Talk:Lombardic language

Untitled

Lombardic is a west germanic language. The second germanic sound shiftig only occured in this branch. This false classification has spreead throughout diverse international wikipedias. So, please, have a look at them.

So you're sure that it was not a case of phonological influence due to the contiguity between Italy and upper Germany?--Wiglaf 10:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Though we don't know much about longobardian grammar, the vocabulary is obvious west-germanic (upper high german). --Zinnmann 07:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lemma

Shouldn't the article title be changed to Longobardic language to avoid cunfusion with the romance Lombard language? -- Pjacobi 18:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

East or West Germanic?

It's as easy as Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Find an authority with the respective opinion, each. Lombardic is generally considered East Germanic, but it may be possible to disagree about it, since it appears to have taken part in the West Germanic second sound shift (which is probably due to areal contact). dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I have just realized that the sound shift bit is already in the article. doh. ("It is said" is of course not good enough, though...) dab (ᛏ)

I have edited the article and I hope it is more NPOV now. I'll go and check Zinnman's recent edit history.--Wiglaf 08:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hutterrer classifies Lombardic as South Germanic, close to Old Saxon. He doesn't mention East Germanic. It seems therefore that until we find an authority who does, we should be less committed about its classification. dab (ᛏ) 08:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But, at least in Scandinavian scholarship, South Germanic is used for West Germanic and East Germanic in geographical opposition to North Germanic.--Wiglaf 08:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

that's right, this means that Hutterer says it's not North Germanic (he refers to obsolete "Ingvaeonic", we don't seem to have this on en:, but see de:Ingaevonische Sprachgruppe, but he refuses to decide between East and West Germanic. But this is just a brief outline in a book on the Germanic languages in general, maybe you can find a more specialist opinion. dab (ᛏ) 08:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is an article on Ingaevones. Considering the mutual intelligibilty that existed and the ethnic fluidity that existed between the Germanic dialects, I doubt such a matter will ever be settled. When the Langobards arrived in Italy, they were probably composed by warbands from many Germanic tribes.--Wiglaf 09:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suppose so. I think we should not make a statement as to either West or East Germanic, at this point.

Hi Wiglaf, we seem to agree, that Lombardic is a South Germanic language. While i think, that phonology and lexic points towards a West Germanic language, you propose it a East germanic language. But what are your arguments in that direction? Just assuming, that lombardic phonological peculiarities are a matter of contact with west germanic tribes seems a bit weak. What evidences are there, that Lombardic is an East Germanic Language? I believe, we should categorize neither as west nor as east germanic until this is settled. Would that be ok for you? --Zinnmann 12:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zinnmann. It's perfectly OK for me to have it as just a Germanic language. I just prefer a traditional categorization to a questionable new categorization. Place names point to a North Germanic connection, but I don't put it in the North Germanic group ;).--Wiglaf 13:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There has been a similar discussion on the Germanic page (with, currently, a rather absurd result). As I emntion in the discussion there, there are half a dozen very respectable sources who classify Langobardic as Upper German, namely

• Lexikon der Germanistischen Liguistik
• The histories of Bach, Schweikle, Sonderegger
• Nielsen's The Germanic Languages
• Braune/Mitzka, Ahd. Grammatik

(I seem to remember Krahe/Meid does too, but I can't find my copy.) Any case for another classification will need to be very well supported (much more than just Hutterer) to match those, I would say.

Incidentally, one thing it would be good to establish is when Lgb. died out. Pfold 14:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

we are not claiming in contradiction with your sources. we are just trying to be on the safe side, considering almost nothing is known about the language. I presume your sources classify it on the High Germanic consonant shift, i.e. on phonological grounds, alone? This is pretty much what we have in the article, too. Although I admit we seem to have no definite reason why it could be argued to be East Germanic. dab (ᛏ) 14:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

looking at what we have, I think it could be defensible to categorize it as High Germanic. Upper German in particular would seem anachronistic, since it is unlikely that the division between Central and Upper German existed in the 6th century. Or what would you name as a 6th century Central German dialect? dab (ᛏ) 14:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see what basis there could be for reformulating the conclusions of TEN reputable sources (add Penzel, v.Kienle, Krahe/Meid, Watermann) - they all say UG. Of course, alternative views for which there is support in the published literature can be discussed, but that can't be a reason for changing this article's account of what the prevalent view is. Individually (and on this Talk page!), we can speculate as much as we like, but our speculations, if they can't be backed up by references to publications, don't belong in the article. If you think the UG/CG division is untenable in the 6th century, you need to find someone who agrees with you in a peer-reviewed work. In fact, the distinction seems to reflect a long-standing division between the Elbegermanen and Rhei-Weser-Germanen, which is several hundered years old by the time we get to the sound shift.

Anyway, I've fleshed out the basis for the UG classification, so that it's not just a bald statement.

BTW, I've temporarily changed the ref. to Schwarz to citation needed till we can get the exact source. Is it his article on the sound shift in the 1927 PBB, or did he write something specifically on Lombardic?

I dare say there's more that can be added, but not that much more, so it seems to me this article is long enough to lose the the stub tag. Perhaps we could take the Lombardic>Italian loans on the WP:DE Lombardic page. Pfold 10:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

you didn't answer my question above (what exactly is it your sources say? is "UG" equivalent to "shifted consonants", i.e. a purely phonological classification?) care to cite one of your sources verbatim? I will try and look up some of your sources myself now. Again, by saying "High German" we do not contradict "Upper German", we are being careful. Every definition of UG/CG I have seen is in terms of the sound shift, so it seems idiosyncratic to say the division was centuries old by the time of the shift. It's a question of the burden of proof. If I say "we cannot imply that there was a UG/CG division in the 6th century", is it my responsibility to show that our authorities state that there is no such division, or is it, rather, your responsibility, if you want to make the claim in the article, to show that they do, in fact, claim the presence of such a division? dab (ᛏ) 20:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't got time to check them all at the moment, but here's what the first few that come to hand say:

• Schweiklle: UG
• Moser:UG/Elbe Gmc
• Wells: Elbe Gmc
• Keller: Elbe Gmc
• Nielsen:UG
• Bach: just says OHG
• Braune/Mitzka:UG
• Sonderegger: uses the term Bairisch-Langobardisch, classed as UG

Some spell it out in words, some use tree diagrams.

The UG/CG division is regarded as the consequnce of the ElbeGmc/Weser-Rhein Gmc tribal groupings, which reflect the Herminonic-Istvaeonic distinction of Tacitus - so the tribal division is at least 400 years old by the time of the Sound Shift. I think it would be terribly surprising if the Franks on the Middle Rhine and the Bavarians on the Danube did not already speak clearly distinct dialects before 500AD, say. Nothing I've looked at suggests that the major dialect groupings are recent or solely the result of the Sound Shift. They all trace the CG/UG division back to an earlier split, even if they use tribal rather than dialectal terms. --Pfold 18:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

my suggestion would be that we reproduce this situation along the lines of "sometimes classified as a dialect of OHG, or as close to (Austro-)Bavarian or Upper German in particular, sometimes as close to Old Saxon, and sometimes more broadly as South Germanic". That about covers what we've seen so far, I think. I disagree with the second part of your statement: while it is conceivable that the CG/UG division in part continues a division ElbeGmc/Weser-RheinGmc (note German vs. Germanic; it's not "Elbe German"), it is not a direct continuation: there have been too many population movements (the "Migration period"?) to treat CG/UG as 'identical' to dialect divisions predating 500 AD. The Lombards are a perfect example of this; Tacitus has them settling at the lower Elbe (100 AD, "Low German" territory!), then they moved up the Elbe (3rd-4th c.), settled at the Danube (5th c.), in Pannonia (6th c.), and finally in Italy. So would you say they took their "ElbeGmc" with them, and were secondarily influenced by "Bavarian" over the 5th c.? Or did they entirely drop their "ElbeGmc" in favour of "Weser-RheinGmc" during their migration? Obviously there would have been dialects in early Germanic, but it won't do to classify early Germanic dialects as if they were modern German dialects. dab (ᛏ) 08:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "sometimes classified as a dialect of OHG"? - classified as UG by everyone except a couple of WP editors who don't cite any sources! I have cited something like 14, mostly absolutely standard sources (i.e. handbooks, not speculative research) for this. In the several months of this discussion, neither you nor anyone else has cited a single source for an alternative view. You've argued that some of the evidence suggests a different view, but that's not the same thing at all. --Pfold 09:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for reviving this long-abandoned subject, but is there any way to tell that by the 7th and early 8th centuries, the latest possible date for the High German sound shift, Langobardic must actually somehow have been systematically different from Bavarian? I'd really be interested in a demonstration. For, from what I've read about Langobardic and the earliest attested Old High German and specifically Bavarian of the 8th century, there is essentially no specifically Langobardic feature – at least as far as innovations are concerned – that could be pinpointed at the time in question (such innovations would necessarily be phonological, of course). The only divergences are a few phonological developments, which however, seem to be palpably late and postdating the sound shift, for example /ai/ becoming /aː/ before /r/, and under secondary stress, and /au/ to /aː/ (almost exclusively under secondary stress, however). One retention which apparently does not occur in Bavarian (which seems to have shift every stop in everywhere context eventually) is the failure of shifting stops under certain (few) conditions. I'm not entirely sure anymore, and I'd have to check the table of shifts in Sonderegger, but I believe one of the few exceptions (or perhaps even the only exception?) was p after liquid. Curiously, however, even that would not be unique to Langobardic at all within the context of Upper German: As Braune-Eggers points out, there are a few names attested in the early period in Bavarian (Passau, 818/819), Alemannic (Murbach, 760/794) and South Franconian (Weißenburg, 786), where lp (Bavarian and Alemannic) or rp (South Franconian) appears unshifted.

One feature that Sonderegger does give as characterising Langobardic, namely the lacking diphthongisation in /eː/ and /oː/ and monophthongisation (or vowel height assimilation) of /ai/ and /au/ is not a diagnostic criterion either, as diphthongisation and monophthongisation are developments that are merely appearing at the time, and especially Bavarian retains the old vocalism until relatively late, /oː/ in particular being preserved long into the 9th century.

What this means is that the impression I've received from all this that Langobardic and at least Bavarian could well have been essentially identical until long into the 8th century, i. e., after the sound shift was certainly complete and our earliest attestions of Old High German north of the Alps appear. The reason we think of Langobardic as a separate language is mainly its separate location and ethnic and literary tradition, not so much the language itself, as far as it can be determined at all; and its divergence only starts as the sources for Langobardic are petering out (and the spoken language itself starts to be affected by Romance more and more, presumably) and those for Old High German are starting to increase. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

test samples

there are drawings of the runic inscriptions in Hutterer (p.341), and the words seem to be separated as I have given them (i.e. the d (for andi?) on its own, but alaguthleuba together). The translation, as with almomst all early runic inscriptions, is of course speculative. dab (ᛏ) 09:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arogist/gast

This name looks remarkably similar to the "Harigast/Harixast" on the Negau Helmet. Firstly, could that inscription be considered early Lombardic? Secondly, as Harigast seems to be a god's (teiva) name, perhaps it is the same god here- Alaguth and Leuba made/dedicated (this) to (the god) Arogist? Walshie79 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the early (and uncertain) date of the inscription, I think it would be very questionable whether it would be possible to recognize the words as belonging to any specific later dialect. --Pfold (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ezh or tailed Z?

Did the alphabet include an actual Ezh, or did it have a form of the tailed/blackletter Z also common in other medieval German scripts? I would also love to see a reference that they used þorn as an actual letter, and not just a digraph which happens to resemble thorn. For both ezh/tailed z and thorn/TH-ligature the letter form may be near-identical, but the actual letter is different. As far as I'm aware the actual Ezh was only introduced by Pitman in 1847, and Thorn was only used by the Anglosaxons and Scandinavians. Jordi·✆ 00:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The ezh glyph is used now, i.e. post-1847, for transcription. I don't know how the medieval letter looks exactly. We are talking about a grapheme, not a phoneme, too. The letter doesn't have the value /zh/ at all, it is an allophone of s. (word-final s, I think, much like Greek word-medial and word-final sigma). dab (ᛏ) 16:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pallersdorf?

That's a completely German name (...well, OK, at least the -dorf part is). Is it perhaps in Burgenland, which belonged to Hungary before 1921?

According to de:Liste_deutscher_Bezeichnungen_ungarischer_Orte the hungarian name is "Bezenye". It seems to be located near the former czechoslovakian border. --Zinnmann 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

East or West... "Phonologically"

I don't have time to read through all the Talk on this, but I note the article is (currently) doing something tricky by stating "Phonologically, Lombardic is now classified as an early High German dialect".

This is not a linguistically sound statement -- it is conflating phonological classification (meaning types of phonology whether for genetically related languages or not) with genetic affiliation. It can't be "phonologically... an early High German dialect" -- but only phonologically in the same sound system class as early High German.

It also is entirely obscuring the fact that -- just going by phonology -- it could have been from any other Germanic group and then took part in the High German sound shift as an areal feature -- and/or the attestations may be under the influence of Old High German spelling norms.

It strikes me that what should be stressed is: that classification within in the Germanic languges is difficult to make due to the extremely minimal material available, and the likelihood of cultural influence from the more Romanized Alemanni to the north. Nonetheless, it does seem to have taken part in the Old High German sound shifts, whether as an areal influence or due to genetic membership in the High German group. Theories on its exact position within the Germanic languages have included X (source), Y (source), and Z (source).

Personally I always had the impression it is considered East Germanic with OHG overlay -- no clue where I absorbed that from.

Encyclopedia Britannica ("Germanic Languages" article) describes -- with caveats on certaintly -- the Lombards as one of three "Elbe River" group Germanic tribes, along with the Alemanni and Bavarians, who later migrated south.

I agree the statement about phonology is oddly phrased but the intention is sound: "on the basis of phonological evidence, and in the absence of evidence about morphology, syntax and more than a tiny portion of the lexicon". But as to classification the handbooks are quite unanimous in assigning it to WGmc. In a long and tedious dispute about its classification on the Germanic Languages page, the proponents of an EGmc classification were unable to cite a single source to support that view, though I see one secondary source is now cited on the de:Langobardische Sprache page. --Pfold 14:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

you may want to align this article with High_German_consonant_shift#East_Germanic_hypotheses, which at present matter-of-factly claims that Lombardic is East Germanic. dab (𒁳) 13:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Broken unicode

I removed some broken unicode characters, but the article seems to need some more work in that respect. I’ll leave the rest to someone who actually knows the subject matter. — NRen2k5 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"largely" extinct?

(lede) Seems to me it's pretty much completely extinct... -- megA (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Pernik Sword

As an extant Lombardic text, the Pernik sword inscription appears to be by far the longest. Quoting from the Wikipedia article Pernik sword:

"IH INI NI hVIL PIDH, INI hVIL PN",

meaning "I do not await eternity, I am eternity."

Why not mentioned? hgwb (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

East Gmc again

The mention of East Gmc ("Formerly, Lombardic was classified as Ingaevonian (North Sea Germanic) or as Eastern Germanic, but these classifications are considered obsolete") has a source, but as I remember it (it's not easily accessible now I'm out of academia) the source doesn't support either of the claims made in the sentence. What the Lexikon des MAs does is mention that another scholar (Italian, I think) had recently (i.e. in 1991) made a new suggestion that Langobardic might be not WGmc but EGmc. But that is just a single speculative article, not supported, as far as I know by any later research, unless someone else can come up with some later discussionfind any. I really do think the claim has to go, as having spent several years in effectively a state of "citation needed". At the very least it should not be the first statment in this para. In fact I'm sure the mention of NSGmc is based on a misunderstanding - there are certainly historical links between the Lombards and the Saxons, which is hardly suprising if you look at their probable migration patterns, but has anyone seriously suggested that that makes Lombardic NSGmc? I've never seen this in 20 years of working with the literature. --Pfold (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lombardic language. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/arts/1997/j.h.looijenga/thesis.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716114809/http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/arts/1997/j.h.looijenga/thesis.pdf to http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/arts/1997/j.h.looijenga/thesis.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Lombardic vs. Old Bavarian

So my understanding is now the following: Lombardic branched away from Upper German (Alemannic and Bavarian) already in the 6th or 7th centuries, and by the late 8th and 9th centuries, when Old Alemannic and Old Bavarian are well-attested, Lombardic was already distinct from both.

It shows mainly conservative traits, such as retaining the old monophthongs ē and ō, and failing to monophthongise old ai and au to [ɛː] and [ɔː] before certain consonants (though both could eventually monophthongise to [aː] in certain contexts, as mentioned further above on the talk page), and also showing more contexts than Alemannic and Bavarian where stops failed to shift (in the context of the High German Consonant Shift, dated to the 6th–8th centuries). Braune-Eggers mentions that old /p/ failed to shift to /pf/ word-initially as well (I wonder if Romance influence played a role there), and presumably it fell together with old /b/, which had shifted to /p/ – unless old /p/ was really aspirated /pʰ/ and remained as such. Word-initial /θ/ also remained initially, but was eventually replaced by /t/ under Romance influence. So, phonologically anyway, there are a few innovations, but most traits are retentions relative to Upper German.

Old Bavarian of the 9th century appears to be the ancestor of all modern Bavarian dialects. A characteristic trait of the South Bavarian dialects is that the vowels [ɛː] and [ɔː] (the ones who go back to old ai and au) were diphthongised again, to falling diphthongs [eɐ] and [oɐ]. (Curiously, this echoes the first stage of the diphthongisation of old ē and ō, best attested in Old Alemannic.) In Central Bavarian, they either remained or were diphthongised to [ɛɪ] and [ɔʊ] instead. I'm not sure when South Bavarian began to split off, but I suspect the 10th century. Now, Cimbrian and Mocheno show the mentioned trait too, and are indeed explicitly classified as South Bavarian sometimes. Due to its conservative traits, Cimbrian must already have split off in the Late OHG period – most likely after 1000.

However, all of this means that there is no way that Cimbrian descends from Lombardic, or was even only influenced by Lombardic, or that Lombardic was part of Old Bavarian. Rather, Lombardic appears to have been a distinct branch of Old Upper German, effectively, closely related to Old Bavarian (and also Old Alemannic) but by no means identical with it. It seems to have split off earlier – quite possibly even before Bavarian became differentiated from Alemannic.

Cimbrian and Mocheno in turn are essentially just divergent Bavarian varieties, yet closely related to the Tyrolean dialects. They branched off from Bavarian much later than Lombardic – at a time when Bavarian was already slightly regionally differentiated. (Old Bavarian as attested in the 9th century shows no regional differentiation yet, no characteristic traits specific to any particular Schreibort, as far as I'm aware. Which isn't all that odd: It had diverged from its closest relatives only recently, and was spoken in a relatively limited, geographically rather uniform area north of the Eastern Alps. Central Bavarian, spoken in about the same region but extending further east, is still fairly weakly differentiated – the region is fairly plain and geographically well-connected, and evidently does not lend itself to great linguistic variety the way more mountainous areas do.) The Lombardentheorie is interesting but ultimately it just doesn't work. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis, but the point in the article is sourced from what seem to be reputable sources. Do we have any sources for demonstrating that it's a fringe view? But perhaps it doesn't in any case deserve to be part of the intro. --Pfold (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:PROFRINGE, my understanding is that the burden of evidence is on those who want to mention a fringe hypothesis. Otherwise editors could add any unusual or bizarre hypothesis that has ever been suggested by a scholar at all (and even professional researchers do occasionally put forward very odd ideas, in RS, that no other scholar with relevant expertise agrees with nor has responded to; professional academics sometimes turn into outright cranks, such as Andrew Wakefield), even if it has been completely ignored by other scholars (given that researchers don't generally waste time on debunking hypotheses that they consider baseless or evidently incorrect, unless the hypothesis has achieved widespread notability). It's the "this hypothesis has never been disproved, so Wikipedia must cover it!" argument. No, Wikipedia need not – the idea also has to gain some traction or noteworthiness first, and then Wikipedia may cover it even if it has been rejected by mainstream science.

As it is, the Langobardentheorie is simply mentioned as a hypothesis but not put into any context, hence the reader will likely take it much more seriously than it deserves – it's not absurd, but it's almost certainly incorrect and (even if not explicitly rejected) disregarded by relevant experts. So, the status quo is definitely problematic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been looking at Schweizer. Quite apart from the fact that his research was carried out under the auspices of the SS's Ahnenerbe, the final paragraph of his paper Die Herkunft der Zimbern shows a clear bias in his work towards a particular ethnic conclusion. If the closing statement of Bellotto's ILCIMBRO E LA TRADIZIONE LONGOBARDA NEL VICENTINO is anything to go by, he too was working from a firm non-linguistic ideological position (in this case religious). With the majority of the sources thus undermined, I must admit there is no case for keeping this material.--Pfold (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Is see absolutely no reason for considering Lombardic anything other than a dialect of Old High German. All there is, is a few archaisms, most of which are also found in old sources of Upper German (especially o, e for uo, ie is a well-known thing in older Upper German). Basically the only reason is that the Italians prefer to have their loanwords come from "Lombardic" rather than "Old High German". That's all. So Central Franconian, which lacks half of the consonant shift, and Old Bavarian are considered one language, but Lombardic is something totally different of course... 77.13.188.198 (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Classification: role of the Second Sound Shift

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi.

I am proposing a correction to the classification section because the present wording makes a stronger claim than the evidence supports.

The issue is not whether Lombardic underwent the Second Sound Shift. It clearly did, and that phonological evidence is relevant to its classification. The problem is the statement that this “shows that the language must be High German” and that its classification “rests entirely on phonology.”

“Classification” cannot simply be equated with one phonological development. The Second Sound Shift establishes that Lombardic underwent that sound change; it does not, by itself, determine its classification. The classification of Lombardic has historically been disputed, and the competing interpretations have drawn on multiple kinds of evidence.

In particular, the Ingvaeonic interpretation was not based merely on an absence of the Second Sound Shift. Published scholarship discusses positive evidence including Lombardic lexical correspondences with Ingvaeonic languages, as well as correspondences in Lombard and North Sea Germanic law, custom, myth, and legend. Wilhelm Bruckner treated the relationship between the Lombards and the Ingvaeonic peoples explicitly in *Die Sprache der Langobarden* (1895), §6, pp. 24–32.

I therefore propose replacing the categorical statement that the language “must be High German” with wording that accurately distinguishes the Second Sound Shift as phonological evidence from the broader question of Lombardic classification.

This is not an attempt to introduce a new interpretation or original research. The purpose of the edit is to represent the existing scholarly disagreement and the different bodies of evidence on which the competing classifications have been based.

J.M Fouquet. Walander ~2026-47816-02 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am myself from "Langbartiska uuidarburt" https://langbartiska-uuidarburt.github.io/UUIDARBURT/

and I agree that the "classification" section of this Wikipedia article contains misleading assertions.

The claim that the classification of Langobardic “rests entirely on phonology” is not correct, because there is extensive morphological, lexical, legal, and onomastic evidence bearing directly on its linguistic classification.

The phonology is certainly important: Langobardic underwent High German-type sound changes, including the consonant shift. But that establishes what happened to the language phonologically; it does not by itself establish that the language was genealogically Upper German at the beginning. And the other linguistic evidence cannot simply be ignored.

For example, W. Bruckner's argument for an Ingvaeonic, particularly Anglo-Frisian, relationship points to a substantial group of Langobardic words corresponding specifically to Old English, Old Saxon, Frisian and, in some cases, Old Norse:

Legal vocabulary:

Langobardic fulcfree “common/free” ↔ Old English folcfrý

Langobardic fulboran “fully born / fully legitimate” ↔ Old English fulboren

Langobardic gasindus ↔ Old English gesîp, in the terminology of the retainer/companion

Langobardic selpmundius “self-governing / independent” ↔ Saxon selfmundich

Langobardic uuarigang “stranger” ↔ Old English vergenga, with parallels in Old Norse waldgenga and skóggang

Langobardic aid “oath” ↔ Frisian êth / êthum

Langobardic aldius, aldia ↔ Old Saxon eldi, Old English elde, ylde

These are not merely abstract similarities. A number of them belong specifically to legal and social terminology, where systematic correspondences can be particularly significant.

There are also ordinary lexical correspondences:

fol “vessel, cup” ↔ Old English / Old Saxon ful

gaida “point” ↔ Old English gād

gathungi “size, greatness” ↔ Old English geþynge

traib in haritraib ↔ Old English dráf, Old Norse dreif

drancus ↔ Old Saxon dreng, Old Norse drengr

scaffardus “steward, administrator” ↔ Old Saxon scapward

scarn in scarnafol ↔ Old English scearn, Old Norse skarn

Langobardic bôn in names such as Bôniverga, Bônipertus, Bôniprandus ↔ Old English bên, Old Norse bôn

There are furthermore onomastic correspondences. Langobardic names such as Gidfrit, Cîtheo, Placimundus, Placiprandus, Wictari / Wectari, and Wudualdus have been compared with Old English and Old Saxon forms such as gidd, Plegmund, Plegberct, Wihthere, Uihtlac, Viohtgâr, and wudu.

That is not phonological evidence alone. It is evidence from lexicon, word formation, and naming practices.

And the argument goes further: Langobardic also appears to preserve clear morphological features that align it with Anglo-Frisian/Old Saxon rather than simply with the Upper German dialects. For example, the surviving forms suggest distinctions among certain i-stems, including:

marhworf

grapworf

pûlslahi

and the language appears to preserve a distinction among certain feminine stems, with forms such as:

morgingâb

laib

haritraib

Burgundaib

Bainaib

Wingidiu

There are also apparent plural forms in -os / -as, e.g. gamahalos, aidos, scamaras, and possibly a weak masculine genitive in -on.

The significance of this is not merely that Langobardic happens to contain a few grammatical forms resembling northern Germanic. It means that the surviving evidence contains grammatical structure which has been interpreted as specifically comparable to Anglo-Frisian and Old Saxon morphology. That is direct linguistic evidence relevant to genealogical classification, independently of the consonant shift.

The legal evidence is equally important. Langobardic law was not simply compared with other Germanic laws in general; it was specifically noted for its close relationship to Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon law. Brunner collected a series of corresponding legal provisions, and Stobbe discussed the relationship between Langobardic and Saxon law in detail. Sohm likewise pointed to characteristic agreements between Anglo-Saxon and Langobardic constitutional organization. These are not phonological facts at all.

The lexical evidence is also far too extensive to describe the classification as resting entirely on phonology. The correspondences listed above involve legal terminology, social terminology, ordinary vocabulary, compounds, derivational formations, and personal names. Many of the parallels are specifically with Old English, Old Saxon, Frisian, and Norse forms, and several have no corresponding significance in the Upper German languages. Whether every individual comparison is ultimately correct is a separate philological question; the existence of a substantial body of such evidence is not.

It is also fundamental to remember that the coexistence of northern/Ingvaeonic features with strong High German phonology is not unexpected in light of the Historia Langobardorum itself. Paul Uuarnefrit preserves a tradition of successive Langobard migrations from the northern homeland through the Danubian region and ultimately into Italy. Given that trajectory and the prolonged contact with other Germanic peoples along the way, the later development of strong High German phonological characteristics is hardly surprising. It therefore cannot simply be taken as proof that the language's original classification was Upper German or “Elbe Germanic.”

The mythological and genealogical evidence points in the same direction. The Langobards' worship of Wodan and Frea was explicitly connected with the northern Germanic religious sphere; Widsith calls Sceaf a king of the Langobards; Langobardic royal genealogies contain striking parallels with Anglo-Saxon genealogies, including names such as Weho alongside East Anglian Wehha and Glaffo/Claffo alongside Old English Glappa. The reconstructed ancestor name Uhtbora/Uctbora was further compared with Old English formations such as Uhtred. Whatever weight one ultimately assigns to this material, it plainly does not belong to phonology.

Accordingly, the classification of Langobardic is not a case in which the phonology simply settles the question and the remaining evidence is irrelevant. The strong High German phonological evidence has to be weighed against substantial lexical, morphological, legal, onomastic and historical evidence pointing toward an Ingvaeonic, particularly Anglo-Frisian, affiliation.

This is why “Elbe Germanic” and “Upper German” are misleading as if they were straightforward, uncontested classifications of Langobardic itself. The High German consonant shift is evidence for an important phonological development, but phonology is only one aspect of the language and is not, by itself, decisive for its genealogical classification. The classification therefore cannot simply be reduced to “High German phonology = Upper German / Elbe Germanic,” especially when the language itself preserves substantial evidence pointing in another direction.

I therefore agree with J. M. Fouquet's modification request and his appeal for the restoration of his correction. S. Aliprandi (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

A lot of AI-generated blather, and all they have is Bruckner (1895), a source that Frank Heidermanns (the 2023 editor of Braune's Althochdeutsche Grammatik) explicitly calls "outdated". Check the previous discussions dating back to 2006. @Pfold has cited loads of more recent sources that support the classification of Langobardic as a dialect of OHG. –Austronesier (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

PS: Here is another one: Lühr, Rosemarie (2020), "Zum Langobardischen als Trümmersprache", in: Romain Garnier (ed.), Loanwords and substrata. Proceedings of the Colloquium held in Limoges (5th-7th June, 2018), Innsbruck, 295-314. –Austronesier (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

the comment has NOT BEEN WRITTEN BY AI, the FORMATTING has been.

i naturally tend to write explanations with a more articulated style.

please understand that the date of the documents is utterly irrelevant

i am challenging the fact the classification has been characterized by phonology alone, a fair classification should account for that.

if you EVEN BOTHERED TO READ THE DOCUMENT YOU QUOTED: " Lühr, Rosemarie (2020), "Zum Langobardischen als Trümmersprache"" YOU YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. S. Aliprandi (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Don't shout, and sure, I have read Lühr (2020). But have you read Tischler (1989)? How can you re-add the text "The shift is evidence for a particular phonological development in Lombardic, but it does not by itself establish a High German origin or invalidate the Ingvaeonic interpretation" with a citation to Tischler when he says nothing about that at all? –Austronesier (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

do you not realize that the quoted element is the mistake that he refers to ?? ~2026-47734-29 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. I am quoting the sentence because it is the mistake I am challenging, not claiming that Tischler supports it.

Tischler (1989) does not make that argument, the citation is therefore precisely what is wrong and must be removed. S. Aliprandi (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

C'mon, here and here (and also in a third unregistered sockpuppet-edit) both of you have added the following text plus citation: The shift is evidence for a particular phonological development in Lombardic, but it does not by itself establish a High German origin or invalidate the Ingvaeonic interpretation. This comes in the shape of [statement]^[source] which means the source supports the statement. But Tischler does not talk about sound shifts at all; his discussion centers around nominal morphology; and in fact, he refutes Bruckner's interpretation of two words ending in -as and -os as Old Saxon-like plural endings, so Tischler's chapter does exactly the opposite (i.e. presenting evidence to invalidate one piece of Bruckner's arguments for the Ingvaeonic interpretation) of what the inserted text asserts. –Austronesier (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

this does not correspond to the current page, the current page says: "the classification rests entirely on phonology. Here the clear evidence of the Second Sound Shift shows that the language must be High German, rather than North Sea Germanic or East Germanic, as some earlier scholars proposed."

this is not supported by any source, this is what you should have noticed. S. Aliprandi (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking about your edit. Don't distract. –Austronesier (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and talking about competence: I have noticed in your longish post that you assert that the pair Langobardic aid 'oath' ↔ Frisian êth comprises a piece of evidence for an Ingvaeonic connection. This is original research, right? I don't think that all the way from Bruckner to now any scholar would have made this amateurish blunder in a scholarly publication. That pair goes back to Proto-Germanic and has perfect cognates in Old/Middle/Modern High German (Oba karl then eid then er sinemo bruodher ludhuuuige gesuor geleistit..). –Austronesier (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

yes, my arguments are written from memory, and they were only meant to illustrate W.Bruckner's claim, i did not claim that this should be added anywhere

but this is an utterly irrelevant thing for you to focus on. you should put that energy into the correction of something more obvious and significant, like the blattant colloquial and incorrect claim on the main page: "the classification rests entirely on phonology. Here the clear evidence of the Second Sound Shift shows that the language must be High German, rather than North Sea Germanic or East Germanic, as some earlier scholars proposed." S. Aliprandi (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know it is the consensus of scholarship tbat Lombardic is high German, despite only fragmentary evidence for the language itself. You would need strong, recent sources to overturn that statement.—-Ermenrich (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

No, this consensus does not exist. tell me exactly where you found that. i do not see it anywhere.

there is not a single source that classifies the language officially ~2026-47578-95 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Since when are languages "officially" classified? –Austronesier (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

poorly formulated question, elaborate further... ~2026-47578-95 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

indeed, no author has ever claimed that: "the classification rests entirely on phonology. Here the clear evidence of the Second Sound Shift shows that the language must be High German, rather than North Sea Germanic or East Germanic, as some earlier scholars proposed.[6]"

this is not a quote from a recognized, it is a misunderstanding. Walander. J.M (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

It’s not a quote at all. And how many different accounts are you planning to use? WP:Sockpuppetry is not allowed here.—-Ermenrich (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

for my part, i use one account.

and you're proving the point ive been trying to make for hours, this is not quoted, no author ever wrote something like that, and its right here in the classification section stated as a fact, this is what i have been repeating over and over ~2026-47578-95 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don’t insult our intelligence. Also “quote” clearly does not mean what you think it does in English. Use a dictionary.—-Ermenrich (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

first of all English is one of my native languages, then i would suggest you to start being serious for a second and engage with the facts rather than throwing blank insults ~2026-47578-95 (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Then why are you and another username you claim is not you (but obviously is) arguing that something that was never set in quotation marks was not a quote?—-Ermenrich (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

im not sure i fully understand what you are refering to.

the point is that refusing to engage with the facts will neither settle this debate nor eliminate the mistakes under the "classification" section ~2026-47578-95 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Please explain what you think the text should say instead. This discussion is very confusing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

i believe the classification section should account for the uncertainty regarding the language's classification. this ultimate uncertainty is what authors all clearly suggest. and this is what the "classification" section should reflect. the current explanation: "the classification rests entirely on phonology. Here the clear evidence of the Second Sound Shift shows that the language must be High German, rather than North Sea Germanic or East Germanic, as some earlier scholars proposed."

as it is written, is not supported by any author/document. no author ever claimed a final classification such as this one. S. Aliprandi (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

We have a 2023 source classifying it in exactly that way.—-Ermenrich (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

this is rather surprising since phonology usually isnt sufficient to determine the "classification" of a language, but i would appreciate seeing what you consider to be the decisive "classification" argument. S. Aliprandi (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Read the article. Sound changes absolutely are diagnostic in classification.—-Ermenrich (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

phonology usually isn't sufficient to determine the classification of a language: of course it is. Regular sound correspondences between languages and the reconstruction of the proto-language based on these sound correspondences are the backbone of the historical-comparative method. And lingustic classification entirely falls in the authority of historical-comparative linguists. Extra-linguistic considerations that underlie Bruckner's work are relevant only insofar as they can corroborate linguistic evidence. But they can never refute it.

I am equally baffled by the blind eye to the citation of Maurer (1952). It is there in plain sight but yet we read comments like "as it is written, is not supported by any author/document". What a time sink of engaging with WP:Randy in Boise.–Austronesier (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that sound changes are diagnostically important in historical linguistics. That is not the point I am making.

The issue is the wording currently in the article:

“the classification rests entirely on phonology. Here the clear evidence of the Second Sound Shift shows that the language must be High German…”

That is a much stronger claim than “the Second Sound Shift is diagnostic”. It asserts both that the classification rests entirely on phonology and that the sound shift establishes the classification conclusively.

So please distinguish the two questions.

If Maurer (1952) is being cited as support for that exact proposition, then please give the relevant passage. I am happy to examine it. But simply pointing to Maurer does not establish that the source supports the wording currently used in the article.

also, I am not arguing that the existence of lexical, morphological, or other evidence somehow “refutes” phonological evidence. I am arguing that the article should not present the classification as though phonology were the only evidential basis, unless the cited literature actually says that.

And regarding Tischler: my objection is precisely that the citation attached to the proposed wording does not support that wording. I am not claiming that Tischler supports my interpretation.

So the substantive question remains very straightforward: which source supports the statement that Lombardic's classification “rests entirely on phonology” and that the Second Sound Shift therefore “shows that the language must be High German”? If Maurer does, please quote or identify the relevant passage. If he does not, then the sentence needs to be rewritten.

there might be an issue with the reply button so i believe creating a new section might be necessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by S. Aliprandi (talk • contribs) 21:09, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

immediate changes

note that no sources support what is written in the classification section: "the classification rests entirely on phonology. Here the clear evidence of the Second Sound Shift shows that the language must be High German, rather than North Sea Germanic or East Germanic, as some earlier scholars proposed.[6]"

the changes have been reversed to ensure honesty rather than the reflection of a mistaken surface level interpretation of a user. i trust you to understand that continuing to enforce a factual error is a destructive action that should not be tolerated S. Aliprandi (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

corrected blattant classification mistake for the third time

The classification label has been changed because Tischler (1989) does not explicitly classify Lombardic as Upper German, despite criticizing Bruckner's work as outdated in several respects. Tischler's criticism concerns Bruckner's source selection and methodology, not an explicit rejection of other possible classifications. The revised wording therefore avoids treating Tischler as having established Upper German as the definitive subgroup label. S. Aliprandi (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no reason to keep opening new topics when we’re still discussing the same addition. Please stop.—-Ermenrich (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

the current classification asserts a sourceless unsupported fact: the classification rests entirely on phonology. Here the clear evidence of the Second Sound Shift shows that the language must be High German, rather than North Sea Germanic or East Germanic, as some earlier scholars proposed.[6]

this error is INTOLERABLE and must be corrected

i would mention the fact that the behavior of some editors is evasive and assertive, those are despicable manners that one should be ashamed of. ~2026-47625-23 (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Please do NOT keep making new discussion sections for the same discussion. I have reformatted so that these two extra sections will not be separated from the main discussion, but please keep discussion in one thread.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

OHG classification

since the "Reply button" ceased to function in the last section, i found it appropriate to open a new section to facilitate communication.

Let me also declare that this has NOT been written or formatted by ai , this message explains the situation clearly one last final time, wich naturally takes space. this took me a while and it is necessary to understand it correctly.

First of all, I would like to thank @Austronesier for the small correction at the end of the classification section, that's already better. But the classification section is still substantially incorrect.

My previous question remains unanswered, so I will answer it myself:

The current statement on the Wikipedia page “the classification rests entirely on phonology” comes from a misunderstanding of what Torgilstveit actually says in "Klassifisering av langobardisk språk og en ny forklaring på konsonantovergangene i langobardisk" (2009).

Torgilstveit writes: “En klassifisering av langobardisk som et høytysk språk må dermed basere seg på beleggene for lydforskyvning i langobardisk” “A classification of Lombardic as a High German language must therefore be based on the evidence for sound shift in Lombardic.” He does not say that Lombardic’s classification “rests entirely on phonology.” He says that, if Lombardic is to be classified specifically as High German, then the evidence for sound change must provide the basis for that classification.

that distinction is important because the preceding discussion is about the disputed morphology. Bruckner treated "gamahalos" and "scamaras" as evidence for a Lombardic masculine a-stem plural in -os/-as. Tischler dismissed these forms as “sicherlich als lateinisch flektiert” (“certainly Latin-inflected”) and instead proposed Scauringa and Mauringa as evidence for a plural in -a. Torgilstveit rejects Tischler's correction: these are later forms in Paul the Deacon and occur as singular geographical names such as in Mauringam" and de Mauringa. If Bruckner’s forms are rejected, Torgilstveit therefore says that there are no secure attestations of the Old high german-like nominative/accusative plural of masculine "a-stems.

So Torgilstveit is not replacing morphological evidence with a proof based on phonology. He is saying that the morphological evidence (at that point) does not securely establish a High German classification; therefore, if one nevertheless classifies Lombardic as High German, one must rely on the sound-shift evidence. He even proceeds to challenge the interpretation of those consonant developments as evidence of the High German Consonant Shift.

so “the classification rests entirely on phonology” must obviously be removed.

also, to answer the phonology comment i received: the Comparative method's own standard requires ruling out contact/parallel development before a correspondence counts as inherited, that's not settled here. the langobardic population originates in Scandinavia (or North Germany if you're extremely skeptical), migrates south, and only reaches Italy centuries later. Even proponents of Lombardic-OHG unity can't agree why the shift appears: Lühr lists three incompatible theories, and Vennemann's own account has to invent a separate "Barden" substrate population at the Lower Elbe, conquered by the supposedly "Scandinavian-descended Winnili" just to rescue an inherited reading, the same kind of ad hoc apparatus in his other substrate theories. A Scandinavian-origin population reaching the shift after prolonged contact fits diffusion, not shared descent which is exactly what the method excludes.

Now, I assume that by the “2023 document”, @Ermenrich refers to the 2023 Althochdeutsche Grammatik. This work takes a different position, stating that “es … durchaus angemessen ist, das Lgb. den ahd. Dialekten zuzurechnen”, that it is linguistically appropriate to assign Lombardic to the Old High German dialects. This is important evidence and an explicit scholarly classification of Lombardic.

HOWEVER, looking at the broader scholarship, this is CLEARLY not enough to justify presenting “Langobardic = Old High German” as the definitive classification on Wikipedia.

