User talk:-sche/Archive/Low German

nds-de

This discussion was archived from User talk:-sche in this edit.

I think that before we bring this code into (widespread) use, we should first discuss and have consensus on which one should be kept, {{nds}} or {{nds-de}}. I know that we both agreed, but the two of us is hardly consensus... Maybe if we nominated them for deletion, and asked people to vote for one or the other? —CodeCat 01:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree there should be more discussion. (So far, I haven't used {{nds-de}}, though I've distinguished WT:ANDS-DE from broader WT:ANDS, as may be useful even if {{nds}} is kept. I merged {{wep}} into {{nds}}, not {{nds-de}}.)

Might a request for a merger/move be better than a request for deletion?

I hit upon the idea recently of using "Low German/Saxon" as the name for the trans-table grouping of (German) Low German and Dutch Low Saxon; obviously, that can be altered or removed, but it raises the possibility of renaming and keeping {{nds}} as e.g. "Low German/Saxon", separate from {{nds-de}} "Low German" (or even "German Low German"). Of course, we only kept one of {{cmn}} and {{zh}}, and should probably keep only one of {{nds}} and {{nds-de}} for the same reason.

Bring it up in whichever forum you think best. - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not terribly happy about the name "Low German/Saxon" myself. The language group as a whole is really just called Low German, we're only choosing to restrict it to Germany. And it makes WT:ANDS look like it's a subpage, too. I don't really have any better ideas though. —CodeCat 02:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that, but you're right, it does make it look like a subpage. :/ Well, we don't really need WT:About Low German/Saxon: I thought it would be preferable to duplicating the common info (about language name, orthography...some of the pronunciation info can be moved, too) on both WT:ANDS-DE and WT:ANDS-NL, and having to keep it synced, but there are other ways of handling that, such as accepting that the common info be stored on WT:ANDS-DE and that WT:ANDS-NL should advise users to look there, or vice versa. If you think that's preferable, I'll re-integrate the content I split out into WT:About Low German/Saxon.

Do you also dislike "Low German/Saxon" as a name for the trans-table grouping of the lects? If so, I'm open to other ideas, I just couldn't think of any... having

* Low German:
*: Low German: {{t|nds-de|Water}}
*: Dutch Low Saxon: {{t|nds-nl|wotter}}

seemed too confusing. (Maybe {{nds-de}} really should be renamed "German Low German", even though that seems unschön?) Having

* Low German: {{t|nds-de|Water}}
*: Dutch Low Saxon: {{t|nds-nl|wotter}}

would seem POV. - -sche (discuss) 02:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I know, that's why I don't have better ideas. Considering the names of the pages, you could put the general page at WT:About Low German and each individual page at WT:About Low German/Germany and WT:About Low German/Netherlands. But some of our templates, like {{langcatboiler}}, will assume that the about page for the language called "Low German" is called "About Low German" even when it should be "About Low German/Germany". So I don't know what is better. Maybe this should also be discussed. —CodeCat 03:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, for langcatboiler's sake and for other reasons, I'd sooner put the common info on WT:About Low German and link to it from WT:About Dutch Low Saxon than have WT:About Low German/Germany+WT:About Low German/Netherlands. (IMO, it's hard to justify not having the nds-nl info at WT:About Dutch Low Saxon when "Dutch Low Saxon" is what we call the lect.) - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

We could decide to call them "Low German (Germany)" and "Low German (Netherlands)", which is more practical but kind of boring and ugly. —CodeCat 03:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Parentheses are mostly for unrelated languages that just happen to be called by the same string of letters, so I think "German Low German" + "Dutch Low German" would be clearer, were we to choose to use "Low German" as the base name for both of them. It would match how we name Campidanese Sardinian + Gallurese Sardinian, Baltic Romani + Carpathian Romani, etc. Given that the common German name for the language is Plattdeutsch/Niederdeutsch and the common Dutch name is Nedersaksisch, there's a certain poetry to calling them Low German + Low Saxon or German Low German + Dutch Low Saxon, but you're right that using "Low German" as the base name for both would be more practical and clearer. So what do you think of that idea of "German Low German" + "Dutch Low German"? - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that would be the best option, although it might offend some of the speakers on the Dutch side because we call their language "German". Then again, Dutch speakers called their language Low German up to a few hundred years ago, too! —CodeCat 04:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I only suggested "Dutch Low German" because you suggested "Low German (Netherlands)". I like "Dutch Low German" and "Dutch Low Saxon" equally well, so I'll support whichever of the two you think is better. Besides, they can't be any more offended than the Bosnians. ;) - -sche (discuss) 04:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Shall I open an RFM now (to rename Dutch Low Saxon and merge {{nds}} and {{nds-de}}), or did you want to be the one to do that / know of other things that should be addressed first? - -sche (discuss) 23:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's ok go ahead. —CodeCat 03:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Index:All languages#Low German

