Talk:Middle High German

Family tree removal

I took out the family tree in the "Varieties" section (wikitext pasted below) because it doesn't belong in this article about the historical Middle High German language, but in the articles about modern Upper German and Central German dialects.

(this stuff is already in the appropriate articles on Upper and Central German)

Middle High German is not a unified written language and the term covers two main dialect areas:

• Upper German (Oberdeutsch)
  • Alemannic (Alemannisch)
  • Bavarian (Bayrisch)
  • East Franconian (Ostfränkisch)
  • South Franconian (Südfränkisch)
• Central German (Mitteldeutsch)
  • Franconian (Westmitteldeutsch)
    • Rhine Franconian (Rheinfränkisch)
    • Middle Franconian (Mittelfränkisch)
  • East Central German (Ostmitteldeutsch)
    • Thuringian (Thüringisch)
    • Upper Saxon (Obersächsisch)
    • Silesian (Schlesisch)
    • High Prussian (Hochpreußisch)

If anyone has verifiable information about different regional dialects of MHG, then they should add it.

CapnPrep 11:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is entirely verifiable: I took it directly from Paul/Wiehl/Grosse Mittlehochdeutstche Grammatik 23rd edition, paras 157 ff. I don't see that we can rely on the UG and CG pages to have accurate info about MHG. The Upper German page is completely useless for the purposes of MHG.

Incidentally, the whole section about graphemes needs rewriting - as it stands almost all the info is about the conventions of modern editions, and is quite misleading presented as a description of MHG writing practices. --Pfold 22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Should "ȥ" be used throughout this article?

Ezh claims:

In contexts where "tailed z" is used in contrast to tail-less z, notably in standard transcription of Middle High German, Unicode ʒ is sometimes used, strictly speaking incorrectly. Unicode offers ȥ "z with hook" as a grapheme for Middle High German coronal fricative instead.

--—Random832 14:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to modern German

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

Use of macron

I've seen several Middle High German texts which use the macron over nasals, but this article doesn't mention that at all. What does it represent? 76.232.72.2 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few MHG MSS use something like a macron as an abbreviation to indicate a following nasal, but that has no phonological significance. You won't see this in edited texts. --Pfold (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary and secondary umlaut; e, ë and ä

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

Edits of this date

Noted today that the appearance of three inline citations over the whole of the article is not an an acceptable reflection of WP:VERIFY. Any attempt to verify the whole of this content would be a research project of many tens of hours, requiring at least advanced undergraduate abilities. In short, the experts that create need to tie the material to the sources from which to was derived. It will never make GA status from this point, because editors "edit after pattern", and the article will continue with the trajectory it has now (being a sparsely sourced, and largely just-trust-me WO:OR content). Tag should remain, despite our desire for good article appearance, until all content is readily verifiable (per those policies/guidelines). Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The user who added all these "citation needed" tags has been banned from adding maintenance tags to articles for "tag bombing" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive952#Leprof_7272_and_tag_bombing). He is, of course, right that the article needs more citations, but he is clearly unable to identify non-controversial points (which by WP policy don't need references), and his claim that some of the material is "unverifiable" just shows ignorance of the subject.

I will go through and trim these tags - if there's a "refimprove" tag at the start of a section, I can't see the need to tag every individual sentence in it! I have also added references in a few places, to get the admittedly necessary improvements underway.

I'm also going to revert the move of the sample texts, and put them at the end again, where they belong. --Pfold (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

White space in article

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

the boundaries of the subject

Middle High German (abbreviated MHG, German: Mittelhochdeutsch, abbr. Mhd.) is the term for the form of German spoken in the High Middle Ages.

I changed "the form" to "a form" because I'm betting MHG was not the only German dialect of its time; this was reverted because MHG is a blanket term covering *all* the various dialects. Including Low German? Either way, shouldn't it then be "(the) forms"?

I also removed "the term for" (WP:REFERS), and this was also reverted because it's not a "thing", it's a convenient concept to make handling the data easier, so WP:REFERS is beside the point here. Well, every "language" with more than a few thousand speakers is an abstraction covering multiple dialects and registers, so should most language articles include "is the term for"? —Tamfang (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Middle High German is an umbrella term for all the dialects of High German in the late and high Middle Ages. When we say "German" we mean High German, which could be specified, but which is generally understood. Low German is technically another language.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

My problem with "a form" was that it suggests a "first among equals" scenario, but "the forms" doesn't have that disadvantage and does identify it as an umbrella term, so I'd have no objection to that change.

Using "German" as a shorthand for "High German" is, as Ermenrich point out, pretty standard (even in academic writing), and the exclusion of Low German is in any case explained at the end of the para. The term MHG is purely from academic discourse and its exact scope is a matter of discussion - it is not a term ever used by its speakers - so it has a different status from just "German". I would be quite happy to see, say, "Old English" treated in the same way, not to mention many of the terms used in the prehistory of the Germanic languages, especially where there can be disagreement whether such things as "Northwest Germanic" actually have any real-world correlate. --Pfold (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Godwin's law?

