Talk:Old High German

Untitled
I wonder whether it would be worth separating this into OHG language and OHG literature. Pfold 11:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankish
In this article I get the feeling that Old Frankish is classified as being a High German dialect ... As Old Frankish became Old Low Frankish/Old Dutch that sounds weird. I mean languages that have experienced the High German consonant shift don't shift back, apart from that, the Old Frankish langauge was never attested.Also Old Frankish was extinct before Charlemagne was born ...

Would someone explain what exactly is meant by Frankish here? Rex 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankish dialects all belong to the Rhein-Weser Germanic group, and those east of the Maas, the ones that were shifted, became the core of Central German (as in the tree on this page). The unshifted became Low Franconian. I'm not sure the term Old Frankish is widely used (I can't find it 4 of the standrad works on the subject in English), and Frankish dialects certainly didn't die out before Charlemagne. Fränkische Sprachen explains it more fully.


 * Of course, it's true we don't know anything much about the language of the Carolingian court or whether the dialects of the Franks in Gaul were shifted before they became romanised. --Pfold 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well this is strange, because "the unshifted" kind of implies that it's the same, only further on in time. According to the Old Frankish language article, it "evolved" into Old Low Frankish in the Netherlands and Flanders and died before Charlemagne was born out everywhere else, so how can it be the ancestor of Middle German dialects. Or more importantly... how can it be High German? Rex 19:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say the Old Frankish article is fundamentally flawed. It completely fails to mention the Frankish dialects east of the Rhine! Any book on the history of German will confirm what I've said. --Pfold 19:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The history of German? This goes beyond that. But could you answer my question it could not have been high right? Rex 20:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Histories of German are sound sources of information on the West Germanic dialects (and much sounder than WP!). As I said above:
 * Of course, it's true we don't know anything much about the language of the Carolingian court or whether the dialects of the Franks in Gaul were shifted before they became romanised.
 * What's your source for saying it couldn't be shifted? In any case, if you look at the Frankish language page you'll see that your view that Frankish = Old Low Franconian is only one possible use of the word. --Pfold 21:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the history of German, does not encompass the entire West Germanic branch, eventhough German books on German are generally good, but apart from that.
 * German is germanic, but germanic is not german. West germanic is about as varied as the romance languages and taking a purely german viewpoint on west germanic is as preposterous as taking a purely french viewpoint on romance languages, because german is not a more prototypical member of the group!--AkselGerner (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear AkselGerner, you are 100% right. --El bes (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is about Old High German, yet it lists (Old) Frankish as being "High", I don't think this can be accurate. If Old Low Franconian is the decendant of Old Frankish, it cannot have been "High" before that.

So I seriously wonder what is meant by Frankish in this article ... Rex 21:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It means the language of people who were Franks. I just don't see the problem.
 * Books on the history of German certainly talk about all forms of Frankish.
 * Old Low Franconian is not the descendant of Frankish. If that's the basis of your objection, you have no case. There are lots of Frankish dialects, many of which are shifted. --Pfold 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My objection is that if the language in question here is Old Frankish (pre 6th century) it cannot be listed as Old High German. And if what is meant here are the dialects of Old High German influenced by Frankish, there is stil a problem with the image they create. Rex 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're the one who introduced the term Old Frankish - my text simply said "Frankish speakers". And if you don't know or can't accept that some Frankish dialects are part OHG... well, what can I say?
 * In any case, it's not listed as OHG - it's part of a description of how the French-German linguistic boundary arose. --Pfold 22:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop the press! I never said I cannot accept that some Old High German dialects were influcenced by Frankish or the other way around. But this article makes it seem as all of thewm were.


 * It's not about influnence - there were both shifted and unshifted Frankish dialects, and all the (shifted) West Central German dialects were Frankish. Also of course, the boundary between unshifted and shifted would have changed during the earlier part of the OHG period.

As for the German - French linguistic boundary ... it talks about conquering what is now France as far as the Loire river (eventhough the Franks conquered all of modern France) Northern France ... and then talks about establishing a "linguistic border above the Maas" I don't think German was spoken there.

