User talk:Korn

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


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

status of Low German and Frisian varieties[edit]

Hi! Have you seen these discussions: Low German, frs and stq? It occurs to me you might be interested in commenting on them. We're trying to decide (1) whether to group all the varieties of Low German under the umbrella "Low German", or give different varieties different ==Headers==, and (2) what kind of Frisian/Saxon/German "frs" and "stq" refer to. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)



Could you edit your signature to include "Korn" in English letters? Or something recognizably related to that? Because right now, your signature shows up for me as a string of four boxes — not very useful.

Thanks in advance!
RuakhTALK 19:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(It was in Runic.) —This unsigned comment was added by Korn (talkcontribs) at 19:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC).
(I know. But I don't have fonts for that.) —RuakhTALK 20:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Nah, that was just in case at some point in the future someone stumbles along and wonders. It would bother me.Korn (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, understood. Anyway, thank you for changing it. :-)   —RuakhTALK 22:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi! You changed the pronunciation on Graph from /ɡʀaːf/ to [gʁäːf]. While it's perfectly fine to use [ʁ] in place of /ʀ/ (and in general to change phonemic to phonetic transcription for languages other than English), don't you think that the diacritics on [ä] are too much of a detail? I would claim to be be fairly experienced in German phonetic notation but had to look it up first. I think [a] is perfectly sufficient, or even better. Longtrend (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

[a] is not the sound used and thus not the sign to be written. I don't think there can be too much detail in narrow transcription. Wouldn't every missing detail have to be considered a mistake? Korn (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so; abstraction is always there to some degree. IMO the point of the Non-English transcriptions is to show English speakers how to pronounce a word. Too much detail can be impedimental (it's never going to be 100% exact anyway; each realization of a word is different), but of course we shouldn't only have phonemic transcriptions either which require the readers to know a language's phonology. It's also common to transcribe the vowel sound as [a], e.g. on Wikipedia. Longtrend (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
You wouldn't choose [ɛ] for [ɜ] and you shouldn't use [a] for [ä]. They are different sounds with different IPA-symbols and the purpose of narrow transcription is to depict the pronunciation of words using those IPA-symbols. German words do not have [aː], nowhere in Germany. If you want a less-detailed transcription, use slashes, nothing is wrong with that. Nobody forces you to write '/gra:f/' for a broad, choose /gʁaːf/ if you feel better with that. But brackets simply do not allow such liberties. That we cannot reach a perfect transcription must not mean that, rather than striving for something as close to perfect as possible, we suddenly make narrows that teach the English German with a Dutch accent. (The Dutch have [aː].) Korn (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I must admit that my experience of German phonetics is reaching its limits here, but are you actually sure that nobody uses [a] and everybody (in Northern Germany, as you put it) uses [ɑ]? Because if there's some considerable variation I do believe we should settle for some more or less abstract symbol as a compromise. This seems to be consensus on Wiktionary, see Appendix:German pronunciation where [a] is listed for the sound in question. If you want to change that habit, feel free to start a discussion at the Beer Parlour (I don't really have time for that at the moment); until then, I will continue to use [a]. This blogpost by phonetician John Wells should also be of interest to you. And the problem with putting the more abstract symbols between slashes, as you suggest, is that then you should abstract away from any phonological processes such as final devoicing as well, which isn't helpful at all unless you know all the phonological rules of a language. Longtrend (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm rather certain about the situation in Northern Germany, even more so since it is often falsely considered valid for the whole of German. (For example I once read a Polish blog by a Phonologist/Slavist which taught that the Polish 'a' was neither as front as German short A nor as back as German long A.) I think Wikipedia, usually citing respectable phonetic works, agrees. (Especially, Wikipedia calls the German A 'central'). I find your blog post curious, by the way, since this quote seems queer: The Council of the IPA, having previously failed to agree, is again debating the issue of whether to recognize an additional vowel symbol, A, to represent a quality between cardinals a and ɑ. There already is/was at the time a symbol for the quality between, which is: [ä]. I'd like to refer you to one of the comments there, made by 'SH', to sum up my view on the situation. (And the NG example represents the speech of everybody from North of Berlin I've ever met, except that those who don't leave the area often use [ə̯] instead of [ɐ̯].) As for your suggestion considering the beer parlour: I'm confident with just changing the transcriptions myself; I cannot see that a discussion in the BP would lead to any radical changes here. And as a final thought: I'd say you can sum-up near-Standard High German (since standard prbl. isn't found anywhere) into the categories: Austo-Bavarian, Northern German, neither nor. Since that isn't that much, I don't worry much about abstractness. Korn (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for late reply and thanks for your explanations. As for Wells's comment regarding the lack of a symbol between [a] and [ɑ], I'm pretty sure he means that there is no separate symbol for this kind of vowel. [ä] is just [a] with a diacritic, as opposed to the proposed [ᴀ] which would really be a separate symbol. (Cf. also the Wikipedia entry about this centralized vowel: "While the International Phonetic Alphabet officially has no dedicated letter for this sound between front [a] and back [ɑ], it is normally written ⟨a⟩. If precision is required, it can be specified by using diacritics, such as centralized ⟨ä⟩ or retracted ⟨a̠⟩, but this is not common.") I know of no single pronunciation dictionary of German which uses [ä] rather than [a], even if they put their transcriptions between square brackets which indicate more narrow transcriptions. This is exactly the reason why I will continue to use [a] until there's consensus that this is wrong. Of course, until then you have the same right to use [ä]. Just please don't "fix" my transcriptions (and I won't "fix" yours) so we don't get edit wars. A final thought from me as well: I believe we should offer some easily handable standard transcription between broad, truly phonemic transcriptions (which can be put between slashes) and regionally specified, very narrow transcriptions (which can be put between square brackets), e.g. [gʁaːf] for Graph. I don't see any problems with using square brackets here as well, since the narrow-broad distinction is a continuum anyway. Longtrend (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"es geben" is not "utter nonsense"[edit]


