Talk:Low German (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Dutch a dialect?

Suprisingly I read in the article that Dutch is a dialect which it is not. It is a proper language with over 23 million people talking and writing in this language. This is particularly strange because there are many Dutch dialects that are indeed dialects and are based on Dutch, not on Low German or anything like that. Dutch is in many respects very simular to low German but in many other cases much more similar to English and uses a lot of words that orignate in France. Even Frisian is not a dialect but a language. Migdejong 08:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Dutch, as a standard language, is not a dialect in the narrow sense. Obviously. However the Low Franconian dialects, forming the Flemish, Brabantian and Hollandic core of Dutch, are part of the Low German dialects. You are, I fear, the victim of a collective delusion the Dutch people as whole suffers from: that we are not German. But we are. There is nothing intrinsically "Dutch" or "German" about any of the Continental Western Germanic dialects. The state border is not a true language border on the level of dialects: there is a dialect continuum. But you have really always known this. Obviously there are no "German" ethnic minority groups on the Dutch side of the border, nor vice versa. But why is this obvious? Because we were originally one and the only thing dividing us has been that border itself. If linguistic history had taken its normal course and the standard language of Greater Germany would in the 17th century have been based on the dialects of its wealthiest and most civilised part — The Netherlands — today the streets of Berlin and Vienna would be full of Dutch — not people, but the language. Due to political and religious divisions this didn't happen however and now we are stuck with two rivalling standard languages, creating the illusion there are also two ancient nations, while in reality both nations are quite recent social constructs. And now that you know this terrible truth — that you, o horror!, are German too — you can either throw yourself from a dyke or a mill or learn to live with it ;o).

And by the way, Frisian, though it can make a much stronger claim for separateness — in its case there is no dialect continuum — is nevertheless simply the language of one of the five German tribes.

--MWAK 10:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Dutch is considered a seperate language by a vast majority because it is an ausbausprache of its own: It is taught in schools, printed in newspapers, used in all levels of the administration, used in science publications, officially and unanimously standardized etc. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 11:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Move to "Low Germanic languages" (proposal before official request, done)

The following discussion is an archived debate of a proposed move of this page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made below. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 12:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I intend to move this page to Low Germanic languages because this group of languages does not include the German language strictu sensu, but the Dutch language and Afrikaans. This would clean up the “family tree” in the following manner:

• West Germanic languages
  • Anglo-Frisian languages
  • Low Germanic languages
  • High Germanic languages

-- j. 'mach' wust | ✍ 13:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move to "Low Germanic languages" (done)

This includes not only varieties spoken in Germany, but also Dutch and Afrikaans. A move facilitates the distinction between this group of languages and Plattdüütsch, often called Low German as well, which refers to a specific group of Low Germanic varieties primarily spoken in Germany (note the requested move of the corresponding category!). -- j. 'mach' wust | ✍ 23:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support --Hottentot 00:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Izehar 12:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I've moved it now since there seems to be no opposition. -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 11:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. If you have subsequent comments, please make them below.

"Low Germanic languages" or "Low German languages"

There are no such things as "Low Germanic languages" and "High Germanic languages". The language groups, belonging to the West Germanic branch, are called Low and High German, in English and all other languages. Have a look at the interwiki links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.109.159.8 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. You're welcome to reopen the debate on the name of this article. I admit you have a good argument. However, since the article was moved to Low Germanic languages after a debate according to the proceeding as in Wikipedia:Requested moves (you may also want to consider Doric Loon's argumentation), it is only fair that another move be debated as well. Please don't be disappointed or angry that your move has been reverted. I'm willing to help you with an official move request, and I'd even request that move by myself though you will understand that I'd rather not play Devil's Advocate against my own cause, requesting to move this page back to Low German languages. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 13:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually there are good arguments to rename it back to Low German languages instead of Low German(ic). If you look into the German and Dutch Wikipedia it is the case and they should know it better. I do agree that it is somewhat confusing for a english to understand but the truth is that Dutch and Afrikaans are languages that originated from Low German (which at that time was the lingua franca of the hanse). There is actually no such thing as a Low German language right now. Plattdüütsch is one of the modern varietes of Low German, like Dutch and Afrikaans.

The reason for all the confusion in the english wikipedia is that Plattdüütsch is also called Low German. That is not the case in German or Dutch thats why they is no confusion there. I don't know if that is the official expression for that in english but if that would be renamed to just Plaatdüütsch it would be just fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.170.66.114 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Hansa league language was Middle Low German. Dutch, however, did not originate from Middle Low German, but from Middle Dutch. According to Dutch language#History, the separation between Low Franconian and other varieties is believed to date back to the early Middle Ages. This article is about the group of languages constituted by varieties of Low German and Low Franconian. The move of the former article "Plattdüütsch" to present Low German was unanimously approved, the main argument being that this is the usual English name, see Talk:Low German#Requested move of "Plattdüütsch" to "Low German". ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 07:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The differences between Middle Low German and Middle Low Dutch is very minor. More minor then for instance todays limburgish and standard netherlandic. This expressions also do not really describe certain distinct languages but similiar dialects. At the time the language was spoken they were no such thing as the Netherlands. Just small states which were part of the Holy Roman Empire. That this dialects of that region are today subsummized under Middle Low Dutch is understandable, but back then, and to some degree now, it would have been far more appropriate to classify both the Middle Low Dutch and Middle Low German dialects under a common expression.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.170.67.119 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How can you ever say that? "Middle low Dutch" doesn't even exist! Dutch is a low franconian language, not some low german dialect.The classification of Dutch is Low Germanic and Low Franconian, not low German. Dutch decends from Old Frankish, not Old Saxon.

Sandertje 16:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Calm down mate :-). We speaking historically. Well it's a matter of definition. It's not exact science. The various closely related dialects that were spoken in the Lowlands and todays Northern Germany from 1300-1500 were very closely related, someone could classify it as a single language. Because there was no standard written form back then it never can properly said when those languages became seperate. But if someone would just take a look at todays Dutch and Plattdüütsch knows that they couldn't be that far apart. Surely back in late Middle Ages they must have been just on and the same. One can see that both are more closely related than for instances Limburgish to Dutch. Limburgish after all made the consonant shift together with High German while the Low German dialects and Dutch didn't. It even becomes more confusing because Limburgish is a franconian variety like Dutch. The Middle Low Dutch wasn't my invention it was of the other guy above. Well it's a rather complicated matter :-) because the term "Low German" is so imprecise. It depends on the time someone is refering to. In my opinion at least Dutch originated from Low German dialects of the franconian varieties. In the article "Low German" it is someone represented. But I guess that is also a matter of debate soon :-). --Lucius1976 18:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Platt is a decendant from Old Saxon, the original language does not exist anymore.Dutch decended from Old Franconian.The only relation they have is that they are both low Germanic languages as opposed of being high german(ic).And not more closely related to modern Dutch than north Limburgish.Southern Limburgian might be though as it is a high germanic language. Low German is used for the Platt dialect and not as a group with in it languages as Dutch or Afrikaans.

PS. I didnt mean to sound agrivated or something and my post was actually directed to the person who wrote the message above me. Sandertje 18:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Historically speaking—according to Dutch language#History and to Middle Low German—there were separate processes of standardization for Franconian and Low German in the late Middle Ages, that is to say, Middle Dutch and Middle Low German were distinct. J. 'mach' wust 07:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the standardised languages became quite distinctive at this period. However there was still a complete dialect continuum. Indeed as the vague division between Low Franconian and Low Saxon runs right through the middle of The Netherlands, this is still the case today, although the state border since 19th century mass education has made for a new more eastern split. Also this means there were two Low German standard languages. The Dutch themselves until the 20th century referred to their language as Nederduytsch, i.e. Low German. As the Low Saxon one has got into disuse and attempts to revive it have failed, Dutch is the last surviving Low German; in a way it is Low German.

The term "Low Germanic" has the disadvantage it is primarily a political notion, formed in order to obscure some disturbing linguistic facts by creating the false impression the Dutch — German distinction is more fundamental than the Low German — High German one.--MWAK 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the fundamental disqualifying factor that it is a term simply not now used by anglophone scholars working in this field (it certainly occurs in older publications). Here's why: calling anything X-Germanic implies it is an immediate successor of Gmc, on a par with East, West and North Gmc. How come the Germans don't use Niedergermanisch?

Come on guys, forget the debate, let's see some sources - if this terminology is widely enough used to be suitable for a Wikipedia page, you should be able to cite dozens of respectable linguistic publications from the last 50 years which use the terms "Low Germanic" and "High Germanic" (and I don't count Vennemann, who uses it to develop a particular theory of WGmc).

Here are some stats to ponder: a search of the JSTOR archive of academic journals finds 5 occurences of "Low Germanic"; a search for "Low German" AND Germanic (to avoid articles about modern LG, LG literature etc, finds 401. None of the uses of "Low Germanic" are in articles by Germanists, either. Pfold 18:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Dutch refered to Dutch as 'nederduitse taal',I think it's highly inprobable that the 20th century Nederlands and Nederduits were synonyms

Sandertje 14:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not in the true sense of course as in the 20th century the word had become totally archaic. But some typical late 19th century nationalism was partly the cause of this :o).--MWAK 16:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what I though ;-) Sandertje 21:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that a combined search for "Low German" and "Germanic" will exclude articles on "Low German". I see no reason why an article about "Low German" should not employ the word "Germanic". Of course, it does not need to do so, but that's nothing to do with it.

There were no obscure political reasons. The reasons are explained above. It was in order to have a better differentiation between a group of varieties that includes several languages, the Low Germanic languages, and a single variety, Low German (which, like any variety, is further subdividized into sub-varieties).

I'm not so convinced of that the impression that the Dutch — German distinction is more fundamental than the Low German — High German one is really false. In either case, there are dialectal continua. I rather believe that this question depends on the respective dachsprache: Those Low German speakers that have Netherlands as dachsprache will see their own language closer to Netherlands than to standard German; those Low German speakers that have standard German as Dachsprache will see their own language closer to standard German than to Netherlands. Appearently, there really is a very marked opposition between speakers of Low German according to their respective dachsprachen, as can be observed on the Low Saxon wikipedia where Low German with Netherlands dachsprache has decidedly been rejected (see for instance nds:Wikipedia:Spraak för de Artikels or nds:Wikipedia Diskuschoon:Sass).

If you don't like the article name, you're very welcome to request a move any time you like. Here are detailed instructions how to do so: Wikipedia:Requested moves. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 11:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

English and Frisian not Low Germanic languages?

This page illustrates the problems with defining a group of languages/dialects by what didn't happen to them in relation to another group of languages/dialects rather than by showing what did happen to them while something else was happening to that other group of languages:

If what defines a Low Germanic language is that it didn't go through the second consonant shift, by what criteria are English and Frisian not Low Germanic languages?. Many trees I see on the web place Old Saxon together with Old English and Old Frisian under the heading Ingvaeonic and Old Frankish -> Old Low Franconian under the heading Istvaeonic which would seem to contradict putting Old Saxon and Old Low Franconian together under the heading Low Germanic. I presume people place Old Saxon in the Ingvaeonic group because it shares some features with Old English and Old Frisian which are not shared or only partially shared with Old Frankish -> Old Low Franconian eg loss of nasals before fricatives Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law. So, what features does Old Saxon share with Old Frankish -> Old Low Franconian that are not shared with Anglo-Frisian which would indicate the division Low Germanic v Anglo-Frisian is more justified than the division Ingvaeonic v Istvaeonic. In any case, if Old Saxon shares some features with Anglo-Frisian and some with Old Frankish -> Old Low Franconian, wouldn't a three way division rather than either of these two way divisions make more sense? I notice that diachronic classification on the Germanic Languages page shows divisions that are dated from before the second consonant shift is supposed to have happened.

So, following from my original point: Did Old Saxon/Old Frankish - Old Franconian go through any common changes that didn't happen to either to the Anglo-Frisian dialects or to the High Germanic dialects?

Also isn't placing Old Saxon in a group separate from Old English to ignore the contribution the Saxon settlers made to Old English? Even if you can classify the continental Anglian language separately from Old Saxon I don't see it as that clear cut in the case of Old English itself.

I think one way of showing how languages separate is to show some kind of chronological order of when changes happened. In what order did changes such as the the second consonant shift, nasal spirant law palatisation of /k/etc happen?. And while these changes were happening what was happening to the other dialects that didn't go through them? In other words did Anglo-Frisian branch off as a distinct group before the second consonant shift or after? If before, what was happening to the other dialects while Anglo-Frisian was branching off?. David Barrow 29 March 2006

You may find many answers (and many more questions?) in the article Phonological history of the English language. However, I'm not quite sure about what light this puts on your question. I've always had an implicit understanding of that group of languages as a rest category among the West German languages that were neither affected by the High German consonant shift nor by the shifts that took place in Anglo-Frisian. And then, the struggle of not having Dutch considered a mere dialect of Low German was so hard that the thought never occured to me that Low German and Low Franconian might be considered entirely different branches of West German. I'd also be curious to know more about this! ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 19:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please move it back

If we want that Wikipedia is indeed a place where people can find information about topics as they really are, means as they are used in the specifical field of research, then we should move it back immediately. We're just confusing readers that just want some information about this topic with these new non-existing neologisms. Low Germanic is just not an appropiate term at all.