To editors Chianti and Direwolf202: Please avoid edit warring; discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

While it is relevant that Walter Kuhn was a nationalist and Nazi party member (and thus it was in his interest to exaggerate the Ostseidlung), unless we can find a reliable source against his work, or even simply doubting its efficacy, it doesn't seem appropriate to make a comment of his political affiliation on every single example of the map. If there is a suitable replacement for the map that doesn't come from a potentially biased source, would that be better suited for use here? —- unless the topic is the manner in which the Ostseidlung was used by the Nazi's as propaganda, but there the map should be in a comparative context. Direwolf202 (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

As you can read here [1], the map is based on the "research" of Walter Kuhn, a Nazi who used Volkskunde and Ostforschung for Nazi Propaganda. Not mentioning this would be a clear violation of NPOV. There's other maps that don't claim a total occupation of German settlement and show the mixed settlement of Slavs and Germans [2] but they aren't transferable to Commons. Als long there's no better map it is necessary to explain why the map used is biased and has faults. And mentioning that Kuhn was a Nazi is the context you asked for.--Chianti (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This map on the very same German article is far less one-sided, as that article notes. It is a jpg file, and comes from an atlas published in 1904 1905 (the plate is from that edition), and the author died in 1913, meaning it will be in pulic domain everywhere, it should be transferable to commons, and can serve as a replacement for the Kuhn map. Direwolf202 (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. You can find a reliable csource against his work in Eduard Mühle: Für Volk und deutschen Osten. Der Historiker Hermann Aubin und die deutsche Ostforschung. Düsseldorf 2005, p. 265, it's the first citation in the German article de:Deutsche Ostsiedlung.--Chianti (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It's only been the first citation since you or your fellow-traveler added it there in the last couple of days. Unless you can show why the map is wrong, there's no reason to mention it. The map makes no claim that everyone in the areas shown spoke German, just that that was the extent of German settlement.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read and understand what I wrote. I explained what is wrong with the map and why. It suggests a complete colonization with no remaining Slavs which ist completely wrong. As long there's not a better map or the better map cannot be transferred to Commons it is the least to mention the source ot the data for the wrong map. Do you seriously want Nazi POV in the Wikipedia without comment?--Chianti (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

In the spirit of bold editing, I have replaced the controversial image with an alternative, that should hopefully be more acceptable. Direwolf202 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The dtv-Atlas is now a contentious Nazi publication?

The perfectly fine image of Ostsiedlung from the dtv-Atlas by Walter Kuhn has been replaced. My question is whether it's rational - is a respectable West German publication now considered a Nazi source? I for one consider the replacement image to be of a far lower quality, and it saddens me greatly that newcomers to the article will not see the original image from now on.--Adûnâi (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

While the quality of the new image is somewhat lower, I would think that it may be more representative than the image derived from Kuhn, and is certainly less controversial. If the information in the new image is more trustworthy and accurate, then that takes precedence over visual appearance or a greater degree of precision. The replacement of the image is intended to solve the problems relating to Walter Kuhn's personal politics and associations with the Nazi party. Obviously, if consensus is against my replacement, then we can revert it, but it was the best solution to the disagreement that I saw. If we could not agree on the reliability or accuracy of the source, it seems better to simply use an alternative source which doesn't have any controversiality from it. Direwolf202 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't see any proof that the map is inaccurate. If it was indeed published after 1945, then it was vetted by the scholarly community of the time. Many former academic supporters of Nazism continued in their positions after the war, and there is not necessarily anything wrong with their research. It all depends somewhat on the provenance of the image though.

The new map has the problem that it is from the beginning of the twentieth century, and scholarly views on the Ostsiedlung have no doubt developed since then.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ermenrich, there is no reason to remove the map, in all other sites the user with the same trial has been reverted (the form "according to Walter Kuhn" seems acceptable to everyone).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC))

I have now found a copy of Kuhn's original map on a page called Poland in the Classroom. The original has one important feature which Ziegelbrenner's does not - it shows shading where German settlement is only partial. But Chianti's objection, in any case, only has merit if one takes any colouring to indicate exclusively German settlement. I would have thought the gradual shift to a lighter colour rather obviously suggests that that is not what is meant. In any case, blaming Kuhn for someone else's adaptation of his map is absurd.

The fact that the ultimate source of the map is not a publication of Kuhn's but from a series of historical atlases means that independent editorial teams in post-war Germany have found Kuhn's map acceptable. Admittedly Ziegelbrenner has simplified it, no doubt for technical reasons, but I don't see how that makes it biased, and he has also added useful material on towns and bishoprics.

I still think it would be useful to tweak the file description and say "based on" or "adapated from" and fix the link to Kuhn's original (strictly still in copyright).--Pfold (talk)

"independent editorial teams in post-war Germany", nice joke

Why didn't you read and understand the newest research on Walter Kuhn? "Although they were largely ignored or denied in the post-war period, Kuhn's close connections to National Socialism before and during World War II have come under increased scholarly scrutiny since the publication of Michael Burleigh's Germany Turns Eastward (1988)".--Chianti (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

What about "the ultimate source of the map is not a publication of Kuhn's but from a series of historical atlases [which] means that independent editorial teams in post-war Germany have found Kuhn's map acceptable" is hard to understand? --Pfold (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)