This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
People are trying to build a Kölsch - or Ripuarish - Wikipedia. If you can speak or understand Kölsch, please help! The discussion is here. Dbach 12:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A Kölsch Wiki has been founded externally. Plz don't use the page mentioned above anymore. Dbach 14:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Please support the Ripuarian/Kölsch Wikipedia on Metawiki. Thank You! -- Purodha Blissenbach 04:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the article from 'dialect' to 'language'. This is because the former term is subjective. Although it's common to think that dialects are somehow subsidiary to languages this is not the case. See the article on dialect for more information. --Gareth Hughes 18:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
A warning to all readers: this article on the Cologne dialect or language, although not containing any outright untruths, is seriously lacking in quality and accuracy. I am not an expert on this particular dialect but as a Germanic philologist I know enough about German dialectology to see that this article needs serious reworking. What this article needs is:
Lufiend 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"In Cologne, it is actively spoken by about 250,000 people, roughly one quarter of the population." that guess far to high. I am from Cologne. Where is the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.249.221 (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Köln city | Kölsch | 1,080,394 | × | 15% | = | 162,059 |
Köln metro | Kölsch | 3,573,500 | × | 15% | = | 536,025 |
Köln district w/o c. & m. | Mostly Ripuarian | 0,880,728 | × | 50% | = | 440,364 |
Köln district total | Mostly Ripuarian | 4,454,228 | 22% | 976,389 |
what about those special collaquisms!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.244.212 (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Every other page on Colognian/Kölsch calls it 'Colognian' (Colognian phonology, Help:IPA for Colognian, etc.), but ((lang-ksh)) calls it 'Kölsch' and ((IPA-ksh)) calls it 'Colognian (Kölsch)'. It'd be nice to be consistent. — Lfdder (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was passing through and noticed that it might be useful to add the Standard German version of The Lord's Prayer here next to present version -- to show contrasts between Standard German and Kölsch. Cheers! Tezamen (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Colognian dialect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
(transferred from user talk:Richardw#Colognian)
Hi Richard. I saw your comment at Colognian dialect. Do you know anything about the phonology? E.g. in the lead of that article, there's the pronunciation [kœlʃ²]. The superscript 2 is not IPA, and is not defined in that article, the phonology article, or the IPA key linked from ((IPA-ksh)). I assume it is supposed to indicate pitch accent or something, but it would be nice if we either defined it or replaced it with IPA (which is what we're supposed to be using). Do you have any idea what it is? Could you ping me if you respond? Thanks — kwami (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@LiliCharlie: Thanks, Lili. Do you think we could characterize it as a falling tone, then? Syllables with falling tones tend to be short compared to others. (E.g., in Mandarin falling-tone syllables are shorter than those with level, rising or low/dipping tone, and many other languages are similar.) Not sure about the decreasing intensity, but that seems to match falling tone in other langs as well, at least in citation form. — kwami (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC) I don't read Dutch, but this,
... suggests that stoot (abrupt?) = hoge (high) = accent 1 and sleep (level?) = val (falling) = accent 2. But the pitch traces in the next section contrast sleep and val, which means they can't both be accent 2. Was the order of the lead mixed up, with sleep = hoge = accent 1 and stoot = val = accent 2? And is their accent 2 what we've been marking with a superscript 2? — kwami (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Richard, just your comment that a translation wasn't literal. I thought from that you might be familiar with the language. @Kbb2:, thank you for clarifying. I linked Schleifton in the IPA key to the description you provided. Since the key uses the half-long sign, that's what we should use in the articles too. Is the Schleifton 'marked' and the Schärfung 'unmarked', then? The terminology is rather confusing, with geschärfter being Schliefton (2) but ungeschärfter being Scharfung (1). Is that contradictory, like English inrounded = exolabial, Or do I have them backwards? Would you mind checking this table?