This distinction between Low and High languages does just appear in German and Dutch. This is a thing between those two languages. Germanic on the other hand is a term to describe the whole Germanic family to which this "low and high" distincion does not apply.

So, please. Don't make wikipedia ridiculous.

["The term "Low Germanic" has the disadvantage it is primarily a political notion, formed in order to obscure some disturbing linguistic facts by creating the false impression the Dutch — German distinction is more fundamental than the Low German — High German one.--MWAK 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)"] --copied from above

Agreed on that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.187.95.84 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

--2:

All inconsistency of this change comes to the surface at the page of Low German http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German

It is still considered a low german language (remember, of course that's the correct term and it doesn't mean at all that it's just a mere dialect) the Low German dialects and Dutch are the two low german languages of which only Dutch developed as a language of culture with a standard (thank God for that, if they hadn't printed their Staatenbijbel maybe we were now all speaking High German.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.187.95.84 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I still stay with my answers to all theses points from March 13th (see above). And here's how that answere's changed since then: Meanwhile, there are two different Low German wikipedias according to their dach languages: A German Low German wikipedia and a Dutch Low German wikipedia. And of course, my offer from December 31st see is still valid (see above). ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 07:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, but wouldn't it be necessary then to explain the debate about the name in the article? Or at least mention that this name is nearly solely used at the wikipedia to avoid confusion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.187.91.62 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is necessary, but it already is in the article. Perhaps you'd like to place it more prominently (it's in the second paragraph). ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 06:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Low and High Germanic terms used in Wikipedia are fine as they are.Low and High German doesn't work here, because of a stupid (j.j) German dialect called "Low German/Low Saxon" in English.

Dutch is the only remaining true Low German(ic) language (Afrikaans is also low, but thats a different story) , .ie it does not survive in dialect form.And I will not have a standard/culture language be mistaken for some form of a High German dialect, because that's what modern Low German is, a High German(ic) dialect with large influx of Low German influences ...

It has already been a huge understaking changing all the german-made (how suprising) language maps on high and low germanic languages to make it clear that Dutch isn't a German dialect, but in fact older and closer to the common ancestor.

To avoid mistakes this connotation is used and unless you provide excellent arguments to change it, it wil not be altered. Sander 19:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

They are not fine. They are terms not used by English-speaking Germanists. It is not Wikipedia's job to invent its own terminology for established fields of knowledge, no matter what the perceived shortcomings may be. High Germanic is just as objectionable. And the amount of work that's gone into promulgating a misguided terminology is not an argument. Where did the proponents find these terms, what's the authority for using them?

The implication that Low Germanic is an immediate successor to West Germanic is also quite misleading. It's an ad hoc group resulting from the fact that the one non-Anglo-Frisian North-Sea Gmc dialect and one Franconian dialect weren't affected by the sound shift. But genetic groupings are supposed to made on the basis on common innovations not of failure to participate in an innovation elsewhere.

In fact I have serious doubts whether this page is needed at all - what does it do that couldn't be done just as well with a suitable small section on the Low German and Dutch pages? --Pfold 17:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the terms are used by a few germanic linguists, and they are fine ... eventhough I myself use Low and High German, Because I'm fully aware about the meaning of 'German' here which has little to dop with modern standard high german.But I am also fully aware that most ordinary people, who are merely interested will read the following ... that for instance a language like Dutch is part of the Low German subgroup, they'll think the following.

He ... Dutch = low German > Dutch = part of German language > Dutch = German dialect.

Even many Germans think Dutch is a dialect of German, I've seen and heard it many times, how will people from even further away think?

Using Low Germanic evades this problem, although it still has that idiotic/confusing German part ... (Sometimes I wish they'd stayed with Alleman instead of German) Sander 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Dutch is one of several varieties of German, belonging to the group of Low German languages. High German (the main language of Germany) is another. There is no such thing as "Low Germanic".

Unsigned comment by User:83.109.170.57

And "German" is what?

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 14:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The umbrella term for all High and Low German languages.

The name Dutch even means the same as the name Deutsch. A separate Dutch language is basically a 17th century invention, until then there was only Low German, a dialect continuum spoken in large parts of what is now Germany (including historical eastern territories), the Netherlands and Belgium.

Unsigned comment by User:83.109.170.57

Dutch and German are seperate languages, there's no denying it. However, there appears to have been a dialect continuum until the early 20th century (at last). That situation is comparable to the separate languages French and Italian, which also belong to the same dialect continuum (together with at last three more separate languages). The existence of a dialect continuum is no hindrance for two languages to be widely considered separate languages (in terms of Ausbausprache). There are notable sources that trace back the distinction between Low German and Low Franconian/Dutch to the very beginning of historical tradition, e.g. even the Metzler Lexikon der Sprache, so I'd rather like to see sources for the claim that before the 17th century, there was no distinction. How do you call the majority language of Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, if German is to be an umbrella term? ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 22:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The full name of the standard language used in Germany, Austria, Switzerland etc. is Standard High German. "German" is just the short name. But of course Low German languages are not less German than High German.

I've come across German, High German and standard German, but not standard High German. Where has that been? ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 08:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I was going to give dear User:83.109.170.57 a flaming lecture (what would you do if someone called your language an invention?) but j. 'mach' wust made an excellent reply, which I support completely. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 13:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with original research

Some people seem to insist on moving Low German languages to "Low Germanic languages" and renaming High German languages "High Germanic languages". This is original research, no sources are cited for it. All scientific sources as well as all other editions of Wikipedia use the correct terms, Low and High German. "Low Germanic languages" is only the invention of a Wikipedia user. 83, 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The terms are used by linguists, just not a majority.But that's not the reason why those terms are used on wikipedia.

Low German language is just one letter short of Low German languages.2 words that look very similar yet mean something totally different. The first is just the commonly used name of Low Saxon, a language of the past now reduced to a dialect.Low German languages is a classification. Now, wikipedias aim is to provide information and accurate information too. Many wikipedians contributing to these articles felt that when using the regular terms, the confusion would just become too much:

German, Low German, High German, Low German language, High German languages.

A layman/person, might think the following: Low German (Low Saxon) is a German (High German) dialect ... Dutch is a Low German dialect (as in the classification) - conclusion - Dutch is a German dialect.

