![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
===Recommendations=== I googled the dutch language query both as first and second language. I found that both first and second language speakers combined together amount to 21-22 million speakers, which is same as that provided in the top right corner in the article.
Here is some math:
1. netherlands: 16 million speakers 2. Belgium: another 5 million out of a population of 10 million (this is an estimate) 3. Suriname: Another half million. 4. Aruba: Few thousands.
This can only mean one thing. There are not more than a few thousand dutch speakers (both first and second language) in other parts of the world. here is a government link http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/december/GermanicBranch.html to support this.
This also means that unless we have credible references to prove that dutch is spoken by the millions or at least one million in countries like Indonesia, we should not put large squares around the globe. I presume that some of us still have colonial hang over to go on putting dots indiscriminately everywhere on the globe. Such maps will be deleted.
Samstayton 02:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I object to the number of only 5 million speakers in Belgium. Cia.gov pointed that 60 percent of Belgium speaks Dutch. The population of Belgium is 10,379,067 (July 2006 est.) That means that 6.2 million people speak Dutch. The Netherlands has 16.5 million inhabitants.
So: 1. Netherlands: 16.5 mln 2. Belgium: 6.2 mln 3. Suriname: 440 thousand. = 23 million.
It is unclear to me why the section header "The Dutch spoken in Belgium is not called Flemish" is continually reinserted. It quite patently is called Flemish. Saying that it is not called Flemish is blatantly and transparently incorrect. Change the section heading to something else if you don't like it, but don't make a section heading that is patently false. Nohat 06:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Dutch in Flanders is Dutch all the same.This article has already wasted way to much time and effort to the whole Flemish thing.The section header will remain as it is now.The VTR always uses the term "Nederlands" not "Vlaams" when concerning the language of Flanders,period. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 11:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no "Flemish language".There is only Dutch. Various dialects of Dutch are called Flemish, nobody denies that, but DUTCH is not called Flemish. Just like English in the USA is called ENGLISH and not AMERICAN. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous, in Scotland they either speak Scottish English or Scots, in Australia they speak Australian English and in the USA they speak American English.They all speak English, be it with minor spelling and pronounciation differences.
In Belgium they speak Dutch, not " Belgian Dutch" and not Flemish.Flemish is a dialect, Dutch is the language, they refer to what they speak as Dutch and any foreigner with some minute knowledge about the country knows it too.
Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Flemish refers to a number of dialects in the West of Flanders.I don't care whay nonlinguists think what it means, that's it. Dutch spoken in Belgium might be called Flemish, but certainly not by the majority simply because it's incorrect. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I have a question for you: The Holocaust is an event of which some groups claim it never happened. Does this mean that the article should start:
"The Holocaust, also known as The Shoah (Hebrew: השואה HaShoah), is the name applied to the SUPPOSABLY state-led systematic persecution and genocide of the Jews and other minority groups of Europe and North Africa during World War II by Nazi Germany and its collaborators"
Of course not.Why? Because even though some people disagree experts (and hopefully the majority of the general public) KNOW it happened. The same thing applies to Flemish.Some people think it means Dutch spoken in Flanders.But the majority, including the Flemings themselves and every single linguist you 'll ever meet, know it's false and incorrect and that Dutch in Belgium, is simply called Dutch.
Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 07:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Flamish is a very odd word. Usually Netherlands people call Flemish Flamish just because of the accent. And yes, there are a few words that are different, the dictionary Van Dale, the largest dictionary in NL, uses the term belgicisme , belgicism, what means that the word is only or mostly used in Belgium, but not wrong per se. So regarding to Van Dale, there is no Flamish, but just a few Belgian Dutch words that are different. I show for instance gracht or sate. In the Netherlands a gracht is within a city, in Belgium it is between grassfields. In the Netherlands sate refers to some mean on a stick with brown sauce, in Belgium it is a peace of meat, a peace of vegetable, a piece of meat etc on a stick without the brown sauce. You can see that more as culturedifferences as a different language.
