User talk:Kolmiel

Hi! Thanks for your work on our German entries.
I noticed this diff changing /ɔɪ̯/ to /ɔʏ̯/. I have no strong preference which one is used, but many of our entries use /ɔɪ̯/, and I have seen entries that used /ɔʏ̯/ changed to /ɔɪ̯/, so it seems like a good idea to decide on one symbol and use it consistently. I have started a discussion of the matter on Wiktionary talk:About German; please join in. :) - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

(cc: User:CodeCat) Can you take a look at this entry? I think something should be done to it, but I am not sure what. Keφr 10:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I gave it a try, although I'm not familiar with editing more-than-one-word entries :) Kolmiel (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Based on my personal experience, I would say that Dutch "doch" is indeed obsolete. One may come across it in literary and / or old-fashioned language. You might wish to have a look at http://www.vandale.nl/opzoeken?pattern=doch&lang=nn, at http://synoniemen.net/index.php?zoekterm=doch, and at http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/doch.Redav (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your personal introduction is interesting to me, because it reminds me of the eleven years when I lived in Dutch Limburg as a child. (I was born in North-Brabant from dito parents.) Your description of your idiolect reminds me of several traits of the Limburgian langugae / dialect I was immersed in, among them voiced final consonants, word-final-/t/ dropping, as well as the am-progressive, which is similar to the Dutch aan het-progressive. I remember a small discussion with my late Dutch aunt and her husband, my late German uncle, some 35 years ago when I was learning German at school. They lived in the Ruhrgebiet. I noticed my aunt using (either) /ʃ/ (or /ɕ/) instead of /ç/, which was different from what I was taught. My uncle confirmed there was this difference between the / a standard and a more colloquial usage.Redav (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah you're absolutely right about that. The Cologne/Bonn/Aachen-dialect, called Ripuarian, is very close to Limburgish. When you look at the original form of this dialect (not the kind of language mix that people tend to speak today), then there are also very many grammatical similarities, for example a large amount of irregular present forms in verbs and so on.

Regarding the fronted pronunciation of /ç/ you're also right. However, I would wonder where exactly your aunt came from because this is more typical of regions to the south of the Ruhrgebiet proper, roughly going from Düsseldorf southward to Luxembourg. (Cf. the Luxembourgish ech here on wiktionary.)Kolmiel (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Regarding your recent edit, German Lippe is already listed on the page, as a descendant of Middle Low German. Since the expected Old High German form would be *lipfa, *lipha, *liffa, might it be better to move Central Middle High German lippe and German Lippe up instead? Leasnam (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The expected Old High German would be *lipfa (alternative spelling *lipha). But the shift -pp- → -pf- is specifically Upper German. It is actually the feature by which Central and Upper German are distinguished. It is just that written Old High German is usually Upper German, which should not mislead us to think that Central German forms didn't exist at the time. The form Lippe is most probably a native Central German form derived from an unattested form of northern Old High German (non-existant in southern High German). — The Central German form could of course be an early borrowing from Old Saxon. But there's no particular reason to think that, as far as I know. That's why I said "probably existed in northern Old High German".

The modern German word derives from Central German as much as Low German. Or more precisely: it has prevailed in modern German due to its being common in both of these dialect groups (the less widespread a word, the less likely it prevails, of course). Therefore I think it's fine to have German Lippe as the continuation of both High German and Low German. But if such thing is frowned upon in our presentations, then put it under Low German and add (also Central German) behind it. Or something like that :-) Kolmiel (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The latter thing I said refers to the modern German Lippe. If necessary, put that under Low German. Don't put the Middle High German under Low German, because -- as I said -- it's not likely that it actually derives from Low German (though possible). The form lippe is actually attested in Central German before it is attested in Low German (!). So it's probably old, not borrowed.Kolmiel (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I managed to salvage both, and added a comment suggesting the modern word derives from the merger of both :) Leasnam (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I gave the entry for the term Schleim a template update. What ever you do with the request for the Middle High German term is up to you. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

'n doesn't have a genitive (at least in general *'nes doesn't exist, e.g. "Das Auto 'nes Mannes" sounds to harsh), but so'nes does exists. From google books search (in German, 21th century):

1. 's war eher der der Niedergang so 'nes urwüchsigen Inselweibes,
2. Und so'nes rechten, ehrlichen Zornes war er garnicht mächtig