To avoid these kind of things, we use High and Low Germanic.There is nothing wrong about those terms though. Unless you could think of other Germanic language able of being called High and Low.Anyway, just stop reverting.It's a waste of time.

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't use Low and High Germanic because those terms doesn't exist. See Wikipedia:No original research. Just stop reverting, it's a waste of both your and my time. If you continue to revert to the version not supported by any sources, you may be banned from editing, for persistently violating two Wikipedia policies (Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability). Wikipedia use the established and generally accepted terminology. If you believe the rest of the world is wrong, you should start convince researchers and reference works that they are wrong, and when your weird theory is accepted you can come to Wikipedia. 83, 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Look buddy, just accept it.Because revert wars will get you suspended or worse. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 17:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested moves

• Low Germanic languages → Low Franconian-Low Saxon languages
• Low German → Low Saxon
• West Low German → West Low Saxon
• East Low German → East Low Saxon
• The name Low Germanic languages is bad because it been accused to be original research. The name Low German is bad because for Dutch people, it may be offensive to have their speech called German. The proposed new names Low Franconian-Low Saxon and Low Saxon are used on ethnologue. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Support ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The reverse ordering Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages may be preferable, see below. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 10:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, for now ― Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support in principle - I would have no argument with "Low Franconian-Low Saxon", though I also have no objection to (and would still prefer to say) "Low German". - Gilgamesh 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, but... Anything to get rid of the term Low Germanic, but do we need this page at all? --Pfold 08:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose -- AjaxSmack 05:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have no strong objection for Low Franconian-Low Saxon languages but would still prefer either Low German languages or Low Germanic languages. Moreover I contest that Low German languages would be offensive to Dutch speaking people as on the nl.wikipedia nl:Nederduits is used which litteraly translates to Low German. Low Germanic would be Nedergermaans, which has (as of now), no article on the Dutch wikipedia. --Donar Reiskoffer 14:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• More comments. The knee-jerk "may be offensive" should be investigated before acting upon. Not that it's necessarily relevant but all other Interwikis including Dutch use the "Low German" form save one. (Chinese uses "Low Germanic"). The "Low Franconian-Low Saxon languages" form is not objectionable but is a bit cumbersome to be a good substitute and could be offensive to Franconians and Saxons whose populations speak other dialects. Maybe split the info as recommended by Pfold below and make Low German languages a kind of disamb page. Anyway, provide evidence of offense and I'll vote. AjaxSmack 02:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sometimes cumbersome names evolve out of politically correct necessity. Indo-Iranian languages were originally simply called "Aryan languages", and Indo-Aryan languages is still so named, but the term "Aryan" out of context became too politically charged, becoming synonymous with Nazi. It may very well be that the "Low German" naming controversy is overlyblown, but when enough people do complain, necessity becomes the mother of longwinded renaming. See Master-slave (technical)#Controversy for another example of how academic terminology can collide with social mores. - Gilgamesh 04:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your points are well taken but no evidence of any offense has been offered and comments below imply that there is none. Even the Dutch interwiki version uses Low German (nl:Nederduits) so it's hard to argue that the something that borders on original research should be used instead of Low German languages. AjaxSmack 01:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Lets not get fixed on names ... afterall the (mostly German) linguists who called the Germanic language that didn't experience the High German consonant shift. But seriously, why should it be called Low German, they might as well have called it"Dutch". I think we shouldn't pick the name that's most commonly used (although we should mention it of course) but the name that it most correct. Rex 09:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not "fixed on names" but that's what the debate is about. The article title should be called "Low German" because referrant subject is called that. (cf. Welsh rabbit is not Welsh and not rabbit but the article is called Welsh rabbit because that's what the subject matter is called.) No evidence has been presented that a) there is a problem with "Low German" or b) that "Low Franconian-Low Saxon languages" is a better choice. Therefore, I oppose the move. - AjaxSmack 05:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think if you 'd read whats been said already you'd have seen why there is a problem. Rex 15:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose West Low Saxon has one non-wikipedia/ Mirror hit. The one hit refers to Dutch Low Saxon. West Low Saxon is different from wesnederduits.

Sarcelles 19:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The move of the corresponding category:Low Germanic languages to category:Low Franconian-Low Saxon languages has been proposed by Gilgamesh on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19#Category:Low Germanic languages. Category:Low German languages, Category:East Low German languages, Category:West Low German languages should be moved accordingly. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I want to say that Dutch people aren't offenced by their language being called "German" but by the confusion in which it results.Maybe a disclaimer explaining the difference would suffice, if we'd go "back" to German(ic).It would for me.

Then there's this, now Dutch is classified as "Low Germanic --> Low Franconian" will this be changed to Low Franconian? I believe that would be the right thing, as using "Low German --> Low Franconian" would be kind strange ...

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I seriously question whether there is any need for this page under any title. The family tree suggests that LG & LF are immediate genetic consituents of a larger family. But this is quite mistaken. The grouping is based on failure to share an innovation (the sound shift) and a long period of mutual influence, neither of which are an acceptable basis for genetic language grouping. Does the first part of the page tell people anything useful that they can't find out in the LG, LF and Dutch pages?

BTW, once this is sorted, perhaps we can start to eliminate the equally misguided term High Germanic --Pfold 08:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though this group appearently can only be characterized by what it's not, it seems to be a common concept (or is it?), so I'd say we should keep it. However, the article would benefit if we'd include a note that the nature of this group is questioned by those who claim that language families should be characterized by common innovations.

Of course, High Germanic languages should also be renamed to High German languages if this page is renamed. I think that would be an obvious consequence without the need of further discussion (after this is discussed). ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems I was mistaken and the concept of a subgroup conisting of Low Franconian and Low Saxon (Low German) is not common. It appears neither in the Metzler Lexikon der Sprache nor in the dtv Atlas der deutschen Sprache, and it isn't mentioned either at the Institut für niederdeutsche Sprache e.V. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 14:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The corresponding category has been moved to Category:Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages. The article should have the same name like its category, so it should be moved accordingly. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So much for a propper name discussion I guess then. Rex 19:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Example Warning Template

WARNING
To fully understand this article, it is vital to read the article below
"Article explaining the concept Low German"

Just an idea of course ;-) Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is even better ;-)))) --Donar Reiskoffer 14:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WARNING
To fully understand this article, it is vital to read the article below
"Article explaining the concept Low German"

These colours would be at least more politically correct, though I don't fully understand what it's good for. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 14:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

ROFL! Flag of Germany...that is rich. XD - Gilgamesh 04:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

'Low Franconian-Low Saxon languages' or 'Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages'?

