did, but is still regarded a symptom of a lack of lingual competence. --Thorsten1 19:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The cases where genitive is waning is primarily genitive as object, only to a lesser extent genitive as attribute. It also depends on the level of education/social level of the speaker.

Good points all. I changed the Donaudampf... after your example. (Next time you see something that can be improvee, just do it!) The entire section on compound nouns is bad, and focussed on "things that are funny to English speakers". It's also misleading (television is a compound noun just like Fernseher is, and Fernseher isn't actually a compound noun in the first place!), and downright wrong (after the reform, other compounds aren't joined. Actually, English has "instead of" while German now has "an Stelle von"). I urge you to rewrite that part, and give the rest of the page a much-needed look as well. Also, the section about philosophy ("many believe"...) probably isn't verifiable and needs to go (unless there is a source). Thore 12:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Especially since composition is also found in English. It works exactly the same way as in German. The only difference is that in German, the compound will be written as a single word, but in English as separate words. This is a mere question of orthography. Even the stress rules are identical. Compare English tree house to German Baumhaus. You may even translate Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftkapitänsmütze by Danube steem shipping company capitain cap (of course, nobody would use this in either language) J. 'mach' wust 13:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice changes. I edited some more, linking to a page about English compounds, and used the same terminology as that page. I also used some closed English compounds like summertime and doghouse to explain the concept.

I'm a native German speaker and i think the genitive case is supposed to be waning. It's right everyone says "das Rathaus der Stadt", but "Stadt" is feminine. Today, more people say instead of "das Dach des Hauses" (the roof of the house) "das Dach vom Haus" or instead of "das Bein des Hundes" (the leg of the dog)"das Beim vom/ von dem Hund" ("Haus" is neuter, "Hund" is masculine). Perhaps it takes too long to prononce the "-es". Please say what you think. 217.247.4.12

Joined compounds in German seem to have an undending fascination for English speakers. Now 84.56.237.28 has added a new one, after we removed the Donaudampfschiff.... (See discussion above.) Is the really important enough to be mentioned on this page? Words like that are just a curiosity, and virtually never used. To me, that means they shouldn't be used to explain German, just like [floccinaucinihilipilification] is a bad way to explain English. On the other hand, "interesting" stuff like "funny long words" does belong to an encyclopedia almost by definition, so there certainly is a place for these curiosities. I have no problem with the linked entry to [Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz] -- that's good stuff. (Even though I changed the claim that these things are "common" in German to them being "possible"). Maybe some wordsmithing in the current article all it takes... Arbor 07:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sommerzeit

Under grammar>noun inflection, the author has made a false friend: Sommerzeit doesn't mean what it sounds like. It means daylight savings time.

Sommerzeit can mean either daylight saving time or summertime. I think just the one meaning is enough here as it isn't really relevant to the article. Saintswithin 09:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True enough, it is not relevant here, but nevertheless it should be stated that these days Sommerzeit is almost exclusively used to mean daylight savings. Try Google - the results where "Sommerzeit" correctly translates as "summer time" are few and far between. --Thorsten1 19:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. The example was mine, and I picked the two words because (a) the English compound is joined, and (b) the German equivalent is very close (in spelling) to the English one, so that the example can be read and understood by people who don't speak German very well. I am, of course, completely aware of the various meanings of the word, but I didn't feel the danger of forming a false friend had any relevance to the example. (And it isn't even a false friend -- it's a translation of an English word into a German one that also has another meaning.) However, since there are now already two objections, I stand corrected. The example has to be changed. An easy way out would be to use the word "Sommerszeit", which avoids the double meaning according to my Duden. But it's not really a good example because of the joining 's'. If anybody can think of other English joined compounds that have an easily understood German equivalent then by all means replace Sommerzeit. Arbor 20:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think the example is acceptable for the reasons you gave - even if the word is on its way to becoming a false friend as a result of the usage shift that occured after daylight saving time was imposed in Germany in 1980. I just felt that the original poster's comment shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. --Thorsten1 21:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Third or fourth most popular foreign language taught in the U.S.?

In the article, it says, "German is the third most popular foreign language taught worldwide, and the second most popular in Europe (after English) and the fourth in the USA (after Spanish and French)." Now shouldn't it be either the third most popular foreign language taught in the U.S. or the fourth, with the third most popular--whichever it may be--added to the list? --ThorstenNY 20:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although I think German should be the most teached language in Europe (it is in fact very useful, even in southern European countries like mine is), I also believe it is the third, and far from English and French. -Pedro 17:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some corrections, and some doubts

I have replaced the totally bogus claim of 120 million Europeans speaking German. They are only 96.75 million in 2004, and that's just 13.3% of Europeans (not 25% as what bombastically stated). Also, German is only the third most taught foreign language in Europe, not the second. French was forgotten. French is the most taught foreign language in the UK, Ireland, and Romania, and it is the second most taught foreign language in many European countries, including, for that matter, Germany itself.