But when you state that Flamish is a dialect, you should however state imho that there are multiple dialects in Flanders. Such as Western Flemish (vls.wikipedia). I would advice you to talk on this behalf with user:Henna and/or user:GerardM and/or user:steinbach. The first is a user who lives in Flanders, and has quite a lot experience on NL/BE language differences. GerardM is working a lot with dialects and languages because of his work on WiktionaryZ. Steinbach has done quite some work on setting up vls: . effeiets anders 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Because Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Dutch. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 08:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That might be, but 1+1 is still 2 I believe. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you even know how stupid this sounds? The Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Dutch it says the same thing twice. Like the English in England is called English.Duh! Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 10:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you seem to have a problem with accepting the fact that your not right.
Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No, because there are no versions of Dutch, there is only one standard.People in Flanders speak Dutch, which is Dutch and not Flemish, which is a dialect. A line like "Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Flemish" is totally wrong and unacceptable.Because the language of Belgium is NOT refered to as Flemish but Dutch, despite colloguial use. And more so because that header IMPLIES that the only correct name for Dutch in Belgium is Flanders.Ridiculous. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
My main point of interest is that the article says that:
Just to help clear some of the confusion, Yes Standard Flemish and Standard Dutch are indeed the same. Their exist dialects of Dutch in the Netherlands and also dialects of Dutch in Belgium (also referred to as Flemish). Flemish people are never insulted when they are speaking Standard Dutch and it is referred to as Flemish. I am Dutch and was born and lived my first 20 years of life in the Netherlands, about 10 minutes from the Belgian border. Also, What is this about Low German never being a language? My father is from Lower Saxony in Germany and I am able to converse in Plattduutsch, do I speak a non-existant language?
Good to see people digging up good sources. See also Flemish (linguistics) and Flemish. There is a controversy between the scientific (linguistic) POV and the vernacular POV, which all need to be described, if only because many millions of people incorrectly call Dutch spoken by Flemings "Flemish". Attempt to pull it all together for possible use in the article (please correct where wrong):
Area:
Language (from the linguistic POV):
Language (from the vernacular POV in the Netherlands):
Language (from the vernacular POV in Flanders):
AvB ÷ talk 12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes they are wrong. Low German is just a subgroup of West Germanic language, it was never an actual spoken language.
Rex
18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Linguistically, it's very simple really.
We'll start at Old Dutch/Old Low Franconian.
It seems to be pretty common to place Afrikaans as if it arose from middle Dutch (1150-1500), which is impossible really because South Africa wasn't colonized at that time. Rex 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Flemish, together with Limburgish, Brabantian (the dialect of most Flemmings), Hollandic, and Dutch Low Saxon formed Middle Dutch. - 5 main entities-
Afrikaans, originated from 17th century Modern Dutch dialects. (Mainly Hollandic and Zealandic) but it didn't develope into an actual language, rather than a dialect of Dutch untill the late 19th century and it became official language around 1920. Rex 20:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, SomeHuman. I had begun to think that Rex Germanus and I were the only ones still writing in this section—and I was disappointed that nobody was explicitly addressing my theory that two different things (a form of Low German and a form of Dutch) were (are) both spoken in Flanders and that both are sometimes called by the English word Flemish. (And, still, nobody is addressing this.) It's nice to see your contribution.
Anyway, your post was definitely one of the more interesting ones, though I don't know much to say about it, because, unfortunately, I know only little about Dutch.
Indeed, when I wrote "whether something called Flemish is part of Dutch or part of German", I meant Low German, not (High) German. Although there is a sort of continuum from High German to Low German (to Flemish?) to Dutch to Frisian to English, it's possible that I sometimes drop the "Low" if I think that others know that I don't mean High German ... and this, I suppose, is because I (erroneously? correctly?) think of Low German as closer to High German than to Flemish or to Dutch.
The other day, I thought of something that may resolve some of this definitional question. Then again, maybe it won't. — Just about any American or Australian or Canadian (or other person from a country whose main language is English but which country is not called England), encountering someone from, say, Holland or France or Namibia or Sri Lanka or China, will ask "Do you speak English?" Asking "Do you speak American (or Canadian, &c.)?" would be quite odd. So, while "American" is definitely a dialect (or a whole group of dialects) of English and may sometimes be called American for purposes of distinction, Americans all know that "American" is really English (albeit a distinct form of it). — The situation in Belgium might be different; but, if it's not, then a simple way to settle at least part of the matter might be simply to discover whether a person whose first language is Flemish, on encountering another person and wanting to know whether this second person speaks the same first language, asks the equivalent of "Do you speak Flemish?", or "Do you know Dutch?", or "Do you understand Low German?", or what.
