Chat GPT Compares Path AI, Artera, PAIGE

 Chat GPT Compares Path AI, Artera, PAIGE

 

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a comparative sketch of Paige, Artera, and PathAI along the dimensions you asked (plus a few extras). Because some of the information (especially funding, regulatory status) changes over time, treat this as current as of mid-2025.

---

Paige

Products / Focus
Paige develops AI and digital pathology tools, primarily for cancer diagnosis and biomarker prediction. Its offerings include the Paige Prostate Suite, Paige Breast Suite, and GI / PanCancer AI modules, which support detection, classification, and biomarker prediction from whole-slide images. Paige.ai+3Paige.ai+3Azure Marketplace+3 It also markets FullFocus, a whole-slide image viewer cleared for clinical use, which integrates with AI overlays and third-party algorithms. Paige.ai+2Azure Marketplace+2 Its recent announcements emphasize foundation models (Virchow, Virchow2) for scalable multi-tissue AI. Paige.ai+1

Regulatory Status
Paige has at least one AI application that is FDA cleared (or cleared under De Novo) in pathology. For example, its Paige Prostate Detect is cited as FDA-cleared in some of the company’s materials. Pathology News+4Paige.ai+4Azure Marketplace+4 The FullFocus viewer is also “FDA-cleared” (as a medical device for image viewing). Azure Marketplace+1 However, many of its AI models are still described in “assistive” or adjunctive terms (i.e. supporting pathologists) or for research/biomarker development. aiforia.com+2Paige.ai+2

Venture Capital / Backing
The public disclosures around Paige’s total capital raise are more limited compared to some peers. However, it attracted significant investor attention, especially from health tech and oncology/AI funds. Its acquisition by Tempus in 2025 suggests that prior VC investment was substantial enough to generate value. Business Wire The acquisition press release describes Paige as having developed and deployed “several AI applications, including the first FDA-cleared AI application in pathology.” Business Wire

Location / Corporate Structure
Paige is headquartered in New York (or broadly operates in U.S.), with global reach. Paige.ai+2LinkedIn+2 After the acquisition, it’s now part of Tempus. Business Wire

---

Artera (ArteraAI)

Products / Focus
Artera focuses on AI-enabled prognostic and predictive tests in oncology, particularly prostate cancer. Its flagship is the ArteraAI Prostate Test, which inputs a digitized pathology slide (plus clinical data) and outputs both prognostic risk metrics (e.g. distant metastasis, cancer-specific mortality) and predictive estimates (e.g. benefit from shorter androgen deprivation therapy). ArteraAI+4ArteraAI+4ArteraAI+4 Artera also mentions plans or versions for breast cancer, and a broader multimodal AI (MMAI) platform combining tissue imaging and clinical features. Fierce Healthcare+4Business Wire+4ArteraAI+4

Regulatory Status
Recently, Artera secured FDA De Novo marketing authorization for its ArteraAI Prostate in the U.S. Morningstar It also has Breakthrough Device Designation from FDA for that same test, which may accelerate review pathways. Mobi Health News Internationally, Artera holds UKCA marks for certain versions of its software (e.g. prostate biopsy assay, breast versions) in the UK. abhi.org.uk+1 That said, in the U.S., Artera historically deployed its test as a CLIA laboratory-developed test (LDT) before full device clearance. ArteraAI+4ArteraAI+4ArteraAI+4

Venture Capital / Backing
Artera is a VC-backed company. Tracxn reports it as a Series A company founded in 2021 out of Menlo Park, California. Tracxn Also, in media interviews, Artera refers to a $90 million investment for scaling, including testing expansion and product development. Mobi Health News+1 It has also formed partnerships (e.g. with Tempus, see below) likely tied to funding and strategic investment. Inside Precision Medicine

Location / Corporate Structure
Artera is based in Los Altos, California (with terms & corporate address in Los Altos) as its corporate headquarters. ArteraAI+3ArteraAI+3Business Wire+3 Its clinical laboratory, where the LDT was run, is in Jacksonville, Florida under CLIA certification. Business Wire

