While it's certainly the case that the term Low German, particularly in older works, sometimes includes Dutch, I have two reservations about this point being made in this article, even though it's sourced (though admittedly not from a linguist): it's not all clear to me that
- the precise terms Middle Low German and mittelniederdeutsch are used to include Middle Dutch - having looked through a number of standard handbooks, I can't find any evidence of such usage;
- this usage is found in modern linguistic scholarship (the last 50 years, say), as opposed to older works (Lasch in 1914 mentions the ambiguity, but she includes nothing on Dutch in her MLG grammar).
I don't think the point should be removed entirely, but my view is that it should be downgraded to a caveat about older works. Or can someone find suitable recent sources to support the current wording? --Pfold (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
"(High German:..)" should be "(Standard German: ...)".
This has probably been done by a native German speaker (like myself). Most native German speakers don't know the differences between "Hochdeutsch" / High German and Standarddeutsch (Standard German) because "Hochdeutsch" is a very common word. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- High German too has both meanings as Hochdeutsch, and "Standard German" is a High German variety, i.e. High German isn't wrong. "Standard High German" however is more precise and addresses both issues. --23:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
It's good to see some work being done on this article, but I have two concerns about the Phonology section.
- Lasch's work may be seminal but it's 100+ years old and predates all modern phonological theory. I don't think we should be using neo-grammarian sources on phonology where there is up-to-date stuff available. Possible modern sources include Cordes's Mnd. article in the Cordes/Mühn Handbuch or the articles by Niebaum on Mnd. graphology and phonology in both editions of the Sprachgeschichte volumes (ed. Besch et al.) - most of his article from the 2nd edn is on Google books, certainly enough of it to serve as a basis for updating of this section.
- I'm afraid I think the whole "specific notes" section is irrelevant for anyone consulting the English WP about MLG. If there were a separate article on MLG phonology it could possibly be justified, but this level of detail (and from an out-of-date source) is unwarrented in my view. I realise someone has put a lot of work into this section, but that doesn't make it relevant.
Another minor point: the phonology section is going to have to talk about dialects, so I would say the Dialects section needs to be moved up in the article.--Pfold (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do as you think fit. --Ubel (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)