Not really sure what to do here, so some help would be great. Thanks —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the amount of work that went into building the index, but it'd be harder to manually split it than to just delete it and let bots create separate nds-de and nds-nl indices. The category shouldn't be listed, because it is being phased out as its entries are moved into the DLS and GLG cats. That whole row in the table should just point to separate DLS and GLG rows, I suppose. - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Bots? What bots? I wish there were, but there are really no regular indexing bots. I think you should do whatever you think best on the meta-index page, and leave the LG index alone until somebody volunteers a bot. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

German Low German

That sounds idiotic. Who came up with this name? It isn't called Low German for no reason. -- Liliana • 17:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy, here we go. Liliana, I thought you were in on all this... there was a whole lot of hocus-pocus and somehow the nds-de/nds-nl solution was born. On a semi-related topic, does anyone want to try cleaning up 'n Appel und 'n Ei? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The decision to deprecate nds and ==Low German== and introduce nds-de and ==German Low German== was made after ~8 months of discussion (culminating in posts in the BP, my talk page and RFM) and the realisation that as long as there existed a code and header with a name that by all indications applied to both GLG and DLS at once, and a separate header for DLS only, people were going to "misuse" nds and ==Low German== to apply to DLS, rather than to GLG only — if such intuitively and "nominally" (to use that word literally) correct use could even be called "misuse" of the code and header by the newcomers and average users who would perpetrate it, as opposed to quixotism by those who would have knowingly retained the ambiguous "Low German". - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Low German and User:Joachim Mos

This user has been adding Low German words and translations. Since you've been working on it as well, I thought you might be able to help them out. I've tried to explain the difference between nds-de and nds-nl but I'm not sure if I'm getting the point across. —CodeCat 17:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll talk to them when I get a chance.

I have (like you, I think) been going through all the transclusions of {{nds}} and replacing them with {{nds-de}} and/or {{nds-nl}} (and/or even sometimes {{pdt}}!), whichever turn(s) out to be applicable... creation of new {{nds}} transclusions is very unhelpful.

I have been tempted to bot-move all transclusions of {{nds}} to e.g. {{nds-xx}} or such just so {{nds}} can be deleted sooner (immediately, with nds-xx left to keep words that haven't specified a dialect yet working until we can review and update them) rather than later (after we finish the long process of reviewing and updating each entry by hand).

Once {{nds}} is unavailable to newcomers, I expect it will be easier to maintain the GLG / DLS distinction. That expectation, the separate existences of nds.WP and nds-nl.WP, and my conviction that it is linguistically better for Wiktionary to distinguish the lects than to conflate them, keep me from being discouraged by the amount of work that has to be done.

I know Wiktionary struggles to keep en and sco separate, and en and enm, but in those cases, the code people want to use to stand for both lects (en) still exists.

I know those who are used to nds.Wiktionary, which prominently merges GLG and DLS, may be unwilling to split them here... but Wikipedia's split of the two proves it is tenable, while nds.Wiktionary's policy of rolling even Plautdietsch into nds is simply untenable. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

nds.wiktionary

Ich weiß nicht, was ihr hier treibt, aber inzwischen wird das hochgestellt (nds) nicht mehr angezeigt, so dass Nutzer keinen Link zum nds.witionary haben. Vielleicht sorgst du einmal dafür, dass die Links wieder funktionieren bei deinem absolut unnötigen Umbau. Im übrigen darf ich dich darauf hinweisen, das nds die Sprache ist und nds-nl einer der Dialekte im Plattdeutschen und keine eigenständige Sprache. Im Plattdüütsch gibt es nämlich auch jede Menge Dialekte und so etwas ähnliches wie eine Hochsprache, zwar keine echte, aber eine, die zumindest in großen Teilen des plattdeutschen Sprachraums gesprochen wird. Und davon weichen einige kleinere Beriche ab. Wenn schon, dann muss du nicht nds-de kreiieren, sondern nds-sleswig, nds-meklenborg, nds-oostfreesland etc. Bei manchen Leuten kann ich nur den Kopf schütteln. Sorg also dringend dafür, dass die Links wieder funktionieren oder ich werde einmal den englischen Admins ein paar nette Zeilen schreiben. --Joachim Mos (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)--Joachim Mos (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Moin Joachim! Öck frei mi, een Mönsch der ok platt snackst to drepen.

Mir ist klar, dass die plattdeutsche Sprache (wie die hochdeutsche) nur als eine Vereinigung von Dialekten greifbar ist. Mir ist doch auch klar dass es zwei ‚Hochsprachen‘ gibt: die in Deutschland auf dem Hochdeutschen basierte nds-de und die in den Niederlanden auf dem Niederländischen basierte nds-nl.

ISO 639 enthält Codes für die meisten niederländische Varietäten (sdz, twd, usw.), und für 1–2 deutsche Varietäten (wep und vll. frs).

Es gab und gibt auch ein Code for die in den Niederlanden gesprochene und geschriebene Hochsprache, nds-nl... und dazu auch die mehrdeutige Code nds. (Das ist alles ganz abgesehen davon, dass es auch pdt gibt.)