-91.63.230.4 05:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well. That's more or less what I wrote. I haven't heard it, or don't remember hearing it, but yeah, I consider it possible that someone might use it... However, your attestations might be that kind of fake-vernacular that you sometimes read in bad writers. They want to make some character sound colloquial, so they give him a lot of apostrophes and all of that, but they don't realize that getting rid of the genitives would be more important. Same thing applies to dubbing. ((Don't know if you happen to know that series "The Big Bang Theory". There's this girl who's supposed to be the ignorant blond farmer's girl. But her German version uses those over-correct genitives all the time.)) Kolmiel (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"so'nes", "so'(n)em", "so'ner", "so'ne" certainly exist. "so'nes" may be short for "so eins" (such a one"), equivalent to "so'n" and fem. "so'ne", frequently in "so'ne sch*sse" (such bullshit), and so nothing would stand against using it for the genetive as well, except, you are of course correct, that the genetive is relatively rare and dative circumscription more likely, "von so'm". The apostrophe may be prescribed, though actually some forms might continue old inflection of *so ~ *to. 109.41.3.133 03:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'd greatly appreciate if you would not phrase your edit annotations as personal accusations. The edits on schon were based on this map from a project associated with the Universities of Augsburg, Salzburg and Lüttich. It was not based on random assumptions, like all of my edits. The note was supposed to say 'rarer' and I overlooked a typo. Sue me. Korn (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry for this particular annotation, which seems to have been mistaken... although the map shows that the short variant is indeed the commoner one in many parts of Central Germany (and at least from my personal experience this would also include the Rhineland). But apart form that: It's my honest impression that you edit a lot of nonsense. Call that an accusation or not. Kolmiel (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Es steht Dir frei, ich bitte sogar darum, Inhalte zu ändern, die Dir zweifelhaft erscheinen, meine eingeschlossen. Strenge gegenseitige Kontrolle ist die Methode, mit der Wiki-Projekte sich reinigen und mit der wir gegenseitig unsere Ausrutscher, Denk- und Lesefehler beheben. Für ein angenehmes Arbeitsklima ist aber ein Mindestmaß an professioneller Zurückhaltung erforderlich. Wenn jeder jedem den ganzen Tag schriebe, was er von ihm hielte, würde dieses Projekt in wachsendem Maße aus Vorwürfen und Beleidigungen bestehen. Unnötig zu erwähnen, dass die Verbreitung persönlicher Animositäten die notwendige Bereitschaft konstruktiver Zusammenarbeit nicht gerade erhöht. Zur Verbesserung des Projektes braucht es nur fachliche Kritik. Ich würde darum bitten, dass Du Dich zusammenreißt, ein Mindestmaß an Höflichkeit an den Tag legst und Deine restlichen Gefühlsäußerungen auf Dein privates Umfeld beschränkst, womit ich diesen Gefühlen nicht die Berechtigung apsrechen will. Vielleicht bin ich ja ein Idiot, aber der konstruktive Weg ist, mir das durch Quellen und Argumentation zu zeigen, nicht, es mir an den Kopf zu werfen. Korn (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ich finde nicht, dass ich irgendwelche Gefühlsaufwallungen an den Tag gelegt hätte. (Aber ich bin kein Hanseat, vielleicht liegt es daran.) Wenn ich ausgerechnet von dir etwas über "konstruktive Zusammenarbeit" höre, ruft das ehrlich gesagt Kopfschütteln hervor. Aber bitte! Geh einfach weiter deiner Arbeit nach. Gelegentlich wird es dazu kommen, dass wir uns gegenseitig editieren. Aber ich bin keineswegs gewillt, mich mit irgendwelchen Edit-Wars abzugeben. Insofern brauchst du da nichts zu fürchten. Im Übrigen sei versichert, dass ich keine "persönliche Animositäten" gegen dich habe. Mir gefallen deine Edits nicht. Aber da ich (leider) nicht der Herr über Wiktionary bin, müssen sie das auch nicht. Kolmiel (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I left you a few messages on my Talk page. If we can't work it out, I think it best to move everything to *bōkō, with *bōkijǭ derivatives as parenthetical. Leasnam (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could you give some examples of cognates in Bavarian dialects, so that we can link to them (and create entries if they do not exist)? --WikiTiki89 01:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just knew it from this book: Werner König (ed.): “DTV-Atlas Deutsche Sprache”, ed. 15, Munich, 2005. There's a map for “today” on page 182, which gives heint (meaning this form and cognates) for a large south-eastern territory comprising all of Austria, most of Bavaria, and some adjacent areas. The Deutsches Wörterbuch (), lemmas →heint and →heinacht, also mentions Bavarian. I also checked Bavarian Wikipedia (). It has 33 hits for heint, most or all of which do indeed mean “today”... So, it should be safe to create heint for Bavarian (= bar), if that's what you want to do. Kolmiel (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

So would you say this change is appropriate? I don't feel comfortable creating the actual entries myself, so maybe you could do that if you feel comfortable. --WikiTiki89 01:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Heinacht is an early modern German form (which usually meant "tonight" not "today"). Bavarian seems to have only the contraction. I'll create the entries. Kolmiel (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 02:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

since you seem to know a fair amount about rare and dialectal words, could you provide a gloss of the German words that we find here: *slaiwaz?

Thanks! --Fsojic (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your confidence :) I didn't know these words, though... But the Deutsches Wörterbuch glosses them matt, stumpf, thus “dull, blunt”. ()

Sweet! What would be the difference between these two forms though? Are they both lemmas, or is schleh simply the predicative form while schlehe is the weak declension form? (I've forgotten almost everything I knew about German...) --Fsojic (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

They would both be bare forms, whose inflected forms are the same, because the final -e in the bare form is automatically dropped before the inflectional ending. The -e might be a rest of the OHG -o in slēo, inflected slēw-, which was usually dropped, but seems to have survived in some dialects. Generally, German has quite a few doublets of adjectives with and without -e in the bare form (cf. trüb, trübe; mild, milde). Kolmiel (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

A last question: what is the reason for your not knowing it (this is not an accusation of course!)? Is it an obsolete word? --Fsojic (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

In the standard language it's definitely obsolete. It only occurs in dialects, so any German who doesn't know it from their own dialect, won't know it. -- Now actually, I've found in a dictionary that in the dialect of my own region the form schlieh ("blunt") does indeed exist. It rings a bell somewhere in the very far back of my mind, but it's not really a common word. This apart from the fact that people now often speak a mix of standard German and dialect rather than the actual dialect, so there are many less common dialectal words that I don't know anyway. Kolmiel (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