Just an idea.
Also, it would be nice if someone would wholly or partly confirm or refute my idea that the English name Flemish might sometimes be applied to a form of Low German and sometimes be applied to a form of Dutch, and that forms of both those languages might be spoken by various Flemings.
President Lethe 15:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but just when we've nearly solved the whole Flemish thing, User:SomeHuman starts to use yet another term "Zuid-Nederlands". I mean seriously, how do you make up these things?
No, I'm sorry but I don't participate on Dutch wikipedia, thanks for the advise though. Rex 19:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that problem is called Zuid-Gelders.Which is Brabantian all the same, but located above the major rivers. Rex 13:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Kleve, is a city in Germany near the Dutch border. Rex 15:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Rex, I'll put my comments here instead of starting an edit war over such a minor issue. But still, I think this image currently raises the question "what is the difference between the dark and light orange areas?", which isn't answered anywhere in the article, and worse, there's nowhere an indication where one can find such an answer. You and I know the answer, but the average reader doesn't. We're here to answer questions, not raise them. My addition solved that problem, but I'm open to different solutions. I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't build on my admittedly imperfect solution, but deleted it instead. I have a second problem with the image, which is that the coloured pieces "taken out" of the image aren't very clear. The image becomes a puzzle: where does this piece fit? I'd rather use a solution like on Image:Verbreitungsgebiet der heutigen niederdeutschen Mundarten.PNG. – gpvos (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Edited 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC) and 17:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, that map bases itself on information received 50 years ago.It calls Limburgish "Flemish South Limburgish" and according to it, Hollandic is spoken in the whole of North Brabant, Zealand and the northern half of Dutch Limburg, and apart from that it says "Flemish" is spoken in the middle of Flanders.It's terrible and I'm very thankfull it isn't used anywhere anymore on wikipedia.
Dutch Low saxon and Limburgish are of Low Frankish origin, but they have been influenced (sometimes) greatly/moderatly by, in this case, Low Saxon and Upper German.
That's why they are lighter, as explained in the text.I fail to see your problem.If it's easier for you. We can work this out on my talk page, in Dutch if you like. Rex 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I can actually read. Seriously though: What is your problem exactly? Rex 19:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That sure is the right wikipedia attitude! Rex 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Quote: '... "angstschreeuw" features actually 6 consonants ng-s-t-s-ch-r which is further reduced in everyday pronunciation - e.g. "ch" and "r" will usually blend into one sound.' In fact, I would still pronounce 6 consonants: the t and second s would just become very short and less loudily produced though not totally mute. I'm afraid there is no everyday pronunciation of "angstschreeuw" except perhaps in classes for people with speech problems: it generally belongs to the written language. I can't recall anyone ever actually saying "Ik hoorde een angstschreeuw" (I heard a scream of fear). -- SomeHuman 2006-06-28 17:30 (UTC)
The Dutch page for the Dutch language also mentions Surinamese Dutch and Antillean Dutch as Dutch dialects. However, there is no reference to these dialects at English Wiki nor the Dutch dialects template has hint for these two (notwithstanding the Surinamese flag present in the image). Also, the Surinamese "accent" mentioned in the text of the article redirects to Sranan Togo which is (as far as I know) an English-based Creole language. The Dutch dialects issue in its current form seems to me as handled in a rather "Euro-centric" way. Am I mistaken? Expert consideration please. -- Behemoth 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Surinamese Dialect of Dutch hasn't got a page on wikipedia yet. I'll try to do something about that as soon as possible. Rex 08:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course some of the dialects have incorporated French loanwords. Does this need to be said while not mentioning German loanwords in other dialects or, more recently, English loanwords in other and possibly in more dialects. Without a statistical comparison of the frequency in daily use, the phrase is too subjective. The standard Dutch also includes loanwords; a comparison between the number of loanwords in any group of dialects with their number in standard Dutch should also be available before setting the dialects apart. One should also be careful about defining a loanword: often the same French loanword occurs in a dialect or in northern standard Dutch as a close approximation of the French pronunciation while in other dialects or in southern standard Dutch that word has been changed to a more local pronunciation (e.g. 