Since someone left a snippy message in modern English telling me to "discuss before proposing a new translation", I might say the same to you, since you have not discussed at all. "Þeodiscland" is, if anything, a "new translation", and a neologistic barbarism that is completely unattested as far as I know. Every authentic source I have seen uses the name "Germania" for the homeland on the Continent. Yes, "Þeodiscland" would indeed be a literal, cognate translation of German "Deutschland", but things don't always correspond so simply from one language to another. In Old English, the adjective "Þeodisc" was never used to connote any nationality or ethnicity, but simply means "popular", coming as it does from "Þeod", meaning simply "people" (of any nation or race). Codex Sinaiticus 15:03, 1 Wēodmōnaþ 2007 (UTC)
- No offence intended. I did not intend for my curtness to suggest rudeness, and should have followed up on this issue with you myself.
- I am not defending "Þēodiscland" in principle, and neither am I the coiner of this "neologistic barbarism". My rationale for reverting your change was that, ugly and barbaric as it may be, "Þēodiscland" is the closest thing we have to a standard at present: there are many articles (stubby or otherwise) pointing to it.
- See also Wikipedia:Hū secge ic for a list of adaptations and neologisms. I'll discuss my own thoughts for a translation momentarily. --Saforrest 19:19, 1 Wēodmōnaþ 2007 (UTC)
Þæt Englisce word þæs landes Deutschland[ādihtan fruman]
Here are the various possibilities, as I see them, along with my opinions on each.
- Germania: As the Latin name, it has the virtues being both unambiguous and attested in the O.E. corpus, such as Ælfred's Orosius. It is obviously also close to the modern English name. It is the favoured candidate in Rupert Barnes' list Land þisre Worulde. The chief disadvantage is that it is rather unfortunate to delve into Latin to find a name for a country whose name has a Germanic pedigree in all modern Germanic languages except English.
- Þēodiscland: A loan-translation of "Deutschland" into Old English, using the cognates of Deutsch and land. The biggest problem is that (as Codex Sinaiticus said) the meanings have diverged so while Deutsch means "German" (referring to a specific people), Þēodisc means "of the people, popular" in a general sense. It is certainly the authentic cognate of Deutschland, but there is no good reason why the Anglo-Saxons would use "land of the people" for what for them would be a foreign country.
- Allemania: Also attested in the O.E. corpus, and similar to the modern word for Germany in many Romance languages. It is suitable for many of the same reasons that Germania is, but I think the case for Germania is stronger.
- Adapt "Deutschland" into O.E.: We could adapt Deutsch to O.E. spelling (it would be something like "Dotsc", but I haven't got the /ɔj/ diphthong right: maybe someone can do better) and make this the O.E. word for "German". This is what we have to do for any other unattested word, and one can argue for some precedent on this in languages related to O.E.:
- Middle English: ME calqued the word "Dutch" from the continental West-Germanic languages to refer to speakers of these languages. This persisted into modern times, where it has become specialized to the Netherlands.
- Dutch (i.e. Nederlands): Until WWII, Dutch had a word Diets meaning "Dutch", constrasted with Duits meaning "German". Diets was favoured by WWII-era Dutch fascists and is no longer used as a result, but Duits is still used. See "Dietsch" on the English wikipedia.
- This appeal of this idea comes from our desire for consistency with other Germanic languages, and to not have to resort to Latin. Unfortunately, it utterly reeks of neologism.
All told, I think "Germania" is the clear winner, at least in my mind. As some food for thought, I'll leave you with this list of names for "Germany" in modern Germanic languages:
- Danish: Tyskland
- Dutch: Duitsland
- Frisian: Dútslân
- German: Deutschland
- Icelandic: Þýskaland
- Norwegian: Tyskland
- Swedish: Tyskland
--Saforrest 20:27, 1 Wēodmōnaþ 2007 (UTC)
- I vote for the Þēodiscland, simply because Germania is a completely different concept. --James 20:39, 1 Wēodmōnaþ 2007 (UTC)
- I can appreciate that point, but I think Germany and Germania are comparable enough. You could even argue that until 1870, "Germany" had no real meaning in English other than some vague approximation of Latin Germania. Before 1870 both "Germany" (in English) and Deutschland (in German) were used in a sense which included Austria, Liechtenstein, and German Switzerland. We might call this now "the German-speaking world".