You seem capable of updating the Central Franconian part of Appendix:Germanic Swadesh lists. (As a side note, I wish it includes Vilamovian words, preferably in the most recent 2004 orthography.) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've updated it so as to include the most important dialect groups, which often means 3 or occasionally 4 variants. I hope that's okay. It used be just Kölsch, but some forms were also wrong. (Or not really wrong, but too strongly influenced by standard German; I've chosen a conservative, but never archaic, register.) -- I don't know what you mean with Vilamovian. I don't know anything about this lect. I don't think it's Central Franconian either. It seems to be East Central German. Kolmiel (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are the lemma forms kämpfe and saan (which I think is supposed to be san) really in a conservative register? I added schwär for you. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, there's no standardized orthography, just tendencies. I think you're right that "san" would be more appropriate than "saan". As to "kämpfe", yes, that's a verb that the dialects don't have (we're too pacifist, you know :)), so it's adopted from standard German. Kolmiel (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I edited the Swadesh list by fixing the listing for san. I'm not sure about jaan/jan, though. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, you might make it "jan" as well if you prefer that. In this case it's a bit less obvious because "jan" looks the rather common name "Jan" (with a short ), and that's why people might prefer "jaan". Unfortunately we sometimes have to choose a bit arbitrarily: a good written corpus exists only for Colognian, also with much variation, but at least. For other dialects it's usually just a handful of writers, whose works aren't easily accessable either. Kolmiel (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your userpage says "I distinguish /ɛː/ from /eː/, but their distribution is occasionally unlike in the standard. For example, I say (Majonäse) and (italienisch)." I find this interesting, because I've noticed something very similar in my English with the "long a" and "short e" followed by /ɹ/. For example, I say (verify) and (necessarily), while for most words I say (Mary) and (merry). I wonder if this comes from being partially surrounded by people who don't make this distinction, forcing us to choose a phoneme at random (or based on some circumstantial criteria). Or maybe it comes from shifting stress onto an unstressed syllable, since I'm always tempted to pronounce consonantal as because the -ant in consonant is indistinguishable from the -ent in instrument and I pronounce instrumental as expected as . Sorry for the ramble if you don't find this interesting. --WikiTiki89 15:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Haha, no, please don't apologize. It's indeed similar and worth asking. And besides, there's relatively little I don't find interesting about one of the languages I'm familiar with. -- I think both of your explanations make a lot of sense. I'm just not sure how much of them applies to my case. Actually, I should probably have said "in a handful of words" rather than "occasionally". I generally use /eː/ instead of /ɛː/ in words ending in -äse (< French -aise), which I think is due to conflation with -ese (as in Chinese). Then I use (or used to use?) /eː/ in the somewhat strange phrase gang und gäbe, in which no normal German knows what "gäbe" is supposed to be anyway. Yeah, and maybe a handful of other words, I don't know right now... And for the opposite /eː/ -> /ɛː/ I'm only aware of italienisch and Italiener, which is dialectal, most everybody around here says it like that, for what ever reason. -- I chiefly mentioned these differences to show that the distinction as such is part of my most natural way of speaking and that I don't distinguish them only according to spelling, because some people claim that the distinction is per se a "spelling pronunciation". (This is also etymologically wrong, by the way. Standard German /ɛː/ corresponds to Ripuarian /œː/ or /ɛː/, while /eː/ corresponds to /iː/ or /ɛ/ (short) ). Kolmiel (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

When you quote the Bible, as you did at الله, please give the version. The Qur'an is an exception in Arabic because Arabic is its original language so the version is assumed to be the original. --WikiTiki89 19:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sure. It's the Smith-Van Dyke version, the modern Arabic standard Bible. I took it from this website: . I don't know if that technically meets our citation criteria. Essentially, I just thought a Bible quote would be good in that lemma, so I added one... Kolmiel (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're right that it's useful, but all quotations should be sourced. Also, quotations don't have to meet our attestation criteria if their purpose is to serve as examples; they simply wouldn't count in an RFV. --WikiTiki89 19:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I know they must be sourced. I just didn't know how to source that correctly, so I didn't... The only other Arabic Bible quote on wiktionary that I'm aware of isn't sourced either --> مار. How would we fix this? Kolmiel (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just created {{RQ:SVD}}. Do you know what version the quote at مار is from? --WikiTiki89 20:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! No, I don't know. It's not the same one, though. It uses رب instead. It was added by a user "Superherosaves", who apparently made only two contributions, both concerning Arabic and Christianity. (The other one is the proper-noun sense in جمجمة, which I find strange because the normal word for Golgatha is definitely جلجثة.) Kolmiel (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Given your interest in West Germanic philology, I thought you might be a good person to give a look over some of the etymologies in here and Category:Yiddish entries with incomplete etymology and give them a try. No obligation, just a reminder if you're interested. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

No problem :) Glad I can help. I've done those which I knew in the smaller category. I may at some time get to the other one. Kolmiel (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I appreciate it, and I learned some new etymological details by reading your additions. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the "common High German development -rs- → -rš-". Why does Standard German have things like erst instead of **erscht (whereas Yiddish, and I presume many dialects, have /ʃ/ there)? --WikiTiki89 17:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Or maybe I just misunderstood your use of "common", which I took to mean "shared by all varieties of High German", when maybe you meant "found in multiple varieties of High German". --WikiTiki89 17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I meant "common" in the latter sense. But actually, before the introduction of a standardized pronunciation, it was generally pronounced "erscht" in central and southern Germany. The standard pronuniation is based to a large degree on the northern German standard (which is High German with a Low German accent). But there are a couple of standard German words that show the development, like Arsch (English arse), and some others. Kolmiel (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have rephrased it using prepositions to make it unambiguous ("common to" vs. "common in"): diff. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's good :) Kolmiel (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I just wanted to say that I appreciate the work; it's great to have someone to do the philological side of things. Also, you say on your userpage not to interpret it as Hebrew, but now I wonder: is it כל or קול that is from God? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Well, words are always interpreted, you can't forbid that :) And while I am "entirely from God", originally at least, I don't consider myself a "voice from God"... Now, actually, it was just a random pun between "Call me Al" and "iel"-names. But then one day I looked up the Biblical Hebrew root k-l-m, which does exist, and while there's no actual word *kolem or *kolm-, the root allows for an interpretation "God is my shame" or "the shame of God"... That's why I said, just leave it :D But your interpretations are fine, I guess. Kolmiel (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

