[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Bavarian language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Austria?

[edit]

Would Austrians (and South Tyroleans) really refer to their native dialect(s) as "Bavarian"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:82E:3B42:1:1:7417:C54A (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reply to this question (I am Austrian): From a linguistic point of view, it is correct to call the Austrian dialects "Bavarian" (with the exception of the most Western part of Austria "Vorarlberg" where people speak in an Allemanic dialect). However, I agree that the "average Austrian" would refer to the dialect s/he speaks as "Austrian". Best, Ulrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.76.168 (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bavarian is NOT a language

[edit]

It's a group of German dialects, that's how it's commonly seen in Germany. One can only guess why the english wikipedia tries to go with the "seperate language" angle of all views instead of the view of the native country it's actually spoken in. Divide and conquer and all that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.140.107 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not true. "In contrast to many other varieties of German, Bavarian differs sufficiently from Standard German to make it difficult for native speakers to adopt standard pronunciation." Fdom5997 (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A hundred percent true. All German dialects differ, to what degree is a matter of discussion. It's a dialect not a language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.140.107 (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a fact. Bavarian is a separate Germanic language, being that Bavarian is considered an Upper German language, while Standard German is considered a High German language. How about do some research before assuming your own opinions are "one hundred percent true" Fdom5997 (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fdom5997: Do we have any relevant sources for backing the claim that Bavarian is a language? The ISO or the Ethnologue are not reliable sources. In linguistics or dialectology, they would not be accepted. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 11:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fdom5997: Please do some research yourself before throwing around linguistic expressions you're clearly not familiar with. Upper German along with Central German are the two subdivisions of High German. The adjective "high" literally refers to the mountainous higher elevation of southern Germany. Bavarian couldn't be any higher German. --2001:16B8:3172:2800:3DF6:243C:5BD:9586 (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it depends on definition... elsewhere I said "others may define a language with different criteria like grammatical distance, different set of sound changes and other contact languages" and not on the basis of the existence of language continua and intermediate forms...

  • grammatically there is a difference, first of all Bavarian is part of Upper German so you find a common development with Alemannic like bav. gaabat/khaamat to alem. gäbti/chämti; like außhin, vürhin, nachhin; different usage of prepositions and different gender of nouns like "der Fanen" and "die Felsen" instead of "die Fahne" and "der Felsen", the phonetic system that Bavarian k is - in contrast to p an t - aspirated and is therefore systematically or structurally in a row with pf, cf. northb. pfåltn/phåltn for "behalten" and pfiat/phiat "behüte"...
  • then grammatically the different use of the article including the indefinite article, which is used with incountable quantities and exists in the plural "host oa" (north: houst oi?) is in German "hast du welche"... remnants of an adverb-adjective distinctintion like in "gschwind" != "gschwinde (gschwindig)"; remnants of the gerund cf. Zehetner: "Bairische Mundartkenntnisse", p. 41; congruence in the negation (also called multiple negation); general usage of the old dual for the second plural and -d/-dst in 1. and 2. person of verbs ending in a liquid; enclitic or stressed and unstressed forms "-nen"/"eam" for German "ihn" or "-ma"/"mia" for "wir"; the suffigation of the enclitics like a congruence to the conjunctions; the spread usage of "sein" for the possessiv fem. Sg.; maybe the usage of "sel/hel" (das folgende oder genannte) and "sem/hem" (da/dort); the suffigation of the feminin suffix -in to the family names; different plural formations; the regular participles "denkt, grent, kennt"; the adjectiv formation in -ert < *-icht etc.; in some other 'basilect' variants of bavarian yet other remnants like the neutr. plural article and the distinction of "broid" as an adjective and "broad" as a predicate in Northbavarian...
  • different sound changes; there would be much to enumerate, synchronic equivalents are "Haus, Bam, bloa(w)" is "Haus, Baum, blau"; "leidn, loadn" is "leiden, leiden"; "liagn, lign" is "lügen, liegen"; "Måss, gwiiß" with short/long vowel is "Maß, gewiss" with long/short vowel...
  • other contact languages: was part of the gothic state and has still words from that time; a combination of Galloromanic and Slawic contact, cf. e.g. the superlative forms "am bessan" or "da schenna"...
  • being written as dialect already in the 17th century cf. Anthony Rowley (2013): ‚Was sy zLanzet zue hat tragn‘: „Der Bauernsohn in der Kirche“ und die „Baurnklagen“. Drei westmittelbairische Stücke aus der Mitte des 17. Jahrhundert... central bavarian "thain" (i.e. "tõa") for Germ. "tun" is as it seems already 15th c., cf. Weinhold p. 302. Luther German based Standard German becomes the umbrella variant in the south only in the 18th century after the rise of Prussia and the emerging nationalism...

this is what comes to my mind, there might be more, nobody doubts a closeness to closely related languages and nobody doubts the existence of intermediate forms and/or code-switching forms... the question ist whether the existence of a "continuum" defines what is not a language... --Aferghes (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, the term "Central German" refers to the dialect continuum and thus to a synchronic classification on isoglosses, when going back to a grammer of Old High German it's usually Old Franconian or so... it's a similar issue with Nordoberdeutsch, which is syncronically based on isoglosses from 19th century or so, but diachronically it is rather a former transition dialect, which might be seen as a category or group of its own ... --Aferghes (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even denying us native speakers of our language calling it a language is HIGHLY MORALLY DISTURBING. The problem with "German" is, 99.9999999 % of the time when the word "GERMAN" is used today all that is meant is only Standard German. The very same classification of the GERMAN STUDIES is in itself also very morally disturbing as it in reality often serves as a basis to lower the AUSTRO-BAVARIAN LANGUAGE pressuring people into not using it in written or oral communication. This might be THE VERY REASON people here wrote it is a language. The classification is as such highly arbitrary. From a linguistic point of view one hast to contest a language is a dialect and a dialect is a language. Calling It a language is not wrong and more than right. SPECIALLY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the actual impressions of native speakers and not highly arbitrary scientific classifications. The way the introduction is written now it's extremely highlighting GERMAN GERMAN GERMAN and reminds any native speaker of far right German extremists crying GERMAN all the time... 09:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)WeanaHW (talk)WeanaHW

"Bavarian/Austrian language" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bavarian/Austrian language. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Names

[edit]
  • [table as nativename=] Boarisch, Bairisch
  • [introduction] also known as Austro-Bavarian; Boarisch [ˈbɔɑ̯rɪʃ] or Bairisch

Can these names be sourced?

  • H. A. Strong, Kuno Meyer: Outlines of a History of the German Language. London, 1886, p. 74 (Google Books):
    Here Austro-Bavarian is only some part of Bavarian, namely "the dialects of the marches, i.e. Austria, Styria and Karinthia".
  • Joshua Fishman, Ofelia Garcia (eds.): Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity: Volume 2: The Success-Failure Continuum in Language and Ethnic Identity Efforts. Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 299:
    This discusses the names. German has bayerisch refering to Bayern = Bavaria (Federal State of Bavaria), and bairisch/Bairisch for the dialect spoken in parts of Bavaria and most parts of Austria. And then it goes on with:
    "[...] Bavarian (Bairisch) is also spoken outside Bavaria in [..] Austria, [..] South Tyrol (Südtirol), [..] Hungary and elsewhere. [...] No Austrian would ever refer to an indigenous language of Austria as "Bavarian." In Bavaria, the vernacular is called Boarisch south of the River Danube, and Boirisch to the north thereof. In Austria, it is called by names derived from the places and regions in which it is spoken: for instance Weanerisch as spoken in Vienna (Wean in the vernacular), Steirisch in Styria, Tirolerisch in Tyrol."
That sounds like Boarisch/Boirisch only means Bayerisch, Bavarian Bavarian, Bavarian from Bavaria, and not Bavarian (spoken in Bavaria and Austria). This gives something like:
  • Bavarian [en] = Bairisch [de] = no native name [bar]
    • Bavarian Bavarian (Bavaria Bavarian, Bavarian from Bavaria) = Bayerisch, bayerisches Bairisch = Boarisch/Boirisch
      [partly North and partly Middle Bavarian, but well, native or geographic terms and linguistics terms don't always fit]
    • Viennese = Wienerisch = Weanerisch
    • Styrian = Steirisch, steirisches Bairisch = Steirisch
      [part of South Bavarian]
    • Tyrolian = Tirolisch/Tirolerisch = Tirolerisch
      [part of South Bavarian]

--Naramaru (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A native Bavarian speaker, recorded in Bavaria."

[edit]

Frankly, this lady speaks either in a very unusual Bavarian dialect (there are indeed several) or has even problems to speak proper dialect (which is often the case for younger people nowadays). She is really not a good example, if you want to listen to a "typical" Bavarian native speaker. I suggest removing her video clip or edit the title to elaborate more on the exact region she comes from. Best, Ulrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.76.168 (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is speaking Oberpfälzisch ("North Bavarian") - but you are correct, it's not the best example. 195.34.145.202 (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the provenance of the dialect and sth on the language... all the examples on wikitongue are either "Bavarian Regiolekt" (i.e. Luther German with Bavarian substrate or regional colloquial Luther German) or have heavy impact from "Bavarian Regiolekt", which is anything but uncommon, especially in towns and cities, her example is inspite of all the faults the most dialectal, I'd say...
"typical" Bavarian is from a more urban area of a former prestige dialekt around the capital, but the more urban areas are under heavier assimilation, thus the dialects of the periphery and Eastern Bavaria seem to be much stronger, leading to a possible shift of Bavarian dialect prevalence from Upper Bavaria to Eastern Bavaria...
good examples of Bavarian are more commonly from people in documentary films, like e.g. Anna Betz, Max Grünzinger, Alois and Anni Sigl and others on youtube... an example from one of them would be better, of course...
--Aferghes (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 February 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bavarian language → Bavarian German – As a part of the Oberdeutsche (Upper German) dialect group, Bavarian is a dialect of the German language. Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. No indication that "Bavarian German" is a more common name in English for this dialect than "Bavarian language" or simply "Bavarian". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, because it would be confusing: one thing is Standard German as spoken in Bavaria (that is Bavarian German), another one is Bavarian language (which is another register); even the current redirect from Bavarian German to Bavarian language is confusing as well. --Stévan (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above Estar8806 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – using language in the article title violates the WP:Neutral point of view. Bavarian can be viewed as a language or as a dialect. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 09:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. 'mach' wust, a dialect - as you already know - is a language that stands in particular relation with a roofing language or with a language from which it derives, so we can't get wrong using language.
    Plus, we got ISO 639-3 standard that classifies Bavarian as individual language, so IMHO it's fair enough to consider it NPOV. Stévan (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stévan: In the terminology I am familiar with, I would say that a dialect is a variety of a language that stands in particular relation with that language. One aspect of that relation may be described as roofing, as in the case of Bavarian roofed by standard German.
    ISO 639-3, based on the Ethnologue, is a great resource for poorly documented languages, but a poor resource for well-documented European languages and dialects. In better sourced overviews of German dialects, you may expect to find some discussions whether Low German is a dialect or a language (cf. Low German#Language or dialect), but I would be very surprised to find similar discussions regarding Bavarian. This page itself does not seem to care much about ISO 639-3 since it apparently includes Hutterite and Cimbrian as Bavarian (more explicitly so in de:Bairisch), even though they are separate languages according to Ethnologue/ISO 639-3. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 15:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. 'mach' wust, problem is that we have at least 3 different definitions of dialect, depending on the specific branch:
    - in synchronic linguistics, a dialect is a variety of a language (e.g. Scottish English and English);
    - in historical linguistics, a dialect is a language which derives from another (e.g. Romance dialects and Latin);
    - in sociolinguistics, a dialect is a language that lives in diglossia with a roofing language (e.g. Italo-romance dialects and Italian).
    So, I would never be reasoning about whether something is a language or a dialect, since a language can be either a dialect in some contexts (in the second case, even German language itself fits the definition of Germanic dialect).
    Generally, dialect describes a language in its position with another language (whether geographically, genealogically or sociologically), but every dialect owns all the elements that can be identified in a language (morphology, phonology, lexicon, grammar, etc).
    So, IMHO, all these efforts to separate human speeches in languages and dialects are an old-fashion wasting of time, cause it would be probably better to reason in a set theory way. Stévan (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stévan: I agree that drawing a clear line between languages and dialects is impossible. But that is all the more reason for Wikipedia not to take sides. Some sources speak of Bavarian as a language, other sources as a dialect. As per WP:NPOV, we should take a middle ground and avoid “dialect” or “language” in the title – same as we do for other major groups of local German varieties such as Alemannic German, Central German, Swiss German, or even Low German. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 09:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. 'mach' wust, I think your proposal for using just the name, without definition, is a good one; but that would be a systemic change, because involving tens (or hundreds) of other pages, so I guess this is not the place to disuss it.