The evidence is genuinely divided, and the disagreement is not simply a matter of older vs recent scholarship. Heidermanns (2023) explicitly supports assigning Lombardic to the Old High German dialects and discusses its consonant shift and other linguistic innovations.Braune/Heidermanns (2023), via Lühr 2020, LEAN toward counting Langobardic as part of the OHG dialects: they treat the p/t/k shift forms as genuine, if "asymmetric," attestations of the real High German Consonant Shift, and cite monophthongization of /ai/ before /r,w/ as a shared innovation linking Lombardic to OHG. Torgilstveit (2009) argues the opposite: Lombardic split off before those OHG changes (diphthongs mostly preserved), and the shift-like forms aren't the real sound shift at all, they're a contact artifact from Vulgar Latin (VOT/aspiration differences devoicing b/d/g, which then pushed p/t/k toward fricatives/affricates). something that Heidermanns (2023) does NOT ADDRESS.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, even if one decides to somehow refuse Torgilstveit and others arguing against OHG, the 2023 grammar itself explicitly acknowledges that “Eine moderne Gesamtdarstellung der Sprache der Langobarden fehlt”, that a modern comprehensive treatment of the Lombardic language is still lacking and calls for a new synthesis of the linguistic evidence before Lombardic can be fully integrated into the Old High German grammar.

That does not make the OHG dialect classification irrelevant. Quite the contrary: it is an explicitly published scholarly position that Wikipedia should report. But there is a difference between reporting that a reliable scholar amongst many others with different opinons, finds it appropriate to assign Langobardic to the Old High German dialectS, and presenting OHG as the settled classification of the language itself. That would require more than saying: 2023 > 2010 etc...

for those reasons, I would not put:

West Germanic > upper German > Langobardic

in the article as though this were an established and uncontested classification. A more accurate presentation would be along the lines of:

West Germanic; classification disputed, with Langobardic often classified as Old High German by some.

I hope this is enough for you to finally recognize the issue. This debate has been exhausting, but I believe we are moving in the right direction and that we should now be in a position to reach an agreement.

as a Lombard participating to the revival movement, my own opinions on the subject and the authors are quite clear, but I am deliberately setting this aside, because the purpose of this Wikipedia page is simply to reflect what the sources establish and, equally importantly, what they do not establish. I would therefore expect the same dispassionate approach from you.

thank you for reading the message till the end. S. Aliprandi (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Torgilstveit is nowhere cited on this page, so it would be odd if the wording were based on a misunderstanding of him.

what you seem to arguing is that Langobardic shouldn’t be OHG because the Winili were from Scandinavia. You must be aware that this is a legendary origin for which there is no proof (and since we have reports of a tribe called the Langobards living on the continent long before they invaded Italy, seems on its face unlikely to have had any effects on language classification). This is his scholars argued before the 1959s; it is definitely not a way we classify languages anymore.

Minority opinions are put on Wiki based on their number of adherents. The vast majority of scholars take Langobardic for OHG, so we report it as such. If you can show doubters, we can include them as minority opinions but that doesn’t mean we don’t follow the consensus in most things (such as the infobox).—-Ermenrich (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

i can confirm that “the classification rests entirely on phonology” comes from a misunderstanding of what Torgilstveit actually says in "Klassifisering av langobardisk språk og en ny forklaring på konsonantovergangene i langobardisk" (2009).

i am also unaware of the conclusive counter evidence against the northern origin, and the shared northern linguistic elements (wich are undeniably present) are not easily explainable without considering it, most importantly, no one has agreed on the transition from "northern" to "high german" (Vennemann's theory etc...), it's also worth mentioning the fact that Tacitus should not be used as a serious report, he reported the geographical position, not the linguistic origin. But this is not strictly about origin because i still find it difficult to accept the idea that Wikipedia should present the classification as a final "OHG" label since nobody truly made that explicit ultimate conclusion in an irevokable way, especially considering the fact that not all authors agree with the OHG classification. (especially those that are not German speaking)

but it seems like a large part of the disagreement comes from the way we define a "consensus" S. Aliprandi (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how you can claim other editors misunderstood Torgilstveit when no one else mentioned that source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I repost my earlier survey:

• Schweiklle: UG
• Moser:UG/Elbe Gmc
• Wells: Elbe Gmc
• Keller: Elbe Gmc
• Nielsen:UG
• Bach: just says OHG
• Braune/Mitzka:UG
• Sonderegger: uses the term Bairisch-Langobardisch, classed as UG

Don't forget these are handbooks not research articles, so they're by leading scholars who will have read all the literature. So, where's the dispute? --Pfold (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

hello, i believe that my response to Ermenrich's comment also applies to this one, if one of those scholars truly provide a final classification with a valid and comprehensive reason, this would change the situation, otherwise, the question remains:

-why should those authors define the "classification" of Langobardic without a valid and accepted refusal of non OHG classifications

-what does "consensus" actually mean S. Aliprandi (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

It is frustrating that you have created yet another discussion thread, and that you continue to be unclear about what constructive edit proposals you have. I don't think the problem here is defining what consensus means, because the consensus is very clear. Saying that the myths are not 100% disproven doesn't really mean much because that is true of nearly all possible statements about anything. I am myself wondering why our text needs to even mention that the consensus is based on phonology, because as Austronesier indicates, this is pretty normal and obvious. Concerning non-linguistic evidence, which seem to be behind your thinking, as Ermenrich noted, I would like to pitch in: the arguments for taking the medieval Jordanes-inspired myths seriously in the case of the Langobards is particularly weak. We actually have first century Roman authors telling us the Langobardi lived on the Lower Elbe before the Common Era. (The area around Hamburg is in or near islands, including islands in rivers, but not Scandinavia.) Furthermore the several medieval versions give different accounts and names of the early homes of the Langobardi and don't seem to share any clear understanding of it being Scandinavia as we know it today. Paul the Deacon, who most people focus on, looks artificially clear, but he was a scholar of older literature. The Codex Gothanus says that the Lombards lived at "Scatenauga", which is described as a place on the bank of Elbe. The manuscripts of the Origo Gentis Langobardorum which is older than Paul's work, say they lived on an island called Scadan, Scadanan or Scandanan. So Paul or his contemporaries converted the name to match classical spellings for Scandinavia, and they certainly used Jordanes and his claim that Scandinavia was the womb of nations. In any case, as this article is about a language those myths would not be relevant to language classification unless the published experts of recent times were saying so. Even if Langobardi lived in Scandinavia in the Iron Age it does not necessarily imply anything about the Lombard language in Italy in the early Middle Ages, after they had spent generations in the Danubian complex, absorbing all the local warbands. We don't publish our own opinions here. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

BTW just as background context Paul the Deacon himself seemed to think that the original Langobardi spoke an old language which was still understandable to Saxons and Bavarians, who still recited songs about the older generations of Lombards.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, let me first remind you that i explicitly explained having to create a new section because the reply button ceased to function. Maybe you haven’t read the last message.

Understand that I am obviously not doing that to annoy you.

to respond your message, I think that you might be historically confused. The codex Gothanus you mention does not necessarily contradict origio langobardirum, it just starts with a more recent event and emphasizes on it.

but even without considering any of this, the non HG elements remain difficult to explain, and I don’t think that Wikipedia should attempt doing that.

and no, I am not publishing my opinion, this is about basic honesty and about what scholars have truly established.

a few scholars claiming that the language “can appropriately be considered amongst other OHG dialects” does not:

-eliminate opposing views from other scholars

-does not allow us to classify ourselves as OHG.

even the scholars who prefer an OHG interpretation say it themselves: a comprehensive model is still missing.

classifying the language as OHG is a step that Wikipedia cannot honestly take.

but I cannot continue arguing indefinitely, this discussion is time consuming, let me therefore summarize the proposed changes so that we can talk directly about them, and you all tell me what you think:

1-the “classification rests entirely on phonology” statement must obviously be removed, this is one piece of a sentence that was misunderstood and taken out of context, I explained it in the last message.

i believe that this is something we should all agree on.

-2 the very least I am willing to accept would be to write a question mark in the classication tree: “Old high German(?)”

we must also show that the situation is complex in the classification section

I think it’s important to talk about the concrete changes now because this clearly isn’t a debate that can be resolved without a direct conversation. S. Aliprandi (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

You do not have to answer by hitting reply. You can also just hit edit. If reply is not working that it likely because the discussion now has sub-sections. Concerning the 3 legendary accounts my point is that they give no unified or straightforward account which can be used to over-rule the first century authors, and that anyway you've brought no evidence that any published experts see them as linguistically relevant. It is true that for example Maurer did try to use non-linguistic evidence for some other topics but for that very reason much of his reasoning is rejected today. I've re-read our article and I actually think the wording about using phonological evidence is worth keeping because it is connected to the important point that we don't have much evidence. Please if you are going to reply further keep it short and make your sources and your edit proposals clear. Please take your time to write short but clear replies. It is not easy to follow you otherwise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

i kept the response as short as possible, but you must focus more seriously on the points i've raised, because it doesnt seem like you understood them correctly:

1- no, the “classification rests entirely on phonology” statement has no reason to exist in this form, this comes from the end of p.319 in "Klassifisering av langobardisk språk og en

ny forklaring på konsonantovergangene i

langobardisk" (2009-2010) by Torgilstveit (wich btw is not even mentioned in the sources)

Torgilstveit says: "En klassifisering av langobardisk som et høytysk språk må dermed basere seg på beleggene for lydforskyvning i langobardisk. Artikkelen vil derfor i det følgende først se nærmere på den høytyske lydforskyvningen

og deretter på konsonantforskyvninger i de langobardiske kildene."

in the context of his work, this means something close to:"If we still insist to call Langobardic High German, our case now stands or falls on the consonant-shift evidence.” this functions as a narratorial element that depends on what is said before it: (dismissing Tischler's OHG a-stem explanation), and what comes after it (explaining why even the appearent OHG characteristics remain illusory (to them) saying that the evidence suggests something quite “Low German”/non-OHG.

they are neither saying that phonology should define classification, nor claiming that they accept it.

even if you prefer the OHG-like classification, you should recognize that writing this is a mistake.

so we should not take this out of context as a convenient statement.

2- no, as you certainly know, first century authors are unreliable, they mostly report geographical realities at a specific time, not the precise details of linguisitcs. where i agree with you is the fact that this isn't something that deserves our full attention at the moment.

the reason why i truly resist the "OHG" classification is clear, and that's what you should truly respond to: scholars still disagree on wether Langobardic should be considered amongst OHG dialects, especially non German speaking scholars. also notice the fact that they do not all respond to each other, this is very important. But even those who do prefer "placing it closer to OHG", do not say it clearly, this always comes as a suggestive classification rather than a claim, combining it with the precision that we do not yet have a comprehensive "model" of the language.

this is why i proposed the compromise: "Old High German(?)" instead of "Old High German" as the very least i could accept, making the classification section clear.

please tell me what you think of that.

i hope this was easier to follow, but again, if we all extend the dabate beyond what scholars actually claim, it becomes something that cannot be resolved behind a screen, and that's precisely where Wikipedia should stop. Wikipedia should remain empirical, not interpretative S. Aliprandi (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

From what I can understand of your position, I don't agree that it implies any changes to the article, or at least none I've seen suggested so far. From what I can see Torgilstveit they are making the same point anyone would make: there is limited evidence and we have to base ourselves on that limited evidence. It is not just that it is only phonological, but also that it is very limited. I am glad you agree that we can ignore Paul the Deacon and Jordanes as a source for Scandinavian history, but while it might be irrelevant here I don't think historians of the first century reject the evidence for the Langobard position at that time, which is actually unusually strong and clear, and confirmed from several sources. At least for some types of information those sources, who were often well-travelled eye-witnesses with experience writing military and (for better or worse) political reports, are ironically often seen as better ones than for example Jordanes in the 6th century whose understanding is a big synthesis of different sources including those 1st century sources, but also for example bible-commentary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

As I and Andrew have already said: the sentence has nothing to do with Torgilstveit. You are the only one making a connection there. I think you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK - there isn’t editorial consensus for your changes.—-Ermenrich (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, i find no reason to consider first century reports as valid linguistic observations, they might have recorded geographical facts, sometimes apparently consistent, but certainly not the precise linguistic evidence we need.

but since we seem to agree that this isn't important, it's completely fine if we continue to disagree here.

But where i insist is that the half sentence from Torgilstveit is a narratorial element that serves only as a link between 2 sections of his work, its meaning depends on what comes before and after it, it cannot be taken out of its context and be inserted in here simply because it sounds convenient. So this must truly be replaced. Unless of course, we find a recognized source that truly establishes the explicit accepted reason why "classification rests entirely on phonology."

apart from that, it seems that we agree on the most important thing: "there is limited evidence" as you said.

this is a good sign because it shows that we are much closer to an agreement than i initially thought.

but the actual the question remains: What should Wikipedia do with that limited evidence ? , Here, Wikipedia interprets it and presents a final classification "Upper german", (i'm not even going to argue about OHG vs Upper german), but the point is that i am convinced that Wikipedia should not interpret conclusions, it should clearly separate empirical facts from possibilities.

and i am unaware of any scholary agreement stating that phonology, or in general, shared linguisitc innovations should define the final classification of a language when the origin of those innovations (contact vs inheritance) remains heavily debated and unresolved along with the very validity of those innovations (see for example: 2009 Torgilstveit) .

The fact that some german linguists prefer placing langobardic amongst other HG dialects remains a practical choice rather than a logically necessary one. (they all make that quite clear), suggesting themselves that Langobardic cannot be fully integrated as OHG using the available evidence.

so yes indeed, the problem is that the evidence is limited, this is why i think that Wikipedia has no reason to attempt covering the gap by interpreting a conclusion simply to provide a "classification". this is what i do by setting my own conclusions aside and advocating for the empirical conclusion i would expect from Wikipedia

understand that by proposing the "OHG" to "OHG(?)" modification, i already make a significant compromise, because i already find the OHG/upper german label unjustified and inappropriate.

so tell me if you decide to accept my compromise: the addition of the (?) S. Aliprandi (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any published source or any real reason for concern about the current wording. We are talking in circles. There just isn't much evidence, but all the publications basically seem to agree on what the existing evidence says. You've brought nothing which says otherwise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

if you actually want to consider Pfold's list, you have to consider the fact that:

-a considerable proportion of those authors based their interpretation on older documents

-some authors simply selected their sources, not addressing the serious counter arguments

-only some of them have expressed their opinion as a true classification

-none of their classifications were accepted

and yes, i did mention anti-OHG interpretations: 2009 Torgilstveit, Wolfgang Haubrichs, etc...

but the reason why we keep turning in circles remians the same, i keep repeating it: why shoud Wikipedia turn "some scholars lean toward an "OHG" interpretation" into langobardic is OHG ?

doing that means 2 things:

-wikipedia presents the classification as a fact

-wikipedia got to decide who is right and who isn't

none of wich are fair.

And the half sentence from Torgilstveit is a purely logical problem i already explained in detail. it cannot stay.

i feel like i keep repeating the same things, to reject what i say, you need more than simply refusing, you must answer my comments and explain why. something that nobody truly did.

this conversation has been exhausting, i already gave you my most generous compromise: "OHG(?)" and i expect you to recognize the issues and finally find common ground S. Aliprandi (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about with Haubrichs? Im Jahre 568 erreichte die elbgermanische, sprachlich mit Alemannen und Baiern eng verwandte ‘gens Langobardorum’ unter ihrem König Alboin, aus Pannonien kommend, Italien. Haubrichs explicitly uses "Elbe Germanic" (apparently as a synonym for Upper German) and also says that Langobardish was closely related to Alemannic and Bavarian - the Upper German dialects.

The reason we are talking in circles is because you keep posting WP:WALLSOFTEXT that reek of WP:IDONTHEARYOU, repeating the same arguments over and over. --Ermenrich (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

because it provides evidence of the existence of an independent Langobardic language. (connected with the languages of the Alamanni and Bavarians) and attempts proving the existence of a bilingual period in the seventh/eighth century, even tough this specific one isn't precisely "anti-OHG", it does not change anything about what i am specifically saying, i keep repeating the same thing over and over again, two simple points that you have not answered, trying to escape them by bringing in those fancy labels " WP:WALLSOFTEXT that reek of WP:IDONTHEARYOU" isn't a way to answer what i clearly say:

why shoud Wikipedia turn "some scholars lean toward an "OHG" interpretation" into langobardic is OHG ?

doing that means 2 things:

-wikipedia presents the classification as a fact

-wikipedia got to decide who is right and who isn't

none of wich are fair.

And the half sentence from Torgilstveit is a purely logical problem i already explained in detail. it cannot stay

i am seriously starting to lose my temper, so please, don't try deflecting the question again S. Aliprandi (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Accept the fact that you have failed to create a consensus and move on! --Pfold (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

At this point, the appropriate response would be less than courteous. however, I will make one final effort to avoid that.

I have made a reasonable request repeatedly and have brought the same two points to your attention six times. Not once has anyone attempted to address either of them.

Consensus is not the same as ignoring the issue.

1- Why should Wikipedia transform the statement “some scholars lean toward an ‘OHG’ interpretation” into “Langobardic is OHG”?

2- I have explained the problem with the claim concerning “phonology” in detail.

What I can do, and have done, is provide the necessary explanations and attempt to resolve the issue.

What I cannot do is compensate for a lack of logical reasoning or supply the intellectual honesty that appears to be missing.

Most importantly, the reason for this failure seems to be reflected in your confusion about the subject, which is evident in the recent discussions concerning “Umlaut.” and “Elbe Germanic” The questions you have continued to advance in those discussions reveal the extent of the misunderstanding involved.

It would be unrealistic for me to continue repairing this page while you remain ferociously committed to preserving misinformation. S. Aliprandi (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2026 (UTC)personal attack removed—Ermenrich (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@All: I'm slowly going through all kinds of sources not older than 30 years that make a statement about the classification of Langobardic (which btw appears the more commonly used name for the language in English). You can find a collection (still incomplete) of relevant quotes here: User:Austronesier/sandbox#Langobardic. It is apparent that among scholars of Old High German, the consensus is to include Langobaric among its dialects. However, in works specialized on Langobardic as well as works that more broadly discuss Germanic languages, this classification is not uniequvocally adopted. –Austronesier (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Austronesier, here's another one for you. I thought I would be able to access it online, but this seems a pretty important article on the topic by a subject expert, Wolfgang Haubrichs: https://doaj.org/article/4123d7177d4740f0a473482b26c63c34 According to the abstract: this study provides evidence of the existence of an independent Langobardic language. It is closely connected with the languages of the Alamanni and Baiuwarii and delivers proof of the existence of a bilingual period in the seventh/eighth century and of the increasing and final Romanization of the Langobards in the eighth century. Now, granted, since the abstract also describes Bavarian and Alemannic as languages, I'm not entirely sure what he means. I'll try to get a hold of this.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

For some reason I didn't realize this was from 2010 - I get the impression Haubrichs continues to make this argument, but I thought it was a very recent article, so this is a bit less of a bombshell. Most of the recent work arguing that Langobardic is OHG seems to postdate Haubrichs.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I have tried to get hold of Haubrich (2010) ever since I have started to collect these sources, but without success so far. I think Haubrich's contribution is highly relevant for our article. The matter-of-factish classification of Langobardic within Old High German is more of a late 20th-century thing. The meticulous work of Francovich Onesti (1999) has allowed scholars to take a more nuanced look based on the data in this century. We shouldn't be alarmed when Haubrichs says that the Langobardi had a language of their own. He also speaks in numerous publications of the language of the Baiuvarii and the language of the Alemanni in a way others would probably speak of varieties.

A good summary of Haubrichs's position is found in his 2019 paper "Die Stellung des Langobardischen im Kreise der germanischen Sprachen" which has appeared in a Bulgarian festschrift. I can see the full paper in Google books as long as I use the .bg or .de domains. In the conclusion of the paper, he proposes a "BLA(T)" (= Bavarian, Langobardic, Alemannic, Thuringian) branch of West Germanic, which largely corresponds to "Elbe Germanic". (The concept of "BLA(T)" first appears in his 2006 paper "Baiern, Romanen und Andere". You can export a pdf of that paper by selecting the page range 5 to 75 in the download menu). –Austronesier (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

That seems relevant to Elbe Germanic as well! It doesn’t appear that anyone besides Haubrichs has accepted this group?—-Ermenrich (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Wiesinger's 2005 paper "Die sprachlichen Grundlagen des Bairischen" proposes something very similar (but without Thuringian). –Austronesier (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, at the very least those two scholars should be mentioned at Elbe Germanic then. Possibly at Weser Rhine Germanic too if they discuss it at all. Do they identify any isoglosses that determine that this is a branch? One of the problems with Maurer’s division of the two groups is that he hadn’t identified any linguistic features that differentiate them.—-Ermenrich (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

“Elbe Germanic “

I have removed the references to Elbe Germanic- for why see the article and associated talk page for Elbe Germanic. I don’t think this proposed grouping should be discussed at all outside of a discussion of Maurer and his (discredited) theories.—Ermenrich (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe this is not really an issue but I'll just note that we clearly have a lot of older sources which use this terminology (for example even in some of the recent discussion about the OHG classification). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. I think some scholars use it essentially to mean “Upper German” in an early medieval context as well (maybe leaving out East Franconian?)—Ermenrich (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes by definition it was originally supposed to exclude Frankish types of German. I think the term got fuzzy and hung around without this remaining clear, and it is a bit awkward, but the best solution to such awkward terms is sometimes to explain their history so that everyone can see what happened. Even reasonably recent books sometimes use the term, but I doubt they all intend to imply the Maurer theory. I am not sure what to do this in this case but I felt I should point to the gorilla. (My own uncitable though on this is that academia has avoided the question Maurer raised a bit. Why were Frankish dialects so much like Elbe Germanic? His proposal was that they weren't but he didn't really have evidence for it, and those aware of this argument seem to have rejected it. Disagreeing with Maurer seems to imply that Elbe Germanic, maybe Saxon(?), swamped Frankish Germanic. That seems like a big thing, but there were several centuries for it to happen. No one seems to write about it.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had a source discussing this (at least the terminological vagueness). Instead, I've only found rejections of the term entirely and some (mostly older) scholars who use it without seeming to imply much about West Germanic at all.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but at lease we have Maurer's original theory and the rejections of that, which have also to some extent led to the rejection of the terminology. I guess what the more unified concept of West Germanic implies is that all West Germanic is Elbe Germanic!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

confusing things more: I actually tink Haubrichs (whom I quote in the section below) probably is referring to the archaeological culture, which is not controversial. The fact that it has this second meaning means we should be careful.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes that's possible and that's constantly confusing (that the archaeological aspect is still considered a reasonable term to use).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Mauer's theory is in parts outdated, especially his rejection of the West Germanic branch. He is however probably still right about Old High German as a paraphyletic convergence zone of various dialects that originally belonged to distinct branches (or sectors) in the West Germanic dialect continuum. This is why "Elbe Germanic" is not identical to Upper German, but rather represents the pre-OHG dialect pool from which the Upper German dialects of Old High German emerged. –Austronesier (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Umlaut

Do we have a more recent source than Bruckner that Langobardic lacked primary umlaut of a? The example, camphio, looks like an environment where at least some OHG dialects (namely the ones it's related to, Upper German dialects) could show "Umlaut blocking". I did a quick search around but couldn't find anything.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually, we're misrepresenting Bruckner. He says "Auch vor i und j der folgenden Silbe hat sich a im Allgemeinen erhalten. Erst seit dem Ausgange des 8. Jahrhunderts lassen sich einige umgelautete Formen nachweisen, doch bleiben die unumgelauteten auch während der folgenden Jahrhunderte stets fort die Regel" and he quotes stelan alongside stalan < *staljan. But, also, I think we can quote better examples than camphio'. Van der Rhee lists several compounds with hari-.

I see that Bruckners Anmerkung 1 on p. 61 muddies the waters further. --Pfold (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Aha! Of course OHG itself doesn’t always mark umlaut either, right? Austronesier and I collected a whole bunch of stuff on this at one point in one of his sandboxes. Eventually maybe we could move it to the article on the subject, dont recall that we ever did.

I can’t access the article, but there’s a chapter by an Italian from 1991 that argues for more pervasive evidence for Umlaut in Lgc on the basis of Italian loan words.—-Ermenrich (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Which is the Italian chapter? --Pfold (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Got the year wrong (reprint?)

Arcamone, Maria Giovanna (1987): „Der i-Umlaut im Langobardischen nach dem Zeugnis des Italienischen“. In: Rolf Bergmann, Heinrich Tiefenbach, Lothar Voetz (Hrsg.): Althochdeutsch. Bd. 1: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter (Germanische Bibliothek: Neue Folge, Reihe 3, Untersuchungen), S. 763–771.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. My university library has a copy so I'll get a photocopy next time I go (won't be soon, though!) --Pfold (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, it suddenly occurred to me I might have a copy of this book in storage. I have now found my copy and scanned the article — it's exactly what we were looking for. (BTW, the correct page refs are 86–92.)

The scan is on Dropbox at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9hm8nviu4qblyiffqhvlx/Arcamone.pdf?rlkey=rxgkghg0r2p1qsxkksbtumgyv&st=oqe34290&dl=0 (I'll leave it there for a few days.)

Thanks Pfold! I got the bibliographic data via Google AI summary since I was on my phone - I guess we can see that it’s not an accurate bibliographic tool!—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Decline

I've added to the bibliography a book chapter by Stoffela from 2020 which, via a discussion of bilingualism, has quite good coverage of the views on and evidence for decline. The book is from Brill, so it's available in the WP Library. --Pfold (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2026 (UTC)