After noting that the ethnologue says Low Saxon-Low Franconian, Gilgamesh noted the following on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19#Category:Low Germanic languages

It occurred to me that perhaps it really is genuinely more proper to use "Low Saxon-Low Franconian" instead of "Low Franconian-Low Saxon", because it's established terminology in the linguistic field. Similarly, we tend to say "Indo-European" or "Tibeto-Burman" rather than "Euro-Indian" or "Burmo-Tibetan". If it is the majority's choice that "Low Franconian-Low Saxon" is more acceptable, then I wouldn't dispute it, and I really don't consider this a dispute now. But please think about it. - Gilgamesh 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have somewhat thoughtlessly reversed the ethnologue order since the important thing about the ethnologue source seemed to me to use a composite name of Low Saxon + Low Franconian and not the specific order how they are cited. I prefered the alphabetical order which matches the order by active speakers and by Ausbausprachen. However, the naming conventions state that alphabetical order should only be used "[i]f there is no obvious ordering". Is Low Saxon and Low Franconian the obvious ordering? ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 10:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For me personally, I'd go with Low Franconian and Low Saxon, , because that's alphabetical and it is correct in terms of speakers. Furthermore, although the older versions of Low Saxon were equal to any other language, the modern variants aren't mostly, they are High German dialects.

I also thought of this; Low Franconian and Low Saxon is better, as Low Franconian is spoken west (read left) of Low Saxon.

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's look at some existing terms and also their alphabetical order:

• Anglo-Frisian languages
  • Anglic languages (northwest, greater)
  • Frisian language (southeast, fewer)
• Balto-Slavic languages
  • Baltic languages (west, fewer)
  • Slavic languages (east, greater)
• Finno-Ugric languages
  • Baltic-Finnic languages (north, fewer)
  • Ugric languages (south and east, greater)
• Indo-European languages
  • Indo-Aryan languages (southeast, fewer)
  • non-Indo-Aryan languages (northwest, greater)
• Malayo-Polynesian languages
  • Polynesian languages (east, fewer)
  • non-Polynesian languages (west, greater)
• Sino-Tibetan languages
  • Sinitic languages (northeast, greater)
  • Tibeto-Burman languages (southwest, fewer)
• Uto-Aztecan languages
  • Ute language (north, fewer)
  • Nahuatl language (south, greater)

It would seem that lexical collation, size and geographical location often don't have much to do with the names by which languages are classified. It seems that precedent is typically established early, and it holds even if numbers and locations (or a scientist's language) change. - Gilgamesh 21:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the designation Low German really unfit for Dutch people?

The official Netherlands autodesignation of 'Low Saxon/Low German' is Nedersaksisch ('Low Saxon'), see at the Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties ('ministery of interior and kingdom matters'). Compare also at the corresponding articles in the Netherlands wikipedia nl:Nedersaksisch and in the Dutch Low Saxon wikipedia nds-nl:Nedersaksisch. The official German autodesignation, however, is Niederdeutsch ('Low German'), see at the Niedersächsischen Ministerium für Inneres und Sport (ministery of the interior and sports of Low Saxony).

Up to now, it seems to me that in English, both designations are in use, so the question is which designation is to be preferred. User:AjaxSmack and User:Doric Loon (lamentably not in this discussion, but on Talk:Low German#Requested move: Low German to Low Saxon) claimed that Low German is the only possible designation in English, though this claim appears to be disproved by evidence from the Ethnologue, see [1].

The name of a language needs to be chosen carefully, since language is an important part of individual identity. I'd say that the designation Low Saxon is more acceptable for German 'Low Saxon/Low German' speakers than the designation Low German is for Dutch 'Low Saxon/Low German' speakers, because the word German has much more of a national connotation than the word Saxon.

I think now that my above qualification that the designation Low German might be offensive to Dutch people was too harsh. What I wanted to say is that from what I know, it is not uncommon for Dutch people to have negative national stereotypes of German people. I know such stereotypes are irrational, but they exist all the same. I consider such stereotypes to be relevant to identity (even though I wish they weren't). Therefore, they are also relevant to the designations of languages.

Both designations Low Saxon and Low German are used in English. I hope I've now been able to explain why I prefer the former. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 11:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

More discussion at Talk:Low German

I'd have liked to keep the discussion here, but it is now at Talk:Low German. Please see there. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 17:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced concept

We have no source that the concept of this article is used in linguistics. The research by Pfold suggests that this concept does not exist, as does my own research. Therefore, it has been proposed that this page is converted into a disambiguation page pointing to Low Franconian languages, Low German and possybly Ingvaeonic languages (an article that still needs to be created), with a short explanation that this concept is not used in linguistics. I'm going to perform these changes in a while if there are still no sources.

Please don't remove Template:Unreferenced unless you provide references for this article. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly enthologue does use it, nevertheless I will not oppose a disambiguation page.

Rex 15:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: On Wikipedia, a source must be a Wikipedia:Reliable source. In this context, that means a peer reviewed linguistic publication, not some organisations web site. The ethnologue is not such a source. If you don't have any such publications at hand, I'd recommend you to visit the nearest university with a linguistic department. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 16:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ghum, J. 'mach' wust I have many excellent publications at hand however like with my university I doubt is has/contains much information on English terms for the matter at hand, also I think that enthologue makes publications and I know it isn't the best source, but it is one. I'll wont remove the template again though. I think we should solve this problem pretty soon though. Rex 16:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

To J. mach wust: To be fair, the Ethnologue is in fact a reliable, often quoted academic publication. My impression is nevertheless that their terminology in this case is a minority position. "Low Germanic" is definitely quite common in normal linguistic usage, even if somewhat losely defined (some people would include English/Frisian, others don't). My view is that there should be an article at Low Germanic languages, whose main purpose should be to describe the classificatory problems and difficulties. Just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it common linguistic usage? The consense reached on this talk page was that it's not common, see somewhere above. I however fully agree that there should be a page like the one you're having in mind. I'd say it should have the following components:

• Redirects to Low German and Low Franconian (and Ingvaeonic languages or North Sea Germanic languages once a page has really been created for that concept).
• A description of the classificatory problems:
  • That concept is not used in linguistics for the current stages of the languages, though some may use it (as the ethnologue).
  • That concept is however being in linguistics used older stages of that languages.
  • There seems to be no unanimous name for that concept, if it's used at all.

