Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 August 21

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Language
Language desk
< August 20 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 22 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


August 21

edit

Variant spellings in early nineteenth-century Pennsylvania

edit

I'm transcribing the minutes of the session (elder board) of a small church in Franklin County, Pennsylvania in the first half of the nineteenth century — it's full of what today, at least, are considered misspellings. I'm curious how many of these are truly misspellings and how many might be considered standard/normal/acceptable for the day. For example: a member being "admited" to the church; an elder being "apointed to manaje an apeal" [appointed to manage an appeal]; problems with the "arrearges" of the pastor's unpaid salary; "it was mooved and seconded"; and the meeting being "adjurned". Moreover, there's quite an inconsistent usage of ſ — it's generally used in words such as "seſsion" but almost never a situation such as "reſtraint" or "ſeſſion". Should I consider this to be simply the style of a few poorly-educated Scotch-Irish farmers, or should I see this as a change in the style of writing? I'd welcome a link to a website that would contain a detailed discussion of this subject. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other curiousity that I forgot to mention before — days of the week are almost never capitalised. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling was far less standard in those days. That was one of the reasons Noah Webster wrote his dictionary - to establish some norms. Even looking at the U.S. Constitution, you see spellings like "chuse" instead of "choose". Looking at a few things you cite, "manage" comes from French and Latin roots where it's "g", not "j", so they've simply got it wrong. Likewise with "appeal", whose French and Latin roots are a double-p. It's a little slipperier with "adjurn", as the word comes from the Latin "adiurnare", with the "i" converted to "j" over time and a "u" added, both of those changes occurring in Old French. The swirly "s" that you're asking about (ſ) if you look closely it's mainly used when there are two consecutive "s". I don't know for sure, but I suspect that's related to the German double-S character. By the way, some folks used to spell the state "Pensylvania". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC With bugs) Standardized orthography did not really hit American English until Noah Webster's dictionary became widespread, and the educational reforms of Horace Mann brought a standardized education to all citizens. Before the middle of the 19th century, everything was mostly spelled foe-net-tick-all-lee, and since everyone understood what was being written, it wasn't a big deal. Its about 150 years from before when you were researching, but I ran across the same spelling variants when researching the Plymouth Colony article; people just didn't maintain a standard spelling convention until the middle 1800's, so I am not surprised that documents before that show such inconsistancies. --Jayron32 02:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input; I was under the impression that spelling was essentially standardised in the USA by the late eighteenth century. My curiosity over the long s is again over the inconsistency, because I'm familiar with the way it was printed, with the nineteenth letter always being written ſ except when capitalised or at the end of the word, and I've been told that "ſs" is not uncommon in American manuscript of the period; it's simply confusing that it's only sometimes used in "ſs" and very rarely — but neither never nor frequently — in words such as "cloſely". I'm still curious, however — any ideas on the capitalisation? Or is this just the same as the rest: nonstandard and didn't really matter to the readers? BTW, if you look at Talk:Long s, you can see that I asked a somewhat similar question there last year, although for a situation sixty years later. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with other "rules", it may have been used inconsistently, i.e. at the whim of the writer. I see I was right that it's connected with the German double-S. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I would say caps were used inconsistently also. In legalese especially (note the style of the Constitution) the tendency was to capitalize all nouns, as with German. In German, the days of the week are capitalized. Such is also the case in places in the Constitution where names of days are given. Again I think you're seeing the whimsy of writers. Eventually in English it was decided to only capitalize proper nouns, and the days of the week are obviously that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For some wonderfully weird spelling, see the journal of William Clark (explorer) of Lewis and Clark. Lewis was better educated and generally spelled words more like we expect today, while Clark was not as educated and his spelling looks much more phonetic (unfortunately our article on Clark has two links to gutenberg texts of the journals, but at a (very) quick glance they appear to have been "corrected". Another famous, perhaps apocryphal quote of the time is from Andrew Jackson, who supposedly said “It’s a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word!” I don't know about the long S.. but I would think its usage also had something to do with education or the lack thereof. Pfly (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the specific case of a church record not capitalizing days of the week or months of the year might possibly reflect another concern (apart from the fact that they're almost never capitalized today in Romance languages: mardi, miercoles, giovedí): the desire to avoid idolatry. Traditional Quaker practice, in fact, is to avoid all those pagan gods and emperors (Saturn, Julius Caesar, Thor, et al.) by referring to the Third Month or the second day, a practice that's still often followed in the formal documents of liberal Friends meetings. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never before knew why the Quakers simply numbered months and days. However, that's not a problem here; other period documents from this same small denomination (Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America) capitalise days and months, which have the same names as we name them today. Traditionally, RPCNA members have referred to Sunday as "Sabbath", but all seven appearances of this word are in the form "sabath" (never "sabbath"), not "Sabath" or "Sabbath". Capital letters often appear in this document with what we consider common nouns, but I wasn't surprised by that for the reasons that Bugs gives. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translations needed