Also, I find the figure of 120 million German speakers in the world quite dubious. There are only 96.75 of them in Europe. That would mean there would be 23.25 million German speakers in the Americas, in Australia, and in the south of Africa. That seems to me quite impossible. According to the 2000 US census, there were only 1,382,613 people age 5 y/o and over who spoke German at home in the US. The US is the largest pool of German speakers outside of Europe, so I don't see how the figures can add up to 120 million. Should we change the number? We can't know for sure the number of German speakers in the world, but I reckon a realistic estimate for the whole world would be approximately 100 million people whose main language is German (96.75 million in Europe, approx. 1.5 million in the US, approx. 1.5 million in Brazil, and the remaining few hundred thousands in Paraguay, Australia, South Africa, Namibia, and so on). Waiting for your comment before I change the figure. Hardouin 13:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1,5 million in Brazil yeah right.O_o. I think we need Fox Mulder to investigate that one. Actual German speaker are only found among some elderly, and I think it is not German, but some German dialect or language. This is due to restrictive language measures in a past nationalist and authoritive regime. 1,5 million is the accounted number for non-Portuguese native speakers in Brazil: mostly Italians, Spanish, Germans, Japanese, etc. and native South-Americans. -Pedro 00:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

German and dialects of German: What's the big difference? In the usual countings, there is no distinction. If there were one, then the number of (standard) German speakers in Germany itself would be surprisingly low. This would be as if only speakers of Received Pronunciation would count as English speakers. J. 'mach' wust 00:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I used the word dialect because I'm not sure it is a language, pllaadutch someting... It's a wierd name. But, there is very few people actualy speaking it, numbers I cant tell.-Pedro 04:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's Plattdeutsch (literally 'flat-German'), a popular term for the regional northern German varieties. Many insist it should be considered a language of its own, but it lacks a standardized version, an orthography and — an army! J. 'mach' wust 12:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to ethnologue.com, which is widely accepted as authoritative, there are "75,300,000 in Germany" (1990), "Population total all countries: 95,392,978.". That apparently exludes second language speakers resident in Germany, most of whom approach native speaker competence. The corresponding German article states a figure of 101 million native speakers. I assume this would include German speakers with a non-German ethnic background living in one of the German-speaking countries. Further, the article lists 120 million second language speakers, which I suppose probably includes people with a rudimentary memory of school German... As for the percentage of Europeans speaking German, that probably depends on who you count in as a European. I suppose the percentage given is based on the pre-2004 European Union. --Thorsten1 16:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see nor accept Ethnologue has authoritive, but JUST has 'useful. It would be useful if some German would explore this issue, and see where German is actually spoken. Because using ancient emigration is duping. Some people that were descendant from emigrants to Germany, maybe have German has native language or his/hers parents language. We don't know, unless there is a study about that. -Pedro 17:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Germans in the former Soviet Union are often forgotten. According to Heinz Ingenhorst (1997): "Die Russlanddeutschen", in a census in the late 1979, 1.94 millions declared themselves as Russian Germans (of which 46.5 percents lived in Kazakhstan), though by 1989, only about half of them declared German as their native tongue. However, the community of Germans in Russia has been largely destroyed by the massive emigration to Germany from the late 90s up to the present day (more than a million). J. 'mach' wust 00:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, the figures you provide for the Soviet Union are very old. As a matter of fact, when I calculated the figure of total German speakers in Europe, the 96.75 million figure that I put in the introduction, I did include German speakers in Russia. I even took the pain to look at the latest 2002 Russian census, which is available online only in Russian (!), and the result is: 500,000 people in Russia declared they were ethnically German. So I included the 500,000 people in the 96.75 million figure (although be aware that the majority of them is totally fluent in Russian, and probably uses more often Russian than German). The was majority of German speakers in Russia have left to Germany in the 1990s, so that now there are only 500,000 Germans left in Russia. Hardouin 23:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would warn you against equating former Soviet Union ethnic Germans with German speakers. Although the Russian Germans did preserve their lingual heritage for a remarkably long time, the language was virtually stamped out in the second half of the 20th century - to the effect that only the oldest generation of ethnic Germans from Russia has any command of German today. In Germany, ethnic Germans native speakers of Russian are in fact notorious for their slow adaption to the German-speaking environment (as opposed, eg., to Russian Jews without any ethnic German background). Thus, these figures have to be handled with utmost care. --Thorsten1 19:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide the link to that? I do believe you, but I'd be very interested in having the source!