The problem is where to put that article. I think the three possibilities are: Low German languages, Low Germanic languages and Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages. Of course, if we choose Low German languages, then it's most important to make sure the differences between that concept and Low German. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 14:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, when you talk about "it" being "not common", do you mean the term "Low Germanic", or the term "Low Saxon-Low Franconian", or the concept of the underlying unity of L.S+L.F? As for the terms, of the three options you list, I'd say Low Germanic languages is certainly the most common. It's used all over the place, though often loosely. Ulritz' google-books search ([2]) shows a host of serious linguistic publications using it. We should be careful to note that quite a few of them seem to use the term in the context of one specific hypothesis which, while serious and interesting, is not really scholarly consensus (Vennemann's hypothesis of a very old high-low split within common Germanic, preceeding the split of North vs West. According to that hypothesis, "Low Germanic" actually covers even North Germanic). As I see it, the page should deal with the following:

• "Low Germanic" as a cover term for all West Germanic that is neither High German nor Anglo-Frisian, i.e. basically Ethnologue's "Low Franconian - Low Saxon".
• "Low Germanic" as a cover term for all West Germanic that is not High German (ie. including Anglo-Frisian)
• "Low Germanic" as a cover term for everything that is not High German (Vennemann's theory)
• Question 1: regarding each of these divisions, is "Low Germanic" a valid unit in a synchronic taxonomy of Germanic languages?
• Question 2: regarding each of these divisions, is "Low Germanic" a valid node in a genetic stammbaum (i.e. a unit that has exactly one unique common ancestor distinguishing it from other varieties)?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The first of the three meanings you distinguish is the one I understand is the main topic of this article.

The second meaning, as I understand, should be better called North Sea Germanic or Ingvaeonic. The concept may not be accepted by all, but these are the common names for it.

Thanks for pointing out the third meaning. Maybe it should be explained in an explanation of his entire theory?

Answer to your first question: I have the impression that none of these concepts are used for a synchronic description of today's Germanic varieties. I haven't seen it anywhere but in the Ethnologue.

Answer to your second question: I think the inclusion of all these concepts in a diachronical tree diagram of the Germanic languages is disputed. Therefore, I think they should not be included in Template:Infobox Language. I'd rather put Franconian languages and Low German directly after West Germanic languages with no intermediate node, that is to say, side by side with High German languages and Anglo-Frisian languages. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No objections in principle on my side. Have you got some handy reference to base this classification on? Is "Franconian languages" less controversial? Otherwise, I think many Wikipedia articles have fared reasonably well by just sticking to Ethnologue as the most easily verifiable, halfway reliable reference for such issues of basic categorization. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what I meant to write was that I'd rather put Low Franconian and Low German directly after West Germanic languages.

I also thought it was mostly safe to follow the ethnologue (though I knew that their subdivisions of Alemannic German are pointless) – until I proposed to move this page according to the ethnologue after the term Low Germanic (for L.F.+L.S.) had been disputed by several. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 22:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved

A simple search reveals that no such nomenclature exists in English, therefore I moved the page to the proper English acadaemic name. If anyone (Rex) question the move, I would refer them to a multitude of sources. I kept mention of the alternative nomenclature in the Netherlands, though the reasoning is unreferenced. Cheers. Ulritz 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

PS To avoid any strictly German associations, I moved it to Low Germanic, though Low German is also heavily used. Ulritz 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. THIS IS ALREADY DISCUSSED! It does not exist anything called "Low Germanic". The languages in question (Low German languages) are West Germanic. The only other families are North Germanic and the now extinct East Germanic.

I don't know if you know, but here on wikipedia a move from such importance isn't made by one person. Do you have any idea how long the regular editors (including myself) have been defeating on this move?! Rex 09:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, any user who'll respond on this matter will tell you a google search does not count as a propper reference. Rex 10:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please accustom yourself with Google Books and then come again, might help you in defending some of the nonsense you push here. Ulritz 10:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one pushing nonsense, just wait till other users join in. A Google search is no reference. Rex 10:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

please

could both of you please drop the bickering and attempt fair discussion of the term? See nl:Nederduits, de:Niederdeutsche_Sprachen#Begriff_.E2.80.9ENiederdeutsch.E2.80.9C: the trivial truth is that the term is used in various senses. Document them all. No need for all this hostility. The term "Low German" has been used. Not by everybody. This doesn't mean the Dutch are Germans, calm down. dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source from the googled Oxford Companion to English literature. I hope this somewhat satisfies RG's bloodthirst? Problem is it's Low German, so we have a dilemma- to drop the ic or not? Ulritz 12:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to prove that the Dutch and Flemish aren't Germans, that's just plain obvious, I'm here to protest an unauthorised move by User:Ulritz with no sources and no consensus not even a warning or anouncement before the move. Honestly Dbachmann do you agree with this? Rex 12:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's try again to solve the move issue.

It seems we've bogged down again on the moving matter. So I will try to reanimate the discussion once more and introduce my solution.

I propose the following;

1. Low German → Low Saxon
2. Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages → Low German languages

(pro's for 1.)

• It avoids confusion with the name of the linguistic marker with is also called Low German on most cases. (Which we call Low Saxon-Low Franconian here)
• It connects it to articles about its historical forms without a big "breach" (ex. Old Saxon, Middle Low Saxon, Low German)
• In Dutch this is the term which is used.
• (feel free to add more)

(neg's for 1.)

• It will probably require a lot of minor edits throughout wikipedia to change Low German to Low Saxon.
• (feel free to add more)

(pro's for 2.)

• This is most commonly used for the marker in Germanic linguistics.
• Term used in German and Dutch (and English).
• (feel free to add more)

(neg's for 2.)

• Could cause confusion for laymen if concept isn't explained clearly.
• (feel free to add more)

___________________________

Well, that's about it. Rex 11:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I'm a bit astonished to see you of all people, Rex, advocating a solution where Dutch is subsumed under (Low) "German languages" - I must have misunderstood something about the opinions you hold. :-) Anyway, not that I'd object in principle. For the record, here's a very useful passage from de:Niederdeutsche Sprachen, which I think might serve as a useful point of reference:

"Der Begriff „Niederdeutsch“ wird heutzutage recht unterschiedlich verwendet und kann in der zeitgenössischen Literatur verschiedenen Konzepten entsprechen. Der belgische Sprachwissenschaftler Goossens zählt bis zu zehn verschiedene Bedeutungen.

Die Unterschiede beziehen sich hauptsächlich auf die räumliche Verbreitung, vor allem die Ost-West-Ausdehnung: So beziehen einige Wissenschaftler den Begriff „Niederdeutsch“ nur auf die Varietäten Norddeutschlands, andere beziehen ihn auf Norddeutschland und den Nordosten der Niederlande (Niederdeutsch gleichbedeutend mit Niedersächsisch), noch andere auf Norddeutschland und den gesamten niederländischen Sprachraum (Niederdeutsch im weiteren bzw. historischen Sinne)."