After the Tempus–Paige acquisition, Artera seems to have a partnership or strategic overlap as well: Artera’s tests may integrate with or be deployed in Tempus workflows. Inside Precision Medicine

---

PathAI

Products / Focus
PathAI builds AI and digital pathology software platforms, primarily for image management, AI model deployment, and algorithm development (especially for research, biomarkers, and clinical trials). Its core platform is AISight / AISight Dx, a cloud-native digital pathology image management and slide viewer system, which integrates AI modules and enables collaboration, case routing, and interoperability. info.pathai.com+6PathAI+6PathAI+6 PathAI also develops numerous AI models for biomarker detection, histologic feature extraction, and predictive analytics, used in both research and, increasingly, in clinical support. Clinical Trial Vanguard+4PathAI+4PathAI+4

Regulatory Status
PathAI’s AISight Dx has FDA 510(k) clearance for use in primary diagnosis (when paired with certain slide scanners) as of June 2025. PathAI+4GlobeNewswire+4Medical Device Network+4 The company also has CE-IVD marking for AISight Dx for diagnostic use in Europe. PathAI+1 The FDA granted a Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP) along with the 510(k), meaning that PathAI can make certain defined future changes (e.g. support new scanners or browsers) without a new 510(k) application. GlobeNewswire In earlier years, PathAI had also achieved 510(k) clearance for earlier versions of its software (AISight Dx in 2022) and held both FDA and CE markings then. PathAI+1

Venture Capital / Backing
PathAI has raised multiple funding rounds. The most public is a $165 million round in 2021 led by D1 Capital Partners and Kaiser Permanente, intended to scale its platform and expand toward diagnostics. PathAI+1 Other sources note earlier rounds (seed, Series A/B) cumulatively raising $90+ million as of earlier reporting. Clay PathAI is clearly one of the better capitalized AI-pathology companies.

Location / Corporate Structure
PathAI is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. PathAI+2PathAI+2 It operates globally, particularly serving biopharma, academic, and diagnostic labs. PathAI+2Precision For Medicine+2

---

Comparative Observations & Additional Notes

1. Product positioning and business model

   • Paige leans toward diagnostic tools (assistive AI) plus imaging infrastructure (viewer + AI modules), positioning itself close to the pathologist workflow.

   • Artera is more niche and focused: its value proposition is a prognostic/predictive AI test that supplements standard pathology (i.e., acts atop the slide and clinical data).

   • PathAI is more of a platform / backbone infrastructure + algorithm development company; it supports both research/biomarker customers and evolving clinical applications.

2. Regulatory maturity

   • Artera has achieved De Novo clearance for its core test, giving it a relatively high regulatory bar (and a favorable status).

   • PathAI has achieved 510(k) clearance for digital pathology platform use in primary diagnosis, which is a milestone in more general purpose software.

   • Paige, while already having FDA-cleared components, is still building its AI model portfolio into cleared, broadly deployed diagnostics.

3. Vertical integration vs modularity

   • Artera’s model is relatively vertical: the slide comes in, Artera’s lab does the digitization, runs its AI, and returns a report.

   • PathAI is more modular and interoperable: its AISight platform integrates third-party algorithms (including Paige) to allow plug-in models. PathAI

   • Paige similarly seeks to interoperate: its FullFocus viewer can host third-party AI models. Paige.ai+1

4. Strategic consolidation

   • The acquisition of Paige by Tempus potentially reshapes competitive alignments; Artera has already announced partnerships with Tempus to expand distribution. Inside Precision Medicine

   • PathAI is forging collaborations (e.g. with precision medicine / clinical trial labs) to embed its algorithms deeper into drug development pipelines. Precision For Medicine

5. Scale, data, and foundation models

   • Paige emphasizes its large datasets (millions of slides) and its foundation model strategy (Virchow) to scale multi-tissue AI. Paige.ai+2Paige.ai+2

   • Artera emphasizes clinical trial validation (Phase III trials, long-term follow-up) to support its prognostic model’s legitimacy. ArteraAI+2ArteraAI+2

   • PathAI, besides software and algorithm development, is leveraged by biopharma for biomarker and tissue-based analytics, giving it broad access to diverse data modalities. PathAI+3PathAI+3Clinical Trial Vanguard+3

6. Risk & barrier profiles

   • Artera’s approach is higher risk (a specialized predictive test must prove clinical utility) but potentially higher reward (unique clinical value).

   • PathAI is hedged: its platform can generate revenue from many customers, even if individual AI models take longer to mature.

   • Paige lies somewhere between: it builds AI models that support pathologists, but must move more of those models into cleared, reimbursable tools.

---

If you like, I can prepare a table or infographic summarizing these comparisons for your blog (so your readers can more easily see “who does what”). Would you like me to do that?

You said:

Does New York State CLEP - Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program (CLEP) - review digital products such as these companies? that is, do you have to have CLIA approval by CLEP to offer digital pathology diagnsotics in New York State? Be sure you find the right answer.

ChatGPT said:

Short answer: Yes, you need a New York State clinical laboratory permit (CLEP) if you’re testing NY specimens—but CLEP does not make you submit digital pathology/AI as an LDT for approval.

Here’s the precise policy: New York states that only laboratories holding a NYS clinical laboratory permit are authorized to perform testing on specimens originating from New York. On the same page, CLEP explicitly says “the use of digital imaging of slides in pathology will not be subject to submission requirements as a laboratory-developed test. This includes digital imaging of slides with subsequent use of artificial intelligence/machine learning.” At the same time, NY requires that a licensed pathologist examine and report all surgical pathology and cytopathology cases, and it notes that digital imaging systems and algorithms may still require FDA approval—that is a separate FDA device issue, not a CLEP LDT filing. wadsworth.org

Two additional, practical NYS points:
• Validation of WSI remains required under the state’s pathology standards (i.e., labs must validate that whole-slide images are complete and suitable for diagnosis). wadsworth.org
• Remote work/sign-out is permitted under conditions set by NYSDOH (e.g., the primary lab must hold the NYS permit; remote personnel are employees of that permitted lab; activities are limited to those appropriate for remote review). These are operational rules tied to the NY permit, not an LDT submission. PIcc Alliance

Bottom line for companies like Paige, Artera, and PathAI (or hospitals using them):

• If you are offering clinical results on NY specimens, you must operate under a NYS clinical laboratory permit in the relevant categories. wadsworth.org

• Digital pathology/AI use itself does not trigger an LDT submission to CLEP, but you still need proper WSI validation, licensed pathologist sign-out, and you should ensure any AI/viewing software has the needed FDA status for its intended diagnostic use. wadsworth.org+1

Understanding Gibson et al, (AMP-CAP), More Provider-Friendly NGS Biomarker Reporting

 Understanding the new paper, "Developing Consensus for more provider-friendly NGS molecular biomarker report;  A joint consensus recommendation of the AMP and CAP.

Gibson et al, October 2025, J Molec Dx.

###

TLDR. What's the main point? What's original and not just more of the same? how to the authors frame themselves? Help me understand the whole paper, I've read the abstract.

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a concise TLDR with an emphasis on what’s actually new or distinctive, not just boilerplate guideline-speak:

---

Main Point

The paper proposes a consensus reporting template for next-generation sequencing (NGS) molecular biomarker reports—especially for oncology—intended to make reports “provider-friendly” (oncologist-friendly).
It argues that complex, inconsistent, and sometimes overwhelming NGS reports are one reason testing is under-used, and that a shared, evidence-based template could improve test adoption, interpretation, and patient care.

---

What’s Original vs. Routine

Original contributions:

• Shift of focus: rather than another interpretation guideline (like AMP/ASCO/CAP 2017), this is about the reporting format itself—layout, tables, length, color use, handling of preliminary reports, VUS, and pertinent negatives.

• Empiric review: they analyzed 17 real-world NSCLC NGS reports from commercial and academic labs and found only one truly “oncologist-friendly.”

• Consensus-building: unusually wide stakeholder engagement—AMP, CAP, ASCO, plus >150 public respondents—fed into the template.

• Pilot “mock” report for NSCLC: shows practical application, not just abstract principles.