Kazakhstan and Sibiria, where the majority of the Russian Germans used to live, are not part of Europe, and Kazakhstan is a country of its own, independent from Russia. So for a counting of the Germans in the former Soviet Union (who call themselves Russian Germans no matter where they lived) we'd have to include data from Kazakhstan as well. J. 'mach' wust 08:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes true, but remember that the vast majority of the Germans in Kazakhstan have left in the 1990s, either going back to Russia, or going to Germany. As for the link, it is: [3]. Carefull with Russian censuses though! They tend to under-report people, especially in big cities, and also there may be some ethnically German people who identified themselves just as Russian. If you look carefully online, you may also be able to find the Kazakhstan census, but I'll let you research that. Hardouin 11:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So far, I've only found the CIA World Factbook entry on Kazakhstan which cites a 1999 census according to which 2.4 percent of the population are German. It provides no total number of population for the same date, but I guess that in 1999, it cannot have been much different from the current 15 million. This would mean that only some tens of thousends remained in Kazakhstan by that date, and it'll be fewer by now. There seem to be no numbers of speakers for either country. J. 'mach' wust 16:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would mean 360,000 ethnic Germans in Kazakhstan. Like I said above, it is almost impossible to find out the exact number of German speakers in all the countries of the world, that's why I propose we put "approximately 100 million speakers" in the infobox, which is a much more credible figure than the 120 million that is written now. We should also put a little footnote saying that these 100 million speakers are both mother tongue speakers (the majority) and 2nd language speakers (immigrants who live in Germany, Austria, and German part of Switzerland), but that the 100 million figure does not include people across the world who learnt German as a foreign language, and may have some level of fluency in German (from very poor to fluent). What do you think? Hardouin 03:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Third most taught language in Europe - Vandalism

An anonymous user keeps deleting the reference to German being the third most taught foreign language in Europe, insistig on putting that it is the second most taught. I believe this is nationalist vandalism. The number of pupils studying foreign languages in Europe is particularly well documented, because the European Union conducts some surveys every year. People can check extensive data at www.eurydice.org. According to EU data, French is the second most taught foreign language in the EU (of 25 members), while German is only third. The latest data I saw showed that approximately 28% of junior high school (middle high school) students in the EU (of 25 members) study French as a foreign language, while only 20% study German as a foreign language. In high schools, about 29% study French as a foreign language, while 28% study German. Figures for English are around 90%, both in junior high schools and in high schools. Any new nationalist vandalism on that subject will be reported to some admins. Hardouin 16:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will continue to revert your French nationalist vandalism. EUROPE IS NOT EU!!!! Europe is also Norway, Iceland as well as a large number of countries in Eastern Europe where German is the most important foreign language. Even Russia (where the highest number of German learners are located) is in fact a European country.

That's indeed a good point. So I see the situation as follows: There are second language acquisition rankings of the EU; there are none of all Europe (which'd also include Switzerland apart from Northern and Eastern European countries ;). So the safest thing to do while we have no statistics about the entire continent is to stick with what we have and provide only the EU ranking, but explicitly labelling it EU ranking and not Europe ranking. J. 'mach' wust 00:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only a very small part of Russia is in Europe. The countries from Nothern Europeare fewly populated, main reason ice (iceland just the name gives a chill). Thought with this heat I would love a drink with lots of ice. just k/d! -Pedro 01:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geographically, ie. based on the disputable convention that the Ural forms Europe's north eastern fringe, only a small part of Russia is a part of Europe. But this European part (which is small only in relation to Russia as a whole, but vast in relation to any other European country) happens to be most densely populated.--Thorsten1 09:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(all)Russia: 143,420,309 (maybe 100 mi live in Europe, I don't know...)
Germany 82,431,390
France 60,656,178
United Kingdom 59,553,800
Italy 58,103,033
Ukraine 47,425,336
Spain 40,341,462
Poland 38,635,144
Romania 22,329,977
The Netherlands 16,407,491
Serbia and Montenegro 10,829,175
Greece 10,668,354
Portugal 10,566,212
Belgium 10,364,388
Czech Republic 10,241,138
Hungary 10,006,835
Sweden 9,001,774
Austria 8,184,691
Switzerland 7,489,370
Bulgaria 7,450,349

... Norway 4,593,041 ... Iceland 296,737 (a lot of people, it seems a Little China/India)-Pedro 10:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to http://www.eurydice.org, "German and French share second place as the second most taught language [in Europe]: German is more widespread in the countries of northern, central and eastern Europe and French in the southern and German-speaking countries." [4]

Actually, only thanks to the many Germans, who prefer to learn French, French is still somewhat important as a foreign language in Europe. Here in Scandinavia 60 % learn German and some 25-30 % learn French. Think about that, Hardouin.