Also this part sounds really weird: ''With Charlemagne's defeat of the Lombards in 776, all High German speaking peoples had been incorporated into the Frankish Empire. The Saxons and the Frisians were also conquered by Charlemagne, bringing all continental West Germanic speakers under Frankish rule. ''

What I read here are that the Franks all spoke High German, infact it sort of says that the only continental west germanic languages other than High German were Saxon and Frisian... a bit weird. Rex 23:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pfold? Rex 11:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's correct as it stands, but I can see it is open to misinterpretation and could be rephrased. Obviously the *Franks* were part of the Frankish Empire by definition (wther they spoke shifted or unshifted dialects); they incorporated all the non-Frankish German speakers by conquest. --19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

But like you said it is easy to misinterpret these parts. I will try to rephrase them and you tell me what you think,  Rex  19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Alphabet
I miss a listing of the Alphabet used in Old High German. According to my sources Old High German had its own alphabet including the th sound (Theta) as we have in English. This sound vanished in the course of consonant shifts during the time of Old High German. Can anyone confirm or deny this statement?

Cakeandicecream 20:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OHG used the Latin alphabet. The spellings associated with the individual phonemes are given in the phonology section (though I see I forgot to include, which I've now added. Th changed to d in the 9th century, well after the second sound shift. --Pfold 14:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Pater noster samples
Looking at recent edits of the Pater noster examples, I was wondering if anyone would disagree if I replaced the texts in the article (which are from the 15th edition of the Althochdeutsche Lesebuch) with the following (from the 17th edition)? The main difference is the inclusion of length marks in the Weissenburg and Tatian texts. Although they may be editorial, we're acknowledging that the texts are taken from the Lesebuch, so we shouldn't alter them. Are they really absent in the 15th edition, or is it due to technological difficulties? Also, in line 1 of the St Galler Pater noster, "bist" has been changed to "pist" in my edition, which is what would be expected for this dialect. I'm not sure whether this was actually written "bist" in the earlier edition of the Lesebuch, or whether a Wikipedian thought it looked wrong and changed it at some stage.

If the article does match with the texts as presented in the 15th edition, then I don't mind if the article stays the way it is. I just thought it may be easier to start afresh with the 17th edition, to iron out any undetected well-meant "corrections" that people may have made.

Source: Braune/Ebbinghaus, Althochdeutsches Lesebuch, 17th edn (Niemeyer, 1994)

--Malfidus ~ (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, go with the later edition. --Pfold 11:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This might seem counterproductive, but I have the 4th edition of the Lesebuch (1897), and I find it superior in its rendition of the St. Galler Pater Noster:

Fater unseer, thû pist in himile, uuîhi namun dînan, qhueme rîhhi dîn, uuerde uuillo diin, sô in himile sôsa in erdu. prooth unseer emezzihic kip uns hiutu, oblâz uns sculdi unseero, sô uuir oblâzêm uns sculdîkêm, enti ni unsih firleiti in khorunka, ûzzer lôsi unsih fona ubile.

I assume I'm in the minority here, though. Aryaman (☼) 21:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Morphology
I think that a few words should be written about endings of various kinds, and of distinctions of cases. There seems to be some misunderstandings here and there in the project, with claims that "German has preserved the proto-germanic grammar" or similarly. This is not 100% true (although German certainly has preserved much of the grammar). I therefore think that mentioning the instrumental case, and the fact that there were more different endings in OHG than in modern High German is interesting enough to merit a section. I do not think we should try to reproduce all paradigms; but some representative sample. (However, I just know them from rather old books; and these books do not very carefully distinguish different epochs or dialects within the OHG.) I had in mind an example like this:

and a few words on how e.g. 1:st and 3:rd p. pl. of the verbs then were quite distinct (in pres. ind. normally ending in -mes and -nt, and in pret. -m and -n, respectively); where in the modern language a final -m is replaced by an -n, making the forms indistinguishable. Is this sensible? JoergenB 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankish = Old High German/Dutch?
Dear fellow wikipedians,

there are a lot of misconceptions concerning the term "Old High German", which was coined in the 19th century and was nearly undisputed ever since. Only in recent scientific papers some scholars are questioning this term and are demanding a reassassment. Professor Otto Kronsteiner from the university of Salzburg for example goes as far as to say:


