Talk:Mundart

Etymology

Both Schottel und Zesen used the word in 1641.
Some sources attribut it to Schottel:

• Hans Wolff (Der Purismus in der deutschen Literatur des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts, Universitäts-Buchdruckerei von J. H. Ed. Heitz (Heitz & Mündel), Straßburg, 1888, page 131): „Mundart für dialectus (Schottel).“

Some to Zesen:

• unreliable sources (like German wikipedia)
• Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft (edited by Klaus Weimar together with H. Fricke, K. Grubmüller and J.-D. Müller, p. 348): „[...] prägt Philipp von Zesen (1641) das Wort Mundart (dialectus, idioma), das die deutschen Grammatiker des 17. Jhs. (Gueintz, Schottel, Harsdörffer) übernehmen.“ --- Gueintz doesn't have it in the list of technical terms in his grammar from 1641 and probably doesn't use it in this grammar. He could use it elsewhere or nowhere, in the latter case this source would be wrong.
• Johann Christoph Gottsched ausgewählte Werke VIII/3 (edited by Hans-Gert Roloff together with K. Kahlenberg, 1980, p. 163): „Die 1640 von Zesen für lat. idioma, dialectus eingeführte und von Harsdörffer und Schottel übernommene Bezeichnung“ --- This mentions another year, and there could be an older edition of Zesen 1641 work. / This source doesn't mention Gueintz, which could imply that the above is wrong. / And this source does mention both idioma and dialectus, which could mean that Zesen (at least first) used "Mundart" more loosely, vaguely, ambiguously, which could also mean that both statements could be correct: Zesen could have invented the term, and Schottel could have equated it as "Mundart = dialectus" which gave the word it's (more or less) clear sense.

BTW: Both would be before de Brune's Dutch mondaart. -84.161.26.109 03:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)