כֹּלְמִיאֵל (kōləmīʾēl), basically meaning “to whom does G-d act this way?”: וַתַּהַר עוֹד וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ כֹּלְמִיאֵל כִּי אָמְרָה כִּי־כֹה פָּעַל ׀ לִי אֵל וּלְמִי יִפְעַל־כֹּה׃ ― And she conceived again, and bore a son, and she called his name Kolmiel; for she said: ‘For G-d hath done for me thus; and for whom shall he do thus?’. --WikiTiki89 16:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Wikitiki89: Oh yes :) Fine as well. (You did make up that "verse", right?) Kolmiel (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's a lost verse found in a 2000-year-old manuscript that I excavated from my backyard just this morning. --WikiTiki89 17:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Wikitiki89: Great. Since it's fortold my coming, I assume you'll be a devout follower of my etymologies from now on. Kolmiel (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh no, wait, it can't be me. I'm a first son. Oh well. Kolmiel (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also, past tense. --WikiTiki89 18:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I figured it was part of a prophecy. May have been wishful thinking, or wishful exegesis rather. I didn't have the context, of course. Kolmiel (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kolmiel, can you shed any light on the etymologies of these two? To me it seems like they came from the same source, but I was wondering where the divergence in vowels happened? Thanks for your help, BigDom 05:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@BigDom: I wrote the etymologies. I think you were very justified to assume this, but in fact they are completely unrelated. (I personally knew from which OHG words they came, but I also thought they had a common source; turned out they haven't.) They may have influenced each other, however. The two must have seemed to be umlaut variants since the unrounding (ö, ü > e, i), which is not a very recent development. Kolmiel (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's fantastic and very interesting, thank you! Do you mind me asking where you get all the information for your etymologies from? Would be nice to be able to add some info without having to pester you all the time. Cheers, BigDom 21:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@BigDom: I'm not aware of any etymological dictionary of Luxembourgish. Therefore much of it is original research. All of my sources are in German or Dutch. I don't know if you can read these. — Anyway: I've read two books about the phonetic developments of Luxembourgish, which are pretty complicated when it comes to vowels. Made a list of these developments, which I use. (I forgot the names of those books, but I could find them back probably. Could also post you the list.) Then I use the online "Luxemburger Wörterbuch" and the online "Rheinisches Wörterbuch" covering the dialects just to the east of Luxembourgish with a lot of detail (which is very helpful). And then for the greater context and the older stages I use the German and Dutch standard literature, which is Kluge's "Etymologisches Wörterbuch", the "Deutsches Wörterbuch" and Pfeifer's "Etymologisches Wörterbuch" (the latter two online at dwds.de) and the Dutch ones at etymologiebank.nl. Kolmiel (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I can read German OK and already use the Luxemburger Wörterbuch and dwds.de, I didn't know about the Dutch-language sources though so will check those out and will see if I can find a copy of Kluge online. If you don't mind sharing your work and letting me have a copy of your work that would be fantastic. I find these things so interesting. You can email me through Wiktionary. Cheers, BigDom 05:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd also love to see such a list of phonological developments! —JohnC5 06:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@BigDom:, @JohnC5: Okay. I'll have to rewrite it a bit though, to make it understandable to people other than myself. Might take a while. (But if I've forgotten it, say a month from now, do remind me.) Kolmiel (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@BigDom, @JohnC5 See if this helps at all: User:Kolmiel/Luxembourgish :-) Kolmiel (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kolmiel: Wow, this is quite impressive! —JohnC5 21:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's fantastic, thanks! BigDom 21:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kolmiel, sorry to trouble you again. Can you shed any light on these two? Kar seems to be what you would expect from OGH korn (cf. Dar < dorn, Har < horn), so where/when did the other version come into play? Cheers, BigDom 14:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@BigDom: Yes, correct: OHG -orn becomes -ar in Luxembourgish. Kär is from another word: OHG kerno whence modern German Kern. The two are related through Indo-European (ablaut). Kolmiel (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I added the basic etymology to Kär, just in case anyone's busy. (I'm on vacation at Idaho; and I will be at Redfish Lake for a few days.) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo: Haha, thanks. Have fun then! Kolmiel (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, thanks both. BigDom 08:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Vermeiden Rheinländer lange Konsonanten in formalem Kontext, bzw. in Situationen, wo man üblicherweise Standarddeutsch spricht, oder ist das ein Merkmal, das, wie bei den Schweizern und Österreichern, als normales Merkmal des Deutschen empfunden wird? Korn (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Korn: Das Rheinische kennt überhaupt keine Geminaten. Ich erinnere mich, dass du das irgendwo schon mal so transkribiert und als "Ripuarian" oder "Rhineland" markiert hast. Stützt sich diese Annahme auf irgendeine Publikation? Andernfalls kann ich nur annehmen, dass du die w:de:Rheinische Schärfung als Gemination fehlinterpretierst. Diese führt (als "Nebenprodukt") auch zu minimalen Längungen, hauptsächlich von Vokalen allerdings. (Ich bin für die Phonetik der Schärfung kein Experte.) Sprecher, die ihr Hochdeutsch als Fremdsprache gelernt haben, können die Schärfung kaum überhaupt vermeiden. In der jüngeren Generation ist sie aber praktisch ausgestorben. Auch jüngere Platt-Sprecher verwenden die Schärfung nur noch eingeschränkt. Kolmiel (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ein Beispiel für Langkonsonanten: youtu.be/tdn-rguki3w?t=125, "zusammen". Ob man diese Längung jetzt als "minimal" empfindet, ist für meine Frage nicht wichtig. Lange Konsonanten im Rheingebiet werden ebenfalls angesprochen von den deutschen Wikipedia-Artikeln Ripuarische Dialekte, Kölsch (Sprache) und Gemination, allerdings jeweils ohne Belege und mir sind auch keine Arbeiten zu diesem Gebiet zugänglich; meine Frage kommt vorrangig aus der eigenen Wahrnehmung. Danke für die Auskunft. Ist das Wort zusammen im Beispiel geschärft? Korn (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Korn: Es wird die Schärfung gemeint sein. Nasale und Liquide können die Schärfung tragen und werden dabei möglicherweise gelängt. Ich persönlich höre eigentlich keine Längung; aber das mag daran liegen, dass meine Ohren auf den phonematischen Tonverlauf getrimmt sind und die nicht phonematische Längung weniger wahrnehmen. -- Die Schärfung hat in deinem Beispiel emphatische Wirkung und ist nicht notwendigerweise an das Wort gebunden. (Das heißt, die Dame spricht das Wort "zusammen" möglicherweise ohne Schärfung, wenn es nicht hervorgehoben werden soll.) Allerdings hat das ripuarische "zesamme" (oder älter: "zesame") in der Tat die Schärfung. Kolmiel (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