Ich habe "es geben" (there be#Translations) als Infinitiv-Übersetzung hinzugefügt. "Es geben" gibt es auch in Wörterbüchern. Es muss ja auch ein Infinitiv geben. Ich denke auch dass in einigen Kontexten "da sein" auch etwas synonymish ist. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Nach "es" kann kein Infinitiv stehen; "es" ist dritte Person singular und erfordert eine dementsprechende Konjugation. Der Infinitiv lautet "geben" und kann nicht personenbezugen sein, denn dann müsste er ja konjugiert werden. Natürlich kann man die Worte "es" und "geben" ohne Bezug nebeneinanderstellen, aber das hat nichts im Wörterbuch zu suchen, da es, wie erwähnt, nur eine unsinnige Nebeneinanderstellung von Worten ist. "Es gibt" und "da ist/sind" sind im Deutschen nicht synonym. Letzteres, zudem, hat wiederum nichts an dieser Stelle zu suchen, da es sich dabei um SOP handelt und der Eintrag zu "there is" ist nicht als SOP gedacht. Fazit: "es gibt" ist die korrekte Deutsche Übersetzung, alle anderen Übersetzungen sind zwar konstruierbar, gehören aber nicht zu diesem Lemma. Korn (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In Dutch we can say geen mens mag er zijn "not a single person can there be" (see er zijn). Isn't a similar construction possible in German too? "kein Mensch darf es geben" or something like that? —CodeCat 16:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
"Keinen Menschen darf es geben", but here geben is only in the infinitive because "darf" is declined according to "es". So the infinitive of the predicate in that sentence would be "geben dürfen" (zijn mogen), not including "es". "Es" is a pronoun (and nothing else), so "es gibt" (’it gives’) is not akin to the paradigm of "there be", it is akin to the paradigm of "it is". While the specific phrase "es gibt" _means_ "there is", the juxtaposition with the infinitive ("es geben") is exactly and fully the same as "het wezen"/"it be". (Supposing my Dutch doesn’t fail me and that ’be’ is the infinitive not the conditional.) So it does not match as a translation of "there be". And before it comes up: There are phrases like "Es geben zehn Jungen zehn Mädchen einen Ring" (’Ten boys give ten girls a ring’) but here "es" is only there for word-order. You could rephrase those as "Zehn Jungen geben zehn Mädchen einen Ring", showing that "geben" and "es" have no connection what soever here.Korn (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I think I understand. The German phrase differs somewhat from the Dutch and English phrases, because es is the subject (since keinen Menschen must be the object), but er and there are adverbs. I think that it would make more sense to treat this as an impersonal sense of geben, much like regnen. Which it already is, I see... so never mind! —CodeCat 16:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
You got it, very good example. "Es gibt" is the same as "es regnet" (it rains). The infinitive of "it rains" is "to rain" and not "it to rain". "Geben" has the sense of "exist" only in the set phrases "es gibt" and "es gab". Hence the phrase "es gibt" is the only proper translation for all present forms of "there be". I’m afraid the dicionaries you mentioned made a mistake, Anatoli. Korn (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Danke. Wie betrachtet man den Ausdruck there be? Es gibt there is, there are, so soll es auch eine Infinitivform geben. Ja, es gibt Leute, die there be nicht mögen und streichen wollen. Aber ist seine Verwendung nicht ähnlich zu "es geben". There may be, there ought to be, usw.? Wenn es "there be", "y avoir" gibt, muss es auch "es geben" sein. Ich glaube "es" gehört dazu, ohne "es" "geben" hat ganz andere Bedeutung. Ist vielleicht kein Verb, aber ein Ausdruck. Wenn there be gestrichen ist, werden auch Übersetzungen "y avoir" und "es geben" verschwinden. (Ich habe achtzehn Jahre kaum Deutsch benutzt, fällt mir jetzt etwas schwer.)--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Für achtzehn Jahre ist das Deutsch noch ganz in Ordnung. Aber ich muss den wesentlichen Punkt, den CodeCat nannte noch einmal betonen: y, there und er sind Adverben und erfordern keine Deklination. "Es" hingegen ist ein Pronomen und daher _muss_ das Verb entsprechend dem Pronomen gebeugt werden. "There be" kann existieren, da sich das Verb (be) nicht in Bezug auf das Adverb (there) verändert. Aber Pronomen+Infinitiv (es+geben) ist grammatisch nicht möglich. Und um das Regenbeispiel aufzugreifen: "Es" dient nur dazu, die Unpersönlichkeit des Verbes hervorzurufen und daher hat das Verb auch in dieser speziellen Verbindung (und der dazugehörigen Konjugation) eine andere Bedeutung; ebenso wie in "es regnet", wo "es" kein bestimmtes Objekt bezeichnet, sondern den Zustand des Regens beschreiben soll, wird in "es gibt" der Zustand des Seins beschrieben. "Es" ist nicht teil der Verbes, sondern unpersönliches Pronomen, könnte aber auch ein bestimmtes Pronomen sein. Etwa: "Es (das Wasser) regnet (herab)." Es ist die bestimmte Phrase "es regnet/gibt/ist kalt...", die eine Nebenbedeutung hat, nicht das Wort "es", das eine Nebenbedeutung hat. Daher kann "es geben" nicht existieren, weil es die grammatischen Regeln der Konjugation brechen würde, "there be" kann jedoch existieren, weil ein Verb hinter einem Adverb jede mögliche Form annehmen kann. Ich wünschte, ich könnte mit einem russischen Beispiel aushelfen, aber ich kann auf Russisch gerade einmal etwas zu Essen bestellen.Korn (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Na gut. Dann muss man die Übersetzung von "there be" als "es gibt" lassen (mit {{qualifier}}), immer besser als überhaupt keine Übersetzung.
Re: "da sein", ich würde "der Frühling ist da" als "the spring has arrived", "it's spring", "there's spring" übersetzen, wo "da" hat keine "there" Bedeutung und auch nicht einfach "existieren" bedeutet. Ich habe im Moment keine bessere Beispiele, aber ich bin sicher, dass "da sein" manchmal dem "es gibt" synonym ist oder sehr ähnlich. Ganz interessant sind die Paare: "ich werde für dich da sein" - "I'll be there for you" (nicht physisch "dort", "in jenem Ort", oder?)
Russische Beispiele würden in diesem Fall leider nicht helfen, weil im Russischen man in diesem Fall keine Pronomina und "spezielle" Adverbien benutzt, nur Verbe mit oder ohne Substantive. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
"Da sein" hat in den ganannten Fällen tatsächlich örtliche Bedeutung. "Der Frühling ist da" ist mit "spring has arrived" gut übersetzt, und sowohl "arrive" als auch "ist da" beziehen sich in diesem Fall darauf, dass der Frühling sich am Ort des Sprechers befindet. Natürlich ist das ganze etwas abstrakt, weil der Frühling eher ein Zustand als ein kleines Objekt ist. Ebenso muss man sowohl "für jmnd. da sein" als auch "be there for sbd." als örtlich deuten. Der Trost liegt ja gerade nicht darin, dass der andere existiert, sondern in dessen Unterstützung/Nähe; und sei es nur durchs Telephon. Man ist eben nicht "für jemanden da", wenn man am anderen Ende der Welt sitzt und mit dem Betroffenen überhaupt keinen Kontakt hat. "Da sein" hat nie die Bedeutung "existiert" im Deutschen, sondern immer irgendeinen örtlichen Bezug. Korn (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
ps.: Ich habe "es gibt" wieder als Übersetzung eingefügt, wusste aber leider keinen passenden qualifier. Einerseits könnte man schon betonen, dass es nur in dieser Form "there be/is/are" bedeutet, andererseits ist dies ja durch die Regeln der Grammatik vorgegeben und eine andere Form mit es ist nicht möglich. Korn (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Übersetzung von einem Lied[edit]

