![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't know wether my subject was mentioned before or not but as a native German speaker I do not recognize the words that are named in the column "dialects" in the third table of the section "Cognates with English". I am well versed with german accents/dialects but that one seems very unfamiliar to me. I think the written examples are very unrepresentative for German dialects. Mangercratie ( talk) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Now I normaly would not care but since it really bugs me I have to ask you.
Not only to claryfy this to me but also to some wiki articles who lack the class of this one.
This is not an attack to the people who work on these articles but I don't really have the knowledge nor do I know if I am that right.
So it is more a request to help.
Out of interest I found the category
Linguistic typology where most articles use german examples (and in my eyes right).
But after some klicks I found
V2 word order where german is placed in the category CP-V2, SOV.
Now shoot me if I am wrong but isn't the most common used main clauses case anything else but SOV (normaly SVO) ?
I agree with
Subject Verb Object which states "Some languages are more complicated: in German and in Dutch, SVO in main clauses coexists with SOV in subordinate clauses (See V2 word order.)" and I even know that main clauses of SOV are possible still I don't get the classification at all.
And what bugs me even more is that even if it would be SOV (which I still don't belive) it would not mean that it is some kind of "standard" in german. So I don't really get the classification.
And then I found
Time Manner Place (where you can read my comments - I made some argument errors and decided to let the pros deal with each other...) and read "German uses V2 word order in main clauses and other circumstances, but is fundamentally SOV." which was changed on to "German (which is fundamentally SOV but uses V2 in certain circumstances, especially main clauses"
Now shoot me again but I don't see the word "fundamentally" really working here.
If my language would be "fundamentally" SOV I think I would know as well as the german wiki page which says something very different "Die deutsche Sprache ist demnach eine SPO-Sprache mit Verbzweitstellung, auch wenn einige weitere Stellungen möglich sind. Diese verändern dann aber den Sinn des Satzes. Ebenso verhält es sich bei den slawischen Sprachen." (
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satzstellung). The comments of the autor explain
Talk:Time_Manner_Place it thru "Can the most common word order for German be SVO, yet still be irregular? YES." which to me has not much to do with his conclusion that some parts are fixed in german (which I know - but don't see the connection).
Anyway I hope you help me, him and wiki by helping those articles (w. references and text).
I really don't mind if I am wrong it would just be great to hear it from more than one person. :)
Regards and thank you very much! (and sorry if I am wrong here but I really dont get the wiki structure for these cases...
79.192.227.92 (
talk)
09:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I've split off material from this article into two new articles: Names for the German language and German cognates with English. Please add these to your watchlists and improve them if you have time - both could do with at least a little work. Knepflerle ( talk) 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The History section in the article is now longer than the "main" article History of German(!), and a good fraction of it is word-for-word duplication. The duplication is pointless, and the history section here could do with some streamlining to what is most relevant and important to readers trying to get a brief introduction to the topic. Anyone suggestions or volunteers? Knepflerle ( talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
When the History section states "from the 6th century, the earliest glosses (Abrogans) date to the 8th" B.C. or A.D. should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.179.253 ( talk) 09:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I read that if it's too difficult to produce Ü and Ö in speech it is acceptable to replace Ü with "ee" and Ö with "ay". Is this true? YoshiroShin ( talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Most rural dialects have or had no rounded vowels. A few decades ago it was not uncommon to come across people who would substitute /ü/ by /i/ and /ö/ by /e/ when speaking (or attempting to speak) Standard German. Today these mergers occur far less frequently and saying "scheen" instead of "schön" or "miede" instead of "müde" certainly sounds a bit strange. As most Germans have never heard Yiddish spoken, one would rather think of a Polish or Russian accent. Anyway, I would always advise a learner to practice ü and ö rather than replace them with i or e. Unoffensive text or character ( talk) 08:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! YoshiroShin ( talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Just reading your funny dicussion about my home-language and now i got to raise my voice!^^ Please don't try to pronounce the umlauts correctly, it always sounds weird. Don't substitute it with "ee" for "Ü" and "ay" for "Ö"! thats waaay wrong! You just can't compare it to any vocal in english. If you really want to pronounce it correctly, there's just one advice: Listen very often to umlauts and try to form that sound. It will sound funny but hey, the umlauts just seem to be funny to those who don't speak them. So keep on trying and, if possible, listen to what you said (just record and listen to it). It will get better and better and you will get more and more used to it. @all native english-speaking: pleeeaaase don't try if u can't. you will make a fool of yourself^^. a wrong pronounciation (98% of english speaking people do it wrong^^) sounds to germans kind of cute and cuddly. they won't take you serious ;) Try, try, try, learn, learn, and so on.... (if u are interested) I mean, the english pronounciation ain't easy for germans, but 70% are able to speak proper. We just learned, so you should do too :D greetz -- 90.135.221.143 ( talk) 03:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Although it wasn't me who removed the "dubious" tag, I'd be in favour of doing that. The language in question is a standard variety of High German, which is defined by the High German consonant shift. How is that dubious? Trigaranus ( talk) 22:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, what about the Böhmisch dialect(s) used in Bohemia? How do they fall within the categories? There's nothing in Wikipedia about them except as it relates to Böhmische immigrants to the U.S. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the number given for native speakers slightly high? According to other Wikipedia articles, it's the language of over 95% of Germans, and about 90% of Austrians and 65% of Swiss, which together come to the low 90 millions. Are there still over ten million native German speakers in Russia, the Americas and elsewhere? 41.241.9.16 ( talk) 13:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but as a German I would have to comment onthis section. Quite often in the past I have been surprised that English speaking people speak proper English (sic!) without always knowing the appropriate why they express something in a certain way and not differently. Same goes for German; moreover, languages live and change; rules don't always follow up fast enough. So, all these sentences are grammatically correct. But:
Heute gibt mir der alte Mann das Buch. Der alte Mann gibt mir heute das Buch.
are most likely to occur.