PS: Die Schärfung zur Emphase ist weiterhin sehr üblich und wird auch als "normales Merkmal des Deutschen" empfunden. Es ist die lexikalisierte Schärfung, die immer mehr zurückgeht. Kolmiel (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ah, dann ist das tatsächlich die Ursache für die Langkonsonanten, die ich bei Rheinländern öfter höre. (Ich habe einem finnischen Freund, der kein Deutsch spricht, das Beispiel vorgelegt und er sagt, dass die Frau "two M's" spricht.) Danke. Korn (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thank you. It is a sort of confusing language. It's been spoken in my family for generations (I've been told it was since the early 70s). Most words seem to have etymologies that are obvious to me. But some I have no idea. For instance, one of the verbs I used, koropa, meaning "to dry" was used adjectivally. As in koropet (literally meaning "dried", past participle). This is the adjective that means "dry" (adjective, opposite of "wet"). koropeta is an inflection of the adjectival usage of "koropet" (definite and plural). This can technically happen to any verb.

If you're interested in the language, I recommend reading User:Philmonte101/Sintelsk/Inflection, to learn a little more.

But really, where did koropa and related terms come from? Seeing how it's constructed, it could have been completely made up, but I seriously doubt it. I know that the language is generally based on Scandinavian and English words, but sometimes they can also have come from Romance languages. I really wonder where koropa came from. Philmonte101 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Philmonte101: Yes, I recognized "fuol" for "leaf" as Romance. I don't know what "koropa" could be based on. The grammar is very similar to Scandinavian, but I'd already noticed that. Anyway: Tak fo jelpen o tenu on dajli dio! :D Kolmiel (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

A Swiss IP address (from Freiburg) added Blaukohl. I think it's some kind of synonym to Blaukraut. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it just means "red cabbage". It's a synonym to Blaukraut, Rotkohl, Rotkraut, Rotkabis, etc. BigDom 08:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo: Yes. The cabbage is commonly considered "red" in the north and "blue" in the south. At the same time, the word for cabbage is "Kohl" in the north and "Kraut" in the south. Therefore the most frequent words are "Rotkohl" (north) and "Blaukraut" (south). The combinations "Blaukohl" and "Rotkraut" are rarer, but do exist. Kolmiel (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, the Germanic languages originally didn't have words for "purple". Therefore the alternations. Otherwise we'd probably all say "purple cabbage". Kolmiel (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's interesting to know. I've always heard roytkroyt in Yiddish. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I had a look at a dialect map ("dtv-Atlas: Deutsche Sprache"). The form "Rotkraut" is actually quite common as well, used in most of East Central German, and in westernmost as well as easternmost Upper German, thus forming a crescent around the area of "Blaukraut". So that's in line with your Yiddish experience. The north has "Rotkohl" as I said. (And "roter Kappes" in the west, but that's only a dialectal form.) The word you'll commonly read on packaging in Germany is "Rotkohl". "Blaukohl" seems to be very rare. Kolmiel (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