vielleicht kannst du mir helfen, ich das Lied "Missing" ins Gotische übersetzt, aber ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher ob es richtig ist.

Please, please forgive me,
But I won't be home again.
Maybe someday you'll look up,
And, barely conscious, you'll say to no one:
"Isn't something missing?"
You won't cry for my absence, I know -
You forgot me long ago.
Am I that unimportant...?
Am I so insignificant...?
Isn't something missing?
Isn't someone missing me?
Even though I'm the sacrifice,
You won't try for me, not now.
Though I'd die to know you love me,
I'm all alone.
Isn't someone missing me?
Please, please forgive me,
But I won't be home again.
I know what you do to yourself,
I breathe deep and cry out:
"Isn't something missing?
Isn't someone missing me?"
And if I bleed, I'll bleed,
Knowing you don't care.
And if I sleep just to dream of you
And wake without you there,
Isn't something missing?
Isn't something...
Even though I'm the sacrifice,
You won't try for me, not now.
Though I'd die to know you love me,
I'm all alone...
Isn't something missing?
Isn't someone missing me?...

Thuk thlaiha, thuk thlaiha, mik fragif
Ak ik nih quima at hamai
Nihuh unskaus, nih quithis nih ains-hwamma:
Nih hue ist sundro?
Nih hun mik gairnjith?
Nih quainis in dailai waninassuis meinis
Thu mik ufarmitides faura langana
Nih hue ist sundro?
Nih hun mik gairnjith?
Thauh im sauths
Thu nih biarbaidjis in meina
Thauh dewjau thei witan ei mik frijis
Ik im sundro
Nih hue ist sundro?
Nih hun mik gairnjith?
Thuk thlaiha, thuk thlaiha, mik fragif
Ak ik nih quima at hamai
Wait thata thatei latjis thuk silba
Ana ufhropjauh:
Nih hue ist sundro?
Nih hun mik gairnjith?
Thauh im sauths
Thu nih biarbaidjis in meina
Thauh dewjau thei witan ei mik frijis
Ik im sundro
Nih hue ist sundro?
Nih hun mik gairnjith?
Jabai andnemjau runana blothis
Thauh thana andnima
Jabai slepjau thei thuk saihwan
Thauh gawakna inuh thuk
Nih hue ist sundro?
Nih hun mik gairnjith?
Thauh im sauths
Thu nih biarbaidjis in meina
Thauh dewjau thei witan ei mik frijis
Ik im sundro
Nih hue ist sundro?
Nih hun mik gairnjith?