Mir gibt der alte Mann das Buch heute.
is not very likely to be heard, unless someone would express _in writing_ that it is I who receives the book.
Der alte Mann gibt mir das Buch heute. Mir gibt heute der alte Mann das Buch. Das Buch gibt mir der alte Mann heute. (stress on heute) Das Buch gibt der alte Mann heute mir. (stress on mir) Das Buch gibt mir heute der alte Mann. (stress on der alte Mann)
Don't stand a good chance of being spoken by a native speaker.
Generally, we do express the emphasis not so much through positioning the part to be emphasized at a certain location within the sentence but by means of the "melody" of the spoken sentence.
Der _alte_ Mann gibt mir heute das Buch (the old man, not another man)
Der alte Mann gibt _mir_ heute das Buch. (It is I who receives the book, not someone else)
Der alte Mann gibt mir _heute_ das Buch. (... today, not tomorrow).
Ggreetings, Lost Boy ( talk) 06:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
As a luxembourger I cannot agree with "...together with Liechtenstein, Luxembourg (D-A-CH-Li-Lux) constituting the countries where German is the majority language."
There are few people in Luxembourg who speak German as their mother tongue. The linguistic situation in Luxembourg is quite complex. Most people in Luxembourg speak the Luxembourgish_language.
I do not think that Luxembourgish can be considered to simply be a German dialect as it is separately standardized. Its evolution and use does not depend on German.
I suggest removing Luxembourg from that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.202.204 ( talk) 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Luxemburgish is not only a German dialect, but it is quasi the same dialect with that of the nearby Trier in Germany. The mutual influence of neighboring dialects is also a logical fact. It doesn't matter if you come from Rhineland, Saarland or Baden, you can understand easily what the Luxemburgers say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.79.240 ( talk) 12:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
isn't this map somewhat exaggerated? Every major language is spoken in many countries and still the particular country wouldn't be seen as part of the "sprachraum" in question. Shouldn't the map just show the countries where German has an official status whatsoever?
Try to shorten the list. I will support you. But I expect that it would not take a day until somebody put "Botswana - 57 speakers" or something of similar importance on the list again. Unoffensive text or character ( talk) 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Now it seems that the old map with red dots has been pulled out once more from the relict room. But on the US territory this red dots should be inserted additionally in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Montana and Texas. This observation is also valid for Canada, South Africa and Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.116.108 ( talk) 12:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur wohl erschossen worden sein sollte.
This sentence construct makes no sense in German.
"It is suspected that the deserter has probably been shot" translates to:
"Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur wohl erschossen worden ist."
There is an infinitive too much in the above German sentence. It translates to "It is suspected that the deserter was probably supposed to have been shot".
It's either
"...wohl erschossen worden sei" (has probably been shot (indirect speech)),
"...wohl erschossen worden ist" (has probably been shot), or
"...wohl erschossen werden sollte" (was probably supposed to be shot). --
megA (
talk)
17:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The way he said it, it was clear he meant it as concatenated infinitives. -- megA ( talk) 21:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
you skipped some tenses, you mentioned present and past tense, but you miss some, eg. (in german)
Er wusste nicht, dass der Agent einen Nachschlüssel machen lassen hatte.
(Because hatte can't be in the end of the sentence.)
Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur wohl erschossen worden sein sollte.
(Because then the Deserteur is probably shot, you can't say then "sein sollte".
The second sentence is right: Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur erschossen worden ist/wurde.
Maxorius (
talk)
09:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I've found a solution for the Deserteur sentence, which has been driving me (and, hopefully, others too) mad:
Man nimmt an, daß der Deserteur wohl erschossen worden sein dürfte.
This eliminates the alternate "ought to be" meaning of sollte (implying a necessity), which I think is irritating and/or misleading. The "dürfte" version has the required meaning (possibility), but is less equivocal. --
megA (
talk)
15:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
What about: Wahrscheinlich ist der Deserteur erschossen worden. Or: Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur erschossen wurde/worden ist.
(Probably translated): Probably the Deserteur has been shot.Or: ....,that the Deserteur has been shot/ was shot.
Maxorius (
talk)
19:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The section on consonants needs to be completely replaced/rewritten. At present, it is just a list (alphabetical, at that!) of spelling->sound rules, it's not phonology. A WP section on phonology shouldn't be stating that "letter X is pronounced Y" - that belongs, if anywhere, in orthography. I'll make a start by grabbing the table and footnotes from German phonology. -- Pfold ( talk) 15:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
namibia 1984-90, surely 1884-1990 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.70.209 ( talk) 03:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Where is evidence that German is the third most studied language in the world? This claim is totally unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.118.40 ( talk) 23:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
According to www.language-capitals.com/top_ten_lang.php the top world languages are: 1. English 21 %, 2. French 15 %, 3. German 14 %, 4. Chinese 12 %, 5. Spanish 10 %, 6. Russian 10 %, 7. Italian 10 %, 8. Japanese 9 %.