My translation:

"The term "Low German" is used in different senses today [...] Some scholars use the term "Low German" to refer only to the varieties of northern Germany; others to northern Germany and the north-eastern parts of the Netherlands (in which case it becomes synonymous with "Low Saxon"), yet others to northern Germany and the whole of the Dutch-speaking area (Low German in the wider or historical sense).

Personally, I was not actually very familiar with this last (wide) concept, so I'd probably be a bit astonished as a reader to find it taking precedence in the article titling. Also, I don't think I've ever seen the term "Niederdeutsche Sprachen" (as opposed to just "Niederdeutsch") in German usage, outside Wikipedia. And finally, having two different articles under "Low German" (narrow sense) and "Low German languages" (wide sense) seems a bit confusing to me. So, perhaps an alternative solution:

• Move Low German to Low Saxon as per Rex;
• Leave Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages where it is now, or move it back to Low Germanic languages, still treating LS+LF, but with a disambig passage in the lead that makes clear there's also the usage where "Low Germanic" includes also English etc.;
• Turn Low German into a disambig page pointing to Low Saxon and Low Germanic languages.

(Note that the last step will require a lot of link checking and disambig correction in other articles.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC) __________________________

My definition is very similar to the Dutch explanatory text;

From http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederduits

"Het is erg belangrijk er rekening mee te houden dat het woord "Duits" in "Nederduits" niets te maken heeft met het hedendaagse Duits. Het begrip Nederduits werd als eerste beschreven door Duitse taalkundigen. Deze ondekten dat Duitse dialecten in het noorden van Duitsland verschilden van die in het zuiden. Later ontdekten zij ook overeenkomstigheden met het Nederlands en Nedersakische dialecten in Noord-Duitsland, het Nederlands werd vervolgens ingedeeld bij het "Nederduits", dat nu als de voorouder van het Nedersaksisch en het Nederlands werd gezien. Heden is het taalkundige beeld erg veranderd. Het wordt nu aangenomen dat het Nederduits als echte taal nooit bestaan heeft, en dat het Nederlands en Nedersakisch geen gemeenschappelijke voorouder hebben gehad, althans, niet na de Tweede Germaanse klankverschuiving. "Nederduits" betekent vandaag vooral dat het een taal betreft die de Tweede Germaanse klankverschuiving of ingveoonse klankverschuivingen niet hebben meegemaakt."

Translation: It's important to realise that the word "German" in "Low German" has got nothing to do with modern German. The term was first described by German linguists, they discovered that dialects of German in the north of the country differed from the ones in the south. Later they also noticed that the Low Saxon dialects in northern German were somewhat similar to Dutch and Dutch was classified as a Low German language, which at the time, was considered the ancestor of both Low Saxon and Dutch. Today however the linguistic image has changed a great deal and Low German is no longer regarded as an actual (historical) language. It is commonly accepted that Dutch and Low German do not have a common ancestor, at least not after the High German consonant shift. "Low German" now refers to the fact that a language did not experience the High German consonant shift or shows Anglo-Frisian features.

Ps. I strongly oppose the returning to "Low Germanic" and I think a lot of others with me. Rex 17:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I must admit I have difficulties following the discussion above about the pros and cons of "Low Germanic languages" and the various reasons people were for or against it at various times. As for the passage from the nl.wiki, I think it's historically wrong. The term "Niederdeutsch", in the sense including Dutch, is actually far older than modern linguistics. See Grimm's Dictionary. But anyway, my personal view is "Low Germanic languages" would be better than "Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages", but the latter is better than "Low German languages". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason people are opposed to it, is because it doesn't exist and because it is an invention of a Wikipedia editor. No original research!

The Dutch passage doesn't say anything about the time the term was used. Rex 17:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it talks about "linguists", which would - to my mind at least - suggest a dating after the advent of modern linguistics. And it talks about certain things being "noticed" "later" than others, which seems to be wrong too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Linguistics are quite old Future, there are 17th century Dutch linguistical books which speak of Low German languages after German example. Rex 17:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. :-D Anyway, the more we talk about this, the more I think we need a proper disambiguation page. What about the following: Put the content into Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages (where it is now) and Low Saxon, and create a single disambiguation page to which both Low German and Low Germanic redirect? I've made a draft for such a page at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Low Germanic (don't worry, all the different usages can easily be sourced). Alternatively, merge that disambig material into the current page, and move all of it to Low Germanic languages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I know they can easily be sourced, but most of the people here don't like Low Germanic ;-) Rex 18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Which seems to have been based on a mistaken assumption that more uniformity could/should be found in the literature than what we now actually have... Fact is, both Low German and Low Germanic are common, the usage of both is varied, and some of their uses overlap. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. There is no such thing as "Low Germanic" and no such thing as "High Germanic". German languages are not the same as Germanic languages. The Germanic languages have three families: West, North and East Germanic (which is extinct). The German languages, including the Low German ones, belong to the West Germanic family.

Yes that's true, but at the time we had Low Germanic, we also had High Germanic ... Also Low German is more common than Low Germanic. Both can be used, but Low Germanic breaks with virtually every other wikipedia. Rex 18:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As for breaking correspondences with other wikis, many of them are hopelessly confused anyway. Here's the situation:

• Czech:
  • cs:Dolnoněmčina dealing with LS+ELG
  • cs:Západogermánské jazyky: dealing with LS+Dutch+AngloFrisian

• Italian
  • it:Lingua basso-tedesca: dealing with LS+ELG
  • it:Basso tedesco: linked from the above as if it dealt with LS+ELG+Dutch, but is only a redirect-back-to-self

• French:
  • fr:Bas-allemand: dealing with LS+ELG+Dutch
  • fr:Bas-saxon: dealing with LS (narrowest sense, without East LG)

• Swedish:
  • sv:Lågtyska: dealing with LS+ELG (+ne Netherlands)
  • sv:Lågtyska språk: dealing with LS+ELG+Dutch

• Norwegian:
  • no:Nedertysk: single article, dealing with LS+Dutch

• Dutch:
  • nl:Nederduits: dealing with LS+Dutch
  • nl:Nedersaksisch: dealing with LS
• Polish:
  • pl:Języki dolnoniemieckie: dealing with LS+Dutch
  • pl:JJęzyk dolnoniemiecki: dealing with LS

Oh (hits head with clog) this discussion is so damned irritating ;-) ... Rex 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think we need a proper disambiguation page. It seems to me that most favour the name Low German over Low Saxon, so we shouldn't move that article. It is not clear to me whether there needs to be an article of a Dutch-Low German group at all; I'm rather inclined to have just a disambiguation page that points to either article.