Es wäre mir eine große Hilfe wenn du ein Blick reinwerfen könntest und es korrigieren könntest.
Ich hab übrigens "Þ" als "Th", "Ƕ" als "Hw" und "Q" als "Qu" geschrieben.
Vielen Dank!
Greetings HeliosX (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Besser spät als nie: Tut mir leid, mein Gotisch beschränkt sich auf passives Verständnis, ich kann also Texte teilweise verstehen, aber selbst keine bilden.Korn (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi. I see in your edit at *wrakjô that Middle Low German recke was borrowed from Old High German. Im not disputing; Im just curious where you found this. Leasnam (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no literature as a reference for this specific case, but the regular outcome of Old Saxon /wr/ is Middle Low German /βr/, in all dialects. There is no record of any tendency to reduce /βr/ to /r/. Since loan words from (High) German, including doublets with native words, were very common, it just seemed much more likely to me that it be a loan, rather than that one word would randomly drop a consonant without retaining it in any dialect whatsoever. I'll fix the order.Korn (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I've undone your edit to Junge. You had deleted the following sentence: Even with the irregular plurals (Jungs, Jungens), the singular declension is always weak (thus with -n in the oblique cases). You said that Northern Germany uses the S-plural in all cases, which makes no sense because the deleted sentence is about the singular. What it means is that the genitive, dative and accusative singular do get the -n. The declension is: der Junge, dem/den Jungen; pl. die/den Jungs. I suppose you do agree with this and you just misinterpreted the sentence. I added the words "in the singular" to make it clearer for future readers. Best regards :) Kolmiel (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I simply misread in a moment of weak attention. My bad. Korn (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your work on the etymology of this word. Just two things: 1.) Please don't use { {etyl | nds | de} }. I'm not a huge fan of the term German Low German either, but this is what we use here on wiktionary. The words need to go into the right category and that's { {etyl | nds-de | de} }. When you just type the word you can use [ [Low German] ]. 2.) Could you please give your sources for the notion that "moin" is form Berlin? I'm quite supprised to read that because it had seemed to me like a chiefly coastal term. I don't mean to say you're wrong, just add those to the reference list (or make one). Thanks! And best regards!Kolmiel (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

NDS-de was made up on Wikipedia because people couldn't stop bickering about how to spell. I don't think it was ever meant to be used for an actual language. It's more like "American Spelling" and hence I don't consider it fit for etymologies. Also "moi" is so typical for the Dutch-German border, on both sides, that it's basically 50:50 chance that the greeting estimated on either side. It just seemed silly to write "from German Low German or Dutch Low German" when ISO knows neither and only "Low German".
The Berlin-etymology was new to me too, it was added on Wikipedia recently. Korn (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It may be silly, but it's the system people have adopted here. If you want to get rid of the system I might even be on your side, but ignoring it just creates chaos... All standard German words adopted from modern Low German have "nds-de" as their source. Moin is currently the only exception since you reverted it back to just "nds". I didn't start this system, I just use it. (Btw, my idea would be to simply rename "German Low German" into "Low German"; since the other one is now "Low Saxon" there's no ambiguity to begin with.)
But anyway, the fact that a particular word is used on the Dutch side of the border is not of much importance, in my opinion. That will be true of most words. But we always have a right to presume that a Low German word in standard German is from German Low German, not Dutch Low German/Saxon. We will only ever use Dutch Low Saxon as a etymological source if we have founded reasons to believe that these dialects had a particular influence, e.g. because of a given phonetic peculiarity or whatever. (And I don't know of any actual word for which that would be the case.) Kolmiel (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Also I only care about this when it has to do with standard German etymologies... You can use your "nds" in all other circumstances, fine by me :) I don't work on Low German (although I did learn quite a bit of Westphalian from my grandmother...) Well, maybe you could consider it.
Hah, I was just thinking about the issue this morning. I'll dwell on it. Cheers.Korn (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Phonetic transcriptions[edit]

Hi... again. I’ve seen you make some edits in pronunciations. Even though your transcriptions are of course correct, they are very often contrary to our agreements.

Particularly, we have an agreement not to use diacritic marks such as [ʰ], [ʷ], [ä], [ ̟ ], etc.
In both our phonemic and phonetic transcriptions we employ a user- and editor-friendly system.
In phonemic transcriptions, we use /ɐ/ instead of /əʁ/, and /ɐ̯/ instead of /ʁ/ in coda position after long vowels (in spite of this being not really phonemic). We also distinguish /ç/ and /x/ (which in my point of view is phonemic). We put consonants whose phonemic status is doubtful in brackets /kam(p)f/.
In our phonetic transcriptions, we distinguish [x] from [χ] (after [a], [aː]), as well as [v] from [ʋ] (in qu-, schw-, zw-). There is, I think, no agreement on the latter, but it seems the general practice.
Moreover, we give the most common non-phonemic variants:
  • [ʁ] and [ɐ̯] in coda position after short vowels.
  • [ə] + -n, -l versus syllabic consonants: [-pən], [-pm̩]; [dən], [dn̩], and so on. So far we have not transcibed [kŋ] as [ʔŋ] as you did in Tacken, though this might be something we could do.
  • [pf] and [pϕ].
I think that’s it, though I might be missing one or two. We have not so far given [r] as an allophone of [ʁ]. We probably should, but not in a sperarate line with the tag dialectal (as you did in Narr), but as a mere allophone in the standard line. (It is indeed an officially standard variant.)
Apart from this, we give common nonstandard pronunciations below the standard ones. But this should be restricted chiefly to cases in which these differences are phonemic. Otherwise we would get a sheer infinity of variants.
Again: If you’re not d’accord with these rules, try and convince the community to change them, don’t simply use your own system. This will make cooperation impossible. You certainly do understand that.
Another thing of lesser importance: You made an edit stating that Narr and na are not homophones, not even in nonstandard speech. This is wrong. In western and north-western Germany (possibly some other regions also) the standard syllables /aːɐ/, /aʁ/, /a:/ merge in the syllable coda. For me as a western speakers, the words wahr, Narr, sah all end in [aː] and rhyme perfectly. Pairs like Narbe/Nabe or scharf/Schaf are perfect homophones (and occasionally give me a short second of confusion when spelling them out). Kolmiel (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I cannot help but feel that your tone indicates that you are under the impression that I'm aware of everything ever decided on this site and would be eschewing that consciously.Korn (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I have taken your advice and made an entry in the beer parlour. I'm sure we can work something out. Korn (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
General policy aside, I do not think that [pm] for /pən/ and [kŋ] for /kən/ exist and hence should not be used. I've never heard them anywhere in my entire life, and I distinctly remember a 19th century (!) grammarian, whose name I cannot recall, who explicitly complained that absolutely everyone wrongly wrote pm for [ʔm̩], dn for [n̩] et cetera. It was also noted that these pronunciations actually did exist around Bielefeld at the time, but I do not think they survived, and as said, they were rare even then. Korn (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Since the community showed a resounding lack of interest in the topic and I could not find any votes or discussions on the policy, I would like you to link me to the relevant agreements you mentioned. Otherwise I will reinstall my more detailed pronunciations as I have not been provided any argument for excluding them. Korn (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