'dossier'); contrarily the most common word for an engine is 'motor' with English pronunciation in standard Dutch, 'moteur' with French pronunciation in some dialects. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-03 00:50 (UTC)
I reworked the "Language of Flanders" subsection for NPOV, clarity, and so on. Check it out and enjoy (and chill!). CJ Withers 04:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but what exactly did you do? Because when I looked at the diffs ... I did not see any POV statements, or areas which weren't very clear. Also, do you have any idea how many times that particular section was reverted/edited/rewritten before it was considered acceptable? Rex 09:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
When we talk about evolution, we talk about things getting better/improving.The version before you modified it was fine. Don't get me wrong though, I love the way wikipedia articles evolve and become better, but that doesn't mean I can't spot atavism when I see it. Rex 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be a nice effort, however, it does not belong into Wikipedia because this is original reseach.The followint is Wikipedia policy:
See: Wikipedia:No original research
The editor is encouraged to search into the scientific literalture in linguistic to find samples or Dutch languages, I am sure there are some. Andreas (T) 00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
No, there is very little useful information on Dutch dialects in terms of vocabulary, let alone dialectal dictionaries. I don't quite see how this is original research though, afteral ... I don't see much differnce between this and the examples of Dutch in the article itself. Rex 08:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It's direct assertion of the content of arguments, not what people expect or should see in an encyclopedia. We're not here to "give a voice" for expression of views. -- Improv 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
These aren't expressions of views, merely of facts. Rex 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Though the style and some of the content might be improved, there is nothing unencyclopedic about mentioning misconceptions and clarifying the matter. It is often shorter and more efficient than lengthy explanations that are unlikely to be read carefully by the ones most easily caught by a false concept. This is not a plea for simplistic clarifications. — SomeHuman 2006-08-11 22:17 (UTC)
As I said, style and content might be improved. Diffusing an article by explaining several misconceptions will not make the article better readable, nor (as I stated earlier) will it help to replace misconceptions by proper insight. Your view on the dialect issue sounds more POV than the present content of that item in the article section. — SomeHuman 2006-08-12 00:41 (UTC)
I wonder what you mean with POV, I can't see it. Apart from that, I have seen this style of writing many times on wikipedia, I can only see it in the headers here. If you want to do something useful instead of this (no offence) go to Roman military tactics I think you'll love improving that one. Rex 10:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Dutch experts - your help is needed here: Talk:Dutch_name#Sorting_prefixes. Thanks. -- Amir E. Aharoni 12:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Now the difference between a language and a dialect is more political than anything else, but I'm a bit surprised to see Limburgish marked as a Dutch dialect, whereas Frisian is not included (because it's considered a separate language). As a native speaker of Limburgish, I know for a fact that it differs enough from Dutch to warrant a status as a separate language, moreso than most other regional variations to be found in the low countries.
Now my belief is obviously not a criterion for this information to be included in Wikipedia, but what's missing from this page is that Limburgish is a tonal language. This is something that no other language/dialect in the area has, and in my opinion, it puts Limburgish quite apart from other languages or dialects in the low countries.
A similar line of reasoning goes for Lower Saxon and Frisian, by the way, but I don't know much about those.