I think Fut.Perf.'s disambiguation draft is a good starting point. What about keeping the names as simple as possible: Low German and Low German (disambiguation)? ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 18:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to add even more confusion here, but there seem to be yet more incertainties as to whether "Low Saxon" actually also comprises "East Low German" - if yes, it is synonymous with one of the senses of "Low German", if not, it isn't... Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Language names

In the last weeks, I tried to gather some information on some of these language names:

• Low Germanic, High Germanic languages: I could not find any linguistic literature that subdivides the Germanic languages like this. The traditional subdivision is West/East/North Germanic, but this is obsolete since about fifty years. In 1943, the German linguist Maurer suggested another subdivision (into five groups) which gained much acceptance. I started updating de:Westgermanische Sprachen accordingly.
• Low German languages: The linguistic literature I know mentions only one Low German language (see below).
• Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages: This has probably no support in linguistics.
• Low German: The name Low German (Niederdeutsch) has various meanings. But current linguistics tend to define Low German as "the language spoken in Northern Germany (and in North-Eastern Netherlands)". So do the contributors in Cordes/Möhn Handbuch der niederdeutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, Willy Sanders Sachsensprache, Hansesprache, Plattdeutsch, and the contributors in Jan Goossens Niederdeutsch -- Sprache und Literatur. This is also the point of view of C.B. van Haeringen in his survey on Dutch linguistics, Netherlandic Language Research. Besides that, he states explicitely that the Dutch word Nederduits is the equivalent of the English word Low German (p. 9).
• Low Saxon: in German probably Niedersächsisch. In de:Diskussion:Niederdeutsche_Sprachen I presented the subdivision of the Low German dialect based on Willy Sanders. Stellmacher (in Cordes/Möhn) and Goossens present a very similar map: without Dutch, with a subdivision into Westniederdeutsch (West Low German) and Ostniederdeutsch (East Low German). Some authors use Niedersächsisch instead of Westniederdeutsch. This is probably where the term Low Saxon comes from. In current German linguistics, Niedersächsisch is West Low German, i.e. the language between the rivers IJssel and Elbe (very roughly).

The subdivision of the Germanic languages has consequences for the Low German question. In the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century, linguists used to assume that the Proto Germanic language split into North, East and West Germanic. Then (according to that idea) the West Germanic languages split into Anglo-Frisian and Proto German (Ur-Deutsch). When the High German sound shift occurred, this "Proto German" language split into High German and Low German, and Dutch automatically ended up in the Low German language.

This idea was based on the the family tree model (de:Stammbaumtheorie), but this model has been criticised often and modern linguists do not use it any more, as far as I know. The results of the application of this model are languages like "Anglo-Frisian", "Proto German", "Low German (including Dutch)". When the majority of linguists rejected this Germanic family tree (after Maurer publication) these three languages became obsolete and the expression "Low German" got a narrowed meaning.

Sources for the Germanic subdivision question: A. Bach and H. Eggers, see history of de:Westgermanische Sprachen, but there should be other sources too.

--MaEr 08:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the thorough research. Just as a small correction/addition: The terms "Low Germanic" vs. "High Germanic" are in fact in use too, in the context of the theory by Theo Vennemann, who predates the High German consonant shift to extremely early in the history of Germanic (if not even simultaneous with the First Germanic shift), and thus sees the split of "Low" vs. "High" as the most fundamental split within Germanic, higher up in the stammbaum than the West-North-East splits. It's somehow a variant of the "Ingvaeonian" hypothesis. Not exactly commonly accepted, but influential in the field. Apart from that, I agree that "Low Germanic" seems to be used mostly as a rather loosely defined informal term, and not within much serious discussion of genetic classification. But we should of course have a note about that usage somewhere too.

As you say correctly, "Low Saxon" seems to comprise only part of what's commonly referred to as "Low German" in a lot of the literature, so moving "Low German" to "Low Saxon" was probably not such a good idea after all.

"Low Saxon-Low Franconian" was just a stop-gap solution used by Ethnologue, wasn't it?

At the moment, I see three options on how to proceed:

1. Scrap this page here (the current Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages) altogether. Merge its contents into the Dutch and Low German pages; point all redirects to Low German; put a disambiguation discussion into the top of Low German along the lines of my draft at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Low Germanic, but then let the rest of the Low German page itself just deal with the varieties of Germany/NE NL.
2. Alternatively, put the disambiguation note into a Low German (disambiguation) page of its own, redirect from Low Germanic to there, and put an {otheruses} note linking to the dab at the top of Low German.
3. Or, keep the current Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages page, move it to Low Germanic, and turn it into some sort of overblown disambiguation page all in itself. Put the disambiguation draft into it, and make clear in its wording that it's not claiming to represent a valid genetic unit, but use this page to present a discussion of the various approaches. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about Vennemann -- it's a good idea to write a short article about it, otherwise people might think, this is a name and a concept that only exists in the Wikipedia.

Indeed, the "Low Saxon-Low Franconian" language seems an ad hoc solution to me. Something like "Dutch cannot be High German, so it must be Low German", and then "Dutch cannot be a Low German dialect, so let's create a new language group".

I do not know if Maurer's subdivision of Germanic languages is commonly accepted, yet. I'm still looking for literature. You said that also Vennemann's idea is not commonly accepted. So we should not use High Germanic and Low Germanic as subdivisions. Probably the whole West Germanic group still is unclear for the linguists. So we just know that German, Low German and Dutch are Germanic languages but other subdivisions (by Vennemann, Maurer, Scardigli, others?) are not commonly accepted yet.

I would prefer the first or the second option (do not keep LS-LF).

PS: I just wanted to see if there is an article about High Germanic or Low Germanic. So I entered "High Germanic" and stumbled into "High German languages". Are German and Germanic freely interchangeble in English? I thought the English translation of Germanisch/Germaans/Germansk/etc was Germanic? And what about North German and North Germanic? Now I understand why people get confused... :)

--MaEr 10:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is already an article on Theo Vennemann. I have now added a paragraph on his theory to High German consonant shift#Chronology and changed the redirects of High/Low Germanic (languages) accordingly. Do you think that's okay? Maybe that short paragraph might be expanded into a proper article, but I think it works at least as a temporary solution. (Note that I originally gave it its own heading, but Doric Loon included it into the chronology section because it's not significant enough, which is okay to me.)

I'd prefer the second option and I think it's best to do so by moving this article to Low German (disambiguation) (like that, the version history does not disappear into a silly redirect). I think we can do so at once since this suggestion has been on this talk page for more than a week now ([3]). ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 19:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)