As said earlier and also said at User talk:Eirikr#Katze: The usage note "The term Kätzin is rare and likely to be perceived as jocular or hypercorrect." is not correct. A simple google book seach quite often has "Kätzin" in books like "Verhaltenstherapie der Katze" (behaviour therapy of cats), "Krankheiten der Katze" (illnesses of cats), "Katzen gesund ernähren" (To feed cats healthly). So, Kätzin is obviously rather technical -- to differ between cats (Katze), female cats (Kätzin) and male cats (Kater). Thus it's likely that it is not perceived as jocular or hypercorrect, but as technical, elevated or unambigious. (Of course, though depening on the context, unambiguity often isn't needed and so something like "I own a cat" is often good enough.) -19:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ich hab' einen Beitrag dazu im Tea Room angelegt. Bitte diskutiere dort. Korn (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Singular imperative of ächzen[edit]

Hello, I'm on vacation right now, but how should the singular imperative form of ächzen be dealt with when it comes to {{de-conj-weak}}? I have this gut feeling that *ächz is incorrect while ächze is correct. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I can only speak for Germany, but short answer: Both are correct. Background: I think originally all verbs whose infinitive stem was followed by another ending than pgm. -(a)nã would have a two syllable imperative. So makonã > mako, ropianã > ropi etc. But at least in German Standard German, that difference has been entirely leveled, partially because most dialects delete all /ə/ anyway and hence people had no way to figure out whether there was one in the first place. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
ps.: We should add an imperative 1. Person Plural to the verb templates. That's very much a thing in Germany and anything but rare. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The background, i.e. the etymology, should be irrelevant for the question. IMHO it should rather be a matter of euphony and speakability. Can ächz be spoken and does it sound good, is it understandable? de:ächzen and de:Flexion:ächzen only have ächze and no ächz. I guess, they think it's not speakable or doesn't sound good. and have the form, but that could be computer-generated. J. G. Eichhorn (text from 1819) has "Nun, Menschensohn, ächz' du vor ihren Augen", but that's the only google.books result for "ächz du". So, it could be a matter of attestability (WT:RfV): Can three cites be given to attest the form ächz? Greetings, -Ikiaika (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(Middle) Low German[edit]

Hello, Korn. I've seen some of your nice recent (Middle) Low German additions, and had some questions.

  • In mi (and similary in di) it now says: "Some modern Low German dialects in Westphalia differentiate between /mi/ (dative) and /mɪk/ (accusative)". Could you give any example of a dialect with that distinction, please? Eastphalian (which isn't part of Westphalian) has mik, mick, mek, meck, but doesn't differ between dative and accusative. South Westphalian (Sauerland) differs between dative and accusative, but has the accusative miëck or miek. Westphalian in Gütersloh, Ravensberg, Lippe differs between dative and accusative, too, but only has one form for dative and accusative of the personal pronoun of the 1st and 2nd person. The Wörterbuch der westfälischen Mundart doesn't have mick, miek, mik, but mentions miək (which should be the same as miek): "miək [...] in Altena vor 1500 die brechungen myeck (mir), yeck (ich), verwielkeden Sara (verwelkten Sara)".
    (I'm asking as I'd like to try to find more information regarding those dialects. Also, maybe "/mi/" and "/mɪk/" should just be removed, and maybe one could also mention Old-Saxon where mik only was an accusative form, and maybe one could aso mention High German which sometimes influenced Low German and has a clear dative and accusative distinction?)
  • Template:gml-perpron mentions "ü̂sik", but links to usik. So, is it üsik or usik? A. Lasch has ûsik, and also om (sg.), om(e), on, öm, örer, in the declension table, but later also mentions ûsik, ü̂sik, unsik, ûsick, unsich, ûsech, ö̂sek. A. Lübben has unsich, usich, usik, unsek, usek, osek, but also has om (pl.), orer without umlauts. Sprachgeschichte has üsek, ösek, but also has öme, ön(e) with umlauts.
    (Based on these sources, I'd guess that there are both forms, ü̂sik and ûsik.)
  • eigentlich#German: Doesn't the pronunciation "/ʔaɪ̯ŋklɪç/" miss a ˈ, and shouldn't it rather be "rare", "sometimes" or "dialectal" (Bavaria, Austria?), and maybe also "colloquial", instead of "commonly"?

Thanks and greetings, -Ikiaika (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • From bottom to top: At least where I live (Berlin area), /aɪnklɪç/ is the only pronunciation in normal speech, so it's certainly not rare. It's also not dialectal at all, it's merely what you end up with when you speak at a normal speed. //aɪgəntlix// = /aɪŋtlɪç/ (careful standard) > /aɪŋklɪç/ with rapid speech assimilation. Colloquial might be fitting, I never actually scanned formal speech for this form.
  • The form is /yːzɪk/, but Middle Low German spelled this ⟨usik⟩. Modern treatments always add two dots to differentiate /u/ from /y/. At least for Latin and Middle Low German, diacritica which were not written by the native writers, but are always applied in modern treatments of the language, are always written in entries (e.g. the macron Latin ). But the page the entry is made to is the form actually written, so the entry for is situated at eo#Latin. Lübben wrongly assumed that Middle Low German had no rounded front vowels and has been disproved basically instantly by his colleagues. I have never read anyone actually propose the existence of /ûsik/.
  • According to Wenker, dative/accusative distinction in pronouns (i.e. mi + mik) exists below a line roughly from Breckersfeld to Peckelsheim. Since southern Westphalia is by far the most conservative area, German influence doesn't seem likely to me at all. As a side note: The absolute majority of Low German dialects make a difference between accusative and dative, it's just not visible in writing. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers!
Just as two short sides notes:
Lasch mentions both forms (p.215, Anm. 7), but that might be an old source or an error.
Latin (at least New Latin) uses some diacritica, and I'm not talking about modern editions or grammar books, but normal Latin texts. There is the trema to denote that there are two vowels and not a diphtong, and there sometimes is the circumflex or acute to mark long vowels or to denote different cases. An example with casûs (long vowel and plural, i.e. cases and not case): Institutio Graecae grammaticae compendium.
Greetings Ikiaika (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Not sure whether we consider New Latin to be the same as Latin. The reason I didn't include ⟨ûsik⟩ in the table is that no modern form points to this. All modern forms have umlaut, which is what would be expected. So we won't be having ⟨ûsik⟩ until a proper argument is made for it. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


Perhaps something like Appendix:Dutch correlatives would be more appropriate? —CodeCat 13:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You got a point. I'll wrap my mind around this. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi ! Just so I understand this correctly, if a vowel in Old Saxon was long, it becomes a circumflexed vowel in gml; and if it was short in osx (in an open syllable), it becomes macroned in gml ? Leasnam (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, correct. A circumflex marks Old Saxon long vowels and /ia/, which became long vowels/closing diphthongs in Middle Low German. Macrons are Old Saxon short vowels, which became opening diphthongs in Middle Low German. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Is Woord an exception ? Or is there a similar rule that applies to vowels before r ? Leasnam (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Vowels before /r/, /rd/ and /rn/ (and /rs/, /rl/ dialectally) were lengthened in the Old Saxon period already. Thus early Old Saxon /wɔrd/ becomes later Old Saxon /wɔːrd/ and ends up as Middle Low German /wɔːrt/ = ⟨wôrt⟩. There was the same kind of lengthening before /ld/ (/fɛld/ > /fɛːlt/), but there are secondary developments which undo this one in some regions. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow, ok. Very similar to Middle English. Ok, thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


+böhmischNOexist(entry 18:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Senkungen im Neuhochdeutschen[edit]

Du hattest meine Anmerkung zum Vokalismus von "König" entfernt. Senkungen kommen im Nhd. ganz überwiegend mittel- und niederdeutsch vor, teilweise regelmäßig in bestimmten Silbentypen, besonders aber vor Nasalen (v.a. ostmitteldeutsch, so weit ich sehe). Pfeiffer sagt ausdrücklich: "Mhd. künic, künec, eigentl. obd. Form, bleibt in der Schriftsprache (frühnhd. künig, kunig) bis in die 1. Hälfte des 16. Jhs. üblich, wird dann aber durch die md. Lautung aufweisende Form mit -ö- verdrängt." Im dtv-Atlas gibt es auch eine Karte zu "König". Es ist eindeutig eine nördliche Form. Dasselbe gilt auch für Sohn, Sommer, usw. Kolmiel (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Das Schweizer Idiotikon gibt "Chünig" als Hauptform an (neben seltnerem "Chönig"), bayrisch ist nur "Kini". Kolmiel (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
More references:
DWB at "Sohn": "das nhd. o dagegen ist zunächst auf nd. und md. gebiete durch den folgenden nasal hervorgerufen."
DWB at "Sommer": "die form sommer ist wie im mnd. auch im mfrk. des 15. jahrh. bezeugt. Frommanns zeitschr. 2, 453ᵃ (kölnisch); ebenda begegnet etwa gleichzeitig somer. Dief. 210ᶜ (kölnisch, v. 1507), das auch schon früh auf einem andern md. sprachgebiet vorkommt livld. reimchr."
I s'pose that's enough for now. Kolmiel (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe these ones still: DWB at "Sonne": "neben sunne kommt im mitteld. sonne auf: sol hd. nd. sonne, zonne, sunne, hd. sonn. Dief. gl. 540ᵃ; die sonne clâr als ê erschein. erlös. 2991 (auch v. 40). nhd. herrscht sonne von anfang an, besonders auch bei Luther; sunne findet sich nur noch vereinzelt bei oberd. autoren des 16. jahrh."
"Wonne": "obd. quellen des 15. u. 16. jh. bevorzugen nach wie vor die alte -u-form als wunne, häufiger wunn, auch in der schreibung wun:" Kolmiel (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
[Edit conflict.] Sticking to English here because this concerns Wiktionary entries (although nobody might ever read this): I reverted the entry on König before I saw that I had a note from you, sorry. Please add your sources to the entries in question, but I would leave out the part about Low German if it is not explicitly mentioned. The Low German process is not affected by following consonants and it is unlikely that this is an area where Low German made an impact on the standard. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a policy question. Basically we could derive every word that exists in Low German from MLG, including "Haus" from "hûs". I've seen people do that. I'm not in favour of this approach. But I do think that specifically northern forms that are Low and Central German should be derived from MLG. The main reason is that early modern German was a battleground in which northern and southern forms competed. And Low German did play a roll to strengthen the northern ones, even if I agree that Central German is the more important factor. But where do you draw the line? "Dumm" is commonly derived from Low German (Kluge!). But the situation is the same: the d- is mainly Central German + "Konsonantenschwächung", possibly reinforced by Low German. Kolmiel (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I can agree that the fact that the northern forms won is due to the Low German areas (notably Berlin and Magdeburg) taking over the written German of their neighbour Saxony. I can not agree that that has something to do with Low German itself or the etymology of the words however. Two arguments here:
1. Aside from High and Low German exchanging a few words in the middle ages, I do not know of any single example where we have a verified Low German influence on the totality of written High German on a structural level. So when having to choose between 'Cental' and 'Central + Low', unless there is concrete evidence for the latter, Occam's Razor leaves us only with the first.
2. On a Wiktionary level, /zoːn/ is a Central German form exclusively because Low German, just like Dutch, is not part of German as we define it. And we don't include parallel developments in foreign languages in etymology sections unless they are relevant for the development of the form. (As opposed to its spread.)
Please add a reference for the lowering being Central German to König and Sohn. You convinced me already, but for tidiness' sake. Also, the Low German vowel is not affected by the consonant at all, DWB is wrong there. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, your latter point is correct. And the DWB writers must have known that. The nasal part should only have referred to Central German. It's ill phrased. But: It doesn't matter why a lect has a particular "lautstand" if it does have it. On your arguments:
1. I think you're right that there are very few structural influences. But this is because there was little direct LG influence before 1500, and the structure of NHG was fixed by then, while the phonetic shapes of words were still very variable. (Influences on individual words during classical MHG and before 1500 were also more than just "a few".)