This map from 1880 is used on the German Wikipedia. As I've gathered, the 1928 map currently used on the article here has been subject to much dispute concerning original research and verifiability, whereas this one is a genuine map from a publication (Andrées Weltatlas), verified and more accurate. It also shows the distinction between Low and "Upper" (actually High) German, which might be of further importance. Yes, Dutch is "again" listed as German dialect... it's an 1880 map, unedited, and shows the 1880 point of view. An explanatory note could be added in the caption. (There is, of course, a Low Franconian/Low Saxon dialect continuum, and this has already been discussed here in the past.) I still think this is a far more verifyable, clearer and scientifically valuable map than the user-created ( OR?) one shown in the article right now. -- megA ( talk) 11:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I've got involved at Talk:Reichskommissariat#Realm's Commissionerate of Ukraine over a suitable translation of "Reichskommissariat". Another editor proposes "Realm's Commissionerate" and, for several reasons, I disagree. Knowledgeable input would be highly desirable. Wearily, Folks at 137 ( talk) 08:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Why the map that shown in the article is not marked with the German colony, principally in southern Chile? They are very important in the architecture, food, and manners of some towns and cities of the south, many of which have been established in almost all the country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.65.94 ( talk) 18:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm hearing that there was a vote following the American Revolution to select the official language of the union and that English won over German by only one vote. If someone can find the appropriate sources for that that should be included in this article. __ meco ( talk) 10:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Should Punctuation be added? especially for the "umlaut"[spelling] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osborne ( talk • contribs)
Author: Bestiapop. See talk in es.wikipedia. -- 200.74.30.45 ( talk) 02:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to what's stated at the beginning of the section on "Orthography" there is no longest German word. Any given "longest" word can be made longer by yet another compound. The statement should be rephrased. 87.162.26.41 ( talk) 14:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The first section of the article on 12 February 2011, 16:40: German (Deutsch [ˈdɔʏtʃ] ( listen)) is a West Germanic language, thus related to and classified alongside English and Dutch. It is one of the world's major languages and the most widely spoken first language in the European Union. Globally, German is spoken by approximately 120 million native speakers and also by about 80 million non-native speakers. Standard German is widely taught in schools, universities and Goethe Institutes worldwide.
The same section modified and shortened by the editor Haldraper on 14 February 2011,14:39: German (Deutsch [ˈdɔʏtʃ] ( listen)) is a West Germanic language, related to and classified alongside English and Dutch. Spoken by approximately 100 million native speakers,[15] German is one of the world's major languages and the most widely spoken first language in the European Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.220.146 ( talk) 23:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The main problem is the latent anti-German policy of several editors. While the introduction of the articles about other major European languages has a length of a whole page, in the case of German it consists only of three sentences. But the editor Haldraper considered that even this is to much and brought it now on two sentences. Thereby he could write that from the second half of the 19th century to the mid 20th century German was the leading world language in science and technics. By the way the Reference (2) remains the most reliable source for the number of native German speakers (120 million). If we take into account the source (15), then French for example has 79 million native speakers, but not 110 million as specified in the Wikipedia article "World Language" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.15.234 ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Six words, you promised on the 18 February 2011 to use the newest numbers of speakers available. But the sources 1 and 2 (both from 2006) are evidently newer than the outdated and unreliable source 15 (from 1999) used by Haldraper. Therefore the prior intro should be reinstalled.
The "Handwörterbuch" source used for the "overseas" table lists 30,000 expatriate German citizens (who obviously speak German) in Namibia, but doesn't mention Namibian speakers. The CIA factbook lists 32% of the population as speakers of German in Namibia, which would amount to almost 700,000. (English 7%, Afrikaans 60%, indigenous languages 1%) Is there any possibility to "reconcile" these figures? -- megA ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The article claims as of May 13th 2011:
"For a sentence without an auxiliary this gives, amongst other options:
Der alte Mann gab mir gestern das Buch. (The old man gave me yesterday the book; normal order) Das Buch gab mir gestern der alte Mann. (The book gave [to] me yesterday the old man) Das Buch gab der alte Mann mir gestern. (The book gave the old man [to] me yesterday)
Gestern gab mir der alte Mann das Buch. (Yesterday gave [to] me the old man the book, normal order) Mir gab der alte Mann das Buch gestern. ([To] me gave the old man the book yesterday (entailing: as for you, it was another date)) "
All options but the first one sound wrong to German ears. It is true that you may deviate from the normal word order of the first sentence. However, changes in word order are _contextual_. For example, I'd say "_Dieses_ Buch gab mir gestern ein Mann" to stress to some other person that it was not another book, explaining to him the funny stories around my book collection. But the declarative sentence "Das Buch gab mir gestern der alte Mann" is wrong if you write it down just like that and do not provide contextual clues as to why you changed the word order. And I'd use the word order "gestern gab mir der alte Mann das Buch" only to stress that this was _yesterday_, continuing "..und heute nimmt er es wieder weg" (...and today he takes it from me).
The general rule is that you may put any word you want to emphasize at the place you'd give to the subject in English if and only if you have a purpose for doing so that is evident from other parts in the text.
You go on and write:
"The position of a noun in a German sentence has no bearing on its being a subject, an object, or another argument. In a declarative sentence in English if the subject does not occur before the predicate the sentence could well be misunderstood. This is not the case in German."
Nevertheless sentences may sound plain wrong if you use unconventional word orders out of context.
79.248.238.191 ( talk) 00:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I rewrote the paragraph on word order according to my understanding of the German language. I'm native German. Please argue your case if you think I am wrong.
79.248.238.191 ( talk) 02:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course in German history a capital "ß" was written SZ, see Preußen in capitals PREUSZEN in old German books, when it changed to "SS" I don't know, but I think in 1942 when the old German script Sütterlin was abolished in school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.117.149 ( talk) 08:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
In the article it is written that ß always would be written as SS when using capital letters, which ist not correct. In official typography it is recommended to write SZ, SS remains only an alternative writing often used because of its German look opposite to SZ which might look strange in German words. -- Fritzizqui ( talk) 07:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Stupid! "ß" is a ligature of sz! 93.215.136.39 ( talk) 19:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
"ß" is still called "sz" in German. "ß" follows a long vowel, whilst "ss" follows a short vowel. In both cases it is pronounced as [s] like in summer, sun etc. You write "Straße" (German for street) because the vowel is a long German "a" (ah). But you write "Strass" (engl.: rhinestone) because the "a" is short like in sun. Before the recent spelling reform it was differently handled: at the end you always wrote "ß" (e.g. Straß instead of Strass).
"ß" and "ss" are both necessary in German to show that the sound is an unvoiced s ([s]). If it is voiced, however, Germans use a simple "s" pronounced as [z], like in zoom.