edit

I need some translation.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech
Wettinové Vilém II. Saský, 1457-1482, vévoda lucemburský a saský

Wettins
William II of Saxony, 1457–1482, Duke of Luxembourg and Saxony
I don't really know what is the accepted name of this person in English literature, though, so you might need to check some sources. — Emil J. 10:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German
Nach dem Tod Johanns am 26. August 1346 konnte Wenzel sein Erbe nicht antreten. Aufgrund der finanziellen Unterstützung, die Balduin von Trier seinem Großneffen Karl bei dessen Königswahl leistete, verwaltete der Trierer Erzbischof die Grafschaft Luxemburg als Pfandbesitz bis zu seinem Tod am 21. Januar 1354.

Am 13. März 1354 wurde Wenzel der erste Herzog von Luxemburg. Das neue Herzogtum Luxemburg wurde aus der Grafschaft Luxemburg, der Grafschaft Durbuy, der Grafschaft Laroche, der Markgrafschaft Arlon und einigen kleineren Herrschaften gebildet. Das Herzogtum Luxemburg blieb außerhalb der böhmische Krone, es war ein Lehen des deutschen Königreiches. Wenzel wurde Reichsfürst und erhielt das Ehrenamt des Reichstruchsesses.

After the death of John on August 26, 1346, Wenceslas (Václav) could not claim his inheritance. Because of the financial support that Balduin of Trier provided to his great nephew Charles at his election as king, the archbishop of Trier administered the County of Luxembourg as collateral [i.e. under a kind of lien] until his death on January 21, 1354.
On March 13, 1354, Wenceslas became the first duke of Luxembourg. The new Duchy of Luxembourg was formed from the County of Luxembourg, the County of Durbuy, the County of Laroche, the Margravate of Arlon, and several smaller territories. [lordships, i.e. Herrschaft (territory) ] The Duchy of Luxembourg remained separate from the Bohemian crown. It was a fief of the German kingdom. Wenceslas became an imperial prince and received the honorary office [or "honor"] of imperial steward. Marco polo (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French