2. "We don't include parallel developments in foreign languages [...] unless they are relevant for the development of the form. (As opposed to its spread.)" -- If this is the case, I have no case. But who says that? And if it's so, we should definitely change it. Our etymological standard literature doesn't follow this approach either. For example, Kluge says that the form Block (which is perfectly HG) won out against its variant Bloch partly because it was in line with the LG form. This kind of influence is very relevant. And even on wiktionary, I think, we do accept that HG and LG are less foreign languages than German and French, or even German and Dutch. (Not because LG is closer to HG than Dutch, but becaues HG became LG's dachsprache around 1500~1600.) Kolmiel (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Point two is somewhat problematic since it risks the inclusion of mere guesswork of the minds of our ancestors, which ties it to point 1. If we see no clear influence of other areas, why assume it here? The modern standard form is alike to one form of Low German - and to one of Dutch, also spoken in Germany. Does that require mentioning? If there is no clear evidence for it, why should we imply as a fact the situation that High German be influenced by the by far most uncommon Low German form (dwarfed by /suene/ and /sâne/) from the area with the least cultural prominence within (post 1300) Low German, which was the first to lose ground to High German both in its official writings and literally, and which borders on a German area which is culturally unimportant as well? And I as a Wiktionary contributor do not agree that Low German (defined as beginning 1600) is less foreign to High German than Dutch, nor is the Dachsprache statement correct, even if we restrict it to the area of modern Germany. Baltic universities still speak and print Low German internally 1650, city schools only switch to High German in the 17th century, less elite schools only in the 19th and 20th century. The educated bourgeoisie only picks up High German in the 18th century. I remember that in the 16th century the High German representative of the Duke of Mecklenburg was tossed out of the Rostock council meeting because he couldn't speak Low German, which is a relevant example because the council offices are the first to switch to High German everywhere. (Data from Gernetz.) Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
What are you referring to in the first part above? Alike to one form of Low German, most uncommon Low German form, /suene/, /sâne/, least important area; I don't understand what any of that refers to. — Now, NHG developed as a writing language. It doesn't really matter whether people still spoke Low German. Of course they did, just as much as the Colognian city council spoke Colognian. The relevant thing is that from the 16th century Low German areas used NHG as their written language. That made them part of the NHG language area. That's the difference with Dutch. The Dutch did not participate in the development because they didn't write in NHG. Kolmiel (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
If you mean the very small Low Franconian territory in Germany: Yes, that could also be considered. But you do see the difference between such a tiny territory and a giant territory such as Low German Germany. Kolmiel (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
As to your "guesswork" argument: After 1500, in my interpretation, Low German is one of the lects underlying NHG (in the sense that it's spoken natively by a considerable portion of NHG users, not in the sense that LG is itself a NHG dialect). And hence, when there's a "competition" between a Low+Central German form and an Upper German form in post-1500 NHG, I find it justified to postulate some LG influence by default, i.e. in the absence of contradicting arguments (such as proof that "Low High German" texts indeed predominantly use a southern form, or something like that). Low Germans adopted the more northern (Central German) register of NHG and played a role to strengthen its forms, particularly when LG had the same forms. I don't think this can be qualified as guesswork. Kolmiel (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The burden on proof lies ever on the claimant. This system is explicitly endorsed by Wiki, in the form of citations and references. I don't understand where Low German comes into play for you. The forms did not exist Central Germany's language because they liken to Low German but because of the following nasal. The Central German standard did not spread north because it likens to Low German, but because it is the language of the neighbouring trading partners. If you wish to claim that the Central German (let's face it, Saxonian) chancery standard was in its development notably influenced by Low German, then please provide reliable sources. And again, according to Gernetz, NHG only spreads amongst the those Low Germans who do not need it as a foreign language for professional reasons in the 17th century, and only among the academic elite. When were the forms Sohn/König established in Northern High German? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, standardized modern NHG (as of, say, 1750) is not the same as the Sächsische Kanzlei. The whole development went on for ~250 years. It's going back and forth between regional forms, chiefly north vs. south. All but a one-way street. I could give you a lot of examples. Take "glauben" for one. DWB: "Bis um 1800 steht neben der schriftsprachlich sanktionierten form glauben noch die umgelautete gläuben, die im älteren nhd. vor allem bei md. autoren häufig ist; obd. ist die umlautform vereinzelt fränk. bezeugt und erscheint sonst wohl nur unter einflusz der md. buchsprache. [...] Luther schwankt regellos zwischen gleuben (glewben) und etwas unhäufigerem glauben (glawben) und schreibt auch im prät. überwiegend -eu- (-ew-), führt also den rückumlaut nicht mehr durch."
Secondly, Low German did have an influence on the Sächsische Kanzlei. Compare e.g. Luther's "beben" from MHG "biben", his "Almosen" from MHG "almuose", both of which are explicitly called "Low German" by both Pfeiffer and Kluge.
Thirdly, what I'm doing is simply a conclusion from the understanding of how earlier NHG developed and the role that Low German played after 1500. By 1700, "Low High German" was already considered widely the best High German, particularly concerning pronunciation, but also generally. I could take the time to find relevant citations for this fact, but you probably know that. If there's a northern form in modern NHG for a word that was still "on the move" in 17th century, there's simply no reason not to include Low German as a factor. And no one seems to exclude it. Pfeiffer says "Herde" for expected "Herte" is "unter md.-nd. Einfluss". Same for "Lippe" and many others. Kluge even generally calls such forms "nd." only (which is the other extreme).
