User talk:Ermenrich: Difference between revisions

:As it says on my bio page here, my specialization is [[Middle High German literature]]. You can find the topics I typically write on at my academia.edu page. So while I have some training in historical linguistics and I’ve learned more on my own, I’m not a linguist.—-[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich#top|talk]]) 12:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

:As it says on my bio page here, my specialization is [[Middle High German literature]]. You can find the topics I typically write on at my academia.edu page. So while I have some training in historical linguistics and I’ve learned more on my own, I’m not a linguist.—-[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich#top|talk]]) 12:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

::Thank you for your reply. And what exactly did you study. Originally I thought it was something like German Studies. The German equivalent would probably be “Germanistik” [[Special:Contributions/~2025-43749-07|~2025-43749-07]] ([[User talk:~2025-43749-07|talk]]) 14:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I saw that you’ve dealt with a lot of harassment recently. Here’s a kitten to cheer you up!

QuicoleJR (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks QuicoleJR! I appreciate it!–Ermenrich (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ermenrich. I would like to ask you for further clarification. In the article “Saxons” under “Language,” the following sentence appeared: “In contrast, the Saxon dialects became part of the much larger Continental West Germanic continuum which stretched to the Alps, and can all be considered to be types of German.” I removed the last part of this sentence because I believe that Old Saxon, Old Dutch, and Old High German are considered closely related languages ​​rather than “types of German” or german dialects. I would appreciate your approval of this change, as I am not entirely certain. ~2025-36635-17 (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I’m wrong, I’d like to undo my edit. ~2025-36817-22 (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not wrong – all those languages are in a dialect continuum but they can’t all be considered types of German.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, do I understand you correct, that Old Saxon and Old High German are typologically rather closely related languages and not dialects of the same langauge? ~2025-36938-85 (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are usually discussed as separate languages, yes.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer! ~2025-36938-85 (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ermenrich,

In the article “Dialect Continuum,” the following sentence appeared in the section “Romance Languages” after the individual languages ​​belonging to this continuum were listed:

“This continuum is sometimes presented as another example, but the major languages ​​in the group (i.e., Portuguese, Spanish, French, and Italian) have had separate standard language standards for longer than the languages ​​in the Continental West Germanic group, and so are not commonly classified as dialects of a common language.”

I removed this sentence because I believe that the individual languages ​​of the Continental West Germanic dialect continuum are usually viewed as such, and not simply as dialects of a single language. For example, you yourself stated that most linguists classify Low German as a distinct language. I would say that may be not the case sociolinguistically, but just with Low Saxon, not with Dutch.

I would like to know if my edit is correct and can stand, or if I should undo it. ~2025-37262-84 (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that your edit was correct. Whether something is a dialect or a language is, for the most part, entirely subjective. People who want greater recognition for their speech variety usually argue for language status; people who don’t think that a language variety is that different will argue for dialect status. Because of phenomena like dialect continua, “Mutual Intelligibility” doesn’t really work as a classifier. Standard varieties (which create “hard boundaries”) are the only real way for the difference to be undisputed – and even there there are outliers like in the various standard languages of Serbo-Croatian.–Ermenrich (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So you agree with me that the languages ​​of the West Germanic dialect continuum are mostly discussed as closely related languages ​​and not as dialects of a common language? ~2025-37349-93 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do.—Ermenrich (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I’ll keep my edit as it is. Thank you and have a nice day. ~2025-36995-47 (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate briefly: A dialect continuum does not automatically mean that its components are considered a single language, correct? ~2025-37322-75 (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct.–Ermenrich (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think that implies it can consist typologically of several distinct languages!? (I promise this is the last confirmation request!) ~2025-37077-90 (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can consist of what we consider to be distinct languages, yes. Thus there is or was a dialect continuum among the continental Germanic languages, between French, Italian, and Spanish, between the Nordic languages, between the East Slavic languages, between the West Slavic languages, and also one between the South Slavic languages. The only way related languages avoid having one is some sort of break in the chain (a new group moves in between the related languages/dialects breaking the chain: thus it’s theorized that Nordic speakers from further north occupied Jutland and thus created a hard barrier between West and North Germanic, for instance). Dialects/languages can differ radically from one another when they are separated by several dialects/languages, but they won’t differ markedly from neighboring dialects/languages.–Ermenrich (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand. But what do you mean exactly with the formulation “dialects/languages“. Because you wrote “Dialects/languages can differ radically from one another when they are separated by several dialects/languages, but they won’t differ markedly from neighboring dialects/languages.” I wonder whether it is rather the neighbouring dialects that don’t differ markedly, whereas neighboring languages, already do, just not in the transition zone. And Are there three or just two Slavic continuua. Is not there only a nothern and southern continuum? ~2025-37583-32 (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m saying “dialects/languages” because, as I’ve indicated above, there is no real difference between a dialect and a language. All dialects are transitional with any neighboring ones barring a hard break.

As for Slavic, I’m not a Slavic linguist, so I don’t know.–Ermenrich (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You write “(dialects)/languages can differ radically from one another when they are separated by several (dialects)/languages, but they won’t differ markedly from neighboring (dialects)/languages.”

According to this reading, this would mean that neighboring languages could not differ significantly from one another. But isn’t it indeed the case that neighboring distinct languages, which are for the most part also seen as such, can differ considerably from one another — for example in the case of Polish and Ukrainian or Portuguese and Spanish or Occitan and French — only that their dialects become more and more similar the smaller the geographical distance becomes, up to the point where an exact assignment of the dialects / the language boundary is no longer possible?

Perhaps I misunderstood you, and “dialects/languages” was meant to refer to local varieties rather than to what you sad we call distinct languages consisting of several varieties itself.”

Please write to me whether I am right and may have misunderstood your wording. Best regards. ~2025-37274-17 (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you stated above, that there were no real differences between a dialect and a language, but also that a dialect continuum could consist of “what we call distinct languages”. How does that go together? ~2025-37704-53 (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understood it to mean that in a dialect continuum, neighboring local dialects do not differ significantly, but the farther apart the dialects are geographically, the greater their typological distance becomes—until you eventually reach a point where they can no longer be regarded as dialects of one language but of two distinct languages. Thus, a dialect continuum can include several distinct languages whose dialects nonetheless merge gradually into one another without sharp boundaries. Does that interpretation match your understanding, or am I missing something essential?~2025-37639-16 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s more or less what I’m saying, yes.–Ermenrich (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

👍 ~2025-37760-26 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Were you going to report MongolicHistorian for edit warring on Xiongnu language? Clearly this editor, who has been asked to use the article talk page, isn’t interested in discussion.

Their latest addition uses sources from 1922, 1948, and 1950. —Kansas Bear (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kansas Bear! I’m not sure that it counts as edit warring, as they haven’t re-added the things I removed. They are definitely making questionable additions, however, given the age of the sources. This is one of those cases where the article (which isn’t great to begin with) probably just needs to be reverted to before they started adding to it.–Ermenrich (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you guys verify his last edits[1][2]? —Mann Mann (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mann Mann:The words might need explicit sourcing but I believe that’s from Vovin. I reverted the edits. It seems to me that he’s pushing a Turkic perspective and trying to denigrate the Yenisseian theory.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ermenrich, you recently helped me on the discussion page about the history of the Dutch language. However, you claim not to be a linguist, which was irrelevant in this context. Nevertheless, I’d like to know what you do professionally, since you’re a German professor and taught history of the German language. Surely you must also work in the field of linguistics and have studied German philology? ~2026-48729 (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As it says on my bio page here, my specialization is Middle High German literature. You can find the topics I typically write on at my academia.edu page. So while I have some training in historical linguistics and I’ve learned more on my own, I’m not a linguist.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. And what exactly did you study. Originally I thought it was something like German Studies. The German equivalent would probably be “Germanistik” ~2025-43749-07 (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]