the problem is that there are countries where German is learned by 0%. While there are always people around Europe learning French. Here in the Iberian Peninsula, French is learned by 10% (in Portugal almost 20%, English is a little more than French) while German is only in Portugal by 3%, 0%-0.5% (or less) in Spain, they prefer Italian. BTW I don't why why this fuss around this... In Portugal, English/French has the same level. While German is side by side with Latin, only teached to people of some areas between 16 and 18 yrs old. I never had the option to learn German, if i would had I would probably learned it, dispite not being among the most beautiful of the languages.-Pedro 20:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some answers to what was said here. #1 I find the accusation of French nationalism quite ridiculous, given that I am not even French myself. But, whatever! #2 I like accuracy, and I certainly don't like edits by anonymous users who seem to be motivated by propaganda only and not by the acuracy of facts. #3 Eurydice actually DOES include the countries of Europe outside of the UE, if you have read in detail, with the exception of CIS countries (Russia, Ukraine, and Bielorussia). If (non CIS) European countries outside of the EU are included, then it skews results even more in favor of French. Romania is the most populated European country outside of the EU (and discounting CIS countries), its population amounts to a third of the total population of all the European countries not yet part of the EU, and in Romania Eurydice tells us that about 88% of pupils are learning French, whereas only 10% are learning German. In Switzerland, a state twice more populated than Norway, about 70% of pupils learn French, because it is mandatory in the curriculum, since French is one of the official languages of Switzerland, whereas only about 30% learn German (70% don't need to learn German, it's already their native tongue). Hardouin 02:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Eurydice report: German and French share second place as the second most taught language [in Europe]: German is more widespread in the countries of northern, central and eastern Europe and French in the southern and German-speaking countries. [5]. Is Eurydice wrong?

There's no reason to doubt the Eurydice data. However, they have researched only the countries of the EU. I don't know of any figures that include all of Europe, and nobody has mentioned any. So instead of guessing what the most teached languages in all Europe are, we better don't say anything at all about them. Instead, we should use the Eurydice data on the EU. J. 'mach' wust • tskʃpræːx 12:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The quote from Eurydice that our anonymous user is putting here is just a general statement. If you read the tables in detail, you will find out that approximately 28% of junior high school (middle high school) students in the EU (of 25 members) study French as a foreign language, while only 20% study German as a foreign language. In high schools, about 29% study French as a foreign language, while 28% study German. Hardouin 12:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I haven't found it yet, the Eurydice site is quite labyrintical. Could you please point out the exact document (and page number if it is a pdf)? J. 'mach' wust • tskʃpræːx 14:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[6], page 4. Hardouin 14:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find very difficult to understand German having the same level of French in Europe. -Pedro 18:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so now both sources are on the table, and we can compare them. The source of 83.109.xxx.x is Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe, the press release from February 2005. The source of Hardouin (who is not French) is Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe, also from February 2005. This second source, however, is not only a press release, but provides more detailed numbers. Therefore, I think this document is more credible: German is the third taught second language in the EU after English and French.

What reasons does 83.109.xxx.x have to reject that second document? What sources does he have for his claims about entire Europe (he hasn't provided any so far). J. 'mach' wust • tskʃpræːx 16:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Eurydice statement is a general statement. Any reason not to trust it? Let me repeat: "German and French share second place as the second most taught language [in Europe]: German is more widespread in the countries of northern, central and eastern Europe and French in the southern and German-speaking countries." If Eurydice say so, we can trust it.

Hardouin provides data for the EU which is an organization with do not cover the entire Europe. Specifically, many of the countries where German is an important foreign language and French is less important (Eastern Europe incl. Russia (with the highest number of German learners in the world), as well as countries like Norway) are not included.

You're also providing "data for the EU which is an organization with do not cover the entire Europe": You're relying exactly on the same data as Hardouin, that is, on the Eurydice report, which provides only data for the EU (and occasionally for Norway, Island, Romania and Bulgaria). Why do you keep claiming wrongly you have provided wider data? You haven't yet. I want to see statistics, not an out of context quote from a press release which doesn't provide any numbers at all. The document you're basing your argumentation on is only a resume for those who don't bother about all the statistical details, and it's a resume of the very same document Hardouin referred to. Where have you learnt that Russia has the highest number of German learners in the world? That is the source you should provide! J. 'mach' wust • tskʃpræːx 01:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cognates with English

I'm sorry that "internationalism" is a usual linguistical term. Of course it doesn't mean that the corresponding word is used in all the languages of the world, and it surely is somewhat Eurocentristic, but that doesn't stop it from being a usual linguistical term.