So you get "Maße" and "Masse", the first with a long vowel "a", the second with a short vowel "a". And if your write "Masern" the "s" is voiced like in zoom. There is no word with "s" and a preceding short vowel. All vowels before a simple "s" are long.
Since the "ß" is only a marker for preceding long vowels there is no need for a capital "ß" unless you want
to write a word completely in capital letters. Nowadays, "ß" is represented as "SS". "SZ" is not any more used.
Swiss Germans do not use "ß". They always use "ss".
"ß" is also called "scharfes s" (sharp s)
93.215.136.39 ( talk) 22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
can someone please merge this with this ? In Brazil, the areas which are shown in the first map has little german influence compared to those who are missing from the second, which is where most of the de-BR people live -- Hagnat ( talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just seen the addition of the SOV category. I remember bringing up that point somewhere (else?) before, but I don't remember which page. German, in my book, is clearly a SVO language. The phrase-final verb is never finite, but normally a participle or an infinitive. The finite, agreeing verb is, if at all, as good as never final. As far as I know, the safest way of determining basic component order is to try a simple sentence consisting of verb, subject and object: "Ich esse einen Kuchen" (I eat a cake, sorry I'm feeling peckish) has three components, it's a basic statement sentence, and it is SVO. If you go for the Perfekt form "Ich habe einen Kuchen gegessen" (I have eaten a cake), the finite verb is still in the same slot. Can someone please tell me how German is SOV? I have been told before, but it was not something that stuck. Trigaranus ( talk) 12:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
"There is considerable discussion (my emphasis) in academic literature about the question which of the three verb position types is to be regarded (diachronically or synchronically) the FUNDAMENTAL type, which the derived one. Regarding German, this question is usually answered with the verb-final type being the fundamental one, since in this case the arrangement of all sentence components (Satzbestandteile) is most consistent (am folgerichtigsten), e.g. in following coherent laws of serialisation.* The assumption that verb-final was also the fundamental structure historically is without any evidence in the sources. Apparently all three types have existed since the earliest written records, albeit less strictly grammaticalised and less distinctly assigned to specific functions." (p. 25)
I'm no authority in this. But:
The question here, as I perceive it (and to say that the "Germans make a variety of sausages" does not solve the problem, though it earns a laugh), is something like: "How to explain German to a mathematician." And the answer to this question is obvious enough: Tell him 1. that the usual place of the verb is at the end; 2. that main clauses are an exception in fetching the flected verb (which is, in practice, mostly - i. e. in composite tenses - only a less important part of the verb) to the second place of the sentence. - All other ways of putting it need to include more exceptions, as in a basical oddity about the end place in subclauses, or the oddity of separation, etc. etc.
Now why do I still hesitate to speak of SOV (or, for that matter, SVO): Because there is no rule, not even one with exceptions, that puts the subject first place. It may be statistically so that the majority of first parts are subjects; it may not. But anyway, this is not more than mere statistics; and to say that German sentences usually have SOV or SVO is the exact equivalent of saying: English sentences always begin with the subject. (Though this one did.) To call Gestern ging ich ins Kino a constructional exception is the exact equivalent of calling Yesterday I went to the movies a constructional exception. However, and this is indeed a difference: English always has a subject in front of the verb (except in real exceptions such as neither do I); German only accidentally has a subject in front of the verb which, if only for the reason to explain the difference, leads rather to speaking of anything but SVO even if these accidents should form a majority. The thing is: The most important part of the sentence is put first place; and if there is no real stress, then we rather choose freely. Narrations for example - and these are frequent examples of usage of speech, aren't they? - will often take the temporal adverbial. Simply speaking, what comes in English first place mostly comes in German first place - and if this doesn't happen to be the subject, then the subject comes later on.--
91.34.196.254 (
talk)
14:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Why is the Dutch language area mapped out? Dutch is also a German dialect. In this table you find below you can see that the simularity comes in groups. Frisian and English on one side, and Dutch and German on the other side. The different orthographies masquerade the pronounciation. But the pronounciation of the listed words is very simular. If you want to redraw this map, please exclude the Frisian language area and include the Dutch language area. Reason: Frisians don't speak German or anything close. Dutch however is a German dialect, even if it has it's own orthography. Kind regards --
Kening Aldgilles (
talk)
18:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Frisian | English | Dutch | German |
---|---|---|---|
dei | day | dag | Tag |
rein | rain | regen | Regen |
wei | way | weg | Weg |
neil | nail | nagel | Nagel |
tsiis | cheese | kaas | Käse |
tsjerke | church | kerk | Kirche |
tegearre | together | samen | zusammen |
sibbe | sibling | verwante | Verwandte |
kaai | key | sleutel | Schlüssel |
ha west | have been | ben geweest | bin gewesen |
twa skiep | two sheep | twee schapen | zwei Schafe |
hawwe | have | hebben | haben |
ús | us | ons | uns |
hynder | horse | paard | Pferd, Roß |
brea | bread | brood | Brot |
hier | hair | haar | Haar |
ear | ear | oor | Ohr |
doar | door | deur | Tür |
grien | green | groen | Grün |
swiet | sweet | zoet | süβ |
troch | through | door | durch |
Is it a general rule that separable prefixes are stressed (UM-fahren - er fuhr den Polizisten um) and non-separable prefixes are unstressed (um-FAHren - er umfuhr den Polizisten)? If so, then maybe it should be added as a simple way to distinguish between the two. -- megA ( talk) 10:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Interesting observation! As a German native (originally from Bavarian Swabia), I have no idea if there is a acknowledged "rule" concerning this question. However, I tried to think of as many examples for separable and unseparable prefixes as I could and each and every one of them confirmed your statement. I'd suggest waiting for another German native to confirm this as a general rule before adding it to the article. -- LadyLanquist ( talk) 10:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is there a line in the infobox between Liechtenstein and Italy? -- megA ( talk) 00:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest to add Glosbe to external links, i.e. English German Dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.126.251 ( talk) 08:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't know wether my subject was mentioned before or not but as a native German speaker I do not recognize the words that are named in the column "dialects" in the third table of the section "Cognates with English". I am well versed with german accents/dialects but that one seems very unfamiliar to me. I think the written examples are very unrepresentative for German dialects. Mangercratie ( talk) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Now I normaly would not care but since it really bugs me I have to ask you.