    The line generally followed at now, in order to be NPOV and "not to take sides", is just to use the ISO 639-3 definition for each language, since it's the most internationally recognised standard. Stévan (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, there is no such “line generally followed at now” with regards to articles about varieties of German. Most are named XX German regardless of ISO 639-3. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 09:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. 'mach' wust, that's why I said "generally", because it's usual but not a standard; so, I would better align those varieties to the general use, rather than redefine the whole Wikipedia. Stévan (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stévan: With equal right as you I am saying that it’s usual for articles about German varieties to be called XX German; so, I would better align this article to the usual naming convention, rather than redefining the whole series of articles about German varieties. If there were an attempt of blindly imposing ISO 639-3 as the sole criterion, then I would press for reliable sources. Anybody would soon have to admit that not even the sources behind ISO 639-3 claim that varieties of German such as Bavarian are languages (cf. “External Resources” in Bavarian | Ethnologue). Claims that Bavarian is a language are rejected by scholars of Bavarian, cf. M. Eibl (2014) “Bairisch nach Maß?” or A Rowley (2011) “Bavarian: Successful Dialect or Failed Language?”.
    I am not denying that there are sources claiming Bavarian is a language. All I am saying is there is no consensus, and in the spirit of WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should not take sides. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 14:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. 'mach' wust, as I said at the very beginning, I'm not interested in "language or dialect?" discussions, because they just don't make any sense from a scientific POV (reasons are always extra-linguistic, you know): whoever can claim it to be one thing or the other, but it is both; and "not taking sides" means exactly to say it is both.
    Bavarian is either a language (linguistically), a Germanic dialect (genealogically) and a German dialect (sociologically): then, what we are talking about is just how to title this page.
    Theoretically it could be called Bavarian (linguistics) or Bavarian (language and dialect) in order to fix this, even though it would be a solution I've never seen before; but for sure choosing Bavarian German doesn't fix anything, because it just moves the title from one "side" to the other.
    What I can add for sure is that in pure linguistics a certain idiom is firstly a language, then you can later analyse if it consists even in a certain form of dialect, from more specific branches POVs. Stévan (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stévan: I disagree with your claim that “in pure linguistics a certain idiom is firstly a language”. What I have learned is that a certain idiom is firstly a variety. You can later analyse it to be a language or a dialect. Such an analysis will turn to sociolinguistic arguments, but that does not make it unscientific.
    Anyways, we are going round in circles. I am writing a “Language or dialect” section so we have at least some fruitful result. I hope you will review it carefully. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 16:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. 'mach' wust, I see what you're saying, but wait: definition of dialect as variety of a language is not sociolinguistic to me, but general; so, you don't have to move to a sociological level.
    In sociolinguistics a dialect can be even a language which lost its autonomy because of submission to a more prestigious one (the roofing language), and that's why I'm saying that Bavarian ca be (and actually is) both: exactly in this sociolinguistic sense. Stévan (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. 'mach' wust, I saw your edit, but I restored "language" in the incipit because it is still the page title and there's no consesus at now to remove it.
    Anyway, your additions are ok to me, but I would present the whole matter in a less oppositive way: as I said before, I would point out that there is more than one definition dependending on the specific POV (linguistic metrics, sociolinguistics, etc), rather than like a fight between incompatible positions.
    It's not something related just to this page, but a general appoach: I fixed many pages for the same reason, because they became an amount of edit wars trying to present which option was The Right One™, and were horrible. -- Stévan (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One or two sibilant phonemes?

[edit]

@Florian Blaschke: You have just expanded the section about the sibilants (thanks for that). According to your explanation, there are two sibilants, a fortis and a lenis. Shouldn’t those be added to the consonant table as two different phonemes? The other fortis–lenis pairs are also in the consonant table. If on the other hand the two are explained as variants of a single phoneme /s/ distinguished by consonant length, then the phonemicity of consonant length should be explained. I wonder how Bavarian grammars analyze the sibilants. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 18:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ea and oa sounds

[edit]

how are they pronounced? 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:F057:253E:D33E:61EA (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

map

[edit]

I noticed the area around Bozen and Meran does not denote bilingual status such as in southern Carthnia. These areas are either major Italian speaking or have a significant population in South Tyrol. The rest of the province is exclusively Austro-Bavarian dialect speaking. 99.36.9.4 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FC Bayern Munich website

[edit]

"FC Bayern Munich website was available in Bavarian." should also have up until when it was available Dany0 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bavarian_language&oldid=1224597312"