As to the origin of "sozial": Dudenredaktion (Hrsg.): Duden, Herkunftswörterbuch, Etymologie der deutschen Sprache, 3., völlig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, Dudenverlag: Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien, Zürich 2001 (the latest edition):

"Das Adjektiv wurde im 18. Jh. — wohl unter dem Einfluss von entsprechend frz. social — aus gleichbed. lat. socialis entlehnt." J. 'mach' wust 08:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess Duden online is less complete than the paper version then. About "internationalism", I am removing, because, as you say it yourself, this is a highly Eurocentric concept, and it is quite a shaky disputed concept. Here at Wikipedia, we intend to write for the whole world, not just for Europe. Hardouin 11:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Russian

According to our article, there "are somewhere around 150 million Russian speakers in Europe". As Russia has less than 150 million inhabitants in total, this must be wrong. How many native Russian speakers are there in Europe?

Russian is actually spoken outside Russia as well, you know. Ever hear of, say, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine? All of these are European countries, they are relatively densely populated (at least if compared to the non-European part of Russia), and they all have a considerable percentage of native speakers of Russian. So the figure of 150 million speakers is not totally unrealistic.--Thorsten1 22:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ranking again

I would like to see a source for the claim that "German is the third most popular foreign language taught worldwide". Naïvely, I would have guessed at a ranking like English, French, Spanish, Japanese, Russian, and then German. The original source for this statement, inserted by Nico, was http://flabs.emich.edu/mzinggeler/topten.html, which makes the more specific and dubious claim that the the top three are English, Japanese, and German. I would be very pleased but slightly surprised if figures for a worldwide ranking were available that accurately treated the world outside of Europe and North America. China in particular seems likely to contribute much larger counts to Japanese, Russian, and possibly Spanish, than to German. — Pekinensis 23:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the unsubstantiated claim. — Pekinensis 22:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German views on Dutch

German speakers who can speak English are generally able to read Dutch, even if some may find the spoken language amusing, due to a widespread opinion in Germany that after all "Dutch is just a German dialect".

I am sure that this opinion is not widespread in Germany. In the 23 years that I have lived here, I have never heard it. It is true though that Dutch sounds funny to many native speakers of German. --zeno 28 June 2005 10:51 (UTC)

Linguistically Dutch is a Low German language, and thus one of the forms of German.

Are there any linguists that say so? I doubt it. Sources, please. -- j. 'mach' wust ^{ˈtʰɔ̝ːk͡x} 5 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

If you doubt facts it's your problem. I don't believe there are any linguists who say Dutch is not a Low German language. I suggest you start reading Dutch language (check genetic classification) and Low German languages.

I'm sorry I didn't know that Low German languages is a genetic classification term. So Nederlands really is a Low German language.

However, this does not make it a form of the German language. German language is not a genetic classification term, but the name of the language spoken in Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland (etc.).

By important and usual criteria to distinguish between dialects and standard languages, Nederlands is a standard language of its own: it is standardized in writing and to a certain degree in speaking (Ausbausprache), and it is employed as the standard language behind the dialects spoken in Netherlands and Flanders (etc.) for all written language purposes (Dachsprache). -- j. 'mach' wust ^{ˈtʰɔ̝ːk͡x} 7 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)

From the linguistical point of view, 'German' may refer to both High and Low German languages, and there are a large number of them. Standard High German as used in Germany and other countries is only one of many German languages. Many other German languages, including Low German languages which are more closely associated with Dutch than High German, are also spoken in Germany. So 'German' has two meanings: one linguistical and one common usage form (short for Standard High German, which this article is dealing with).

Or is German in fact a dialect of Dutch? Not a terribly meaningful discussion. --Doric Loon 6 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

Don't be so bloody silly. That is like saying Germanic if a form of German instead of German a form of Germanic, i.e. turning everything around.

No, if you are going to play the game of saying that one is more original than the other then you can do it either way. But my point was precisely that this game is silly. --Doric Loon 7 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)

I don't know which game you are playing. It's an established fact that Dutch is a Low German language. German couldn't possibly be a form of its own subset (note: I'm not referring to High German, which is also a subset of German, just like Dutch is).

I challenge those categories. West Germanic diffused into a series of dialects, out of which two equally valid standard languages crystalised. If you want to call the whole group "German" then you can make it look as though German is more original than Dutch, but that is an entirely arbitrary construct. My point was that you could as easily (and as wrongly) call the whole group "Dutch" and give the impression that German developed out of that. But this is just not the way linguists think. I am not happy with calling Dutch "a Low German language". It's as good as any other convention if we are clear about what we mean, but this discussion proves that it is widely misunderstood. At any rate, it is just not true to say that ALL linguists use this terminology. By the way, get yourself a username if you want people to talk to you. --Doric Loon 8 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the term West Germanic languages is appearently being used for the whole group, which seems to be a fair choice. Since I'm not familiar with the Engish terminology, I can't tell how common the use of the term Low German as a denomination for the northern West Germanic languages is. At the German article Westgermanische Sprachen, the northern group is called niederdeutsche Sprachen, and within this group, Dutch is situated in the sub-group niederfränkische Sprachen. At the Dutch article West-Germaanse talen, the northern group is called Nederduits, and within this group, Dutch is situated in the sub-group Nederfrankisch. -- j. 'mach' wust ^{ˈtʰɔ̝ːk͡x} 8 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)