It would be good to create entries for all of these with the relevant notes on which dialects use them! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Du hast einen Eintrag for 'ander' im Mittelfränkischen erstellt und dort vermerkt, dass es sich um eine Entlehnung aus dem Standarddeutschen handelt. Ist es in diesem Fall wirklich sinnvoll, vom Mittelfränksichen zu sprechen, statt einfach zu sagen, dass mit Rückgang der Dialektverwendung/-sicherheit öfter einfach standarddeutsche Fremdworte gebraucht werden? Auf Platt (die Nordsorte) gibt es ähnliche Situationen und ich hätte gerne gewusst, was Dein Gedankengang zu dem Thema ist. Korn (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Korn: Du meinst, dass "ander" gar kein mittelfränkisches Wort ist? Das bestimmt. Denn im Kölschen und auch etwas nördlich und südlich davon am Rhein gibt es gar keine andere Form (mehr). Auch der Eintrag des "Rheinischen Wörterbuchs" (aus der Zwischenkriegszeit) vermerkt für diese Gebiete nur "ander". Das hat auch mit einer allgemeinen Entwicklung im Zentralripuarischen zu tun, wo nämlich die Velarisierung von nd zu ng weitgehend rückgängig gemacht wurde. Dies natürlich unter hochdeutschem Einfluss, aber eben als Entwicklung im Dialekt selber, mit so interessanten Ergebnissen wie Hand > Plural Häng. — Ansonsten stimme ich dir natürlich zu. Fast jedes Wort kann gelegentlich in hochdeutscher Form erscheinen, je nach Situation und Sprecher. Solche Fälle würde ich auch nicht aufführen. Kolmiel (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Macht Sinn. Danke für die Info. Korn (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Korn: Okay. Noch als weitere Erklärung zu den nd-Formen: Es handelt sich wirklich nur um Ersetzungen der Lautgruppe ng durch nd, sodass aus altem "Ponk" jetzt "Pond" geworden ist (aber eben nicht "Pfund" oder "Fund"). Kolmiel (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have a question for you: is Krock a general Ripuarian form of Colognian Kruck? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo: Yes, Colognian has a development /o/ > /u/ before /k/, /g/, /ŋ/, which is not shared by any other dialect. It is also the only dialect that retains Old High German ei and ou as diphthongs. Technically, I'd have to say "general Ripuarian" or "Ripuarian except Colognian" in such cases, but I haven't done that so far. (The former would be ambiguous, the latter seems unpleasantly long.) Kolmiel (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The entry (which you nominated for FWOTD) now has some quotes. Would you mind giving the translations a check please? I've had a go but they're still a bit leaden. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Thanks a lot. Looks fine to me. Kolmiel (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the first sentence, I put "creature" instead of "thingy" because the author seems to pun on themself not being "an angel" rather than a figurine. (So, this sentence does not use the word in its literal meaning but I think it works just fine.) Kolmiel (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

All right, can you edit the template at FWOTDN? And yes, I mulled and vacillated a bit on the translation there − the author makes quite metonymic use of the term there (and is no angel for that reason alone ;) ).

Speaking of angels, you wouldn't happen to know any cites for the meaning "angel" at Geflügel, would you? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo You seem to have added this sense. I've never heard it. It would have to be obsolete, but admittedly I doubt it could've existed at all. Do you have a source or cite? Can it have been a misunderstanding? Kolmiel (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I've encountered this in the lyrics of a Romanze of Schubert: "Was frommt des Maien holde Zier?", which is translated in English as "What good is May's sweet loveliness?". But what is this red word? We have fromm, but the meanings provided don't really help. Actually the sense of OHG fruma (“benefit”) seems closer. --Fsojic (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Fsojic: Yes, it's a verb frommen ("to benefit, to be useful"), used impersonally in modern German, but archaic, almost obsolete. It's from MHG vrumen, from OHG frummen, *frumen, related to the adjective you mentioned, which originally meant "righteous, upright". Kolmiel (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the explanation! --Fsojic (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, just wondering if the word above can be abbreviated as V.K.? Thanks – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 01:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

When you search for VK on German wikipedia, it's one of the things given. But it's not common at all. Generally it's spelt out "Vereinigtes Königreich". It's also common to write "Großbritannien", since these two are usually not properly distinguished. Colloquially, we say "England". A few people say UK, pronounced the English way. Kolmiel (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Oh by the way, do you know about any grammatical mistakes any native speakers make themselves? thanks – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 18:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you have anything particular in mind? Of course, there are quite a few; chiefly due to dialectal influence, either directly by using dialectal grammar, or indirectly by hypercorrection. Kolmiel (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nothing urgent, just thought that you might get a chuckle out of this: https://i.imgur.com/9z3tLrB.jpg — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 23:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's German & Dutch mixed up – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我）

Not really :) Apart from "nein" for "no", it's just based on the idea that German is English with strange phonetic changes: droppen ze haut kaffe oont ze is “drop the hot coffee on the”. It has nothing much to do with actual German (or Dutch). And I suppose knakkers means sausage (cf. knackwurst). But yeah, I chuckled ;) Kolmiel (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some posts of that nature at the DFO subreddit would be labeled "quality sh*tposts". --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hm. Hm. I really don't know what that means :D Kolmiel (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's why I included the link to the term "sh*tpost". (For an example from the aforementioned subreddit, here's what I mean.) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh... yeah, I don't get that either. So just leave it, I guess :D I'll take it for a nice and funny comment on your part if you don't take me to be stupid. Kolmiel (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Another quality trash-post. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think I may have got the idea about now. Initially I didn't know whether it referred to Romanophile's post or my answer. But well. This last quality shit post is actually quite funny, somehow. Kolmiel (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Do you know any decent, searchable database with reasonably many older texts (before 1800) in German? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deutsches Textarchiv: . It's searchable and decent. It contains a little more than 1500 books from AD 1600 to 1799. Kolmiel (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that has been useful already. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kolmiel, hope you're well. I've just created the entry for Luxembourgish Moul but not 100% sure on the etymology. I found an entry for Mule (same meaning) in the Rheinisches Wörterbuch, so I'm assuming with this in mind that they came from a common OHG root mōl? But as I don't know of any modern German word derived from this I haven't been able to verify it. Any ideas? Thanks, BigDom 13:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@BigDom: Hi. I'm fine. I hope you are, too. An interesting question:

1. From Lux. Moul we do indeed expect OHG *mōl-. This would also be confirmed by the -ū- in the Ripuarian forms mentioned in the RW. Keep in mind, however, the variant Mull mentioned both by the RW and the Luxemburger Wörterbuch.