Not only to claryfy this to me but also to some wiki articles who lack the class of this one.
This is not an attack to the people who work on these articles but I don't really have the knowledge nor do I know if I am that right.
So it is more a request to help.
Out of interest I found the category
Linguistic typology where most articles use german examples (and in my eyes right).
But after some klicks I found
V2 word order where german is placed in the category CP-V2, SOV.
Now shoot me if I am wrong but isn't the most common used main clauses case anything else but SOV (normaly SVO) ?
I agree with
Subject Verb Object which states "Some languages are more complicated: in German and in Dutch, SVO in main clauses coexists with SOV in subordinate clauses (See V2 word order.)" and I even know that main clauses of SOV are possible still I don't get the classification at all.
And what bugs me even more is that even if it would be SOV (which I still don't belive) it would not mean that it is some kind of "standard" in german. So I don't really get the classification.
And then I found
Time Manner Place (where you can read my comments - I made some argument errors and decided to let the pros deal with each other...) and read "German uses V2 word order in main clauses and other circumstances, but is fundamentally SOV." which was changed on to "German (which is fundamentally SOV but uses V2 in certain circumstances, especially main clauses"
Now shoot me again but I don't see the word "fundamentally" really working here.
If my language would be "fundamentally" SOV I think I would know as well as the german wiki page which says something very different "Die deutsche Sprache ist demnach eine SPO-Sprache mit Verbzweitstellung, auch wenn einige weitere Stellungen möglich sind. Diese verändern dann aber den Sinn des Satzes. Ebenso verhält es sich bei den slawischen Sprachen." (
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satzstellung). The comments of the autor explain
Talk:Time_Manner_Place it thru "Can the most common word order for German be SVO, yet still be irregular? YES." which to me has not much to do with his conclusion that some parts are fixed in german (which I know - but don't see the connection).
Anyway I hope you help me, him and wiki by helping those articles (w. references and text).
I really don't mind if I am wrong it would just be great to hear it from more than one person. :)
Regards and thank you very much! (and sorry if I am wrong here but I really dont get the wiki structure for these cases...
79.192.227.92 (
talk)
09:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I've split off material from this article into two new articles: Names for the German language and German cognates with English. Please add these to your watchlists and improve them if you have time - both could do with at least a little work. Knepflerle ( talk) 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The History section in the article is now longer than the "main" article History of German(!), and a good fraction of it is word-for-word duplication. The duplication is pointless, and the history section here could do with some streamlining to what is most relevant and important to readers trying to get a brief introduction to the topic. Anyone suggestions or volunteers? Knepflerle ( talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
When the History section states "from the 6th century, the earliest glosses (Abrogans) date to the 8th" B.C. or A.D. should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.179.253 ( talk) 09:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I read that if it's too difficult to produce Ü and Ö in speech it is acceptable to replace Ü with "ee" and Ö with "ay". Is this true? YoshiroShin ( talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Most rural dialects have or had no rounded vowels. A few decades ago it was not uncommon to come across people who would substitute /ü/ by /i/ and /ö/ by /e/ when speaking (or attempting to speak) Standard German. Today these mergers occur far less frequently and saying "scheen" instead of "schön" or "miede" instead of "müde" certainly sounds a bit strange. As most Germans have never heard Yiddish spoken, one would rather think of a Polish or Russian accent. Anyway, I would always advise a learner to practice ü and ö rather than replace them with i or e. Unoffensive text or character ( talk) 08:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! YoshiroShin ( talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Just reading your funny dicussion about my home-language and now i got to raise my voice!^^ Please don't try to pronounce the umlauts correctly, it always sounds weird. Don't substitute it with "ee" for "Ü" and "ay" for "Ö"! thats waaay wrong! You just can't compare it to any vocal in english. If you really want to pronounce it correctly, there's just one advice: Listen very often to umlauts and try to form that sound. It will sound funny but hey, the umlauts just seem to be funny to those who don't speak them. So keep on trying and, if possible, listen to what you said (just record and listen to it). It will get better and better and you will get more and more used to it. @all native english-speaking: pleeeaaase don't try if u can't. you will make a fool of yourself^^. a wrong pronounciation (98% of english speaking people do it wrong^^) sounds to germans kind of cute and cuddly. they won't take you serious ;) Try, try, try, learn, learn, and so on.... (if u are interested) I mean, the english pronounciation ain't easy for germans, but 70% are able to speak proper. We just learned, so you should do too :D greetz -- 90.135.221.143 ( talk) 03:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Although it wasn't me who removed the "dubious" tag, I'd be in favour of doing that. The language in question is a standard variety of High German, which is defined by the High German consonant shift. How is that dubious? Trigaranus ( talk) 22:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, what about the Böhmisch dialect(s) used in Bohemia? How do they fall within the categories? There's nothing in Wikipedia about them except as it relates to Böhmische immigrants to the U.S. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the number given for native speakers slightly high? According to other Wikipedia articles, it's the language of over 95% of Germans, and about 90% of Austrians and 65% of Swiss, which together come to the low 90 millions. Are there still over ten million native German speakers in Russia, the Americas and elsewhere? 41.241.9.16 ( talk) 13:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but as a German I would have to comment onthis section. Quite often in the past I have been surprised that English speaking people speak proper English (sic!) without always knowing the appropriate why they express something in a certain way and not differently. Same goes for German; moreover, languages live and change; rules don't always follow up fast enough. So, all these sentences are grammatically correct. But:
Heute gibt mir der alte Mann das Buch. Der alte Mann gibt mir heute das Buch.
are most likely to occur.