Relationship between German and Dutch

Very simplified, the structure would be something like this:

German languages
- High German
  - Standard High German (the subject of this article)
- Low German
  - Low Franconian
    - Dutch
    - Afrikaans
    - Limburgish
  - Low Saxon
  - East Low German

Fair enough as a model, but you put your finger on it when you say it is very much simplified. Remember that we historical linguists have long since abandoned the idea of a stemma (family tree) as a way of indicating relationships between language forms which are very close to one another. It is fine for showing that, for example, English and German are "sister languages" whereas English and French are "cousins", but it only really works after languages have become mutually incomprehensible and therefore develop separately and influence each other only in limited ways. For related dialects, this kind of chart never really works. For example, this one implies that first High and Low German split, and then these two hermetically sealed languages subdivided. That doesn't account for the fact that they were still mutually intelligible and fashions in language (idioms, neologisms, semantic changes, later shound sifts) crossed the Benrath line as though it wasn't there. A low and a high German dialect which were a couple of miles apart on opposite sides of the line could be much more similar to each other than two Low German dialects which were more remote from each other. This is why it is misleading to present this high/low split as though it were an absolute set of categories for defining relationships. It's a part of the story. --Doric Loon 8 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)

You are entitled to hold an opinion and to deny the existance of Low German languages, but this is the mainstream version accepted by most linguists. Check out Germanic languages. When I said the structure was simplified, it was because I omitted details which were not relevant in this context where the point only was to show roughly the relationship between Standard High German and Dutch. The real tree is far more complicated.

I'm not denying the existence of anything. I SAID it's part of the story. But "mainstream linguistics" is very sceptical about the usefulness of this kind of table. The Wiki articles on language are full of them, and that is understandable, because they are probably the best way of making certain kinds of information visible for lay people, but somewhere in Wikipedia we need a clear statement of their limitations.

Coming back to Low German, possibly the phrase "the Low German / Dutch continuum" which I have used elsewhere (e.g. in High German consonant shift) is less confusing than trying to use the term "Low German" on two levels (sometimes including Dutch and sometimes not).

BTW - you REALLY need to get a username; without it a discussion like this gets very difficult for people to follow. --Doric Loon 8 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

Dutch as a language of its own evolved in the 16th or 17th century, until then it was considered simply (Low) German. The traditional name of the language is Dietsch, meaning the same as Deutsch.

But a more precise way of saying it would be that as Dutch and German drifted apart that would be the date at which you (quite subjectively) would see them as having become separate langugages. Whether Dietsch meant the same as Deutsch, is rather begging the question. It depends to whom. To some it may have meant something more like Dutch.--Doric Loon 8 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)

I notice sometimes that people get sensitive and think that "Low German" sounds as if it's a lower (i.e. worse) form of German. It's a bit late to change hundreds of years of linguistic writings however, so people will have to learn that the terms "low" and "high" are only geographical in origin ("near the ocean" and "in the hills"). But I think it might be helpful if we use "German" when refering to "Modern High German" and use "Germanic" (with "-IC") when refering to families of languages or ancient languages that we try to construct. Does that suggestion help at all? Of course there's no problem in German with "Plattdeutsch" ("low" or "flat" German), although I think Germans sometimes feel they are superior because they speak "Hochdeutsch" ("high (and mighty?)" German). ******User: Phil Ology 26 Sept 2005.