- When Bismarck created modern Germany, the names chosen for the new state were those formerly used for the German-speaking world, despite the fact that it was smaller. We would be following precedent if we did the same with OE.
- But, maybe more to the point, a similar ambiguity exists for Þēodiscland. What would it mean to an Anglo-Saxon? If Þēodisc is taken as anything other than "people" in general, it would be taken as "Germanic", and would certainly not refer to a very specific group of Germanic speakers within the boundaries of modern Germany. And it seems strange to think that Anglo-Saxons would use a native term like Þēodisc to describe a people other than themselves.
- As for disambiguating "Germania", we can refer to the Germania of the Romans as "Magna Germania", as it is called in German, or as "Germania Superior" or "Germania Inferior" when talking about the Roman provinces. The Nazi Großdeutschland could be either untranslated or "Grēat Germania". --Saforrest 21:20, 1 Wēodmōnaþ 2007 (UTC)
- I concur with Saforrest's reasoning, and vote for Germania, because that is Old English, whereas "Þēodiscland" is Original research. Codex Sinaiticus 11:56, 2 Wēodmōnaþ 2007 (UTC)
- I should say that, while I don't like resorting to neologisms, I don't think it's quite fair to employ "no original research" in this particular argument. While I do think we are as bound by the "no original research" prohibition as all other Wikipedias, we have to do original research when names are unattested in Old English. I prefer Elpendbānrīma to Côte d'Ivoire even though the former is a coining and the latter is the official name of the country.
- Even when there is something resembling an attestation, we have to weigh the exactness of the match against the cost of resorting to neologism. As a name for Iran, I would go with something like "Iran" over Persea, even though the latter is attested. --Saforrest 12:27, 2 Wēodmōnaþ 2007 (UTC)
Also, check out the difference in en:Germania and en:Germany (Deutschland). To me, the word Germania refers to that period around the Roman Empire wherein the Germanic tribes had not coalesced into coherent nation states, and it was a general term used by Romans for that time period. Germany, or for us, Þēodiscland, sounds more logical to me, as a loan translation. If I were to say þēodisc land, or Þæt þēodisce land, can you tell I'm talking about Gentile land, or the people's land, rather than Þēodiscland, Germany? It's pretty clear to me either written or spoken the difference here. The only other concern is temporal, and the concept of Germania is gone to me - a historical concept relevant to the Romans and their times. The word Germania refers to Germanic, Celtic, Baltic, and Slavic inhabited areas.
As a somewhat related note, too, this logic of calling lands by their old names would continue to Iran...er, Persia, and across other countries as well, rather than trying to loan-translate their native names when the native Englisc word doesn't suffice. Francland, Grēcland, Englaland, and Īsland have no problems. Things like China, Russia, Turkey, and Germany are the ones we need to have new names for, preferrably either the native word changed orthographically into Englisc, or as a loan translation. Either way, they're going to be new translations, and I would look to other Germanic languages to see how they created their word, and use that same process with cognates in Englisc. --James 13:46, 28 Wēodmōnaþ 2007 (UTC)
Just for everyone's info, to say the name of the land it is se nama þæs landes not þǣm lande (that means 'for the land'). The genitive case is a nice thing to have! --James 20:42, 1 Wēodmōnaþ 2007 (UTC)
country name[ādihtan fruman]
The similarity of "Þeodiscland" to modern European terms doesn't make a good argument; those terms also no longer resemble the word for "people" in current use in any of those languages. This wouldn't be the case with Old English. The correct choice is Allemania, a word also in use in Old English, maybe (but probably not) Germania.
Sorry for interruption, but in this case `Germania` seems to me more likely than `Allemania`! The french notion (Allemagne) is just an historic culturally mistake. Just try the term `regnum francorum orientalium` !!!
- But french has no place here. Keep in mind we're going by Germanic languages. —Ƿōdenhelm 22:41, 22 Gēolmōnaþ 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen Germania repeatedly in the sources, not just for Roman-era Germany. I have a note of an Allemania but I cannot spot where (I think it was the ASC, in one of the versions). Sexland appears too, translated as "Germany" in one ASC translation, but as it is referring to a Duke of Saxony it probably means just Lower Saxony.
- Þeodisc is a word, just meaning "Belonging to a people" and þeodland is "national territory". "Þeodiscland" is a neologism, a rederivation from the same source as "Deutschland". I do not believe that it nor anything like it is used in any OE source as a name for "Germany". (Of course Englisc sources rarely mention foreign countries, as people overseas are inherently irrelevant to the Englisc mindset, then as now.)
- It is said that "Deutschland" derives from the division of the Frankish Empire, where the treaty reference to two texts, in Latin and "Lingua teutisca"; hence "Teutschland", the land's name derived from the name of their language. Or so they say.
- "Germania" and possibly "Allemania" are the only names for Germany I can put my hands on.
- Hogweard 23:05, 22 Gēolmōnaþ 2008 (UTC)
"Germany" wasnt even a unified nation until modern times. Of course Þēodiscland is a neologism! We pretty much need one in this case. Seaxland seems like it'd be sufficient for the northern half, and Allemania (which doesnt even sound Germanic) could suffice for the southern half... but what do you call the unified nation? Þēodiscland, as of now, seems to be the best choice. —Ƿōdenhelm 23:15, 22 Gēolmōnaþ 2008 (UTC)
- Allemania doesn't sound Germanic? It very much does, and sounds like 'all' and 'men' to me, which is exactly what it meant, a tribal confederation of 'All-men', along the lines of the Franks, Bavarians and Thuringians, which were also names which didn't exist at the time of for instance Tacitus.184.108.40.206 19:53, 21 Winterfylleþ 2011 (UTC) (1812ahill on en)
- I found the "Allemania" reference. I had the spelling wrong: it is Alamania: Þerefter com þe kynges dohter Henries þe hefde ben Emperice in Alamanie 7 nu wæs cuntesse in Angou. It is the only use of that name and I'd not press it.
- While Germany as a re-unified state is barely a hundered and fifty turbulent years old, Germany as a name and a concept and a national identity is far older. "Spain" and "Italy" as names for the lands and nations are pre-Roman (Hispania and Italia), but they were united as single states only four hundred and a hundred and fifty years ago respectively. We are not at the beck and call of politicians' definitions.
- Hogweard 15:46, 31 Gēolmōnaþ 2008 (UTC)
- There is also a use of "Alomonne". And then, according to BT, "Sƿǣfas" is another word for the "Alomonne". "Germania" was a region which, according to Alfred, contained many nations, and was much more vast than "Deutschland". When you think about it, the concepts of the names "Alomonne" and "Deutschland" are very similar - both make a reference to people ("all men/people" versus "the land of the people"). At that time, I would say the closest concept they had to modern Germany would be the "Alomonne". Ƿes hāl! 21:13, 21 Winterfylleþ 2011 (UTC)
Germanie in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles[ādihtan fruman]
Germany appears as "Germanie" in the ASC, year 449. Unsigned message by User:220.127.116.11
- Great find! Here's the phrasing, if anyone wants to see: "Þa comon þa menn of þrim mægþum Germanie, of Ealdseaxum, of Anglum, of Iotum." So does this refer to the modern definition of Germany? (someone who is more knowledgable than I am should check) PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:47, 24 Blōtmōnaþ 2012 (UTC)
(Note: I am the same user as User:18.104.22.168) It may do. There are other other attestations of "Germanie" . The Old English translation of Bede states: "Comon hi of þrim folcum þam strangestan Germanie, þæt of Seaxum, and of Angle, and of Geatum." In King Alfred's translation of Orosius, the following text appears:
"Æfter þam, Agustus sende Quintillus, pone consul, on Germanie mid þim legian"
With "Germanie" having three attestations and "Þēodscland" haveing none, in my opinion the former name should be used.
- Þēodscland is meant to portray the modern nation, from 1871, with Germanie for pretty much any other time period (being the Englisc name of the land/area/region, with no regard to which country or countries might be residing in that land at any given time). — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 00:45, 29 Blōtmōnaþ 2012 (UTC)
The passage "Þa comon þa menn of þrim mægþum Germanie, of Ealdseaxum, of Anglum, of Iotum." in the ASC seems to be inspired/copied from Bede, who called the homeland of the Englisc "Germania". But Latin Germania included all lands East of the Rhine and North of the Danube, extending to the Vistula.
Although the Romans did not see Germania as a ethnic term (although Tacticus did so fairly well), IMO the historical evidence does suggest most of the are was inhabited with Germanics, with Celts and proto-Slavs along the borders.
So when Bede used the term "Germania", copied and Engliscized by the ASC (thus being why of all languages only Italian, English and a few minor ones in Europe call Germany by Germania) into Germanie, he was referring most likely to all the Germanic inhabited world.
However, we do know the Englisc actually came from Germany and directly adjacent surrounding areas. So the area the ASC calls "Germanie" was probably mostly within the bounderies of the North of modern Germany, and is the most appropriate term for the country in Eald Englisc.
- I'm a German who just got to this page by accident and read through the discussion. I don't have any knowledge of Old English, so I can't really help to solve the problem. I just wanted to say that in German, there is a difference between "Deutschland" (Germany) and "Germanien" (Germania). One wouldn't call the Germany of the time of Christ's birth "Deutschland". In our modern comprehension at least, this word requires some kind of organisation and "civilisation". I'd say that for most Germans "Deutschland" starts somewhere between 700 and 1000, a time period which includes the christianisation, the beginnings of German literature, and the becoming of the Holy Roman Empire. -- So in my understanding, it should also be considered from what time your sources stem. I read that one is from 449. (Which btw supprises me, because I didn't know that written record in Old English goes back so far.) Anyway, if a text from 449 uses "Germanie", it could still be justified to use a different word for the later, more organised and more integrative, kind of Germany. At least, this is how we use it in German. -- I don't if my thoughts are any help to you :) Best regards.
- That is a helpful observation.
- (The record of 449 is not a text written then but the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle backdated to then, written in the ninth century, but borrowed from Bede's 7th century Latin work.)
- We still have several appearances of "Germania" (nom.) and "Germanie" (acc., dat., gen.) in the ASC, in Orosius etc from later. Germany loomed large in the imagination of our forebears. The only authentic names given for it that I am aware of are Germania and one appearance each of Allemania and Sexland; the latter two might be explained as referring to Allemania and Lower Saxony specifically.
- Hogweard (talk) 14:50, 8 Se Æfterra Gēola 2013 (UTC)
- "Germania" is a word which, as I understand it, corresponds to our modern usage of the word "Germany". Here is what Alfred says, with a translation, lifted from BT: "Nú wille we ymb Europe landgemǽre reccan, swá mycel swá we hit fyrmest witon. -Fram ðære eá Danais, west óþ Rín ða eá, [seó wylþ of ðæm beorge ðe man Alpis ht, and yrnþ ðonne norþ-ryhte on ðæs gársecges earm, ðe ðæt land útanymblíþ, ðe man Bryttannia ht] :-- and eft súþ óþ Donua ða eá, [ðære wylme is neáh ðære eá Rínes, and is siððan eást yrnende wið norþan Créca land út on ðone Wendel-S] :-- and norþ óþ ðone gársecg, ðe man Cwén-S ht: binnan ðm syndon manega þeóda; ac hit man ht eall, GERMANIA" which is "now we will speak, as much as we know, about the boundaries of Europe.-From the river Don, westward to the river Rhine, [which springs from the Alps, and then runs right north into the arm of the ocean, that lies around the country called Britain] :-- and again south to the river Danube, [whose spring is near the river Rhine, and which afterwards runs east by the country north of Greece into the Mediterranean Sea] :-- and north to the ocean, which is called the White Sea; within these are many nations, but it is all called GERMANIA"
- This suggests that Germania was rather considered to be a region rather than having any national significance. We could still use it with a new meaning for "Germany".
- "Alamanne" almost certainly does refer to a specific one of those tribes in Germania. The only usage of Seaxland I could find was for England. Of course, they had the name "Ealdseaxe" for the continental Saxons.
- However, Of interest is historical record of Earnulf, king of East Francia, probably the directest predecessor that there was for Modern Germany in OE times, who is mentioned in OE writing. From BT: "Ðý ilcan geáre, forþférde Carl, Francna cyning; and Earnulf, his bróður sunu, hine vi wicum r he forþférde, berdde æt ðam ríce" which is "In the same year, Charles, king of the Franks, died; and six weeks before he died, Arnulf, his brother's son, bereft him of the kingdom,"
- This makes it clear to me that the directest predecessor of the times to Modern Germany definitely was associated with the broad word "Francan". We see elsewhere that the specific division East Francia (directest predecessor to Modern Germany) was explicitly recognized and known to OE writers, but not given a specific name (from BT): "Earnulf wunode on þǽm londe be-eástan Rín, and Róþulf féng tó þǽm middelríce, and Oda tó þǽm westdǽle". Elsewhere, though, the people who lived there are given a specific name (and we know that in OE people group names could be used fairly interchangeably with political entities): Eást-Francan.
- So, we have a historically attested word for the directest ancestor of Modern Germany of OE times. Ƿes hāl! 22:24, 2 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
- Germany is somewhat bigger than East Franconia, and Berlin never belonged to it. Germania was a wide region, but there is direct decent from Germania of old to Germany of today, which is why we still use the name "Germany". It is the land of the Germans.
- If once the term Germania encompassed all of today's Poland, that is because the German tribes once inhabited that land. When Tacitus wrote, the Germans ran all the way out to the Russian forests, but Earnulf's time the migrations had shrunk their territory to approsximately what in my childhood was West Germany, allowing one of the tribes, the Franks, to rule all. There were more tribes though than the Franks there.
- By Alfred's time little had changed and Alfred duly recorded the Slavic tribes such as the Hæfeldan (around Berlin) in what to the Romans had been Germania. The Franks were now the people of France.
- The Franks, the Allemane and the Saxons were the major peoples, it seems, and no one of them can name the whole. There is a Sexland in the ASC translated as "Germany" in modern editions, but since it refers to the Emperor, who was also Duke of Saxony, it may instead refer to Saxony, and again Allemanie, though translated as "Germany" it probably just refer to Allemania.
Modern Germany does not correspond exactly to East Franconia in territory, but East Franconia is the most direct political ancestor to Modern Germany which was present in OE times (and Modern Germany is primarily a political institution - a nation in the legal sense, as opposed to a territorial one or a cultural one, albeit it obviously has a territory and a certain degree of cultural cohesiveness); likewise, the Germany of today does not correspond exactly to the Germany of 70 years ago in territory, but it is obviously politically descended from it.
Germania, on the other hand, neither corresponds exactly to Modern Germany in territory, nor is there evidence that it was ever used with any kind of political sense in OE (none that I am aware of) - it was a territory, like Australasia or Western Europe or Scandinavia.
On the other hand, there is explicit reference to the people of the most direct political ancestor of Modern Germany in OE times, in OE, as Ēastfrancan. It is clear that it was applied to more than just one tribe of people within this area, because of the description: "Wyð norþan Donua wylme. and be eástan Ríne, syndon Eást-Francan" which is "To the north from the spring of the Danube, and to the east of the Rhine, are the East-Franks" - it is obvious that the author is attempting to describe the territorial limits of East Francia, and he called everyone within that territorial limit "Ēastfrancan" - it was a non-tribal, legal-nationalistic term, no longer limited specifically the one ethnicity of the "true" original Franks.
Ƿes hāl! 07:31, 7 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
- The ASC contradicts that: 892: Her for se here east, 7 Earnulf cing gefeaht wiþ þam rade here ær ða scipu coman, mid Eastfrancum 7 Seaxum 7 Bægerum, 7 hine geflymde - the East Francs are distinguished from other tribes, and there is no context in which East Franks are used to refer to all Germany.
- The creation of Germany as a united nation has been in the context of a continuation of one German nation, from classical times onward. Specific continuity is draw from the Holy Roman Empire; the Imperium Romanum Sacrum Nationis Germanicæ.
- Germany might be small today (though larger than the lands Earnulf ruled) but that is the result of ill-judged wars, Stalin and a nineteenth century pragmatic decision: the Kaiser's Germany was as wide as that of Tacitus apart from Austria and Bohemia. The nineteenth century movement for unification attempted to include Austria, but the Austrian Empire's lands were mainly non-German and the Habsburgs would not divide their territories. The Deutscher Bund (known as the Germanic Confederation in English) included German Austria and Bohemia. The Confederation was intended to lead to a united Germany though it took the Schleswig Holstein Crisis and the Austro-Prussian War (which expelled Prussia from the Confederation) to achieve it through another route. In all this process there was no sense of creating a new entity. Kaiser Wilhelm II celebrated the Battle of the Saltus Teutoburgiensis as a victory of his nation. He did not think he was Emperor of "East France".Hogweard (talk) 15:49, 7 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
- In the context of the example I gave (see above), Ēastfrancan is used to refer to all people in the political entity of East Francia, whose territory was (approximately) to the east of the Rhine and the north of the Danube (western borders not mentioned, but we know where they were from other historical sources). As such, it seems to me that there is a context in which Ēastfrancan was used for all of the people in the most direct political ancestor to Modern Germany, which existed and was mentioned in OE times, in OE writing. I accept that in the example you gave, there is a distinction made. I believe a comparable example in Modern English would be: both a European with Japanese citizenship and a Japanese with Japanese citizenship can call themselves "Japanese" in the political national sense, but only an ethnic Japanese can call themself "Japanese" in the ethnic sense.
- Actually, the Holy Roman Empire was the direct successor to East Francia. Of course, it is more recent, and therefore more directly related. So, any mentions of the Holy Roman Empire in OE works?
- Wilhem II is hardly to be considered a good source for historical accuracy - he was a nationalist and an imperialist, and sentimentally so, and it was in his interests to make it look like his empire had an ancient and glorious history. While that battle displayed a significant degree of inter-tribal cooperation between various Germanic tribes from a region corresponding somewhat to modern Germany, this cooperation did not amount to political national unity, and did not lead to modern Germany. It is also not accurate to try to represent what I was saying by using the Modern English word "France" (indeed, I am aware that Germany is not the eastern part of modern France) - France need not enter the discussion. Ƿes hāl! 22:19, 7 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
- It is a big jump from the Eastfrancan to Germany. The one context in which that usage has been found is for a kingdom of the East Franks at the moment of the division of Charlemagne's empire. In the same context at other times we have Sexland and Allemania, but as these reflect one single tribe, we take them to be a reflection of the ruler's core kingdom, not a description of the whole of Germany.
The usage of Eastfrancan identified does not continue beyond that one point of time, and even in Earnulf's days the ASC has the East Franks as just one tribe amongst the Germans. In Alfred's time Eastfrancan certainly was not Germany; in the Orosius we have:
- Þonne wið norþan Donua æwielme & be eastan Rine sindon Eastfrancan, & be suþan him sindon Swæfas, on oþre healf þære ie Donua, & be suþan him & be eastan sind Bægware, se dæl þe mon Regnesburg hætt, & ryhte be eastan him sindon Bæme, & eastnorþ sindon Þyringas, & be norþan him sindon Ealdseaxan, & be norþwestan him sindon Frisan
- Germania was for long centuries a region and a culture not a state; and the same was said of Italy until unification (we don't insist that the Italian Republic is actually Piedmont). The unification of Germany was the unification of that nation, whose last reflection of unity was the Imperium Romanum Sacrum Nationis Germanicæ.
- If Modern Germany grew from any one state, it was not that of the Franks but that of the Prussians. The national identity throughout is Germany and the one consistent use we have is Germania.
- Okay, the example I gave of "Francland" being used for all the poeple of East Francia was bad, but my point that East Francia, predecessor of the Holy Roman Empire, was known and mentioned in OE literature still stands. Also, Charles, a king of East Francia, was called "Francena cyning".
- I mentioned East Francia particularly in reference to what the German fellow said: "I'd say that for most Germans "Deutschland" starts somewhere between 700 and 1000, a time period which includes the christianisation, the beginnings of German literature, and the becoming of the Holy Roman Empire. -- So in my understanding, it should also be considered from what time your sources stem." The period he mentioned is where East Francia fits in the history of Germany. Ƿes hāl! 00:03, 11 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
- Yes; it is helpful to have identified the Kingdom of the East Franks, predecessor of the HRE, as known and named in the sources. Interestingly, I found this article in the Deutschen Wikipedia. My only problem was the hint that we might start calling all of Germany "Eastfrancan", but for describing the East Frankish kingdom, Eastfrancan is unimpeacable. Hogweard (talk) 19:32, 11 Ēastermōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
Well, then...[ādihtan fruman]
If we were to accept "Germania" for "Germany", as preferred to "Þēod(i)scland", how might we best distinguish between "German" and "Germanic". Currently, "Germanisc" is being (quite appropriately, IMHO) used to mean "Germanic", but it could cause serious confusion in certain circumstances if it were also used for "German". It would, of course, be easy enough to distinguish between hustirical Germania and modern Germany, so for me that is not an issue. One word that suggests itself to me for "German", especially applicable for languages (which is where the distinction is, perhaps, most important), is "Hēahþēodisc". Thoughts? (Just so you know, I'll be away for a few days, so don't expect any immediate responses from me.) Ƿes hāl! 10:59, 29 Gēolmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
- The way I understand it, Germania as a place-name is the same concept as Siberia; it's simply the name of a land-- in this case, named in reference to a (foreign, from Roman point of view) general group of people. Deutschland, as a result, resides within Germania. I'm seeing Þeodscland ƿiþ Germania being about like Russia vs Siberia. We need two names because they're two different (although very inter-connected) concepts. Wodenhelm (Ȝesprec) 01:13, 31 Gēolmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
- The Roman Germania as described by Caesar and Tacitus was wider than today's Federal Republic of Germany, but references to Germania in Englisc are to the land we now know by that name. Germania was named after its people, the Germani, not the people from the land. Tacitus has a long passage speculating on why the Germani are so named, and he believed it was a German word, which it certainly looks like. Today's Germany was consciously founded to be Germania as a state.
- The name Deutschland is from "Deutsch", which in origin just means "of the people", as does the Old English Þeodisc. I have seen no reference in Old English to Germany as "the land of the people" by any terminology. We have Germania, Sexland (by which the writer might have meant Saxony) and Allemania (again, possibly just Allemania). For authenticity, we only have "Germania". Hogweard (talk) 18:29, 31 Gēolmōnaþ 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, btw, I meant "Hēahgermanisc", not "Hēahþēodisc", to sound consistent with "Germania". Ƿes hāl! 20:34, 5 Se Æfterra Gēola 2014 (UTC)