And would you please explain to me what you meant above? I did ask you. Kolmiel (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
What I meant is that the Low German word for 'son' is /sʊənə, sœːənə, søːnə, sɔːnə/. The first example is commonly spelled ⟨sune⟩ and the last example is absolutely invariably spelled ⟨sane⟩. So a claim that the O in Sohn is a Low German form needs proper sourcing, because - and feel free to provide the exception - it isn't. (/sœːəne/ is the form used in 80% of dialects.) And the only region where /soːnə/ could occur (I delineated that area earlier so you can look for sources if you like.) in the first place is an area where for one I only find records of "soehne" and which for the other has no record of influencing the Low German language as a whole. Quite the contrary, it hides its local version in order to copy northern language. So if you say "Low German" has influenced High German, it can only be that region, which hasn't even influenced its own language. But I think it's time to take a break and a breath and check: Am I understanding you correctly that you are implying that Low Germans established 'Sohn' over 'Suhn' because they knew it from their language? To my understanding what we are speaking about is a general phonological process. Please also note that the presence of text has to be justified, not the absence. Wikiprojects are based on sourced information, not on claims maintained until disproved. So the reason not to include Low German would be the absence of a solid reason to include it. "Stuff was similar there" does not convince me that Low German is a factor preventing Alpine Bavarian from replacing the forms native to pretty much every other dialect (before optional later raising). Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Pronunciations matter little or nothing. Spellings matter. All dictionaries give me MLG sone (= sōne, sometimes with umlaut söne) as the normalized spelling of the word. I understand you as claiming that the normal spellings were sune and sane. I can't tell without further research because I'm not knowledgeable enough of MLG. But when I google "sin sone" I get numerous MLG hits from different regions. Of course, if "sone" were indeed not a MLG form, we'd have a different situation. (For this particular word.)
I say three things: 1.) Low German scribes adopted a northern register of "High German NHG". 2.) Within this register they were particularly likely to choose forms that looked the same or similar to the ones they knew from MLG. 3.) Both of these developments combined reinforced northern forms in NHG vis-à-vis Upper German forms. — It is well known that NHG in Low German areas in the 16th century contained a lot of Low German forms, even ones that were simply taken from MLG and had no basis in East Central German chancellery language. In most cases these latter were gradually abolished, of course.
"The presence of text has to be justified." Yes, because it is. I don't derive NHG in from MLG in. I derive a specifically northern form from a specifically northern language. I do what Pfeifer does when he says Herde is due to "md.-nd. Einfluss", or Lippe came "aus dem Nd.-Md. durch Luthers Einfluss in die nhd. Literatursprache". Now, I understand that you don't like it. I don't understand your point, though. Long story short: If you get a verdict against my approach from the bosses, I will abide by it unwillingly. And that sets me apart from yourself who are doing whatever you feel like, ignoring agreements all the time. Kolmiel (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
PS: Just to make very clear that I do not at all intend to derive every form that looks a bit Low German from Low German: My approach is that it's justified to postulate some Low German influence on the standardization process when the following four conditions are met:
1.) There was still after 1500 a pretty much open competition between two or more forms (not just a main form and a rare variant).
2.) The form that has been standardized was originally uncommon in all or most parts of Upper German.
3.) This form is equivalent or virtually so to the common MLG spelling of the respective word.
4.) There is no extra evidence against Low German influence in favour of this form.
I know you will not agree with this and that's fine. My conviction is that it's justified and that it's exactly what Kluge and Pfeiffer have done in many cases. Kolmiel (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Breaking the 'assume good faith' principle with an unnecessary ad hominem insinuation. This is how I got to know you first, this is how you remain. I am disgusted by being insulted thus by you, so this conversation ends here. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi, are you sure about this edit? There's nothing about this in the German Wiktionary or, and i've never noticed this. --Espoo (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Since I am from such a region I didn't even know some people used it as a male term until relatively late in my life, yes, I'm as sure as can be. It's also a staple topic of arguments on the German internet. I'm not even sure if there is anyone who says 'der Schild' natively without having looked it up at some point and trying to be a smartarse since. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Amazing that there's no mention of that in the German Wiktionary or in DWDS and Duden. Could you please add a reliable source to the lemma or a link to a serious forum discussion here or on the lemma's talk page? --Espoo (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Created Citations:Schild. ps.: The Duden used to be, and still is, the paragon of a prescriptive work. It now states to have descriptive interests, but it's not shaken off its prescriptive heritage and in turn is crassly unrelated to reality here and there. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Wunderbar, danke! --Espoo (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

GML marking long vowels[edit]

Hello Korn ! Just a quick question regarding the macron vs. caret/circumflex in Middle Low German: if a word is unattested in Old Saxon, bu the reconstructed term has a long vowel or diphthong, how should this be rendered in GML ? Macron or circumflex ? Leasnam (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you think the reconstruction is sound and there is no later shortening, just use the circumflex as you would with an existing term. If you're not comfortable, just use no mark; after all, they're just an extra service we offer, not part of the entry. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
copy that ! Leasnam (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)