2. I don't know if you skipped that part, but the RW says: das aus frz. mule ‘Pantoffel’ entlehnte Wort ("the word, which is borrowed from French mule 'slipper'"). This should be correct. The sense "slipper" still exists in Ripuarian, and a development "slipper → mitten" is unproblematic. In fact, the German word for "glove" is, as you may be aware, Handschuh (“hand-shoe”). There's also the explanatory compound Mulenhännschen ("mule glove") reported from Trier. Moreover, no comparable word exists in Middle High German or modern German. So the French origin seems safe to me.

3. The vocalism is problematic. Of course, it's an older loanword from a time when Luxembourgish people generally didn't know French. So we do expect the front rounded vowel /y/ to become something else, but not a back vowel, rather /i/~/iː/~/əi/.

4. Here's my theory of what may have happened: Many French loanwords in the early modern era came to Germany via Dutch and the Lower Rhine. When you look at the categories "German terms derived from Dutch" and "...Middle Dutch", a great deal of them is originally French. And we do have Middle Dutch mule. Now, in Brabant this -u- would have been pronounced /yː/. As the word moved eastwards, it could have been turned into /uː/ because there was a regular sound correspondence between Brabantian /yː/ and Limburgish/Ripuarian /uː/. This would explain Ripuarian Muul. If this form entered Luxembourgish after the diphthongization of MHG ī, iu, ū around the 16th century, it must become Lux. Moul and/or Mull. The only slight problem is that the RW also mentions forms with /oː/, but these can be due to hypercorrections based on sound correspondences between village dialects.

Should I write the etymology? Kolmiel (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Excellent work! Very interesting; if you could write up some of that, that would be excellent thanks. BigDom 16:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It might have been excellent based on the information that I had in front of me... Maybe ;) In fact, I now see that it's probably not true. The Ripuarian Muul ("slipper") may indeed be borrowed via Dutch from French mule, but for the Luxembourgish word the much more likely source is French moufle (“mitten”). At most, the two could have been merged to some degree. Kolmiel (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. Why the change of heart? What new evidence did you find? BigDom 09:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@BigDom: Well, I found that word, moufle, which already means "mitten" and already has a back vowel. Our word is also present in the "Wörterbuch der deutsch-lothringischen Mundarten" (online, sometimes worth checking!) as mól, moul, and they refer to both French words (moufle and mule). As I said, a development from "slipper" to "mitten" is not problematic. But the descendants of Fr. mule mean exclusively "slipper" in Dutch and Ripuarian, while the word existing along the French border always means "mitten". That would be a strange coincidence if it had nothing to do with "moufle".

I still think that my above etymology is correct for Ripuarian. And I also think that both forms may have been merged in Luxembourgish. So not a total change of heart ;) Kolmiel (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your self-description as a Rhenish man intrigues me. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, well. I seem to enjoy making these lengthy, unnecessary self-descriptions, particularly of my idiolect. You shouldn't really read it, though. Kolmiel (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I enjoyed reading the description of your idiolect. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

By the way, do you happen to know any Bönnsch, by any chance, alongside An Halloween kommt der Grinch? (Specifically, "Trau dich", the dialogue before the Grinch chuckles once during the hallucination, and the lyrics of each song.) Also, I added a few High Franconian words. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo: Bönnsch, yes. That would even be pretty close to what I write my example sentences in. I don't think we need a tag "Bönnsch" or so. Bönnsch is rather a random dialect of central Ripuarian, of course one spoken in a city and therefore more likely to be used in a song or book. But it's not like Kölsch, which has a few individual features not shared by any other dialect and which, equally importantly, has had a huge influence on the rest of Ripuarian (and even beyond).

The cartoon, no. I wasn't a timid child, but I was very easily and deeply scared by stories and films. So that wouldn't have been something I'd have enjoyed :) But I watched a bit of it and it seems nice. Is there anything about it in particular?

High Franconian. What's the language code for that? I see that "High" is also what it's called on wikipedia. This is very incovenient, in my opinion. The German word is Oberfränkisch ("Upper Franconian") because it's that part of Franconian which is Oberdeutsch ("Upper German"). "High Franconian" should refer to all of Franconian that is not "Low Franconian", i.e. Central, Rhine and "Upper" Franconian. Using "High Franconian" instead of "Upper Franconian" makes it very confusing. Of course, we can't just make up terms that aren't in common use. Hmm... Kolmiel (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The code for "High Franconian" is "gmw-hfr". If the official in-house language name were changed to "Upper Franconian", the code may be changed to "gmw-ufr". (Also, I have read the entry on Bönnsch and the rudimentary differences between that and Kölsch.)

