User talk:Der Zeitmeister

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Der Zeitmeister. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Der Zeitmeister, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Der Zeitmeister in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Der Zeitmeister you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Der Zeitmeister will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Der Zeitmeister, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

{{label}}

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

{{lb|nds-de|in Schleswig-Holstein}} isn't a valid label. Please see T:label/documentation. --{{victar|talk}} 14:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! It is a valid label. The documentation covers it thus: "A single ad hoc context with no supporting template:". Best Regards, Der Zeitmeister (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
The lect name is Schleswig-Holsteinisch. "in Schleswig-Holstein" is an incorrect usage. --{{victar|talk}} 14:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
It's also, I guess more commonly, Schleswigsch (Schleswigisch) and Holsteinisch. Schleswig-Holstein is a region where both dialects are spoken. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, obviously, but a) prepositions and articles don't belong in labels, and b) the Low German labels are of the lect family groups. --{{victar|talk}} 14:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Alternate spelling of Low German

Latest comment: 4 years ago18 comments2 people in discussion

Many Low German authors have different spelling conventions, but that doesn't make them different forms. --{{victar|talk}} 14:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

It does, just like colour/color or Orthographie/Orthografie are alternative forms. For Low German it's only much more complicated as there are not only spelling differences but also many other differences (sounds, grammar). --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
You're confusing commonly used spellings with the transcription system of a single author. Also, <Brood> = <Broot> = /bʁoːt/. --{{victar|talk}} 15:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
No. Unlike proto-languages and many other regional or minority languages, Low German is also in writing (e.g. Fritz Reuter and Klaus Groth, to only name a few). --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm well aware Low German has been written. My uncles are technically capable of writing in it. Again though, what you're doing is citing transcription systems, not usages. Like your edit here, <å> is super outdated from Nerger in 1869. --{{victar|talk}} 15:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
No, again - and it's very easy to proof you wrong, which I now did in German Low German Brot. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's great. It still makes it just an alternative, as, before you reverted me, it was labeled. The primary entry is at Brood, as most dialect of LG have a long vowel. --{{victar|talk}} 16:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
You changed the label to "Low Prussian" which was wrong: It's for example also used in Mecklenburgisch/Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch (Fritz Reuter, John Brinckman), Hamburgisch (Silke Frakstein), in the region of Schleswig-Holstein (fairy-tales edited by Kurt Ranke), in the region of Ostholstein (fairy-taled edited by Wilhelm Wisser), and by Margarete Nerese . Spelling it Brot doesn't mean it has a short vowel - it can be long as in German Brot. Google Ngram could hint that Brot is more common than Brood. And so could Google Books searching for "dat Br*#" -het -das (replacing * by vowels, # by d or t): Broot (1990 results), Brod (1950), Brot (1720), Brood (640), Braud (124), Braut (75), Breot (7), Bräot (4), Breod & Bräod (0). Especially for the forms with äo/eo this shows that t is more common than d. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
With your quotes for it being arrested in Mecklenburgisch warrant it being added to a label, which is why I didn't revert it. Could someone write Brot when they mean /bʁoːt/? Sure, but that's why you have to look into the transcription systems of dictionaries. Nerger, for one, transcribes it with ô. Also, we can't overlook that Westphalian is the most commonly used form Low German outside of Plautdietsch. Google search is a horrendous way try and establish which form is most common, especially since Brot is the German form, not to mention that Brod is an alternative archaic spelling of the German as well. --{{victar|talk}} 17:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
No, Westphalian isn't the most commonly used German Low German form (or proof?).
And brood and broot are Dutch. That's why I added the Low Geman article (dat), and excluded Dutch het and German das from the search. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't know the exact numbers, but the fact that it's so well attested certainly speaks to that. All the same, Google search is a rather poor methodology, another reason being diacritic marks are often not properly OCR'd. If you want to make the normalised spelling _# on en.Wikt as _/t/#, you can bring it up on WT:ANDS. I'm not totally opposed. --{{victar|talk}} 17:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Strike that, I've reversed them for now and I'll bring it up. --{{victar|talk}} 18:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
The are some Westphalian dictionaries, maybe even more than for Northern Low German, but that doesn't say anything about the number of speakers: Westphalian needs more dictionaries as the subdialects are more diverse (different diphthongs). And to add: Plattdeutsches Wörterbuch des kurkölnischen Sauerlandes has Bräot (Braut, Broit and more), Dortmunder Wörterbuch braọ̆t. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Again, braọ̆t is a transcription system, not a usage spelling. You need to be mindful of that and work to understand what they're expressing and normalise the spelling. --{{victar|talk}} 18:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You're still failing to grasp what academic transcriptions are. Woeste (1876) applies academic transcripts to his quotes, and <ə> is an academic transcription character. Same with <å> you created an entry with at nå, which represents IPA(key): ɔː and is today commonly transcribed <ao>, and therefore belongs at nao. --{{victar|talk}} 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

You also don't seem to understand what a main entry is and an alternative form entry is. Broot is currently the main entry, and Brot is an alternative entry. Headers like the etymology, alternatives, and derivatives, belong only on the main entry. If you continue to make disruptive edits, you risk a block. --{{victar|talk}} 23:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

No.
Also:
  • See the version history of nå for a source: It contains usages from 2018.
--Der Zeitmeister (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
At best then, this is a Mecklenburgisch alternative spelling this author as chosen to use and I've marked it as such. You're also still wrong with your edits to Brot. --{{victar|talk}} 00:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia