Talk:Middle Low German
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfv-sense "(specifically, rarer) The written standard of this language based on the dialects spoken on the eastern North Sea coast and western Baltic coast, opposed to the spoken dialects which were not used for official and international written communications." Tagged but not listed (diff). See also the provided (hidden) text in the linked diff. --Fytcha (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Just … delete, such dainty distinctions are not good for the dictionary. It is not rare (it was the written language, not just at the eastern North Sea coast and western Baltic coast, but in Bielefeld and Paderborn etc. which are very far from any coast, till Zeitgeist replaced it with New High German) and it is not particularly notable as a separate entity either, as it was just the written form of the really spoken local language. Fay Freak (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- I also doubt that the written form could be considered a written “standard”. Perhaps the scribes tried to record their texts using a non-colloquial register while avoiding regionalisms, so that the language of these texts may be thereby considered a standard language. Then one could (but shouldn’t) make the same sense distinction for any language with scribally recorded texts. --Lambiam 11:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, delete; it's like, I don't know, casting the different occurrences of Latin in "the foreign emissaries spoke broken Latin with many errors, in contrast to Cicero's Latin, the Latin inscribed on the city's old monuments, and the common farmers' Latin" as 2–4 difference senses of "Latin". - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- I also doubt that the written form could be considered a written “standard”. Perhaps the scribes tried to record their texts using a non-colloquial register while avoiding regionalisms, so that the language of these texts may be thereby considered a standard language. Then one could (but shouldn’t) make the same sense distinction for any language with scribally recorded texts. --Lambiam 11:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)