• Explicit attention to workflow barriers: e.g., EHR compatibility, preliminary report confusion, patient-portal release timing.

Mostly familiar / not novel:

• Re-emphasis on AMP/ASCO/CAP tiered variant classification and standard nomenclature (HGNC/HGVS).

• Recognition of importance of VUS, pertinent negatives, guideline references (NCCN, ESMO, etc.)—these points are common across prior documents.

• The call for concise, evidence-based therapeutic and diagnostic comments (without prescribing therapy) reiterates existing standards.

---

How the Authors See Themselves

They cast the working group as “honest brokers” convened by AMP—not creating new standards of care, but harmonizing reporting practice.
The self-image is pragmatic and service-oriented: if oncologists and pathologists can see the same information in a clear, concise, consistent way, uptake of NGS will improve.

---

The Take-Home for a Reader

• The problem isn’t the science of NGS—it’s that reports are often unreadable and inconsistent, which impedes clinical use.

• The solution is a free, consensus-based template tested against actual reports and informed by a wide set of stakeholders.

• The paper’s novelty lies in format and usability, not in clinical content or variant interpretation science.

In short, this is less about what to report and more about how to report it—a practical usability initiative positioned as an enabler of precision oncology.

You said:

What are the weakest or most easily criticized parts of the effort?

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a clear-eyed critique of the effort, focusing on the parts most likely to draw skepticism from experts or health-system implementers:

---

1. Not Actually Validated

• The template was never implemented or tested in a real EHR or a large health-system workflow.

• There’s no data that it improves oncologist comprehension, turnaround, test adoption, or patient outcomes—so the project is aspirational, not evidence-driven.

• It also skips cost-effectiveness or burden analyses, which makes it hard for labs to justify re-tooling their reports.

👉 Likely criticism: “Nice consensus paper, but we don’t know if it works in the wild.”

---

2. Narrow Pilot Scope

• The mock template is built around NSCLC, but is presented as broadly generalizable.

• The group acknowledges that hematologic cancers and inherited-cancer testing would need different report structures, but does not offer even a conceptual framework for them.

• By focusing on one tumor type, the guidance risks being too disease-specific for universal adoption.

👉 Likely criticism: “This is an NSCLC-centric report dressed up as a general solution.”

---

3. Subjectivity in “Provider-Friendly”

• The core concept—what’s ‘oncologist-friendly’—is not objectively defined.

• Judgments about color use, length, or table structure are panel opinions, not user-tested heuristics.

• The single-reporter assessments (“only 1 of 17 was oncologist-friendly”) underline that this is a value judgment, not a reproducible metric.

👉 Likely criticism: “You’ve codified preferences, not evidence-based design principles.”

---

4. Ignoring Major Workflow / IT Constraints

• The template leans heavily on tables, color, and formatting, but most EHR/LIS systems strip formatting or render it inconsistently.

• The report is still PDF-centric; true structured data interoperability (FHIR, discrete elements in the EHR) is out of scope.

• There’s no practical roadmap for how reference labs and hospitals should integrate the template into their pipelines.

👉 Likely criticism: “This is 2025 and still PDF-oriented—EHR interoperability remains unsolved.”

---

5. Weak Treatment of Key Content Challenges

• Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and variant allele frequency (VAF) remain contentious; the paper offers only general remarks, not decisive guidance.

• The decision to include or omit therapeutic guidance is left largely to institutional preference.

• Pertinent negatives and secondary/incidental findings are acknowledged but not resolved.

👉 Likely criticism: “The hardest content questions get hand-waved.”

---

6. Stakeholder Engagement but not True Co-Design

• The public-comment survey had fewer than 200 respondents, many of whom dropped off mid-survey—suggesting limited depth of engagement.

• Patients and front-line community oncologists—arguably the end-users—had relatively little structured input.

• Advisory-panel comments were folded into the consensus by informal discussion, not rigorous Delphi or mixed-methods design.

👉 Likely criticism: “This is more of an AMP-CAP expert exercise than a co-designed clinical-user product.”

---

7. Potential Conflicts and Sponsor Optics

• Funded by AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo through CME grants—legitimate, but it leaves the project open to perception of bias toward pharma-driven biomarker use.

• The authors note this but do not discuss how reporting format might influence therapeutic uptake, which is the implicit concern.

👉 Likely criticism: “The effort looks industry-tilted and under-analyzes downstream commercial implications.”

---

Bottom Line

The work is innovative in spotlighting report usability, but weak as an implementation science product.
Critics will point to:

• No real-world testing or outcome data

• A narrow disease scope and subjective definition of “friendly”

• Persistent IT and workflow barriers left unaddressed

The paper’s strongest value is conceptual—pushing the field to think about reporting as a barrier to precision oncology—yet its practical impact will depend on follow-up implementation studies and health-system adoption work that hasn’t yet been done.

Mennonite German Dialects and Hoch Deutsch Newspaper

 Today I read an interesting article about a newspaper for the German speaking Mennonite communities in both north and South America, published twice a month in Canada and circulating about 10,000 copies as far as Bolivia. As far as I can tell, the newspaper is written in hoch Deutsch. I thought that was interesting because I think these Mennonite communities primarily based their German on the Bible of Martin Luther from 1520 and on dialect, they spoke in Mountain villages before migrating. I think I’ve heard bits of Menonite German in the Americas and it sounds very strange to me, almost like suizer deutch. Can you discuss how the Mennonite German of the America sounds, and how that might be pertinent for the widely circulated newspaper in high German.

ChatGPT said:

Excellent observation — and yes, the linguistic tension you noticed between Mennonite “Low German” dialects and the Hochdeutsch (High German) of Die Mennonitische Post is at the heart of how this transcontinental newspaper works.

Here’s the background and the sound-world behind it:

---

🗣️ The Sound of Mennonite German

Most Mennonites in the Americas descend from groups that left northern Germany and the Low Countries in the 1500–1700s. They brought with them a dialect known today as Plautdietsch (“Low German” or “Flat German”).

• Plautdietsch isn’t a dialect of Hochdeutsch at all — it’s a branch of Low Saxon, historically spoken around Danzig and the Vistula delta.

• Phonetically, it’s softer and more sing-song than Standard German: it drops final consonants, uses diphthongs like iea and oua, and has distinctive vowels — closer to Frisian or Dutch than to modern Hochdeutsch.

• When outsiders hear it, they often think it sounds Swiss or Alsatian, because it’s full of lilting vowel shifts and unfamiliar rhythm, and because it’s mutually unintelligible with standard German unless you’ve had exposure.

Example:

“Ikj goa no Huam” (Plautdietsch) ≈ Ich gehe nach Hause (Hochdeutsch)

---

📰 Why the Newspaper Uses Hochdeutsch

When Mennonites migrated — first to Russia (Ukraine), then to Canada, Mexico, Paraguay, and Bolivia — their spoken language remained Plautdietsch, but religion and literacy were anchored in the Luther Bible and formal German catechisms.
By the 20th century, literacy in Hochdeutsch had become the shared written standard for all Mennonite colonies, even though no one spoke it at home. It became a kind of sacred lingua franca — understood for reading and preaching, but not used conversationally.

So Die Mennonitische Post uses Standard (High) German:

• It is the only form all colonies can read — unifying Bolivia, Belize, Mexico, Canada, and the U.S.

• It preserves connection to German religious and literary heritage (Luther, hymnals, the Bible).

• It avoids choosing one regional dialect over another, since even Plautdietsch itself has regional variants.

---

🌍 Cultural and Linguistic Implications

The result is a diglossic culture — two languages serving two worlds:

• Plautdietsch → everyday speech, family, humor, oral storytelling.

• Hochdeutsch → religion, schoolbooks, print media, and communication across distant colonies.

For a Bolivian Mennonite farmer, reading Die Mennonitische Post is a bit like a modern Greek reading in ancient Greek: formally correct, familiar through scripture, yet distinctly not the spoken idiom of daily life.

---

✳️ In Short

The newspaper’s use of High German is both practical and symbolic — it’s what binds together far-flung Mennonite communities that might otherwise be linguistically isolated by their evolving Plautdietsch dialects. The dialect itself, melodic and archaic, reflects centuries of insulation from both modern German and English, while the Post preserves a bridge to a shared, scriptural German heritage.

---

If you’d like, I can provide a short audio comparison of Plautdietsch vs. Hochdeutsch to illustrate how different they sound — would you like me to find that?

You said:

Kind of like street and religious Arabic.

ChatGPT said:

Exactly — that’s a very apt comparison.

Just as Arabic speakers navigate between colloquial (ʿāmmiyya) dialects for daily life and Classical or Modern Standard Arabic (fuṣḥā) for scripture, education, and formal writing, Mennonite communities live in a state of diglossia between:

• Plautdietsch (Low German) → the spoken, intimate, village language — used at home, in markets, and among friends.

• Hochdeutsch (High German) → the written and sacred language — used in the Bible, hymns, sermons, and newspapers like Die Mennonitische Post.

Both sides of the pair serve distinct purposes:

• Plautdietsch maintains identity and oral tradition, often evolving with contact languages (Spanish, English).

• High German maintains literacy and cohesion across continents — a kind of spiritual and cultural glue.

So when a Mennonite in Bolivia reads Die Mennonitische Post, it’s a bit like an Egyptian reading a newspaper in Modern Standard Arabic: completely intelligible in writing, but not the way anyone actually talks at home.

Would you like me to sketch a few concrete examples — say, a line of Plautdietsch next to High German and English — to show how that diglossia looks in practice?

You said:

They use the Luther Bible I think, how different is that than modern German. Is it like Shakespeare for example?

ChatGPT said:

That’s a really insightful question — and yes, the Luther Bible plays almost exactly the same cultural role in German as the King James Bible or Shakespeare does in English: foundational, dignified, and archaic in tone, but still broadly intelligible with some effort.

Let’s unpack that a bit:

---

🕰️ Historical Context

Martin Luther translated the Bible between 1521 and 1534, using a blend of dialects centered on Early New High German, particularly the Saxon chancery dialect (the administrative written German of the time).
His goal was to make Scripture accessible — to unify German speakers under a clear, elegant, and emotionally resonant written form. In doing so, he more or less created modern written German.

---

📖 How It Differs from Modern German

The language of Luther’s Bible:

• Vocabulary: slightly archaic but mostly recognizable (e.g., Weib for “woman” instead of Frau, Kindeskinder for “grandchildren”).

• Word order: often more poetic or Latinate — longer clauses, inversions, and compound phrases.

• Orthography: pre-standardized spelling, e.g. thun instead of tun (“to do”), Jesu instead of Jesus.

• Sound and rhythm: rich and cadenced, designed for reading aloud — similar to the sonorous rhythm of the King James Bible.

So, a modern German speaker can read the Luther Bible fluently, just as an English speaker can read the King James Bible or Shakespeare. It feels old-fashioned and grand, not unintelligible.

Example:

Luther (1545)	Modern German	English
Im Anfang schuf Gott Himmel und Erde.	Am Anfang schuf Gott Himmel und Erde.	In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Und das Licht scheint in der Finsternis; und die Finsternis hat's nicht begriffen.	Und das Licht scheint in der Finsternis, und die Finsternis hat es nicht erfasst.	And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Pretty close, right? It’s elevated, but still comprehensible.

---

🪶 For Mennonites

For conservative Mennonite groups, the Luther Bible (often the 1545 or 1912 revision) remains the religious standard, even for communities that now speak Plautdietsch, Spanish, or English in daily life.
It ties them to:

• the Reformation-era roots of their faith,

• a shared sacred language that transcends dialects,

• and a sense of continuity with their German heritage — even for those who haven’t lived in a German-speaking country for 200 years.

---

🎭 Analogy

So yes — reading the Luther Bible for them is very much like an English speaker reading Shakespeare or the King James Bible:

• A little archaic in diction and structure,

• Revered for its moral authority and rhythm,

• And still close enough to the modern language that its meaning is transparent — especially if you grew up hearing it in church.

---

Would you like me to show a short Psalm passage side-by-side in Luther German, Modern German, and English to illustrate how they differ in tone and rhythm?

You said:

Y

ChatGPT said:

Perfect — let’s take one of the most famous and lyrical examples, Psalm 23 (“The Lord is my Shepherd”), which beautifully shows the evolution from Luther’s 16th-century German to modern German and then to English.

---

🕊️ Psalm 23: Luther Bible (1545)

1. Der HERR ist mein Hirte, mir wird nichts mangeln.
2. Er weidet mich auf einer grünen Aue und führet mich zum frischen Wasser.
3. Er erquicket meine Seele; er führet mich auf rechter Straße um seines Namens willen.
4. Und ob ich schon wanderte im finstern Tal, fürchte ich kein Unglück; denn du bist bei mir, dein Stecken und Stab trösten mich.

Notes:

• Aue (meadow) and erquicket (revives) are slightly archaic.

• The rhythm and cadence are deliberately oral — designed to be read aloud from the pulpit.

• Grammar and syntax are Early New High German, but entirely understandable today.

---

📜 Modern German (Luther Revision or Einheitsübersetzung)

1. Der Herr ist mein Hirte, nichts wird mir fehlen.
2. Er lässt mich lagern auf grünen Auen und führt mich zum Ruheplatz am Wasser.
3. Er stillt mein Verlangen; er leitet mich auf rechten Pfaden, treu seinem Namen.
4. Auch wenn ich gehe durch das finstere Tal, ich fürchte kein Unheil; denn du bist bei mir, dein Stock und dein Stab geben mir Halt.

Notes:

• Vocabulary is smoother and more explanatory (Ruheplatz am Wasser, gibt mir Halt).

• Modern spelling and syntax.

• Still recognizably poetic but less archaic.

---

🇬🇧 English (King James Version, 1611)

1. The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
4. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

---

✳️ Comparison

Feature	Luther (1545)	Modern German	King James (1611)
Tone	Archaic but musical	Clear, contemporary	Archaic, stately
Syntax	Compact, inverted	Smooth, modern order	Elevated, parallel phrasing
Function	Sacred & literary	Liturgical & accessible	Sacred & literary

---

So when a Mennonite congregation reads the Luther Bible, they’re experiencing the German equivalent of the King James Bible — elevated, timeless, and rooted in an older idiom that shaped the very language they now speak.

Would you like me to show the same passage in Plautdietsch next, so you can hear how distant the everyday Mennonite dialect sounds from both Luther and modern German?

You said:

Y

ChatGPT said:

Excellent — here’s where things get really interesting.
Let’s look at Psalm 23:1–4 again, now adding a version in Plautdietsch (Mennonite Low German), alongside Luther (1545), Modern German, and English.

---

🕊️ Psalm 23 in Four Languages

Version	Text
Plautdietsch (Mennonite Low German)	1. De Herr es mien Scheper, ekj woa keen Not haben. 2. He läd mie daun up grüene Weeden, he feert mie aun de stille Wota. 3. He fräischt mie Seele; he feert mie op rechte Weeg, um sien Noom wille. 4. Ewa ekj ok jange dörch en daal voll Schatte, ekj fürchte keen Scheel; denn du büst bie mie, dien Steek un dien Stab troost mie.
Luther Bible (1545)	1. Der HERR ist mein Hirte, mir wird nichts mangeln. 2. Er weidet mich auf einer grünen Aue und führet mich zum frischen Wasser. 3. Er erquicket meine Seele; er führet mich auf rechter Straße um seines Namens willen. 4. Und ob ich schon wanderte im finstern Tal, fürchte ich kein Unglück; denn du bist bei mir, dein Stecken und Stab trösten mich.
Modern German (Einheitsübersetzung)	1. Der Herr ist mein Hirte, nichts wird mir fehlen. 2. Er lässt mich lagern auf grünen Auen und führt mich zum Ruheplatz am Wasser. 3. Er stillt mein Verlangen; er leitet mich auf rechten Pfaden, treu seinem Namen. 4. Auch wenn ich gehe durch das finstere Tal, ich fürchte kein Unheil; denn du bist bei mir, dein Stock und dein Stab geben mir Halt.
English (King James)	1. The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. 4. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

---

🎧 What You Notice in the Plautdietsch

• Sound & spelling: Words like mien, woa, ekj, he, bie mie sound almost Dutch or Frisian.

• Grammar: It keeps older Low Saxon forms (e.g., mien instead of mein; he feert for er führt).

• Rhythm: Much more oral and village-like; you can imagine it being spoken around a kitchen table, not from a pulpit.

• Influences: Many Plautdietsch speakers today mix in Spanish (Gracias, Trabajo) or English loanwords depending on country.

---

🪶 Summary

You can think of these relationships roughly like this:

• Plautdietsch → everyday speech (like a regional English dialect: Scots, or Appalachian).

• Luther Bible German → the sacred, literary foundation (like Shakespeare or King James).

• Modern German → standardized, 20th-century version for schools, newspapers, and formal writing.

So when Die Mennonitische Post prints in High German, it’s speaking in the shared “Bible language” all readers recognize, even if their homes and hearts sound more like the Plautdietsch above.

Would you like me to show how Plautdietsch sounds phonetically — like a few lines written out in an approximate IPA or phonetic English spelling? It helps reveal how different it is to the ear.

You said:

Reading the platt Deutsch, I pick up a syllable or a word here and there or something about the word order that reminds me of English for the German doesn’t.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a wonderful and perceptive observation — and you’re absolutely right.

What you’re hearing in Plautdietsch (or Plattdeutsch, broadly speaking) are deep structural echoes of English, because both languages share the same West Germanic root before their paths diverged roughly 1,200–1,500 years ago.

Let’s unpack why you intuitively “catch” bits of it that you don’t in Hochdeutsch:

---

🧬 1. Common Ancestry with English

Old English and Low German (the ancestor of Plautdietsch) are sister languages — not one descended from the other, but both descended from early West Germanic.
By contrast, High German (Hochdeutsch) underwent a massive “sound shift” — the High German Consonant Shift — that separated it from both English and Low German.

Concept	English	Plautdietsch (Low German)	Hochdeutsch (High German)
make	maken	maken	machen
apple	Appel	Appel	Apfel
water	Water	Wota	Wasser
path/way	way	Weeg	Weg
that	dat	daut	das

So when you read He feert mie aun de stille Wota (“He leads me beside the still waters”), your ear catches familiar sounds and syntax that modern German has shifted away from.

---

🗣️ 2. Pronunciation and Rhythm

Plautdietsch preserves older, softer consonants:

• p and t instead of German pf and z.

• k stays k (instead of shifting to ch or h).

It also sounds more Anglo-Frisian in rhythm — more syllabic and less clipped.
Compare:

• Hochdeutsch: Ich fürchte kein Unglück

• Plautdietsch: Ekj fürchte keen Scheel
  That keen Scheel almost feels like no evil — same structure, similar rhythm.

---

🧩 3. Word Order

Plautdietsch often uses a simpler, more direct word order than High German.
Where Hochdeutsch loves to send verbs to the end (…weil ich es nicht machen kann), Plautdietsch often keeps them in Subject–Verb–Object order, like English (weil ekj daut nich kann maken).

That makes it feel more transparent to an English speaker — you recognize the skeleton of the sentence.

---

🕰️ 4. A “Time Capsule” of Proto-English German

Think of Plautdietsch as a living cousin of Old English.
If you read Beowulf or an Old English psalm, you’ll find the same family traits:

Þæt wæs gōd cyning → Dat was en good Keening → That was a good king.

So when Plautdietsch sounds “a little bit English,” it’s because it and English froze in time on the same branch before High German’s big sound shift pushed it further away.

---

🪶 In Short

Your ear isn’t playing tricks on you — it’s picking up genetic similarities between Low German and English that are buried under the later history of Standard German.
In fact, linguists often tell students that Low German is the closest living relative of English still spoken on the continent of Europe.

---

Would you like me to show a short side-by-side comparison — say, a few everyday sentences in Plautdietsch, Old English, and Modern English — to see how directly those connections line up?