Wiktionary talk:About Low German

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

See also[edit]

Wiktionary talk:About German Low German.

ij/ei[edit]

As far as I know Dutch Low German does not use 'ij' to write 'ei'. Ok, "Nijverdal" but that's a loanword. Dutch uses 'ij' to write 'ei' when Low German still says 'ie' (but note 'zeiken'/'eiken'). --129.125.102.126 14:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What about loanwords from Dutch? Does it use it there? —CodeCat 14:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I gave "Nijverdal". Other loanwords are usually calqued, exceptions are rare:
  • Nijverdal: the calque would be Nuverdal and that's a bit too far from a proper name
  • eiken, eekhoorn: ieken, iekertie(n)
  • zeiken: because of "zeek, zeken, gezeken", one would expect Dutch "zijken", Plat "zieken". Perhaps because "ziek" also means "ill".
  • bijzonder: also pronounced biezonder in Dutch
--129.125.102.126 13:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've removed it from the table. If it's not a typical spelling, there's no need to list it in the table even if it occurs in a few words. - -sche (discuss) 19:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for removing it.
I would even say that not using "ij" is typical for Dutch Low German: instead of it, one often sees "i'j". --129.125.102.126 00:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

RFM discussion of nds, nds-de, nds-nl[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Template:nds, Template:nds-de, Template:nds-nl

After several discussions (see here), the one Low German lect spoken in Germany which the ISO/SIL gave a separate code, {{wep}}, was merged into {{nds}}. All of the Dutch Low German/Saxon lects were merged into {{nds-nl}}. ({{frs}}, which we currently use for a Frisian lect but which the ISO might have intended to signify a Low German lect, is being sorted out separately. And {{pdt}} remains unchanged.) Since Wiktionary has long coded the Dutch varieties of Low German as {{nds-nl}}, {{nds}} is currently used for the German varieties only... but its name implies that it represents all the varieties. Therefore, at CodeCat's suggestion, I created {{nds-de}}, and we propose that {{nds}} be replaced with {{nds-de}}. In addition, we propose that {{nds-de}} be renamed from "Low German" to "German Low German", and that {{nds-nl}} be renamed from "Dutch Low Saxon" to "Dutch Low German". (Or, if you have a better idea for names, suggest them!) Updating templates like {{t}} etc. to handle {{nds-de}}, just as they handle {{nb}}, should not be a problem. - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I tentatively support. I don't think we can really completely abandon a common code, as there are many etymologies and such that rely on there being a single common Low German language. We could decide to create {{etyl:gmw-nds}} to stand for the Low German "family" of languages and give it two members, but I'm not sure if that is a good solution. —CodeCat 16:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be possible to pin a lot of etymologies down to one or the other; remember that most things borrowed from the Hansa should be Middle Low German, {{gml}}, not any kind of modern Low German. For the rest, we could either create a family code (we already have etymologies which say things like "from a Germanic language", "from a Slavic language"), or just list both nds-de and nds-nl, the way some etymologies say "from German [x] or Dutch [y]". - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The end of Middle Low German is normally considered to coincide with the end of the Hanseatic league, so that should be ok. Could you have a look at Category:Terms derived from Low German to see if there are any that don't belong there? We can then have a look at what to do with the remainder. —CodeCat 19:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. I've reworked steik and changed redda, redde and šaht to show that derivation occurred during the MLG period. I've changed Nele to {{nds-de}}. That empties cat:Scots, cat:Icelandic and cat:Estonian (for now). I've made a first but not final pass through cat:Danish, moving 4 items to MLG. I also changed bom to {{nds-de}}, emptying cat:Lower Sorbian. - -sche (discuss) 23:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
So far, the only entries which apparently derive from modern Low German without clearly deriving from one lect or the other (e.g. Lower Sorbian terms can be assumed to have derived from German Low German) are homard and melek. I have put both {{nds-de}} and {{nds-nl}} in those entries for now; this can be changed to a family code if necessary. Also, I've been sorting easy cases first, so there may be more unclear cases. - -sche (discuss) 18:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC) - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
For the first... is there a date of first attestation? If it was borrowed early enough we'll know it was borrowed straight from MLG. We can also consider how French could have borrowed a Low German word after the time of the Hanseatic league, as the two were not in contact. It's more likely that the borrowing occurred via Dutch, as the two are in direct contact, and certainly not via High German as there are no High German dialects spoken in places with lobsters. —CodeCat 18:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Right, I'm rooting around for early attestations of the word to see if that can be determined. So far, the earliest mention I've found is in The Royal Dictionary abridged, in two parts: I. French and English. II. English and French. (5th edition, 1728), which glosses it as "a great lobster". Incidentally, "grote zeekreeft" was how de Vries glosses hommer; I take it the loanwords are somewhat more specific than the native écrevisse and kreeft, respectively? - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
this site based on Littré cites another reference work, the Encyclopédie Universelle, which has the word attested since 1532 in the form houmar. It claims derivation from Old Norse, but obviously that doesn't stop us from adding "via..." if we know better. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That's early enough to be from MLG, and it's actually more likely that it is, because of the /u/ which is retained in MLG but changed to /o/ in Middle Dutch (from which later French homar(d)?). I do believe that the Dutch word, itself, was first borrowed from MLG around the same time, so it's possible that the French word was at first taken straight from MLG, but later re-borrowed or re-formed from the Dutch word. —CodeCat 20:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That sounds likely. I've edited homard and hommer; please edit them further as you see fit. Btw, I also found this explicitly rejecting direct derivation from Old Norse (which the other dictionary implied by its omission of any "via") and confirming (Middle) Low German as the intermediary. - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Another candidate for {{etyl:gmw-nds}}: appelsin (and Apfelsine), which came via Low German from Dutch. - -sche (discuss) 10:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
If that was borrowed from German Low German, then we have the interesting situation that the word was borrowed from one Low German into the other...
Aside from that, I noticed we already have {{etyl:gmw-lge}} which is supposed to be a single code for Old Saxon, Middle Low German and modern Low German varieties. I'm not really sure how that code could be used, considering that we can't use such a code to specify a term; we can only use it if we don't know the term. Maybe we should get rid of it and use {{etyl:gmw-nds}} instead? —CodeCat 14:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
re appelsin: Yeah, it's a case where a family template, as you suggested earlier, could be neater. Then again, many words can be discerned to have been borrowed between more closely (American English lent British English [[hex]]) or less closely (Dutch sent German [[Küste]]) related lects, so I wouldn't actually mind Apfelsine being "from {{etyl|nds-de|de}}, from {{etyl|nds-nl|de}}, from {{etyl|nl|de}}", since we're giving these lects distinct codes, like Luxembourgish vs German. That might even be more appropriate, given that we know it is the case. {{etyl:gmw-nds}} could be reserved for unclear cases, like [[melek]].
re {{etyl:gmw-lge}}: I noticed it, it is odd... it was designed to replace {{LG.}}, which was designed to let people copy etymologies from dictionaries (especially of French and Norwegian) which indicate loans as "b. all." or "lty." regardless of the era of borrowing. I've been replacing it with more specific things whenever possible; most uses are Scandinavian and should be {{gml}}. I agree that we should orphan and delete it. - -sche (discuss) 22:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Now that the etymologies of amper, busserull, byge, lover, snekker and svikk have been changed to use more specific templates, the only pages which use {{etyl:gmw-lge}} are project pages. - -sche (discuss) 02:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's an interesting one: lover, which is said to be from Low German, but only attested since 1678. :/ - -sche (discuss) 10:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)