Yahoo Search Búsqueda en la Web

  1. Cerca de 469.000 resultados de búsqueda
  1. Anuncios
    relacionados con: West Germanic languages wikipedia
  1. The West Germanic languages constitute the largest of the three branches of the Germanic family of languages (the others being the North Germanic and the extinct East Germanic languages). English is by far the most-spoken West Germanic language, with more than 1 billion speakers worldwide.

  2. The West Germanic Languages are a branch of Germanic languages first spoken in Central Europe and the British Isles.The branch has three parts: the North Sea Germanic languages, the Weser-Rhine Germanic languages, and the Elbe Germanic languages.

  3. West Germanic. Dewey Decimal. 42/43. Universal Decimal. 811.111/.112. The main article for this category is West Germanic languages. Wikimedia Commons has media related to West Germanic languages. language portal.

    • 811.111/.112
  4. The largest North Germanic languages are Swedish, Danish and Norwegian, which are in part mutually intelligible and have a combined total of about 20 million native speakers in the Nordic countries and an additional five million second language speakers; since the Middle Ages these languages have however been strongly influenced by the West Germanic language Middle Low German, and Low German ...

    • Proto-West Germanic Language?
    • Low Saxon-Low Franconian
    • The Family Tree
    • Frisian, Not Low Saxon, Is Closest to Modern English?
    • Mecklenburgisch-Pommersch
    • Low German vs. Low Saxon
    • The Map
    • Family Tree Versus Subdivision Conflict
    • Table of Dialectal Characteristics
    • The Change from *E > *I

    As for the comment about there never being a Proto-West Germanic language... From what I've long been hearing, these things are largely known through reconstruction. So how can it be said for certain at this point that there wasn't a Proto-West Germanic language? I'm finally getting around to signing this post. Gringo30017:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 1. Because it is possible for all the dialects to have diverged from Proto-Germanic at about roughly the same time. Since the dialects would form a continuum of mutually intelligible dialects, innovations would pass from one to the other without their being part of a Proto-West Germanic dialect.--Wiglaf16:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) The usual linguistic criterion for deciding whether a group of languages is descended from a common intermediate proto-language is to see whether they all share any common innovation. In this case, is there any common innovation all West Germanic languages have that is not present in North Germanic, East Germanic, o...

    Why are Low Franconian and Low Saxon separate categories? Are the two groups now regarded as more separate from each other than English and Frisian, or is something else going on? Certainly, the authors of ethnologue don't hold this view - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15px20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC) The authors of ethnologue are often wrong - especially regarding German, Low German and all those dialects. I think they constantly get a little confused because of the sheer number of it. The ethnologue guys call Low German Low Saxon - for what reason I don't know. In my opinion Low Saxon is just one dialect of Low German. That is another proof for their incompetence in that matter. --Lucius197621:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC) 1. Low Saxon is perhaps a translation of Nedersaksisch or Neddersassisch see here. 2., 6 May 2006 (UTC)

    I was just passing through an noticed that the family tree seems to give the impression that Northern Middle English descends from Middle English and was contemporanious with Early Modern English. Is this the case?, 4 September 2006 (UTC) No., 17 October 2006 (UTC)

    I added the "[citation needed]" tag to the claim that Low Saxon is the closest existing language to modern English. I didn't change the text because I don't have enough expertise in this subject area. The reason I think Frisian (not Low Saxon) is probably the closest is because this journal articlesays, "... Frisian is considered to be the closest extant language to Old English", and gives this citation (I've not read this): "Nielsen H. F., 1985 Old English and the continental Germanic languages: a survey of morphological and phonological interrelations 2nd edition. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck". That seemed authoritative enough to me. On the other hand, it could be that Frisian is being overlooked because very few people speak it. Or there may well be some other reason to say it was Low Saxon, not Frisian. Hopefully, someone with more expertise will handle this. EMan18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 1. Yes, Frisian is closer to English than Low S...

    Although there is an entry in the German Wikipedia, Mecklenburgisch-Pommersch doesn't exist actually. This is a mixture of two different dialects: Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch and Pommersch. I know Vorpommersch and Pommersch sound similar but in fact they have only few things in common. Today only the first dialect is spoken in Germany, the second has somewhat died out due to World War II. --, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

    I realize that both terms can be considered correct, but seeing as Low Saxon - though a disambiguation page - directs to Low German (where the two are equated), shouldn't we be using Low German in this article? Aryaman (☼)20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 1. Yes, we should. "Low Saxon" is ambiguous, as it is often used only for the dialects of Low German spoken in the Netherlands and Lower Saxony. —Angr If you've written a quality article...22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

    The map is not correct. The region of South Tyrol is not included in its entirety nor is the region of Swiss Graubuenden which is mainly German speaking. Walsar german speakers are also found in Italy. Therefore, the area of German speaking Switz. is wrong. Furthermore the border of Liechtenstein is nothing like it really looks on the map. This map is really unprofessional and not completely accurate. It needs to be updated! I don't think the portrayal of Luxembourg is right either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 1. This is a wiki, so feel free to make corrections. If you go to Wikimedia Commons, register a user name, and wait four days, you'll be able to upload a corrected version of the map, either under a new name, or as a new version of the image with this name by going to commons:File:Europe germanic languages.PNG and clicking "Upload a new version of this file". +Angr19:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    "The West Germanic languages constitute the largest of the three traditional branches of the Germanic family of languages and include languages such as English, Dutch and Afrikaans, German, the Frisian languages, and Yiddish" (from article). Additionally, "Low Franconian, or Low Frankish, is a group of several West Germanic languages spoken in the Netherlands, northern Belgium (Flanders), in the northern department of France, in western Germany (Lower Rhine), as well as in Suriname, South Africa and Namibia that originally descended from Old Frankish" (Low Franconian languages). The conflict occurs with the listed four (4) subdivisions in the ISO 639-5 on the top right portion of the page; "Anglo-Frisian, Low Franconian languages, Low German, High German" when one compares it to the West Germanic Family tree listed near the end of the article; 1. Anglo-Frisian 1. Low German 1. High German The article seems declarative in there being four subcategories, but ends stating (in part), "N...

    I've created a table of characteristics that appear in West Germanic but not in all languages. I think it would be useful to show the internal division of the languages, the continuum between them, and also their relationship. This is also important in light of the fact that West Germanic has been notoriously difficult to see as a 'tree'. Unfortunately I don't know how to find sources for this, so for now I'm just showing it here. I'm sure there are quite a few though, as the West Germanic dialect continuum has been studied extensively. CodeCat (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    Dear CodeCat, I really appreciate your contributions concerning Proto-Germanic, but today you were wrong. You reverted my contribution: 1. Proto-Germanic *e becomes *i before syllabels with i or j (cf. OHG. and Old Saxon. biris, Anglo-Saxon birest „you bear" vs. Old Norse berr and Gothic baíris) Saying: i-mutation of e is a Proto-Germanic change, not West Germanic.- Here you mixed something up. I think you had in mind the following change from Indo-European to Proto-Germanic: /e/ > /i/ when followed by a syllable-final nasal — *en "in" > *in; *séngʷʰeti "(s)he chants" > *sengʷidi > *singwidi "(s)he sings" This is accurate, but it simply refers to a different case. My contribution was accurate and I will restore it. Best regards to the Netherlands--DownUnder36 (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC) 1. No, I had in mind the change of e to i when i or j follows. That is a common Proto-Germanic change and there are sources for that as well. The Proto-Germanic form was *biridi. CodeCat (talk)...

  1. Anuncios
    relacionados con: West Germanic languages wikipedia