duc en titre

edit

duc engagés

edit

¶ Responses to request for translation

edit

I'm not sure if this is the right place for such a huge gob of translation. And much of this, being in standard form, could be made clearer by using any of the automatic translation services such as Babelfish, before anyone attempts this vast project. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oui -- Fullstop (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what Babelfish did for the Comte de Luxembourg section:
The title of count de Luxembourg n' appears that in the acts of Guillaume Ier of Luxembourg. For these predecessors, one knows qu' they are counts and qu' they had the city and the castle of Luxembourg since the foundation made by Sigefroy of Luxembourg towards 963.
Assuming from other questions you've had that your interest is mainly genealogical, even without knowing French, you could get close to what I see as the meaning:
The title of "Count of Luxembourg" did not appear until the acts of Guillaume [William] I of Luxembourg. Regarding his predecessors, it's known that they were counts and that they held the town and the castle of Luxembourg from its founding by Sigefroy of Luxembourg around 963." (I take this to mean that there's no evidence of a specific "Count of Luxembourg" title prior to Guillaume, but this is far outside my field.)
Good luck. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering I know quite a bit of French, I thought I'd help out. The translation for the Count of Luxembourg given above is preety much right, except for:
  1. that they held the town ---> that they owned or possessed the town
  2. Luxembourg from its founding by Sigefroy ---> Luxembourg since its founding by Sigefroy. Hope this helped. Warrior4321 19:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ The work's already been done (no need to repeat it). All that was necessary in the original French article was to look at and click that little box to the left that said "English". See List of monarchs of Luxembourg, County, Duchy and Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, History of Luxembourg, and the various links they give, especially under "See also". If there are specific details you need that aren't covered by the English translations, then by all means, come back here with the specific questions, but I think most of what you want is here (unlike the French version, the English list even has pictures!) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a list somewhere else but I need this section translated at least for the french list of dukes includes Charles VII of France Sigismund I, Holy Roman Emperor and I don't know why?
See one of those internal Wikilinks, House of Luxembourg, which has a handy family tree. For Louis XI of France, the French text above says "son of [ Charles VII of France ]. He ceded his rights to Philip the Good in thanks for the help which the latter had brought him when he was Dauphin [heir to the French throne]. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French ... into English

Duke by title(?)

edit

Duke as recognised(?)

edit

Lego

edit

Why can't *lego be a Finnish, Hawaiian, Japanese or Maori word? --88.77.254.193 (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no "L" in their language. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which case nobody in Fin?and understands [1]. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well voiced stops don't occur much in native words, so the /g/ might be a problem in Finnish. But as a borrowed word it's probably okay, I would guess. Mo-Al (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a shot at what is obviously another trivia question that the OP already knows the answer to. I'm not sure why the leading asterisk. Aha, maybe that's the answer. There's no asterisk in those languages. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The leading "*" is a linguists' notation for an ungrammatical construction or a hypothetical, unattested word. See Asterisk#Linguistics. --Anonymous, 20:37 UTC, August 21, 2009.
No L in Finnish? Olen pahoillani (I'm sorry) but I don't think that's correct. You can't count to five in Finnish without Ls (kolme is 3, neljä is 4). But loppu hyvin, kaikki hyvin (all's well that ends well); there's no F. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No l in Hawaiian? lei, luau, Honolulu? There is, however, no g in Hawaiian. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another of these things where the OP already knows the answer and is conducting a quiz here. Any objections to summarily zapping these kinds of things? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not from me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I object. And Maori has Gs. Whanganui, Rangitoto, for example. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very quick google search of 'lego suomi' gave me the Finnish website for lego, and apparently, it's called 'lego' in Finland. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do we keep getting these "why can't XYZ be an ABC word" questions? --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone's conducting a trivia quiz. He already knows the answer. It's a riddle of some kind. I'm about 5 minutes away from zapping it, unless someone objects.
I object. What's the answer? Remember to sign your posts, too. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one time in the last month I forget to sign, and someone's all over me about it. Well, just don't start an RFC/U. I'll do better next time. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lego could not be a native Finnish word, because the language doesn't have the 'g' sound. (even if their alphabet does) Generally it gets pronounced like a 'k', and in older words/names, substituted for a 'k'. For instance the word for 'street', borrowed from Swedish 'gata' is 'katu', Swedish 'Helsinge' became 'Helsinki'. (And on that note, Danish 'g's are often 'k's in Swedish - as with LEGO, from Danish "LEg GOdt" which would be "lek godt" in Swedish) --Pykk (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...or (in Swedish) rather "lek gott" or even better "lek bra". E.G. (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Godt' is perfectly fine Swedish spelling, prior to 1906. I think "lek väl" would be better though, "bra" tends to sound bad as an adverb. --Pykk (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas

edit

...Is there an equivalent saying that people normally use, in Arabic, for Eid ul-Fitr? Note that I know nothing about the culture at all, in case any answer made such an assumption. Thanks in advance. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Happy" goes with "Birthday", "Merry" goes with "Xmas"! That's my opinion anyway... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that Brits say "Happy Christmas" where Americans say "Merry Christmas". At least this is what I took away from "Happy Christmas (War Is Over)". Dismas|(talk) 20:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you're British. Now can we get back to the question? --Anon, 20:38 UTC, August 21, 2009.
Christmas is Eid al-Milad, so you can say "Eid al-Milad mubarak" or "Eid al-Milad majid". Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The questioner is asking if there is a greeting for Eid ul-Fitr, not for Christmas. Marco polo (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He rather confused the issue by titling the question "Happy Christmas", no mention of which occurs in Eid ul-Fitr. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, since that is the default Eid, you would just say "Eid mubarak". Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, am I missing something? According to the article you (the OP) linked to—Eid ul-Fitr#General rituals—the greeting that means "Happy Eid" is ‘Īd sa‘īd. Deor (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works too. I also just noticed we have an Eid Mubarak article. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...That's embarrassing. I hadn't checked the article because I was in a rush and I didn't think it would be in there. Ah well, thanks! (And sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean to imply any sort of Christmassyness with the title, it was just the only comparison I could think of.) Vimescarrot (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically correct but impossible sentence

edit

I've been wondering whether there are sentences that are fine grammatically, but for grammatical reasons are still "wrong" or at least never used. For example, a particularly crude swear word with the formal Sie in German? Any problems with this example and other egs? Thanks! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gracie Allen made a career out of it: "That man is the woman who is this club's best friend's husband." - Jmabel | Talk 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. --ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My hovercraft is full of eels. [2] [3] —— Shakescene (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, actually the opposite. It is gramatically perfect, but still almost impervious to understand without explanation. --Jayron32 22:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also List of linguistic example sentences. --Jayron32 22:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the interesting links. The buffalo one, although exactly the opposite of what I asked, reminds me of the story about the sign writer making a "Fish and Chips" sign, when asked for feedback, was told that there needs to be more room "between Fish and and and and and Chips". Any German speakers have any thoughts on whether something like "Ficken Sie mich/mir" fits in this category? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesnt. Firstly, you can't translate "f--- you" literally into German. It would just be taken literally as a blunt invitation to have sex. Secondly, it's not at all wrong or never used. The "Sie" in the sentence makes the combination a bit less likely, because it suggests less intimacy, but with a little bit of fantasy, you can easily imagine situations when people could use it, and be it just as part of what Alex Comfort calls "playtime". But maybe that was TMI; maybe all you wanted to know was whether you can use some vulgar insult together with "Sie"? The answer to that would be affirmative; the "Sie" doesn't mean that you have high regards for a person at the moment; it only expresses the social relationship to a person, which doesn't change so fast. — Sebastian 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In French, the 'tu' form (second person singular, indicating familiarity with the person), is used in order to reinforce the insult, insinuating that you have no respect whatsoever for the person. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't I? is grammatically incoherent yet ubiquitous ("Are not I"??); Ain't I? is grammatically impeccable yet near-universally maligned and avoided. -Silence (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite fluent in German, but I lived in Germany for a time, and I think the rough German equivalent of "fuck you"—not in literal meaning but in effect—is "verpiss dich" (meaning roughly "soil yourself with your own piss"). I heard Germans say "Verpiss dich!" (not usually directed at me!) a number of times. I don't ever recall anyone saying "Verpissen Sie sich!" It is not quite inconceivable, I guess, but it is hard to imagine a situation in which one would maintain politeness while cursing someone. Marco polo (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't I may be frowned on by those who believe in prescriptive grammar but in no way can it be any more 'incoherent' than ain't I. In either case it is an irregular form replacing the expected amn't I. --ColinFine (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's incoherent if you interpret aren't as always being a simple contraction of "are not"; if you accept that aren't can (depending on context) be a contraction of either "are not" or "am not", semantically if no etymologically, then obviously there's no problem. But I think the most commonplace interpretation of aren't is that it's simply "are not", which would make it as grammatically inexplicable in this context as the much less standardized "Isn't I?". The situation with ain't is more complex, because I don't think most people who use it think of it as a contraction for any particular words, even though etymologically it's simply the English language's only contraction for "am not". The fact that people have forgotten its roots, yet still write and use it analogously to the other pronominal contractions, partly explains why ain't has become detached from any particular pronoun and can now signify, in various contexts, "am not", "is not", or "are not". -Silence (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, everyone believes in prescriptive grammar. Some people just don't talk about it much. :) The only real difference is in what people prescribe. -Silence (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English you used to be able to use "thou" to express either contempt or intimacy. "If thou thoust him thrice, it shall not be amiss…" (Toby Belch urging Andrew Aguecheek to insult the disguised Viola in Twelfth Night). - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that nobody says *I are or even *I aren't suggests that nobody interprets aren't in aren't I as a contraction of are not. And of course I believe in prescriptive grammar as a social phenomenon: I just don't believe that it has much to do with the grammar of English (or any other language). --ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of the high-hat