 * "Am Begriff althochdeutsch ist real nur alt- korrekt. Es gab in der fraglichen Zeit weder ein Deutsch noch ein Hochdeutsch, natürlich auch kein Mittelhochdeutsch. Es waren vereinzelte Ansätze, in verschiedenen Regionen (um den Bodensee, um Salzburg) aus einem Dialekt eine Schriftsprache zu machen, die aber wieder ausgestorben sind, und nicht fortgesetzt wurden, während die zugrundeliegenden Dialekte (wie Alemannisch oder Bairisch) bis heute weiterleben" http://www.inst.at/trans/3Nr/kronst.htm


 * Translation: "As a matter of fact the only correct part of the term Old High German is old. In the era we are talking about, there was no High German and also no Middle High German. There have been singular attempts in different regions (around Lake Constance, around Salzburg) to form written languages based on one of those dialects, but they were all extinct and discontinued, while the underlaying dialects (like Alemannic or Bavarian) still exist today"


 * High = consonant shift

When we talk about the consonant shift, we may distinguish the texts from those old manuscripts before the year 1000 into two groups: those with the consonant shift and those without. To be precise, the first one (including Old Alemannic, Old Bavarian, Old High Frankonian and the little known Old Lombardian) could be called Old High Continental Germanic and the second one Old Low Continental Germanic (inluding Old Saxon, Old Frisian and Old Low Frankonian). Frankish doesn't form an homogeneous language that can be classified as either this or that, but is split. From a purely linguistic point of view, even Old English could be classified as part of the "Low" (unshifted) group. In the respective era we are talking about (before the year 1000 AD), the term "theodisk" from which the modern German word "Deutsch" derives, didn't have a specific meaning. It was an exonym, given by romance speaking people to the germanic languages they weren't able to understand und could mean any (west) germanic language. Otfrid of Weissenburg for example uses this term around the year 865 in his Gospel book, but translates it with "frenkisg", because that was his vulgar language. From about the year 1000 on the term starts to beeing used by the so titled people themselves. For the time before 1000 it is simply unhistoric and a pure invention by the Grimm brothers. As a matter of fact, the today's two most important continantal germanic standard languages (Ausbau-languages) Dutch (Nederlands) and German (Standard Deutsch) derive both from the Old Frankonian dialects. Dutch originates from the unshifted Old Low Frankonian, while German derivest from the "high" variants of Old Frankonian. German scholars often tried to place Dutch among the German dialects, refering to this common Frankish origin, while Dutch scholars fiercely oppose that. Both scientific points of views are incorrect, because the term German is simply not equivalent to Frankish. Dutch is not a German dialect that evolved to an Ausbau-language, because there was no German at the time of the common origin. We even do not know whether there was a common origin, because the Frankish tribe was a big heterogeneous group that incorporated several distinct smaller germanic groups, giving them a common name. Interesting to know is also, that the Letzeburgish language, which is now co-official in Luxemburg and also Yiddish derive both from Old Frankonian. When the term "high" refers to shifted consonants, the only intirely "high" old germanic variants (hence Frankonian is only regionally shifted) are Old Alemannic and Old Bavarian. But their modern linguistic descendents (the Swiss, the Bavarians, the Austrians, etc.) don't like to be called "German" either. The historically and linguistically correct term would be "Old Germanic", or "Old Continental Germanic" (the second one excluding Old English and the Scandinavian variants). The North Germanic and West Germanic distinction also works, but is a little bit confusing, cause the western group in fact is in the south. Also these terms (North and West) are not used consequently, neither by scholars nor here in wikipedia. Old English could be in both groups, hence England experienced two waves of germanic settlement (the one from the western group, the other from the northern group). A furhter weakness of this West-North classification is the fact, that there are still some East Germanic pecularities found in modern Bavarian and a lot of Old Bavarian words are still untranslateable or hapax legomenon.
 * German = theodisk?
 * Dutch and German
 * Old High German literally
 * Alternatives?

