Ciarán12 - Deutsch

[kevin]

It would be liggt with the t pronounced in other circumstances (like when followed by a vowel), right? I think your way of spelling it is easiest (for consistency's sake).

Yes, it would be pronounced.

What case is the noun following the "von" in? Dative?

Correct.

For persons, we tend to use a more interesting construction with a possessive pronoun: "'m Ciarán sei Audo", which would literally be "dem Ciarán sein Auto" / "to Ciáran his car".

This construction replaces "das Auto des Ciaráns" of Standard German?

"Ciaráns Auto" is the usual Standard German way. "Das Auto des Ciarán" (I wouldn't add an -s ending to the name, though I also wouldn't say that it's wrong) works, but is rather literary language.

(I resisted the temptation to change your name into Kiërôn... )

It wouldn't be any worse than Caoimhín .

Except that Ciarán isn't an originally Swabian name. But well, maybe I should do it then. I'm not sure if it would actually happen, because Ciarán might be foreign enough that people will just leave it as it is, but generally foreign words and names are happily adapted to Swabian phonology. For example someone from the North called Christian would just have to get used to be called Krischtjôn here, there's no way around it.

Okay. Does "o-" replace Standard German "un-" or is it "on-" or something with the nasal getting absorbed into the following nasal?

o- is it. Other examples of the prefix are oferdich (unfertig) or overschemt (unverschämt) and of course the famous oôgnehm (unangenehm).

I'm going to go through your translation and see what features of Swabian I can deduce for myself. Then I'll ask you to verify them, if that's okay.

Sure.

[linguoboy]

Except that Ciarán isn't an originally Swabian name.

Neither is Kilian!

[Ciarán12]

For persons, we tend to use a more interesting construction with a possessive pronoun: "'m Ciarán sei Audo", which would literally be "dem Ciarán sein Auto" / "to Ciáran his car".

This construction replaces "das Auto des Ciaráns" of Standard German?

"Ciaráns Auto" is the usual Standard German way. "Das Auto des Ciarán" (I wouldn't add an -s ending to the name, though I also wouldn't say that it's wrong) works, but is rather literary language.

Okay, so MHG - "Ciaráns Auto" (exactly like in English) or ""Das Auto des Ciarán" (which might be more like "the car of Ciarán", except that we would never say that in English). But both of these are replaced in Swabian by "'m Ciarán sei Auto", right?

(I resisted the temptation to change your name into Kiërôn... )

It wouldn't be any worse than Caoimhín .

Except that Ciarán isn't an originally Swabian name. But well, maybe I should do it then. I'm not sure if it would actually happen, because Ciarán might be foreign enough that people will just leave it as it is, but generally foreign words and names are happily adapted to Swabian phonology. For example someone from the North called Christian would just have to get used to be called Krischtjôn here, there's no way around it.

I only did my research on the name "Kevin" just now, I didn't actually know it was originally Gaelic. I assumed it was like many other names that have been taken into Irish from other languages. Still, were you called "John" (or "Johann" in your case maybe) there would be many Irish speakers who would insist on calling you Seán. There are yet more who think that that is a ridiculous practice. So I suppose Ciarán becoming Kiërôn would work on a similar principal, and it depends on what side of the debate you're on. Personally, I think getting a new name with an umlaut and a circumflex accent in it is pretty cool .

Okay. Does "o-" replace Standard German "un-" or is it "on-" or something with the nasal getting absorbed into the following nasal?

o- is it. Other examples of the prefix are oferdich (unfertig) or overschemt (unverschämt) and of course the famous oôgnehm (unangenehm).

Okay. That's what "un-" becomes in Swedish too, so not so hard to remember .

I'm going to go through your translation and see what features of Swabian I can deduce for myself. Then I'll ask you to verify them, if that's okay.

Sure.

The grammar so far seems very similar (if not exactly the same, actually), but one thing I'm wondering about is this: MHG "meine" becomes Sw. "mei", and MHG "sein" (as in "his") becomes Sw. "sei", so how do you differentiate the ending with "-e"? Wouldn't both MHG "meine" and "mein" be Sw. "mei"?

[kevin]

Okay, so MHG - "Ciaráns Auto" (exactly like in English) or ""Das Auto des Ciarán" (which might be more like "the car of Ciarán", except that we would never say that in English). But both of these are replaced in Swabian by "'m Ciarán sei Auto", right?

Yes. "'s Auto vom Ciarán" works, too, but it's less common.

Oh, and you mean New High German (NHG). MHG is Middle High German.

So I suppose Ciarán becoming Kiërôn would work on a similar principal, and it depends on what side of the debate you're on. Personally, I think getting a new name with an umlaut and a circumflex accent in it is pretty cool .

I think you know by now what my view on it is.

Though I can't stand my last name pronounced in an English way. Kind of inconsistent.

The grammar so far seems very similar (if not exactly the same, actually), but one thing I'm wondering about is this: MHG "meine" becomes Sw. "mei", and MHG "sein" (as in "his") becomes Sw. "sei", so how do you differentiate the ending with "-e"? Wouldn't both MHG "meine" and "mein" be Sw. "mei"?

Yes. But what's the problem? It doesn't really feel important to differentiate them. In English it's "my" for everything and people seem to cope with it.

[Ciarán12]

Yes. "'s Auto vom Ciarán" works, too, but it's less common.

Okay, good to know.

Also, does 's mean both "das" and "es"?

Oh, and you mean New High German (NHG). MHG is Middle High German.

Sorry, I was thinking "Modern High German". NHG it is.

So I suppose Ciarán becoming Kiërôn would work on a similar principal, and it depends on what side of the debate you're on. Personally, I think getting a new name with an umlaut and a circumflex accent in it is pretty cool .

I think you know by now what my view on it is.

Though I can't stand my last name pronounced in an English way. Kind of inconsistent.

I think it's best to defer to the person being addressed. If your name is Kevin and you like being called Caoimhín in Irish then you have a right to be called so. Likewise if you'd prefer "Kevin". In fact, you have the right to be called whatever the hell you like within reason.

The grammar so far seems very similar (if not exactly the same, actually), but one thing I'm wondering about is this: MHG "meine" becomes Sw. "mei", and MHG "sein" (as in "his") becomes Sw. "sei", so how do you differentiate the ending with "-e"? Wouldn't both MHG "meine" and "mein" be Sw. "mei"?

Yes. But what's the problem? It doesn't really feel important to differentiate them. In English it's "my" for everything and people seem to cope with it.

No problem, in fact it's one less distinction I have to make! I just wanted to know if that was how it worked.

[kevin]

Also, does 's mean both "das" and "es"?

Genau.

No problem, in fact it's one less distinction I have to make! I just wanted to know if that was how it worked.

I think you might also find the declension of adjectives a bit easier (and you'll notice that the same NHG form for different cases can be two different Swabian forms, and vice versa). And of course having one case less to learn can't hurt either.

[Ciarán12]

No problem, in fact it's one less distinction I have to make! I just wanted to know if that was how it worked.

I think you might also find the declension of adjectives a bit easier (and you'll notice that the same NHG form for different cases can be two different Swabian forms, and vice versa). And of course having one case less to learn can't hurt either.

True, but I'm also trying to learn NHG simultaneously, so it still sucks that German is so complicated. But all in all, so far it's not too bad (famous last words, I know...)

[kevin]

I don't have an excuse for that, and I'm glad that I didn't have to learn this stuff from tables, because it looks scary even to me.Sometimes even native speakers are unsure what the right form is.

But if it wasn't a challenge, it would be boring.

[Ciarán12]

Okay, here's the next text with my translation into Standard German and my "translation" into Swabian.

The man opened the door. He walked into the room. A child was sitting on a chair in the room. She was watching TV. The man who walked into the room was angry, because the child was watching TV. The man asked her why she was watching TV. She said that she was tired, but that she will do her homework later. Who was the man? The man was the child's father. Why was he angry? He was angry because the child had not got her homework done.

Der Mann offnete die Tür. Er trat in das Zimmer ein. Ein Kind saß auf einem Stuhl im Zimmer. Sie sah fern. Der Mann, die in das Zimmer getreten hat, verärgert war, weil das Kind fernsah. Der Mann fragte warum sah sie fern. Sie antwortete, daß war sie müde, aber daß würde sie seine Hausaufgeben später machen. Wer war der Mann? Er war der Vater des Kinds. Warum war er verärgert? Er war verärgert weil das Kind seine Hausaufgeben nicht machen hat.

Dr Maa offnete d'Diërë. Er trat ens Zimmer ein. Ë Kind saß uf einem Stuhl em Zimmer. Se sah fern. Dr Maa, die ens Zimmer getretë hat, verärgert war, weil 's Kind fernsah. Dr Maa fragte warum sah se fern. Se antwortete, daß war se müde, aber daß würde se sei Hausaufgebë später machë. Wer war dr Maa? Er war dr Vaddr vom Kind. Warum war er verärgert? Er war verärgert weil 's Kind sei Hausaufgebë net machë hat.

Dr Mô hat d'Diërë g'öffnet. Er hat ens Zimmer eingtretë. Ë Kind hat uf einem Stuhl em Zimmer gsessë. Se hat ferngsehë. Dr Mô, die ens Zimmer getretë hat, verärgert war, weil 's Kind ferngsehë hat. Dr Mô fragte warum hat se ferngsehë. Se hat g'antwortë, daß war se müde, aber daß würde se sei Hausaufgebë später machë. Wer war dr Mô? Er war dr Vaddr vom Kind. Warum war er verärgert? Er war verärgert weil 's Kind sei Hausaufgebë net machë hat.

About the Swabian: I'm getting my information from a number of sources, so I'm having a real problem with consistency where spelling is concerned. Kevin, how similar is your dialect of Swabian to the Alemannic written in this Wikipedia article? And what are the differences between your spelling and the author of that article's? I think I've noticed -â in the article where I would expect NHG -en, and I think you have -ë in that position, is that right?

[linguoboy]

A Chiaráin, you need to rework the Swabian version. The preterite doesn't exist in Alemannic dialects; it's been supersede there by the perfect. (Cf. the situation in Colloquial Standard French.)

[Ciarán12]

A Chiaráin, you need to rework the Swabian version. The preterite doesn't exist in Alemannic dialects; it's been supersede there by the perfect. (Cf. the situation in Colloquial Standard French.)

I see. I was actually worried about using the preterite in general, even in the NHG version, as I've heard that the present perfect is much more common in German than in English. I'll go back and put the Swabian ones in the perfect anyway.

[kevin]

About the Swabian: I'm getting my information from a number of sources, so I'm having a real problem with consistency where spelling is concerned. Kevin, how similar is your dialect of Swabian to the Alemannic written in this Wikipedia article? And what are the differences between your spelling and the author of that article's? I think I've noticed -â in the article where I would expect NHG -en, and I think you have -ë in that position, is that right?

Which "this" article?

My dialect is almost as North-West as it gets with Swabian, close to the borders of Low Alemannic and Franconian. In general it's close to the Stuttgart one, so you shouldn't have that much trouble finding similar looking things. You will however notice the differences with dialects from the Alb, for example.

The schwa (or not-quite-schwa) is one of the points that everyone writes differently. 'â' is sometimes used for it, but in other cases it's used for a nasalised 'a', which doesn't really exist in my dialect, but it does on the Alb. Other common choices are 'a' or 'e', but I find that quite confusing because a proper 'a'/'e' would sound totally different. That's why I've settled for the 'ë', at the cost of writing different from most other people.

The "Maa" that you have used is probably meant as what I would write "Mâ" (nasalised), and in my dialect it would be "Mô". That's the kind of inconsistency that I'm afraid you'll have to live with when learning a dialect without standardised orthography.

I see. I was actually worried about using the preterite in general, even in the NHG version, as I've heard that the present perfect is much more common in German than in English. I'll go back and put the Swabian ones in the perfect anyway.

Even in NHG the perfect seems to become more common, at least in colloquial language, but as this is a written story, I'd keep the preterite in the NHG version.

[Ciarán12]

About the Swabian: I'm getting my information from a number of sources, so I'm having a real problem with consistency where spelling is concerned. Kevin, how similar is your dialect of Swabian to the Alemannic written in this Wikipedia article? And what are the differences between your spelling and the author of that article's? I think I've noticed -â in the article where I would expect NHG -en, and I think you have -ë in that position, is that right?

Which "this" article?

I forgot to put the link in. [url=http://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwäbisch]Here it is[/url].

My dialect is almost as North-West as it gets with Swabian, close to the borders of Low Alemannic and Franconian. In general it's close to the Stuttgart one, so you shouldn't have that much trouble finding similar looking things. You will however notice the differences with dialects from the Alb, for example.

The schwa (or not-quite-schwa) is one of the points that everyone writes differently. 'â' is sometimes used for it, but in other cases it's used for a nasalised 'a', which doesn't really exist in my dialect, but it does on the Alb. Other common choices are 'a' or 'e', but I find that quite confusing because a proper 'a'/'e' would sound totally different. That's why I've settled for the 'ë', at the cost of writing different from most other people.

The "Maa" that you have used is probably meant as what I would write "Mâ" (nasalised), and in my dialect it would be "Mô". That's the kind of inconsistency that I'm afraid you'll have to live with when learning a dialect without standardised orthography.

Okay, thanks for that. So in what ever Swabian dialect I got "Maa" from, the "aa" stands for a nasalised "a" (this being nasal [a]?), but in your dialect this is "ô" (which is [ɒ] IIRC, right?). Is this NHG "-ann" to "-ô" change regular?

I see. I was actually worried about using the preterite in general, even in the NHG version, as I've heard that the present perfect is much more common in German than in English. I'll go back and put the Swabian ones in the perfect anyway.

Even in NHG the perfect seems to become more common, at least in colloquial language, but as this is a written story, I'd keep the preterite in the NHG version.

Okay. I rewrote the Swabian above in the original post.

[linguoboy]

I see. I was actually worried about using the preterite in general, even in the NHG version, as I've heard that the present perfect is much more common in German than in English. I'll go back and put the Swabian ones in the perfect anyway.

Even in NHG the perfect seems to become more common, at least in colloquial language, but as this is a written story, I'd keep the preterite in the NHG version.

Okay. I rewrote the Swabian above in the original post.

Another similarity between Alemannic (and Standard German) and Standard French is the existence of two perfect auxiliaries, transitive haa (bzw. haben, avoir) and intransitive sii (bzw. sein, être). Their distribution varies a bit by dialect--sitzen, for instance, is used with haben in North Germany but sein elsewhere. For this reason, I would expect isch gsessë in Swabian.

[Ciarán12]

Another similarity between Alemannic (and Standard German) and Standard French is the existence of two perfect auxiliaries, transitive haa (bzw. haben, avoir) and intransitive sii (bzw. sein, être). Their distribution varies a bit by dialect--sitzen, for instance, is used with haben in North Germany but sein elsewhere. For this reason, I would expect isch gsessë in Swabian.

Ah, I had completely forgotten about that. It's been a while since I did any German. I can't remember if there is any criteria for assigning verbs to haben and sein (I realise such criteria are very loose anyway). I remember being told that verbs with "être" in the passé composé are often to do with some kind of movement. I know it's not a very scientific way to look at it, nor is it infallible, but it helped me remember. Is there some similar distinction in German?

[linguoboy]

I remember being told that verbs with "être" in the passé composé are often to do with some kind of movement. I know it's not a very scientific way to look at it, nor is it infallible, but it helped me remember. Is there some similar distinction in German?

Indeed. This page (in German) lays out the difference with an especially helpful list of contrasting examples. Their actual rule for verbs taking sein is:

Intransitive Verben die ein zeitlich begrenztes Geschehen oder eine Zustands- oder Ortsveränderung bezeichnen (= perfektive intransitive Verben).

So not just movement, but also change of state, which is how verbs like bleiben, einschlafen (but not schlafen itself, except in dialect!), geschehen, and wachsen end up in this category.

[kevin]

I forgot to put the link in. [url=http://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwäbisch]Here it is[/url].

I would say this is Swabian as spoken a bit East of Stuttgart. Not too far away from mine, but it has a few distinct features like using 'ôe' where I have 'ae'.

Okay, thanks for that. So in what ever Swabian dialect I got "Maa" from, the "aa" stands for a nasalised "a" (this being nasal [a]?), but in your dialect this is "ô" (which is [ɒ] IIRC, right?). Is this NHG "-ann" to "-ô" change regular?

Yes, yes, and I think it's regular for "-aːn". My wild guess would be that "man" was long in Middle High German. "kann" also becomes "kô", things like "wann" or "Bann" don't, however.

Okay. I rewrote the Swabian above in the original post.

I'll have a look at both NHG and Swabian later.

[kevin]

Der Mann öffnete die Tür. Er trat in das Zimmer ein. Ein Kind saß auf einem Stuhl im Zimmer. Sie/Es sah fern. Der Mann, die der in das Zimmer eingetreten hat war, war verärgert war, weil das Kind fernsah. Der Mann fragte warum sah sie fernsehe/fernsieht. Sie antwortete, daß/dass war sie müde sei/ist, aber daß würde sie seine ihre Hausaufgeben später machen würde. Wer war der Mann? Er war der Vater des Kinds. Warum war er verärgert? Er war verärgert weil das Kind seine Hausaufgeben nicht machen gemacht hatte.

You seem to really like PSO. Unfortunately, that's not the German word order.

I marked it only once in the text, but as I already mentioned in my Irish thread, in German you can't refer to neuter "das Kind" with feminine pronouns. So strictly speaking you would have to use neuter pronouns throughout the text (and lose the information that it's a girl, unless you changed "Kind" into "Mädchen" somewhere).

The problem in "Der Mann, die..." should be obvious.

One thing that I already found tricky in this text is that it contains indirect speech. In Standard German, this requires the subjunctive mood. In colloquial language, the indicative present is used instead, so I put both options there.

Dr Mô hat d'Diërë g'öffnet/ufgmacht. Er hat isch ens Zimmer eingtretë/neigangë. Ë Kind/Kend hat uf einem Stuhl em Zimmer gsessë. Se 's hat ferngsäë. Dr Mô, die wo ens Zimmer ge- eitretë/kommë hat isch, isch verärgert war gwä, weil 's Kind ferngsehë hat. Dr Mô fragte hat gfrôgt warum hat se ferngsehë hat/häb. Se hat g'antwortët, daß war se müde/miëd gwä isch/sei, aber daß würde se sei ihre Hausaufgabë später machë dät. Wer war dr Mô/Wer isch dr Mô gwä?? Er war dr Vaddr vom Kind. Warum war er verärgert? Er war verärgert weil 's Kind sei Hausaufgebë net machë gmacht ghet hat.

Des isch fei net schlecht gwä! Seriously, I'm pretty impressed considering the few resources you have.

You still used the preterite in some cases. Especially "sein" and more recently other very common verbs like "haben" or "wollen" got a preterite imported from Standard German, but for pure dialect you should avoid it.

The participle perfect prefix ge- is, as you correctly noticed, shortened to just g-. Before plosives, however, it's completely omitted.

The Swabian relative pronoun is "wo". No exceptions, it's the same in all cases, genders, numbers.

For some words I've suggested alternatives that sound less Hochdeutsch, for some I've just provided more Swabian pronounciation, and some I've just left at this point. Maybe one thing to remember is that if a word has an 'ö' or 'ü', then it's not proper Swabian. They would have become 'e' or 'i(ë)' instead.

[Ciarán12]

Thanks. There's a lot to digest here, but I've a few questions at the moment (and may have more later).

Der Mann öffnete die Tür. Er trat in das Zimmer ein. Ein Kind saß auf einem Stuhl im Zimmer. Sie/Es sah fern. Der Mann, die der in das Zimmer eingetreten hat war, war verärgert war, weil das Kind fernsah. Der Mann fragte warum sah sie fernsehe/fernsieht. Sie antwortete, daß/dass war sie müde sei/ist, aber daß würde sie seine ihre Hausaufgeben später machen würde. Wer war der Mann? Er war der Vater des Kinds. Warum war er verärgert? Er war verärgert weil das Kind seine Hausaufgeben nicht machen gemacht hatte.

You seem to really like PSO. Unfortunately, that's not the German word order.

German word order is complicated. The first mistake was *verärgert war where I should have put war verärgert. I understand m mistake there. In the second one I said *sah sie instead of sie sah. I thought this was correct because of warum, but I'm assuming warum doesn't cause the verb to come before the subject like I thought. It still does in questions though, right? Like "Warum bist du hier?". I assume fernsehe and fernsieht are indicative and subjunctive respectively? With the next one, I put it in Verb-Subject order because that's what I thought dass does, but it's apparently Subject-Object-Verb (like after weil). Then I made the same mistake again (I thought dass would make it "Modal + Subj. + Predicate + Main Verb", but it was "Subj. + Predicate + Main Verb + Modal"). Also the ihre thing, which was because of the gender mistake. Lastly, I forgot that the past participle of machen is gemacht and not machen, and I used the present perfect hat instead of the past perfect hatte.

Is this all correct?

I marked it only once in the text, but as I already mentioned in my Irish thread, in German you can't refer to neuter "das Kind" with feminine pronouns. So strictly speaking you would have to use neuter pronouns throughout the text (and lose the information that it's a girl, unless you changed "Kind" into "Mädchen" somewhere).

Yes, I remember now. I'll watch out for that.

The problem in "Der Mann, die..." should be obvious.

It is now, yes. I thought at the time I was writing this that "die" was the relative pronoun in German regardless of gender. Now I understand it's not (it's the same as the article for each gender, right?)

One thing that I already found tricky in this text is that it contains indirect speech. In Standard German, this requires the subjunctive mood. In colloquial language, the indicative present is used instead, so I put both options there.

That's the "ist" vs "sei" difference up there, isn't it? Okay, I get it.

Dr Mô hat d'Diërë g'öffnet/ufgmacht. Er hat isch ens Zimmer eingtretë/neigangë. Ë Kind/Kend hat uf einem Stuhl em Zimmer gsessë. Se 's hat ferngsäë. Dr Mô, die wo ens Zimmer ge- eitretë/kommë hat isch, isch verärgert war gwä, weil 's Kind ferngsehë hat. Dr Mô fragte hat gfrôgt warum hat se ferngsehë hat/häb. Se hat g'antwortët, daß war se müde/miëd gwä isch/sei, aber daß würde se sei ihre Hausaufgabë später machë dät. Wer war dr Mô/Wer isch dr Mô gwä?? Er war dr Vaddr vom Kind. Warum war er verärgert? Er war verärgert weil 's Kind sei Hausaufgebë net machë gmacht ghet hat.

Des isch fei net schlecht gwä! Seriously, I'm pretty impressed considering the few resources you have.

You still used the preterite in some cases. Especially "sein" and more recently other very common verbs like "haben" or "wollen" got a preterite imported from Standard German, but for pure dialect you should avoid it.

Wow, you don't even use the preterite for sein or haben? Okay, I thought they would be preterites. Perfect tenses from now on for everything.

The participle perfect prefix ge- is, as you correctly noticed, shortened to just g-. Before plosives, however, it's completely omitted.

Interesting. Okay, I'll remember that.

The Swabian relative pronoun is "wo". No exceptions, it's the same in all cases, genders, numbers.

Yay, something's easy!

For some words I've suggested alternatives that sound less Hochdeutsch, for some I've just provided more Swabian pronounciation, and some I've just left at this point. Maybe one thing to remember is that if a word has an 'ö' or 'ü', then it's not proper Swabian. They would have become 'e' or 'i(ë)' instead.

Okay, I'll try to keep an eye on that, but as you are well aware, my knowledge of phonology is awful, so I'm reticent to try to apply sound changes to make dialectal versions of Hochdeutsch words. I've so far just been cataloging words you've used. Maybe after a while some of the correspondences will become apparent to me and I'll feel more comfortable "making up" words.

[kevin]

In the second one I said *sah sie instead of sie sah. I thought this was correct because of warum, but I'm assuming warum doesn't cause the verb to come before the subject like I thought. It still does in questions though, right? Like "Warum bist du hier?".

Yes, it's V2 order and would have been correct in a main clause. So in direct speech the father would ask: "Warum siehst du fern?" In a dependent clause like in the text, the verb moves to the end.

I assume fernsehe and fernsieht are indicative and subjunctive respectively?

fernsehe is subjunctive, fernsieht indicative.

With the next one, I put it in Verb-Subject order because that's what I thought dass does, but it's apparently Subject-Object-Verb (like after weil). Then I made the same mistake again (I thought dass would make it "Modal + Subj. + Predicate + Main Verb", but it was "Subj. + Predicate + Main Verb + Modal").

It's the same thing as above, actually. Dependent clause, so the finite verb moves to the end.

Is this all correct?

Jawohl.

It is now, yes. I thought at the time I was writing this that "die" was the relative pronoun in German regardless of gender. Now I understand it's not (it's the same as the article for each gender, right?)

In the nominative and accusative case at least, yes.

That's the "ist" vs "sei" difference up there, isn't it? Okay, I get it.

Genau.

Wow, you don't even use the preterite for sein or haben? Okay, I thought they would be preterites. Perfect tenses from now on for everything.

Well, I do use preterite for "sein", but it's not what I should teach you. You should be aware that my Swabian is much more influenced by Standard German than, say, that of my grandmother.

I still tend to use perfect for "haben", though.