edit

In Miller's Crossing , gangster Johnny Caspar frequently says things like "I'm sick a marchin' down to this goddamn office to kiss your Irish ass and I'M SICK OF THE HIGH HAT!" and "What is this, the high hat?" From context, "the high hat" would seem simply to mean "a gesture of contempt", but to what (if anything) does it literally refer? I'd always taken it to be a sting (percussion) (something you'd do to an unfunny guy, or maybe to get a bad act off the stage) but that's just a guess on my part. Is this an expression with any independent meaning, or just something invented for this movie? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The high hat" refers to a condescending attitude; see Wiktionary. I assume that the origin of the expression is in the top hats worn by the rich. Note the sentence "The top hat became associated with the upper class, becoming a target for satirists and social critics" in the article. Deor (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you'd wear a high hat while riding your high horse. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you're Mister High and Mighty. Deor (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he means he doesn't like cymbals. I never really took a penchant to them either. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inglourious Basterds

edit

This may be too esoteric for here, and is probably going to need a German language linguist, but here goes: In Inglourious Basterds, one of the scenes revolves around how an SS officer can determine what part of Germany a German speaker comes from. He claims to be able to tell that one speaker is from Frankfurt and another is from Munich. Do the actors really speak with German accents which are detectable as coming from those parts of Germany, or is it just so much nonsense? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the movie, but I have no doubt that a native German speaker could deduce which part of Germany someone comes from by the way they speak. Can a native English speaker not identify whether someone is from Massachusetts or Scotland or New Zealand? --Jayron32 23:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I'm trying to ask is, are the actors' accents really from those regions? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen the movie and won't (not my taste), but apparently the cast includes German actors. Just as good English-speaking actors can learn to speak with a different English accent from their own, surely a decent German actor can adopt a Rhine Franconian (Frankfurt) or Bavarian (Munich) accent. Marco polo (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the actors that are meant to be from Frankfurt and Munich? It would be possible to check where they come from. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Fassbender is German-Irish (but moved to Eire at the age of two), Eli Roth´s grandparents came from Austria, Poland and Russia. August Diehl is German and so is Martin Wuttke, Til Schweiger, Diane Kruger, Gedeon Burkhard, Sylvester Groth, Volker Michalowski and Hilmar Echhorn. Christoph Waltz is Austrian. Some of those are noted actors on German / Austrian stages. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yea, OK, I really meant, in that particular scene the OP is referring to, who are the 2 actors and where do their characters come from. With that info, the Q is a lot easier! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Til Schweiger is the "Frankfurt" and I think Gedeon Burkhard is "Munich". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Til Schweiger was born in Baden-Würtemberg (in the South of Germany), quite a distance from Frankfurt. However, he honed his acting skills in Cologne, the dialect of which belongs to the same group as the dialectal froms of Frankfurt.
Gedeon Burkhard, however, is actually born in Munich and has Austrian roots. He would have no problems using a Bavarian Accent. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2009_August_21&oldid=1073354196"