The conclusion is that the term "Old High German" represents a widly cited theory, but not necessarily the most correct one. Future research, especially from Indo-European scholars, will supposely bring more light into that and more scientific precission. Thx ... --El bes 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

ë
it is a bit silly to discuss a historical language in IPA notation. Case in point, e vs. ë: it is known that there was a phonematic difference between the two, but it is impossible to give their precise IPA value with any certainty. Also, /t͡s/ is written as &lt;z&gt; while /z/ is written as &lt;ȥ&gt;. This is just confusing. We should use the usual transcription of OHG and only give a brief indication of probable IPA values when the phonemes are introduced. --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But &lt;ȥ&gt; is not found in OHG MSS or in most edited texts - it's purely a feature of some grammars (the Lesebuch uses it in the glossary but not the texts, for example). The dual use of &lt;z&gt; is a fundamental fact of OHG orthography and should be reflected in the table. Which is not to say we shouldn't have a note on the use of &lt;ȥ&gt; in grammars. --Pfold (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise <ë>, though the MSS have the occasional hooked e for it. This needs tidying up: saying that the there are 6 short vowels and citing only 5 makes no sense at all. Certainly for the earlier period, the Umlaut-e is an allophone of /a/ anyway and shouldn't be in a phonemic transcription. I'm not sure there's any point in giving spellings for the vowels --Pfold (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about manuscript hands. I am talking about the phonology of OHG, and common transcription fo OHG in OHG grammars. I know the Latin alphabet has five vowel glyphs. The OHG language has eleven vowel phonemes, five long and six short. So what if ë originated as an allophone of a? The OHG grammars distinguish ë and a, and so should therefore this article. You bet the article should use ȥ, this being a Unicode character specifically introduced for the discussion of OHG and MHG. We are not trying to reproduce manuscript spellings here, we are giving the normalized transcription of OHG in relevant grammars. --dab (𒁳) 12:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sound Changes
I've added a section on sound changes, mostly the vowel developments that were not explained in any of the articles. It would be great if someone could find a good reference for them, I've used J. Wright's OHG primer, but it is literally 107 years old and I feel it is not appropriate. I will add the demonstrating examples later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.209.217 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Pronounciation of ng
I am confused: In the german Wikipedia it says, that the pronounciation of "ng" was [ng] and not [ŋ]. This differes from what is said in this article. but in the german Wikipedia - in contrast to this case - one finds an explicit citation; hence my question: Whom of both is right? I'd apreciate any answers. Thank You. --212.204.95.246 (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

s ~ sh
it seems safe to assume that the actual pronunciation of Germanic s was somewhere between [s] and [ʃ] This could account for S = [ʃ] and SZ = [s] in Hungarian, on the grounds of German influence.Manfariel (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Region?
There's a problem with the Region in the infobox. I think it would be both less muddles and more accurate to say something like: "Eastern Carolingian Empire and Kingdom of Lombardy. An alternative would be to list the individual areas, e.g. Eastern Austrasia, Swabia, Thuringia, etc. But I don't see the need for a lot of detail here - the article is the place for that. --Pfold (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) it has a mixture of modern and medieval states/areas (you can't have Gaul and Switzerland together!)
 * 2) much of the eastern part of modern Germany was not OHG speaking.
 * 3) the amount of OHG spoken in Bohemia is negligible if not questionable.
 * 4) no mention of the Lombards.

Error in Map
I've checked the map of the OHG-speaking area against the original source and there's a been an error in the recreation - the whole of the Rhine south of Strassburg should be shaded as OHG-speaking up to the western boundary of the the Duchy of Swabia. I can't find an SVG of this map anywhere, so it's not something I can easily fix. --Pfold (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Old High German. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924064956/http://www.alexmidd.co.uk/Marmaria/ohg/ohg_primer_contents.htm to http://www.alexmidd.co.uk/Marmaria/ohg/ohg_primer_contents.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Intelligibility With Later Stages of German
To what extent are Old High German and Middle High German intelligible with modern German? Information like this might be noteworthy for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.42.94 (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)