It would seem that what everyone is encountering here are the multiple uses of the phrase "Low German" which is both a linguistics term, used by linguists, and essentially a translation of the German word Plattdeutsch which is used in contrast to Hochdeutsch--the origins of which do in fact relate to topography, although there is likely a stigma now associated with anything not considered High German. It should be known that the dialects spoken in the northern regions of Germany are more similar in overall phonology to Dutch. Genetically Dutch is more closely related to these Low German dialects than it is to High German. It should also be noted, as alluded to in the article, that High German was only made the standard dialect when Martin Luther translated the Vulgate Bible. To delve into logical and historical falacy for the sake of argument, one could say that were the Netherlands part of the Holy Roman Empire when Luther translated the Bible, they would be speaking High German in the schools there as well while they spoke Dutch in their homes. Additionally, Low German is considered a subdivision of the Western Germanic languages. Therefore Low German did not evovle from High German, rather, Dutch, Plattdeutsch and High German are all sister languages (or dialects) of a common root langauge--most likely the unattested and reconstructed Western Germanic. Usually the distinction between this linguistic subdivision and the northern dialects is not necessary because of the context; however, perhaps there could be some simple fix in Wikipedia so as to disambiguate the terms. (NB: I currently have no online sources for my information, but can provide ISBNs--I'm still learning how to format edits.)Kaibab 06:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be surprised to know that the Netherlands indeed were a part of the Holy Roman Empire when Luther translated the Bible. -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 18:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not that surprised that the Netherlands were part of the Holy Roman Empire at that time--my history is rusty. However, the Union of Utrecht didn't come that far behind the full publication of Martin Luther's Bible (from the dates I can find it looks like only about 45 years--a very short time in terms of a fledgling religion). I suspect that the Netherlands were into their independence by the time the Lutheran church got on its feet. So, I think my point still stands.Kaibab 04:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough (their formal independence came with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648). The genealogical view on the subdivisions of German is subject to servere restrictions, however. If the northern German regional varieties were historically closer to Dutch, they are not any more nowadays, that is to say, most speakers of Plattdüütsch will understand standard German more easily than Dutch. And whatever the politics may decide, the linguists will continue debating whether Plattdüütsch is a language or a dialect. -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two items: One, how do you know Plattdeutsch speakers understand High German better than Dutch? And do you know for certain that they don't understand Hochdeutsch better than Dutch because of their schooling? Two, if Plattdeutsch speakers understand Hochdeutsch better than Dutch regardless of their schooling, then I contend that it is due to modern Plattdeutsch having been heavily influenced by Hochdeutsch (i.e., through borrowing and the like) whereas Dutch would have been allowed to evovle in its own way. That is to say, that the politics have caused the languages to diverge. In fact, strictly genetically speaking, Plattdeutsch is more related to English, than it is to High German; moreover, some of the sound changes that distinguish High German from other West Germanic languages, are still not heard in Plattdeutsch dialects, making them sound eerily close to their English cognates. But, and I'm speaking theoretically, since I have very limited experience with Plattdeauth, I would suppose that if someone speaking High German today, were to go to northern Germany and only encounter Plattdeutsch, they would pick up more than someone speaking English--which is to say we all should bear in mind that genetic classification has more to do with history and origins of a language than it does with one or another's ability to understand a related language. High German split from the Wester Germanic around 500 ADKaibab 03:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German in Belgium

German is the sole official language of the German speaking community in Belgium ([7] and [8]), and it has the same status in Belgium like French and Dutch. So it is not a proper regional language, as French and Dutch are not either. --Danutz

Expansion requests

Found in HTML comments in the article:

Where did the speakers of Texas German come from?

Content should be added on:
- Creoles and other languages that are derived from this language.
- Description of the sound set of the language. Can include phoneme charts and example words for each phoneme like in French language. If there is significant discussion here, it is probably best to divide the section into vowels and consonants subsections.
- Vowel chart and discussion of vowels.
- Consonant chart and discussion of consonants.
- Discussion of some major phonological processes, such as important allophones or assimilation rules.
- Description of important sound changes in the history of the language. (Maybe this should go under history?)
- German vocabulary. This section should contain a discussion of any special features of the vocabulary (or lexicon) of the language, like if it contains a large number of borrowed words or a different sets of words for different politeness levels, taboo groups, etc.

Third most taught language in EU - Please answer it at last, anonymous reverter 83.109.xxx !

The source of 83.109.xxx.x is Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe, the press release from February 2005. The source Hardouin provided (who is not French) is Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe, also from February 2005. Note the identical names? What's the difference then? The source of the anonymous user is nothing but a mere resume of the longer document, a press release intended for journalists who don't care about statistics.

What reasons does 83.109.xxx.x have to reject that second, more detailed document?

The second problem: What sources does he have for his claims about entire Europe, not only the EU (he hasn't provided any so far).

He has only provided data for the EU: He's relying exactly on the same data as Hardouin, that is, on the Eurydice report, which provides only data for the EU (and occasionally for Norway, Island, Romania and Bulgaria).

Why does he keep claiming wrongly he has answered this criticism? He hasn't, nor has he provided any wider data. I'm speaking statistics, not an out of context quote from a press release which doesn't provide any numbers at all. The document he's basing his argumentation on is only a resume for those who don't bother about statistical details, and it's a resume of the very same document Hardouin referred to. -- j. 'mach' wust ^{ˈtʰɔ̝ːk͡x} 9 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)

I tried to settle this argument yesterday by finding a turn of phrase which could include both figures, but possibly that's too cheap a compromise. There should be no statistical information given which is not verifiable. I think the onus is on our anonymous friend to prove his point. (That is partly because without a username he cannot develop a Wikipedia track-record which might incline me to trust him. People with usernames develop a reputation which gives them authority! For example, I know user:J. 'mach' wust from useful contributions elsewhere.) BTW, I did delete in passing the reference to German being 3rd most taught language in the World after French and Spanish. That would make English fourth? This must be an oversight. --Doric Loon 9 July 2005 12:07 (UTC)

Cognates

Werfen can also have a similiar meaning as to warp. Isn't Partei originally from the Latin word partes (meaning parts or party).

