User talk:Victar/Wiktionary:About Low German

, I've gathered dialect names from various sources and loosely put them to a tree. Perhaps if you have time, you can help me cleanup and refine it. --Victar (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First round: Typos and the like. FTR: I'm out of depth with those dialects in Holland.


 * Dithmarschischh[2]: [Term?] - Typo (Double H)
 * Heidjisch: [Term?] - Typo (J doesn't belong)
 * North Hanoveranianh[2]: [Term?] - Typo (H), standard German would be "Nordhannoversch"
 * Oldenburgischh[2] (Oldenburger Platt): [Term?] - Typo (H)
 * You have Calenbergisch twice, Westerwold- too
 * Münnisch - High German would be "Mindisch"
 * Suerländer-Märkisch: - High German name is "Sauerland"
 * Übergangsmundart zum Ostpommerschen: [Term?] - This means "transitional dialect towards East Pomeranion", I don't think it'll be ever apt to use this. Same is true for all the names like 'dialect of the eastern area' which are probably more aptly subsumed under something else
 * Westsamländische: [Term?] / Ostsamländische: [Term?] - These shouldn't be inflected, they should just end in -isch
 * Didn't want to edit one of your user pages directly. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Round two: Naming and terms
 * Why is Hamburgisch 'Natt'? /xC/ > /CC/ is not a Low German phaenomenon. Hamburg has Nach(t). "Neit" for the Sauerland also seems very wrong and I can't confirm it, that's a Limburgish form, not a Low German form.
 * "Unser-Grafschaftisch" means "our county dialect". I'd use "Grafschaftisch" or preferably "Bentheimisch". (It's the dialect of the County of Bentheim, usually called Grafschafter Platt (Platt of the County) if this is not some unknown to me other thing.)
 * "Märker-Brandenburgisch" is redundant, Brandenburg is a Mark (a political entity) and hence its dialect is known as Märkisch oder Brandenburgisch. As there is a "Märkisch" in Westfalia, I recommend Brandenburgisch or if you want Mark-Brandenburgisch is also often used.
 * Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits. You're free to edit the page as well. I can always revert what I disagree with. =)
 * I don't have a very good Hamburgisch source, only this: http://www.plattmaster.de/plattoew.htm.
 * was taken from Woeste (1882). Dated, perhaps, but all I have. --Victar (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, if you have a suggestion for a better word or set of words to use as basic Swadesh list here. --Victar (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll name some things a Swadesh list could cover later, for now I just say that I'm absolutely certain that Natt is a typo or similar error. If you look at Woeste, he's giving the regular form "nacht" for night while giving a Bergish (which is Limburgish) context at the entry for 'néit' (...ist im berg. schon alt...). Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed that. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe it could make sense to differ between the following:
 * Westfälisch-Märkisch and (Hoch-)sauerländisch
 * Ravensbergisch and Lippisch (merged together Ravensbergisch-Lippisch)
 * Osnabrückisch and Tecklenburgisch (merged together Osnabrückisch-Tecklenburgisch e.g. at www.plattdeutsch-niederdeutsch.net)
 * Maybe it could make sense to add something like the following as it doesn't seem to be included in other Westphalian subdialects like Münderländisch, Paderbornisch:
 * 'Soestisch' (Soest)
 * 'Güterslohisch' (Gütersloh) - and near to it: Wiedenbrück (could be included in Gütersloh, depening on what's meant with it), Bielefeld. Should be Eastphalian but at least by name not being part of e.g. Lippisch or Paderbornisch.
 * 'Dortmundisch' (Dortmund) - and near to it: other parts of the Ruhrgebiet. Together with Westfälisch-Märkisch and (Hoch-)sauerländisch it could be Southwestphalian (Südwestfälisch).
 * Translations of night in some other dialects:
 * Paderbornisch (e.g. ein Sohn der rothen Erde), Sauerländisch (e.g. F. W. Grimme - which is a usage and thus a better source than Woeste), Münsterländisch (e.g. Augustin Wibbelt), Altmärkisch (e.g. Fritz Schwerin), Bremisch (e.g. Marie Mindermann), Hamburgisch (e.g. Jürgen Niklaas Bärmann), in Angeln (e.g. N. M. Petersen), in Dit[h]marschen (e.g. Klaus Groth and Johann Meyer, with Meyer also having the alternative form ), Ostfälisch (e.g. Ludwig Schulmann), Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch (e.g. Fritz Reuter) have too. Of course, Schulmann probably wrote in one of several Ostfälisch dialects and hence he can only represent one and not all Ostfälisch dialects. Similar with Reuter. Johann Heinrich Voß has  though his texts maybe don't reveal the gender, so one can only assume it's feminine.
 * -80.133.107.254 09:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Swadesh
So some thoughts on a Swadesh list: Low German dialects don't differ that much in their phonemic superstructure since they're all straight simplifications from the same monolithic medieval phonemic system. (Not saying there mightn't be some small fringe exceptions I'm forgetting.) So the most simple thing to compare is the representation of these phonemes. If you look at About_Middle_Low_German, you'll have them all listed in the table. (Stem vowel is a German calque, I don't know how English literature calls them.) Be careful with words like del (part), which for several reasons might have a acquired different vowel than they had originally. It's also worth looking at how these vowels behave before /-r, -rn, -rd, -rl/ as these have different effects in different dialects. Medial /-d-/ [ð] may undergo one of the following changes in modern Low German dialects: Rhotacism, lambdacism, palatalisation (or even iotacism), stopping, elision. Since Low German authors spell both [ð] and [d] with d, since these never contrast, that's something you won't find reflected, of course. They also often use d for [ɾ], even if that does contrast with [d]. Apocope of /t/ after fricatives you already have covered with "Nacht". Last thing I can think of us the varying behaviour of /uwə/ and /ijə/, e.g. buwen/bugen/buwwen/buggen/bauen and snien/snigen/sniggen/sneien. In grammar, things are a lot less neat. The present plural ending is either -en or -et (or, in a tiny speck in the Sauerland, -ent), so that's a quick thing to compare. Other than that, the situation for dative and accusative is something one might compare, as some dialects merge the dative into the accusative. Don't mistake the dative pronouns like mi and the dative articles like den for their homophonous accusative counterparts like mi and den. Sadly, the dative accusative distinction of nouns is quite often not rendered in writing of the northern dialects, even though it is persistent to the current day in native speakers. An example would be dative [dɛːiv~dɛːif] vs. accusative [dɛif], which might both be spelled deiv, deiw or deif. You can tell dative and accusative apart if one ends in an apostrophe or voiced consonant and the other doesn't. (So deiv vs. deif or deiv' vs. deiv) Preterite indicative tenses also took different developments, borrowing variously from the optative and then leveling to one form or another. Though I wouldn't be surprised if these vary within very small areas, but I don't think there's much data collected on this topic. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)