Talk:German modal particle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should this page exist? Should we have Japanese nouns about and with a list of Japanese nouns, or Bengali counting words? There is nothing different between the function of modal particles in German and in other languages. A list of German modal particles definitely does not belong here, any more than does a list of Navajo noun classifiers.

Information on learning German modal particles is not objective, as all information on Wikipedia should be (NPOV). Saying that they "should be learned" or "must be learned" any certain way, or that they're difficult or easy to learn, is not NPOV and does not belong at Wikipedia.

With all the false information and the list and the POV information (and the information that's just a duplication of Modal particle) removed, this article amounts to almost nothing. Modal particles in German are uninflected- this is true for modal particles in most (but not nessecarily all) languages. The German word for "modal particle" does not belong here, but rather here.

[edit] Reply to the anon

This has absolutely nothing to do with POV or NPOV. German modal particles are peculiar to the language, quite unlike that of English. If you don't know that difference, you should not criticise or vandalize an article. The procedure surely is to place it on the Vfd page with giving your reasons for doing so and not blank it as you are doing. Dieter Simon 01:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Just because you know German does not make you an expert on the language. German modal particles are not in any way "peculiar to the language", and English has modal particles as well.
  • And as noted above, a list does not belong here, even if this article does.
  • In addition, the point above about NPOV is very valid. You have said something is difficult to learn, and that it "should be learned" or "must be learned" in a certain way. That is extremely POV and does not belong at Wikipedia.
  • Also as was said before, duplication of information at other, more generalised articles is frowned upon.
  • Just because an anonymous contributor says something on a talkpage, does not mean you get to not respond to their individual points and tell them off.
  • And exactly when was it that anybody blanked this page?
  • Please, think of the kittens. --Node 05:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, and also, edits are rarely vandalism if the accompanying edit summary intelligently describes an even somewhat valid reason for making such an edit. If you want to discuss such edits, please do not run around accusing people of vandalism when they have given clear, intelligent reasons for what they did in the edit summary and the talkpage. --Node 05:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you think it should not be there place the article on the Vfd pages with suitable annotations. Do not just delete the article. Let other Wikipedians vote on it as is the way to do it. Oh, and by the way I have reverted the article.Dieter Simon 18:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Nobody deleted OR blanked the article. --Node 20:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I repeat, if you think this article should be removed, Mark, than please put it on the Vote for deletion page, give your reasons and wait for the vote of the Wikipedians to come in. I shall be more than happy to delete it myself if the verdict goes against it, but until such a time I will not argue with you but revert it every time you remove, delete or blank the text Dieter Simon

  • And I repeat, I have not removed, deleted, or blanked this page AT ALL. --Node 04:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Umm, guys...don't you have anything more productive to do than going into an edit war over an issue as pressing as German modal particles :P ? For the time being, let's try and forget who did what to the article and concentrate on the article itself instead...I'm inclined to say it is well-written and well-researched, so there's no harm in letting it stay, but I see node's and the anon's point abou the topic being a bit fringe. Full disclosure: I'm a native German and know a fair share of other langauges, and I tend to agree that German modal particles are indeed a peculiarity of that language - the question being, are they enough of a peculiarity to merit an elaborate article. I'm willing to discuss. -- Ferkelparade π 23:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll go along with that. As well as live and let live. It's only I could'nt understand the removing of text, without leaving something better in its place. Thanks anyway. Dieter Simon 01:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This had been moved out of context, as one can see by the signature dates. Have now moved it to where it should be to make sense. Dieter Simon
Sorry, that was probably my fault...I replied to Node's statement, it was not my intention to put your last entry out of context. I'm still waiting for some real disussion of the article's merits, though :P -- Ferkelparade π 01:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I am sorry. Modal particles are peculiarly, especially modal in German, while there are no modal particles so called in English. There are (grammatical) particles in English which include sentence connectors and interjections which include modal aspects, namely particles of mood or attitude on the part of the speaker, but they are still not called modal particles. Interjections and their alases, oh's, ah's, vrooms, etc., as well as sentence connectors with their howevers, buts, stills, etc. do reflect the speaker's attitude. In German, there is a whole series of particles which (about thirty- odd) which are on the whole quite untranslatable in themselves, but which have a function to change the sentence into how the speaker conceives the previous part of a conversation and as it has been conceived by the speaker. The article has as much a right to be there in an encyclopedia as so many other lists, I think. Dieter Simon 01:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And you know this how? From your authority from years of linguistic studies?
I will assert that you are wrong, and that there are in fact modal particles in the English language.
For example, "However", "If not", sentence-final "is it not" and other reflexive words and phrases, "indeed", "apparently", "thus", and even according to some "I think".
All of these are modal. Some of them can be used in a sentence without anything before or after it (which is not generally the case with "however", "thus"...), but they are still modal particles, although not in the strictest sense. Also, tone indicates modality most of the time in English, and these different modal particles I have specified have different meanings depending on the tone.
If somebody tells you they have a nice-looking car, would you like to see it? and when shown it you see it and say "A nice-looking car, indeed" and say "indeed" as "in deed" (low-low to low-middle), it means you think it is far from the truth. If their car is nicer than you had expected, and say "indeed" as "in DEE eed" (high-middle to middle-high to high-low), it means you have been surprised by it being nicer than you expected.
Also, spoken English has more modal particles. For example, my father often says "æææ, this is stupid" or just starts a sentence with "æææ" (it's actually nasal, a nasal æ doesn't regularly occur in English) which signifies he is frustrated at the factuality of the sentence. "mmm, I'm not sure" shows that you considered it (but stronger than if you just said "hmm") Alternatively, "mmm" said in a different tone can express... not sure how to explain... well, for example if you told me "15 people died yesterday when they got eaten by bunny rabbits", and I said "mmm, that sucks", the "mmm" signifies that... well, that although I may not care directly about the fact stated previously, I am recognising that it is unfortunate.
In additon, your assertion that German modal particles are never inflected implies that they aren't inflected tonally either, which I find very hard to believe.
As regards your assertion about lists... the What Wikipedia Is Not article says that we aren't trying to teach people to speak foreign languages. Thus, relevant translations are OK, but lists of words in a foreign language belong at Wiktionary instead. --Node 06:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Mark, you are absolutely right about all the examples you are citing, they are indeed (that word again) particles with a modal aspect. The only problem I have is that you'd be hard put to find any article with the header English modal particle, or find it even in texts. After all, I mentioned the modality of English particles in grammatical particle, that sentence connectors, interjections, and even sentence substitutes have this aspect. But if an unitiated person were to try look up English modal particle, or even modal particle with an English reference, they'd find it probably impossible to so in books of grammar or linguistics. There wouldn't be one, probably, because linguists, etc., don't normally use the expression. Dieter Simon 23:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The real question here is whether or not any of these serve the sole purpose of indicating modality. Not all of these would fit that description, but I did a simple test to see and I think in the end the list of real modal particles in English is: sentence-final "is it not" and variations/contractions thereof, both aspects of sentence-final "indeed" that I described above, "mmm" (there are a few more aspects than I described above, most of them indicated tonally but some contextually), nasal "æææ", sentence-final "I think", etc.
As to whether or not scholars call them modal particles... from my experience, "English modal particles" are discussed in hushed tones and people glance from side to side to make sure nobody knows they're talking about such a thing. English has many many modal particles, the only thing is that most (but not all) of them are not used in written English, at least not normally.
There are some articles which refer to English modal particles as if they for sure exist, but don't actually say much about them, instead concentrating on other topics; then there is Karin Aijmer's research, and I believe a gentleman wrote a book on modality in English in which he has a whole chapter on "English modal particles". --Node 02:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for uninflected words, all it means is they do not adopt affixes as in kiss/kissed/kissing or laufen/gelaufen, nor do they change their vowels or consonants as in will/would. One more thing, I am not really trying to teach anybody anything, it's merely if they are trying to look something up in an encyclopedia, they might as well find something that gets as near to the truth as possible. Whether I have achieved that in any of my articles, I don't know. Dieter Simon

"uninflected" indicates that something is not inflected. Inflection can refer to morphology, but it can also refer to tonal inflections (which are often modal in English) and morphonology, as well as facial inflections which aren't exactly related to a language in the same way as the others (unless it is a signed language) but can be relevant nonetheless.
Of course you are not trying to teach anybody anything, but long lists of words, especially in non-English languages, are generally frowned upon here and belong more properly at Wiktionary. --Node 02:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It looks as though I might be eating my words at some time soon, as discussions about English modal particles are in fact taking place. One should, however, bear in mind that some of these discourses would hardly have reached the books yet, they are still in the research stage: Karin Aijmer is discussing an English modal particle as being represented by the phrase "I think", as in "the car belongs to him, I think." Yes, she is definitely referring to it as an English modal particle. It looks as if things are going your way, Mark. We should, however bear also in mind, that we in Wikipedia are not a research foundation. Dieter Simon 23:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article is full of falsehoods. Also, whether or not we have an article on German modal particles, /a list is not appropriate for Wikipedia/. --Node 02:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Umm, okay...do you have any specific references for calling the article's claims "falsehoods"? You may well be right, but if we're going to have a discussion, you'll have to provide a bit more than a blanket statement. You might read the article linked as a reference for the kind of evidence I am looking for. Don't get me wrong here, I' not necessarily saying you are wrong with your claims, but I'm curious just what makes you think the article as it stands now is so horribly false and POV.
On the topic of lists: I agree that the example list may be a bit excessive, but on the other hand, Wikipedia is not paper, and a list of particles illustrating the article's point does not really hurt. -- Ferkelparade π 17:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


If you believe in live and let live, then you don't believe in Wikipedia, where anybody can edit anybody else's compositions. --Node 02:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do believe in Wikipedia. That's why I also believe it should be improved rather than merely having text removed from articles. This is just an observation. Dieter Simon 23:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As I noted before, this is not a requirement and it seldom happens. If I add to the end of this article "German cats hate modal particles, and you should never let a cat near them lest they scratch your eyes out", would you replace it with something useful or would you just revert my changes? If you replace it with something useful, then my only question for you is this, why didn't you add it before I added that crap? And if you just revert it, I have no problem with that, nor do policies, nor should you. If, on the other hand, I said something that could easily be modified to make it truthful, or was telling falsehoods that were directly parallel with a certain fact, it would probably be better to replace it. --Node 02:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The list of German modal particles is a finite one, it does not go on and on, and cannot be inlarged ad infinitum. Its reason of being in Wikipedia has been explained time and time again, and therefore I defend its being here. If it should be removed then put it in the Vfd pages. Dieter Simon 01:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD only applies to an entire page, not part of a page. Regardless of whether or not the list is finite, it is against policy to include such a list in an article on Wikipedia, and you should move it to Wiktionary instead, though you're free to link a list from this article. --Node 02:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, show me which policy prescribes and proscribes lists. Dieter Simon 23:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I will show you two policies, one that says Wikipedia is not a dictionary (that's what Wiktionary is for), and another that says we aren't trying to teach people slang or how to speak a foreign language, when combined they mean that a list in this article, at least at the length you have (two or three examples would be OK), belongs on Wiktionary or Wikibooks, and not on Wikipedia. --Node 08:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is getting too ridiculous. Ah well, I think it's time to be grown-up about this, and terminate this pointless exchange. Goodbye. Dieter Simon 19:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Aber?

In response to the above old discussion, I would like to say that this page was really helpful. However, should we add "aber" to the list? zb "Du redest aber schon deutsch"? Very similar to doch in that it implies a positive response to a previous negative comment. --Liface 13:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "aber" is a modal particle as a near-equivalent of "doch", when it is not used as conjunction. Take examples such as: "Das versteht er aber nicht", or "ich konnte es aber nicht". Definitely OK, put it in by all means. Dieter Simon 00:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)