Arrangement in German has a broader meaning than arragement in music.

German-origin words in Tagalog

Check this out: tl:Wikang_Aleman. Do the words in the list near the bottom of the page really come from German?

Older forms are not classifications

I removed the older forms of German from the infobox, since this is really just a matter of older forms of (High) German, not language groups.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

about "German...": tribes vs. regions

I'm okay with speaking of "German..." as 'historical-geographical region'. However, I consider we should do the same with "Alemann..." and "Sax.." then. All three names referred first to the people, but came later to refer to the regions they inhabitated. -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 19:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mach, I have reverted this again. The difference is that some peoples encountered Germans trough the Saxon tribe, and some through the Allemani tribe (or, in the case of the French, had to pick the second, as the Frankish parts were not useful to draw a distinction) - those people who use the word German however don't do so because they encountered a tribe called Germans or the whole of the Germanic peoples but rather because this people they wanted to refer to lived in the region that the Romans called Germania. Of course, the Romans didn't invent the term Germania but called the region after some (in fact Celtic) tribe they encountered somewhere in the Rhineland. But that is the complicated development:

Roman times: Celtic tribe "Germani" > region "Germania" (provinces and "free Germania) > umbrella term "Germanic" for a various peoples living there

Renaissance: region "Germania" > "Germans" referring to the inhabitants of that region (by Germand and foreign humanists)

Str1977 17:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uniqueness of noun capitalization

The article said that the German orthography is the only one that has noun capitalization, but then, someone changed that into the following:

In the German orthography, like in some other West Germanic languages such as Alemannic and Saterland Frisian, nouns and most words with the syntactical function of nouns are capitalised.

This is not correct because neither Alemannic nor Saterland Frisian have proper orthographies. The German orthography is the only one that has noun capitalization. If Alemannic or Saterland Frisian are written, then they are most of the times written by people who speak and write fluently in German and therefore use the conventions of the German orthography for their transcription (for instance sch for /ʃ/, ä, ö, ü for /æ, ø, y/ or — noun capitalization). -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 20:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. 'mach' wust, it was me who wrote this; I was logged out without knowing it while edting. You could perfectly be right, but I had concluded that Alemannic and Saterland Frisian have capitalization because I had seen nl:Sjabloon:Gebruiker stq and Template:User als... So the spelling on these sources isn't correct? See also als:Houptsyte. Belgian man 15:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In order to tell whether a spelling is correct, there needs to be a unified orthography to which it can be compared. However, neither Saterland Frisian nor Alemannic have their own orthographies, so there's no way to tell whether their spelling is correct or not. Most of the times, both languages are spelled according to the German orthography. That is to say, the samples you're referring to show basically German orthographies.

Exceptions may be found in the case of Alsatian (an Alemannic variety) which is sometimes spelled according to the French orthography, since the Alsace is a part of France and French is the standard language there. I also imagine that Saterland may occasionally be spelled according to the Dutch orthography or according to the orthographies of other Frisian varieties if there are any. -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 17:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange... So all Saterland Frisian and Alemannic texts in Wikimedia have in fact incorrect spelling? Belgian man 15:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to explain it yet another time: The only possible meaning of correct with respect to a spelling is ‘according to standard orthography’. Asking is this spelling correct? means the same as asking is this spelling according to standard orthography? Now if you replace “standard orthography” by “...” because neither Frisian nor Alemannic have a standard orthography, then the outcome is blatant nonsense: Is this spelling according to ...?

Perhaps an analogy can help you: Is it possible to tell whether the Cuban glaciers are threatened by global warming or not? — No, it's impossible because there are no Cuban glaciers. In the same way, it's impossible to tell whether the Alemannic orthography is correct or not, because there is no Alemannic orthography. -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 17:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand that. So in fact; the authors of als: may choose how to spell a word, they try to spell it a bit phonetic or a bit like in German isn't it? Belgian man 18:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! In fact, the two main tendencies in Alemannic spelling correspond to the two “bits” you've just mentioned: Either to spell as close as possible to German orthography or as close as possible to pronunciation (see for the former: Werner Marti, 1985: Bärndütschi Schrybwys. Bern: Francke. ISBN 3-7720-1597-2. See for the latter: Eugen Dieth, 1986: Schwiizertütschi Dialäktschrift. Aarau/Frankfurt am Main/Salzburg: Sauerländer. ISBN 3-79412832-X). -- j. 'mach' wust | ✍ 01:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]