User talk:Der Zeitmeister

label
nds-de isn't a valid label. Please see T:label/documentation. -- 14:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The lect name is Schleswig-Holsteinisch. "in Schleswig-Holstein" is an incorrect usage. -- 14:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also, I guess more commonly,  and .  is a region where both dialects are spoken. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously, but a) prepositions and articles don't belong in labels, and b) the Low German labels are of the lect family groups. -- 14:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Alternate spelling of Low German
Many Low German authors have different spelling conventions, but that doesn't make them different forms. -- 14:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC) And and  are Dutch. That's why I added the Low Geman article (dat), and excluded Dutch and German  from the search. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It does, just like / or / 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)
 * You're confusing commonly used spellings with the transcription system of a single author. Also,  =  = /bʁoːt/. -- 15:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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, <å> is super outdated from Nerger in 1869. -- 15:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, again - and it's very easy to proof you wrong, which I now did in . --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. -- 16:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 [Hinterpommersch or using Reuter's Mecklenburgisch?]. Spelling it doesn't mean it has a short vowel - it can be long as in . 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)
 * 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 is the German form, not to mention that  is an alternative archaic spelling of the German as well. --  17:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Westphalian isn't the most commonly used German Low German form (or proof?).
 * 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 , you can bring it up on WT:ANDS. I'm not totally opposed. --  17:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strike that, I've reversed them for now and I'll bring it up. -- 18:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 (,  and more), Dortmunder Wörterbuch . --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, 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. --  18:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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, which represents and is today commonly transcribed , and therefore belongs at. -- 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You also don't seem to understand what a main entry is and an alternative form entry is. is currently the main entry, and 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. -- 23:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No.
 * Also:
 * See the version history of for a source: It contains usages from 2018.
 * --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 . -- 00:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)