Mir gibt der alte Mann das Buch heute.
is not very likely to be heard, unless someone would express _in writing_ that it is I who receives the book.
Der alte Mann gibt mir das Buch heute. Mir gibt heute der alte Mann das Buch. Das Buch gibt mir der alte Mann heute. (stress on heute) Das Buch gibt der alte Mann heute mir. (stress on mir) Das Buch gibt mir heute der alte Mann. (stress on der alte Mann)
Don't stand a good chance of being spoken by a native speaker.
Generally, we do express the emphasis not so much through positioning the part to be emphasized at a certain location within the sentence but by means of the "melody" of the spoken sentence.
Der _alte_ Mann gibt mir heute das Buch (the old man, not another man)
Der alte Mann gibt _mir_ heute das Buch. (It is I who receives the book, not someone else)
Der alte Mann gibt mir _heute_ das Buch. (... today, not tomorrow).
Ggreetings, Lost Boy ( talk) 06:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
As a luxembourger I cannot agree with "...together with Liechtenstein, Luxembourg (D-A-CH-Li-Lux) constituting the countries where German is the majority language."
There are few people in Luxembourg who speak German as their mother tongue. The linguistic situation in Luxembourg is quite complex. Most people in Luxembourg speak the Luxembourgish_language.
I do not think that Luxembourgish can be considered to simply be a German dialect as it is separately standardized. Its evolution and use does not depend on German.
I suggest removing Luxembourg from that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.202.204 ( talk) 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Luxemburgish is not only a German dialect, but it is quasi the same dialect with that of the nearby Trier in Germany. The mutual influence of neighboring dialects is also a logical fact. It doesn't matter if you come from Rhineland, Saarland or Baden, you can understand easily what the Luxemburgers say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.79.240 ( talk) 12:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
isn't this map somewhat exaggerated? Every major language is spoken in many countries and still the particular country wouldn't be seen as part of the "sprachraum" in question. Shouldn't the map just show the countries where German has an official status whatsoever?
Try to shorten the list. I will support you. But I expect that it would not take a day until somebody put "Botswana - 57 speakers" or something of similar importance on the list again. Unoffensive text or character ( talk) 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Now it seems that the old map with red dots has been pulled out once more from the relict room. But on the US territory this red dots should be inserted additionally in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Montana and Texas. This observation is also valid for Canada, South Africa and Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.116.108 ( talk) 12:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur wohl erschossen worden sein sollte.
This sentence construct makes no sense in German.
"It is suspected that the deserter has probably been shot" translates to:
"Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur wohl erschossen worden ist."
There is an infinitive too much in the above German sentence. It translates to "It is suspected that the deserter was probably supposed to have been shot".
It's either
"...wohl erschossen worden sei" (has probably been shot (indirect speech)),
"...wohl erschossen worden ist" (has probably been shot), or
"...wohl erschossen werden sollte" (was probably supposed to be shot). --
megA (
talk)
17:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The way he said it, it was clear he meant it as concatenated infinitives. -- megA ( talk) 21:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
you skipped some tenses, you mentioned present and past tense, but you miss some, eg. (in german)
Er wusste nicht, dass der Agent einen Nachschlüssel machen lassen hatte.
(Because hatte can't be in the end of the sentence.)
Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur wohl erschossen worden sein sollte.
(Because then the Deserteur is probably shot, you can't say then "sein sollte".
The second sentence is right: Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur erschossen worden ist/wurde.
Maxorius (
talk)
09:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I've found a solution for the Deserteur sentence, which has been driving me (and, hopefully, others too) mad:
Man nimmt an, daß der Deserteur wohl erschossen worden sein dürfte.
This eliminates the alternate "ought to be" meaning of sollte (implying a necessity), which I think is irritating and/or misleading. The "dürfte" version has the required meaning (possibility), but is less equivocal. --
megA (
talk)
15:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
What about: Wahrscheinlich ist der Deserteur erschossen worden. Or: Man nimmt an, dass der Deserteur erschossen wurde/worden ist.
(Probably translated): Probably the Deserteur has been shot.Or: ....,that the Deserteur has been shot/ was shot.
Maxorius (
talk)
19:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The section on consonants needs to be completely replaced/rewritten. At present, it is just a list (alphabetical, at that!) of spelling->sound rules, it's not phonology. A WP section on phonology shouldn't be stating that "letter X is pronounced Y" - that belongs, if anywhere, in orthography. I'll make a start by grabbing the table and footnotes from German phonology. -- Pfold ( talk) 15:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
namibia 1984-90, surely 1884-1990 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.70.209 ( talk) 03:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Where is evidence that German is the third most studied language in the world? This claim is totally unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.118.40 ( talk) 23:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
According to www.language-capitals.com/top_ten_lang.php the top world languages are: 1. English 21 %, 2. French 15 %, 3. German 14 %, 4. Chinese 12 %, 5. Spanish 10 %, 6. Russian 10 %, 7. Italian 10 %, 8. Japanese 9 %.