Because if you consider Limburgish to be a Dutch dialect, you could consider Dutch to be a German dialect. After all, they have the same origin. SeverityOne 11:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I know that some limburgish variants have a certain amount of tonality, I also know that other variants do not have this. Overall I wouldn't say that Limburgish is a tonal language (like swedish) but that certain variants have certain tonal features. Rex 14:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Limburgs is most definitely tonal (with 2 tones), and recognised as a language by the Dutch government. Its being called a language is further supported by the fact that it differs more from "Hollands" than any other variety spoken in the Netherlands, including Friesian: http://taal.phileon.nl/kaart/hoppenbrouwers.php#ffm
Sephia karta 14:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Streektaal and Taal do not have the same meaning. Also Frisian isn't included on the map you provided because it's not Dutch. Rex 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No you misinterpret the map. The map doesn't show Frisian, it shows Dutch spoken in Friesland. Rex 17:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
And you base this on [...] ? Rex 21:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Hehehe, yes well ethnologue generally isn't considered a reliable resource on wikipedia. Limburgish is an advanced Dutch dialect, and it's not one single dialect but a whole network of dialects grouped under "limburgish". Rex 21:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a linguist, so I'm not going to make a change in the article, therefore this is a proposal for an edit. What I found lacking was a discussion of the difference between the formal 'u' en informal 'je/jij' as opposed to the use of you in the english language ('thou' is seriously outdated ofcourse). I'm sure there's a nice linguistic term and terminology for all this, but since I lack any knowledge of that, I think the article would be more complete when it mentions this. Cryforhelp 21:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I think in Dutch this "problem" isn't that hard is it? It's not like in German where they adress everyone over 16 and everybody except family and close friends with "Sie", I tend to use U for strangers, when they say I can say "Je/Jij" I do, if they don't I wont. I though it was sort of the same everywhere? Rex 10:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Rex:It's rather more complicated actually, and of course not only dependent on what form the other person uses. It's more like SomeHuman describes it varies according to location and social circles. There is, like in German a certain age before which 'u' is improper, but after that it's always a bit of a guessing game. But there certainly is a correlation between first-name usage and informal 'jij' usage. I think that by mentioning that you would have a sufficient definition. Any better definition of when to use which noun does not exist and would always be severely disputed in the Dutch language areas. Cryforhelp 11:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
(*) However I would have expected 'joen jas' in West Flanders but I'm more used to hear the coastal speech than the southern dialects. I spent a few weeks in southern Menen and Kortrijk too but as a speaker of another regional dialect (Brabantian Mechlinian), I may not have noticed the inner-regional subtleties. I might be wrong on 'joen' also being used as possessional pronoun – I have only a passive understanding of West Flemish.
Where exactly in Germany is Dutch spoken? According to the box at the top right hand corner of the page it is spoken there, but the article makes no mention of it.
ok, but there are Dutch people living in Canada and the US who speak Dutch as well. There may not be as many Dutch speakers as in Germany, but I'm sure there are more than in 'eastern Guyana'.
Well ... it already kind of does that doesn't it? The box now makes a difference between "spoken in" and "official language of" but I agree it could be made more clear. Though you'd probably have to change the template to do so. Rex 12:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No they speak Dutch. Limburgish is largely a dialect of Dutch only in the far south of the Province (east of Maastricht) do they speak a clearly German dialect. Rex 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Limburgish (or rather the largest portion of what we call Limburgish) is a low franconian dialect, be it one with a High (middle) German and French influence. In Dutch linguistics it once was explained to me the following, if it's low franconian and its spoken within the Dutch SD zone then it's a Dutch dialect otherwise it's open to debate. A bit crude, yes, but it does help viewing it that way. (Also note that in Dutch streektaal is a synonym of dialect) Rex 14:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In the section about Classification and related languages, the example of the english word town is translated as tuin (dutch) and zaun (german). The literal english translation of the dutch tuin would be garden. Town would translate as stad in dutch. I've never heard of the german word zaun, but I'm dutch myself so I can't confirm this, but I think this is incorrect.
Those aren't about a vocabulary comparison but about linguitic drift. Rex 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
'Zaun' translates roughly as 'Fence'. Ameise -- chat 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Of the inhabitants of New Zealand, 0.7% say their home language is Dutch (see article on New Zealand). I can't find this anywhere on the New Zealand page?? possibly out of date info? Goldfinger820 06:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This site gives 16,347 people speaking Dutch in New Zealand in 2001 (60% of the ethnic Dutch there).