Das englische Wiktionary traf die Entscheidung, sdz, twd usw. zu löschen, die niederländische Varietäten mit nds-nl zu kennzeichnen (nicht duplierend mit sdz usw. und nds-nl), und — um Verwirrung zu vermeiden — die deutsche Varietäten mit nds-de zu kennzeichnen. nds ist verwirrend, mehrdeutig: das nds.WP steht als ‚deutsch‘-plattdeutsches WP im Gegensatz zum nds-nl.WP; nds.Wiktionary bündelt hingegen nicht nur die ‚deutsche‘ und ‚niederändische‘ sondern auch die plautdietsche Varietäten zusammen.

If you think the various Low German varieties should be handled another way, you are free to contact my fellow administrators or to start another discussion in the Beer Parlour (we've only had four already).

I will advise you that nds.Wikt's way of doing things — conflating even pdt into nds-de and nds-nl — is unlikely to get any traction here.

As for the links: if {{t|nds-de|foo}} and {{t|nds-nl|foo}} have stopped linking to nds.Wiktionary, that is a bug, and will be fixed.

- -sche (discuss) 18:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

on (nds-nl)

Hi -sche, I have started working a bit on the nds wiktionary, and while browsing on this en wikt I encountered this: on#Dutch_Low_Saxon. I am a (near) native speaker of nds-nl (esp. Achterhooks), but I have never heard this word being used in the sense of and. Could it be it is assigned incorrectly to nds-nl after splitup of nds, or is it really a known word in nds-nl? Droadnaegel (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's one of a large number of variants I've seen, though its shortness makes it hard for me to find using Google Books Search. If you'd like to make another spelling the lemma, and make on soft-redirect to it the way un currently soft-redirects to on, be my guest. :) - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is a matter of spelling. I have my doubts that on exists as and at all in the Dutch variants of Low German. It may be present in the German variants. So I would prefer deletion of the entry instead of a redirect. I did some research and have not found it in the databases I know of. I also have a list of all words on the nds-nl wikipedia (generated by myself), and for act (Achterhooks) and twe (Twaents) there are 6000-7000 occurrences of en, and none for on. I think it better to have less info than incorrect info, so unless the word can be attested, it may be better to have it deleted (for Dutch Low German). On- as a prefix (meaning not) definately does exist though, like in onnatuurlik, comparable to un- in unnatural. Droadnaegel (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've submitted the term to WT:RFV. If no-one bothers to find evidence of its existence, it'll be deleted. Cheers! - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User Draodnaegel has asked me to pitch in. I'm a moderator of the Dutch Low Saxon wikipedia, and I have to agree with user Draodnaegel here. I have never encountered any ocurrence of "on" for "and" in Dutch Low Saxon texts whatsoever. In German Low Saxon texts, however, they write "un" for "and", which, when written phonetically, sounds like "oon", which in turn in Dutch spelling might be written as "on". This is however pretty far-fetched and very unlikely. As far as I know, "and" is "en" in all Dutch Low Saxon varieties, with a very clear -e- sound. --Woolters, 195.64.76.186 10:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About German Low German

A while back, you moved Wiktionary:About Low German to Wiktionary:About German Low German and changed a bunch of entries' headers accordingly; but Wiktionary:About German Low German still says to use ==Low German==, and in general it uses "Low German" in various places where it should use "German Low German". Could you update it? (I started to do it, but then discovered that for many cases I wasn't sure whether they were supposed to be updated. For example, in the section on subdialectal differences, I wasn't sure if "the dialect continuum which is Low German" was supposed to include Dutch Low Saxon or not.) —Ruakh_TALK 06:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done, I think. Thanks for pointing that out. - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 07:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Low German

There's no wikipedia article called "German Low German", the term is never used, it is thus no official term and this makes 'nds-de' unvalid. And, let's be honest, 'German Low German' is also ridicule... Why not 'German-Low-German-from-Germany-and-not-the-Netherlands' just to be focus a little more on Germany??! The fact that French is spoken in Belgium gives no reason to call the French language "French French" as opposed to "Belgian French" or "Canadian French". I'm sorry for Dutch Low Saxon speakers, but they are a minority, and their existence do not give any reason to call Low German anything else than what it is, that is to say simply "Low German". Check on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German a page for Low German exists, but none under the name "German Low German" because it simply doesn't exist, none says it as well. If no Wikipedia article exists to help anyone willing to know what YOU persist to call "German Low German" is, then it means that this name is unvalid and has no right to be on Wiktionary. Don't you know Wiktionary and Wikipedia are part of the same? If you do, be logic and call the same things the same names. Such persistence/stubbornness is an obstacle for Low German (and not German Low German...), it can only create misunderstandings and laughters to see such a ridicule term, it is an hindrance for Low German to be once considered a bit on here. Thank you for your understanding. --Stardsen (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)