Have you ever gotten to the part where the bespectacled boy is confronted with the creatures of the Paraphernalia Wagon? That's what the "Spoiler Opening" is depicting, to use a term from TV Tropes & Idioms. Have you ever considered transcribing the dialogue unto a personal userpage and playing with it? Is there really such a thing as anapestic tetrameter in that dialogue? (Gosh, I wish we could meet each other in person via any event, Wiktionary-related or otherwise.) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you want, I could change the canon name from "High Franconian" to "Upper Franconian" and the code from "gmw-hfr" to "gmw-ufr". --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo: Thanks for the offer. We'd have to see whether "Upper Franconian" is used that way in English. A quick google research implies yes, but this should be double-checked. We should also inform "sche" and maybe some other users. Kolmiel (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've got a bunch of terms I've had trouble with supplying etymological information for, which presumably come from Arabic or Persian. I appreciate any help you can give in dealing with them! Here's a list of the ones that currently need work: baki, barabara, barua, bora, frasila, ghasia, ghuba, gurudumu, haba, habusu, heshima, hodari, ikisiri, kuhani (via Arabic?), imara, isimu, karani, koroboi, majira, mandhari, mtaalam, mtalii (root talii?), nahodha, orodha, ramani, samahani, shenzi, shida, sitawi, soda, sumaku, taasisi, tabia, tele, tofauti, zawadi. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I've done the ones I was able to do right away. They were a couple, but many are still left. They are barua, bora, frasila, ghasia, ghuba, gurudumu, haba, heshima, hodari, ikisiri, (kuhani), imara, isimu, koroboi, majira, mtalii, ramani, shenzi, soda, sumaku, tele, zawadi. I'll get back to them when I've time to kill. For karani I suspect a relation with Persian کار. We should ask @ZxxZxxZ if they have an idea. Kolmiel (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Reminding you of this, and adding sufuria to the list. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I've done the new one. With the others I'd have to do some searching, so I don't know when I'll get to it or feel like it. But I haven't forgotten! Kolmiel (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

And labda... should be easy, I just can't find the right spelling. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to find this useful, like Wyang does with Chinese lemmata. (I ask, because I made an example sentence for vorgeben.) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've translated it. Kolmiel (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Kolmiel, in -s#German you wrote this German Usage note:

"The plural ending -s is most typical of loanwords, but it is also used in a considerable number of native words. Moreover, it is the most productive plural marker in contemporary German."

Could you give a couple of examples each of , , and ? Otherwise, it is not at all clear for those of us who are not native German speakers. —Stephen ^(Talk) 22:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Stephen G. Brown I've added some examples. Hope it's clearer now. Kolmiel (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Besten Dank! —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kolmiel, hope you're well. I was just reading this and came across this word I don't know the meaning of. I can't find it in any of the online dictionaries (LOD.lu, Luxemburger Wörterbuch, Luxdico) so thought I would ask you. Cheers, BigDom 14:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@BigDom: It should probably be spelt "an Uecht" (German "in Acht"). "An Uecht huelen" means "to take care of, to consider, to appreciate". Kolmiel (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah OK, thanks for your help. BigDom 17:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'd appreciate your thoughts on two topics:

1. mondvoorraad is usually considered a calque of Mundvorrat, but I've come across a seventeenth-century use of the Dutch while I can't find the German word before the eighteenth century. Do you think there could reasonable be older uses in German out there or should the order of 'borrowing' be reversed?
2. Himmelstürmer seems to have more or less the same meanings as hemelbestormer, but the figurative meaning may be slightly different. How would you describe it?

Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The DWB calls Mundvorrat a "seit dem späten 18. jahrh. erscheinende übersetzung des fremden proviant". This sounds relatively precise, but I think it possible that individual older attestations could exist. (Did your search include the spelling Mundvorrath?) -- The 18th century would be the shy beginnings of linguistic purism. So it could be a Dutch word that someone came across, liked, and loantranslated. Mundvorrat is now archaic in German; apparently it was a military word at first. Dutch voorraad itself is said to be a German borrowing, but late 16th cenutry, so early enough. That's about all I can say.

Himmelsstürmer is translated by DWDS as "jmd., der Unmögliches erreichen will, großer Idealist". I think that catches it quite well. It would imply a lack of realism, probably also a certain nonconformism; but iconoclasm and breaking of taboos is not part of it in my understanding. Kolmiel (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't looked for Mundvorrath yet and that suggestion turned out to be very helpful, so thanks. It is about three years older than the oldest known use in Dutch so it's not very certain, but at least there are no grounds for changing the direction anymore. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: PS: When read as a sum of parts Himmelsstürmer ("someone who storms heaven") does sound like iconoclasm, of course. So one would have to look at older attestations in German. Maybe this notion did exist and was only preserved in Dutch (possibly due to your more extensive history of iconoclasm ;)) Kolmiel (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kolmiel. I just created the entry for schliisslech and gave an alternative form as schléisslech. Both versions are given in LW, and the former is the only spelling given in LOD and Luxdico. A Google search seemed to also back up that schliisslech is the more common form.

For the etymology I put "From schléissen (“to conclude”) +‎ -lech (“-like”). The shift from /ɜɪ̯/ to /iː/ is presumably influenced by German schließlich." This approach might suggest that the entry should be at schléisslech, with an alternative form at schliisslech. However, I also thought of another possibility: schliisslech (with long /iː/) was borrowed directly from schließlich, and then schléisslech was a later formation based on the model of the German word.

Which etymology do you think is correct? Cheers, BigDom 08:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@BigDom: Your phonetic interpretation is correct. The word is borrowed from written German in both cases, however. It's only attested from the 16th century onward and the Rheinisches Wörterbuch explicitly says aus dem Nhd. ("from Modern Standard German"). The form schléisslech has been phonetically adapted to schléissen = German schließen. The German term for this kind of adaptation is Einlautung (literally “in-sounding”). I think I've just said "phonetic adaptation" around here. Don't know you if have a better term. It happens a lot in dialects and dialect-based languages. Kolmiel (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation, I'll have a go at updating the etymology. I don't know what the English translation of Einlautung would be, "phonetic adaptation" sounds good to me. Cheers, BigDom 20:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Kolmiel,

I'm very interested in your entry of 'Uustere'. Where did you find it?

Thanks, Kevin Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! In the article https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/-isch, you wrote The pronunciation /is/ is due to an earlier pronunciation standard, by which all German vowels were to be tense. I am very interested in historical German pronunciation and would like to know if you have a source that goes deeper into that. Thank you! MaxenceLE (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply