Talk:Germanic languages

The article contains:

”with a umlaut”

Am I right in thinking that the correct spelling is:

”with an umlaut”?Redav (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct. It's pronounced closer to oomlout then yoomlout. 178.115.54.165 (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The history section could use more sources. For instance, there is no reference for the map of the Germanic languages in the 10th century. (As an aside: the east party of the map is hard to understand. The fact that the Volga-Baltic waterway is drawn, but most of the Volga is missing confused me greatly.) 178.115.54.165 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, it's undersourced. Page-watchers (including me and, yes, you, and also you!😁) should add it to their to-do list. The map also some other inaccuracies like the extent of continental Wgmc. in Holstein which would have at least reached up to the Limes Saxoniae. –Austronesier (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The entry "go" in the Vocabulary Comparison mixed two different Proto-Germanic verbs - in fact for a reason, because they are mixed in the paradigms in many of the languages. The two, originally separate verbs read *gæn and *gangan; in the notation of the section, this amounts to *ȝēn and *ȝanȝanan. Source for the split: E.g. Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Berlin 2002.

In general, the examples illustrate very well the close connection between the languages, but they sometimes make the Proto-Germanic reconstruction seem spurious. For instance, to an unprepared reader, it must be completely obscure why the final vowel in *eka or the middle syllable in *liƀēnan should be reconstructed. (This is an issue present in many pages on language families.) At least in this case, understandibility could be improved by adding more older languages (Old English, Old High German, Runic ...). However, it is a question whether that is desired here. GloriaWikitoria (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The point of the vocabulary comparison is to compare the vocabulary of present languages (+Gothic) - the Proto-Germanic form is only provided for comparison. The fact that non-specialists will not understand why a reconstruction looks a certain way is not really our issue - we just follow how reliable sources present the reconstruction.

I don't think it is helpful to split the word "go" into two separate etymons like that - the point is that they are mixed in the modern languages (+Gothic). If it's really a major issue to you, then suggest another word that would illustrate roughly the same correspondences.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The article refers to the daughter families East, North, and West Germanic. However, it does not even mention that many linguists assume a binary split East vs. Northwest Germanic first - that should be amended in some way.

Evidence for linguistic support of this theory: SCHUHMANN, Roland (2004). “Zur Problematik der germanischen Dialektgliederung.”. In: Kozianka, Maria et al. (ed.): Indogermanistik, Germanistik, Linguistik. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Jena 18.-20.09.2002. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač, S. 531-550

MAROLD, Edith and Christiane ZIMMERMANN (1995). Nordwestgermanisch. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. GloriaWikitoria (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The map "European Germanic Languages" is wrong, because the Dutch language area is not labeled as such. 87.122.25.134 (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is? What do you mean?—-Ermenrich (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

We should replace it, with a better one. 2001:9E8:D5B5:F200:3DEB:1722:2779:EC63 (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)