— kwami (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Just for the diphthongs. Monophthongs take the long mark for Stoßton. I'm copying the table into the main article. — kwami (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I assume the stress mark is meant to convey the tone accents, that the position, presence or choice of 1ary vs 2ary stress indicates whether it's T1 or T2, since tone accent only occurs on stressed syllables. Swedish and Norwegian have similar conventions. But ideally we'd want some way to convey this with the IPA, so that naive readers can have some idea of what's going on. If I had to guess, I'd think that in ⟨ˈkœɫːʃ⟩, the stress mark indicates that the syllable has a tonic accent, and the length mark tells us which one -- in this case T1, which of course contradicts the transcription ⟨kœlʃ²⟩. There are lots of walled-garden conventions for using digits to indicate tone. A lot of the SE Asia articles use 1 for low tone and 5 for high tone, but claim that's IPA, and it's a constant cleanup effort to convert them to actual IPA. But at least with Chao tone letters (bars) the conversion is straightforward. Digits don't work because the African convention is that 5 is low and 1 is high, or sometimes 2 and 1 for low and high, while in Mesoamerica 1 is low and 3 is high, or sometimes 4. Digits are opaque unless you're privy to the local convention, which is at odds with the entire idea of an international phonetic alphabet, and with the MOS where it's been decided that we should use the IPA and other international conventions. I think it probably won't be so difficult with Swedish and Norwegian -- one tone diacritic vs two, patterned after the standard language, and readers familiar with other dialects should be able to extrapolate the local realizations of the tone accents. For Colognian, the half-long vs long convention is misleading, but perhaps it's adequate. If we actually indicate tone, which I'd prefer, I assume we'd want either one tone diacritic, to be placed on the tonic syllable of tone-marked words, which evidently would be T1, or two contrasting diacritics for T1 and T2. Should we take this discussion to Kbb2? I don't know your background. I wouldn't want to decide something, go to the effort of converting the articles, only to have someone who really knows their stuff tell us we got it backwards. — kwami (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Another question would be whether we bother with stress marks. If we have some convention for both T1 and T2, then it would be redundant. If we only indicate the 'marked' tone accent, then the stress mark would indicate the other. (But it could also mean whoever added the pronunciation didn't know the tone accent and so ignored it.) And then there's the question of secondary stress. AFAIK, that's never been demonstrated to be phonemic in any language. It certainly isn't in English, despite what American dictionaries claim (though thankfully not the OED anymore). — kwami (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Based on that paper, given the author's opinion that it's unfortunate the conventional notation resembles IPA length marks (implying that they're not supposed to indicate length), and while waiting for Mr KEBAB to get back to us, I propose a circumflex for T1 and either just a stress mark or some other tonal diacritic, maybe a grave, for T2 -- say, zɛ̂i (T1) vs zɛ̀i (T2), or ˈzɛ̂i vs ˈzɛi. — kwami (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC) |
Does anyone have any source that actually claims that the realisation of <ch> is [ɧ]? I'm aware the Kölsch-Akademie like to claim it is /ɧ/, but they never actually make a claim for it sounding anything like [ɧ]. In fact their description from their grammar they published, "De kölsche Sproch", puts it pretty clearly in [ɕ]-range: Et ch [ç] em Deutsche en recht, mich, Wächter ... es em Kölsche et ch [ɧ], ene Laut, dä zweschen dem deutsche ch [ç] und sch [ʃ] ze fingen es, dobei nöher am sch [ʃ] litt. The last part, "a sound which is between ç and ʃ, but a bit closer to ʃ" is a pretty accurate lay description of [ɕ]. I almost wonder if the people who came up with that transcription [ɧ] (which despite the brackets I am sure must be a phonemic transcription, as the Akademie also uses [r] to describe the second consonant in the word sage [zaː¹ʁə]) misunderstood what "simultaneous /ʃ/ and /x/," the IPA official description of /ɧ/, means. [ç] and [x] are, after all, allophones in German. Worth mentioning that the Akademie still claim <sch> is "[ʃ]", while simultaneously also explicitly claiming in other materials ("Usgesproche Kölsch," an audio pronunciation guide) that "ch and sch are pronounced identically" 70.162.100.208 (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Seems very unlikely, but if it's true, it needs a sentence or two of explanation. As it stands, it leaves the impression that in Munich and Frankfurt, for example, the local language has been replaced by Standard(ized) High German. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)