This map from 1880 is used on the German Wikipedia. As I've gathered, the 1928 map currently used on the article here has been subject to much dispute concerning original research and verifiability, whereas this one is a genuine map from a publication (Andrées Weltatlas), verified and more accurate. It also shows the distinction between Low and "Upper" (actually High) German, which might be of further importance. Yes, Dutch is "again" listed as German dialect... it's an 1880 map, unedited, and shows the 1880 point of view. An explanatory note could be added in the caption. (There is, of course, a Low Franconian/Low Saxon dialect continuum, and this has already been discussed here in the past.) I still think this is a far more verifyable, clearer and scientifically valuable map than the user-created ( OR?) one shown in the article right now. -- megA ( talk) 11:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I've got involved at Talk:Reichskommissariat#Realm's Commissionerate of Ukraine over a suitable translation of "Reichskommissariat". Another editor proposes "Realm's Commissionerate" and, for several reasons, I disagree. Knowledgeable input would be highly desirable. Wearily, Folks at 137 ( talk) 08:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Why the map that shown in the article is not marked with the German colony, principally in southern Chile? They are very important in the architecture, food, and manners of some towns and cities of the south, many of which have been established in almost all the country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.65.94 ( talk) 18:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm hearing that there was a vote following the American Revolution to select the official language of the union and that English won over German by only one vote. If someone can find the appropriate sources for that that should be included in this article. __ meco ( talk) 10:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Should Punctuation be added? especially for the "umlaut"[spelling] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osborne ( talk • contribs)
Author: Bestiapop. See talk in es.wikipedia. -- 200.74.30.45 ( talk) 02:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to what's stated at the beginning of the section on "Orthography" there is no longest German word. Any given "longest" word can be made longer by yet another compound. The statement should be rephrased. 87.162.26.41 ( talk) 14:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The first section of the article on 12 February 2011, 16:40: German (Deutsch [ˈdɔʏtʃ] ( listen)) is a West Germanic language, thus related to and classified alongside English and Dutch. It is one of the world's major languages and the most widely spoken first language in the European Union. Globally, German is spoken by approximately 120 million native speakers and also by about 80 million non-native speakers. Standard German is widely taught in schools, universities and Goethe Institutes worldwide.
The same section modified and shortened by the editor Haldraper on 14 February 2011,14:39: German (Deutsch [ˈdɔʏtʃ] ( listen)) is a West Germanic language, related to and classified alongside English and Dutch. Spoken by approximately 100 million native speakers,[15] German is one of the world's major languages and the most widely spoken first language in the European Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.220.146 ( talk) 23:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The main problem is the latent anti-German policy of several editors. While the introduction of the articles about other major European languages has a length of a whole page, in the case of German it consists only of three sentences. But the editor Haldraper considered that even this is to much and brought it now on two sentences. Thereby he could write that from the second half of the 19th century to the mid 20th century German was the leading world language in science and technics. By the way the Reference (2) remains the most reliable source for the number of native German speakers (120 million). If we take into account the source (15), then French for example has 79 million native speakers, but not 110 million as specified in the Wikipedia article "World Language" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.15.234 ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Six words, you promised on the 18 February 2011 to use the newest numbers of speakers available. But the sources 1 and 2 (both from 2006) are evidently newer than the outdated and unreliable source 15 (from 1999) used by Haldraper. Therefore the prior intro should be reinstalled.
The "Handwörterbuch" source used for the "overseas" table lists 30,000 expatriate German citizens (who obviously speak German) in Namibia, but doesn't mention Namibian speakers. The CIA factbook lists 32% of the population as speakers of German in Namibia, which would amount to almost 700,000. (English 7%, Afrikaans 60%, indigenous languages 1%) Is there any possibility to "reconcile" these figures? -- megA ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The article claims as of May 13th 2011:
"For a sentence without an auxiliary this gives, amongst other options:
Der alte Mann gab mir gestern das Buch. (The old man gave me yesterday the book; normal order) Das Buch gab mir gestern der alte Mann. (The book gave [to] me yesterday the old man) Das Buch gab der alte Mann mir gestern. (The book gave the old man [to] me yesterday)
Gestern gab mir der alte Mann das Buch. (Yesterday gave [to] me the old man the book, normal order) Mir gab der alte Mann das Buch gestern. ([To] me gave the old man the book yesterday (entailing: as for you, it was another date)) "
All options but the first one sound wrong to German ears. It is true that you may deviate from the normal word order of the first sentence. However, changes in word order are _contextual_. For example, I'd say "_Dieses_ Buch gab mir gestern ein Mann" to stress to some other person that it was not another book, explaining to him the funny stories around my book collection. But the declarative sentence "Das Buch gab mir gestern der alte Mann" is wrong if you write it down just like that and do not provide contextual clues as to why you changed the word order. And I'd use the word order "gestern gab mir der alte Mann das Buch" only to stress that this was _yesterday_, continuing "..und heute nimmt er es wieder weg" (...and today he takes it from me).
The general rule is that you may put any word you want to emphasize at the place you'd give to the subject in English if and only if you have a purpose for doing so that is evident from other parts in the text.
You go on and write:
"The position of a noun in a German sentence has no bearing on its being a subject, an object, or another argument. In a declarative sentence in English if the subject does not occur before the predicate the sentence could well be misunderstood. This is not the case in German."
Nevertheless sentences may sound plain wrong if you use unconventional word orders out of context.
79.248.238.191 ( talk) 00:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I rewrote the paragraph on word order according to my understanding of the German language. I'm native German. Please argue your case if you think I am wrong.
79.248.238.191 ( talk) 02:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course in German history a capital "ß" was written SZ, see Preußen in capitals PREUSZEN in old German books, when it changed to "SS" I don't know, but I think in 1942 when the old German script Sütterlin was abolished in school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.117.149 ( talk) 08:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
In the article it is written that ß always would be written as SS when using capital letters, which ist not correct. In official typography it is recommended to write SZ, SS remains only an alternative writing often used because of its German look opposite to SZ which might look strange in German words. -- Fritzizqui ( talk) 07:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Stupid! "ß" is a ligature of sz! 93.215.136.39 ( talk) 19:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
"ß" is still called "sz" in German. "ß" follows a long vowel, whilst "ss" follows a short vowel. In both cases it is pronounced as [s] like in summer, sun etc. You write "Straße" (German for street) because the vowel is a long German "a" (ah). But you write "Strass" (engl.: rhinestone) because the "a" is short like in sun. Before the recent spelling reform it was differently handled: at the end you always wrote "ß" (e.g. Straß instead of Strass).
"ß" and "ss" are both necessary in German to show that the sound is an unvoiced s ([s]). If it is voiced, however, Germans use a simple "s" pronounced as [z], like in zoom.
So you get "Maße" and "Masse", the first with a long vowel "a", the second with a short vowel "a". And if your write "Masern" the "s" is voiced like in zoom. There is no word with "s" and a preceding short vowel. All vowels before a simple "s" are long.
Since the "ß" is only a marker for preceding long vowels there is no need for a capital "ß" unless you want
to write a word completely in capital letters. Nowadays, "ß" is represented as "SS". "SZ" is not any more used.
Swiss Germans do not use "ß". They always use "ss".
"ß" is also called "scharfes s" (sharp s)
93.215.136.39 ( talk) 22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
can someone please merge this with this ? In Brazil, the areas which are shown in the first map has little german influence compared to those who are missing from the second, which is where most of the de-BR people live -- Hagnat ( talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just seen the addition of the SOV category. I remember bringing up that point somewhere (else?) before, but I don't remember which page. German, in my book, is clearly a SVO language. The phrase-final verb is never finite, but normally a participle or an infinitive. The finite, agreeing verb is, if at all, as good as never final. As far as I know, the safest way of determining basic component order is to try a simple sentence consisting of verb, subject and object: "Ich esse einen Kuchen" (I eat a cake, sorry I'm feeling peckish) has three components, it's a basic statement sentence, and it is SVO. If you go for the Perfekt form "Ich habe einen Kuchen gegessen" (I have eaten a cake), the finite verb is still in the same slot. Can someone please tell me how German is SOV? I have been told before, but it was not something that stuck. Trigaranus ( talk) 12:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
"There is considerable discussion (my emphasis) in academic literature about the question which of the three verb position types is to be regarded (diachronically or synchronically) the FUNDAMENTAL type, which the derived one. Regarding German, this question is usually answered with the verb-final type being the fundamental one, since in this case the arrangement of all sentence components (Satzbestandteile) is most consistent (am folgerichtigsten), e.g. in following coherent laws of serialisation.* The assumption that verb-final was also the fundamental structure historically is without any evidence in the sources. Apparently all three types have existed since the earliest written records, albeit less strictly grammaticalised and less distinctly assigned to specific functions." (p. 25)
I'm no authority in this. But:
The question here, as I perceive it (and to say that the "Germans make a variety of sausages" does not solve the problem, though it earns a laugh), is something like: "How to explain German to a mathematician." And the answer to this question is obvious enough: Tell him 1. that the usual place of the verb is at the end; 2. that main clauses are an exception in fetching the flected verb (which is, in practice, mostly - i. e. in composite tenses - only a less important part of the verb) to the second place of the sentence. - All other ways of putting it need to include more exceptions, as in a basical oddity about the end place in subclauses, or the oddity of separation, etc. etc.
Now why do I still hesitate to speak of SOV (or, for that matter, SVO): Because there is no rule, not even one with exceptions, that puts the subject first place. It may be statistically so that the majority of first parts are subjects; it may not. But anyway, this is not more than mere statistics; and to say that German sentences usually have SOV or SVO is the exact equivalent of saying: English sentences always begin with the subject. (Though this one did.) To call Gestern ging ich ins Kino a constructional exception is the exact equivalent of calling Yesterday I went to the movies a constructional exception. However, and this is indeed a difference: English always has a subject in front of the verb (except in real exceptions such as neither do I); German only accidentally has a subject in front of the verb which, if only for the reason to explain the difference, leads rather to speaking of anything but SVO even if these accidents should form a majority. The thing is: The most important part of the sentence is put first place; and if there is no real stress, then we rather choose freely. Narrations for example - and these are frequent examples of usage of speech, aren't they? - will often take the temporal adverbial. Simply speaking, what comes in English first place mostly comes in German first place - and if this doesn't happen to be the subject, then the subject comes later on.--
91.34.196.254 (
talk)
14:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Why is the Dutch language area mapped out? Dutch is also a German dialect. In this table you find below you can see that the simularity comes in groups. Frisian and English on one side, and Dutch and German on the other side. The different orthographies masquerade the pronounciation. But the pronounciation of the listed words is very simular. If you want to redraw this map, please exclude the Frisian language area and include the Dutch language area. Reason: Frisians don't speak German or anything close. Dutch however is a German dialect, even if it has it's own orthography. Kind regards --
Kening Aldgilles (
talk)
18:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Frisian | English | Dutch | German |
---|---|---|---|
dei | day | dag | Tag |
rein | rain | regen | Regen |
wei | way | weg | Weg |
neil | nail | nagel | Nagel |
tsiis | cheese | kaas | Käse |
tsjerke | church | kerk | Kirche |
tegearre | together | samen | zusammen |
sibbe | sibling | verwante | Verwandte |
kaai | key | sleutel | Schlüssel |
ha west | have been | ben geweest | bin gewesen |
twa skiep | two sheep | twee schapen | zwei Schafe |
hawwe | have | hebben | haben |
ús | us | ons | uns |
hynder | horse | paard | Pferd, Roß |
brea | bread | brood | Brot |
hier | hair | haar | Haar |
ear | ear | oor | Ohr |
doar | door | deur | Tür |
grien | green | groen | Grün |
swiet | sweet | zoet | süβ |
troch | through | door | durch |
Is it a general rule that separable prefixes are stressed (UM-fahren - er fuhr den Polizisten um) and non-separable prefixes are unstressed (um-FAHren - er umfuhr den Polizisten)? If so, then maybe it should be added as a simple way to distinguish between the two. -- megA ( talk) 10:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Interesting observation! As a German native (originally from Bavarian Swabia), I have no idea if there is a acknowledged "rule" concerning this question. However, I tried to think of as many examples for separable and unseparable prefixes as I could and each and every one of them confirmed your statement. I'd suggest waiting for another German native to confirm this as a general rule before adding it to the article. -- LadyLanquist ( talk) 10:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is there a line in the infobox between Liechtenstein and Italy? -- megA ( talk) 00:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest to add Glosbe to external links, i.e. English German Dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.126.251 ( talk) 08:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)