Given the total population of New Zealand (4,086,153) this accounts for 0,4% of the total population. Rex 08:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
We know where the number came from? From where then? I don't think the site on which I based myself was used in those other references. What are you saying?! Rex 17:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Goldfinger820 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Where did this come from? There are errors out the aarsje:
Theodisk? With a K? The Romans only used a K for words borrowed from Greek. This history is a bit screwed too. •Jim62sch• 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Note. Late Roman writers reckoned the Teutones among the peoples of Germania, and Teutonicus became a common poetic equivalent for Germnicus. It is now however held by many that they were not a Germanic people. But, before 900, German writers in Latin began to follow Latin poetic precedent by using Theutonica lingua instead of the barbarian or non-classical Theotisca, to render the native tiutisch, tiutsch (OHG. diutisc, mod. deutsch = OS. thiudisc, OE. <thorn>odisc, literally "national, popular, vulgar") as a designation of their vulgar tongue in contrast to Latin, as if this German adj. were identical with the ancient ethnic name. In 1200 lingua Teutonica was similarly used, and thenceforth Teutonicus became a usual L. rendering of Deutsch or German. Some Early German comparative philologists (e.g. Bopp in 1820) used Teutonisch as the name for the family of languages including Gothic, German, Scandinavian, and English; but for this Germanisch is now more used in German, and Germanic by many in English. But in English there is an awkwardness and sometimes ambiguity in using Germanic beside German (in its ordinary political sense), which does not arise in German or French, where germanisch and germanique are entirely distinct from deutsch and allemand. To avoid this, many English scholars preferred "Teutonic" as the term for the linguistic family, and it is commonly so used in this dictionary."
I suggest you ease up on that tone, unless you want me to report you for a personal attack. On wikipedia, as well as modern science the term West Germanic (peoples) is used. As for your nationalism claim, I believe we all know (with a simple look at your talkpage) who's the (German) nationalist here and you also know I'm kind of an Ameisenbär to those. Rex 07:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Antman, I don't care if you are or consider yourself to be an Imperial German (Though I myself do not remember the USA being a part of Imperial Germany) nor your claims of having enough knowledge to say that Dutch and German are similar enough (!) to be considered one "superlanguage" (Something which I would never ever say) and not even you're etymologies (which are false). As for the claim that "A language is a dialect with an army. (in which you capitalized the nouns to make it seem German?) Austria has an army, is Austrian a language? Rex 10:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Then why did you make that comment? Rex 21:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Why make such a comment when even you don't see the evidence for it? Rex 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It's original research that's why. Also, I never said that German and Dutch aren't similar. I said that the 2 aren't by far similar enough to be put in a "superlanguage" an idea which I believe the nazis also worked out, no offence. Dutch and German are related but by no means similar enough for your idea. Dutch isn't simply German without the High German consonant shift. If that were the case I wouldn't have spend over 5 years learning the language, its grammar, pronounciation and idiom but would have gotten a list that said: z=s, k=ch, p=pf, etc.
ps. Have you ever heard Dutch? Rex 08:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I think one couldn't even find a book published in the past 60 years that mentions "West German" in the sense of West germanic. Rex 13:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
About that, apart from runes, guess which Germanic language was attested after Gothic ... Rex 23:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I know runic is way of writing, I implied that the language in which the runes of the 2nd century AD do not count as attested languages as Jim noted that Gothic was the earliest attested Germanic language. I know what you implied and it's still very wrong. Rex 08:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
There never was a "Proto-Dutch-German language", there was a proto language called Common West Germanic (or Old German in dated linguistics) but this was the ancestor of all West Germanic languages, not just Dutch and German. Rex 09:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that was more or less what I meant to say; thanks for the clarification Rex. Arnoutf 10:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
We can be sure, because the experts say so. Rex 19:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I for one (and I see you see this differently) do not consider nazis to (have) be(en) authorative "experts". The Old English/Old Dutch texts. There is only one text that some experts believe to be English and that's hebban olla, just one. There's doubt because the writer of the text did speak Dutch, had a West Flemish dialect (which has a number of Anglo-Frisian features) and wrote it in Kent, England. The Salic law however, isn't disputed (AFAIK) by anyone. Rex 20:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with jim here, it's okay to have questions antman, but in linguistics you have to trust contemporary developement, not historical views. So to me questions like "how can we sure that [...]" and "how can we be sure those experts are right?" are quite pointless. Rex 10:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Being a native speaker of Dutch, I would have to say that Dutch (with its old unrevised grammar and declensions), is not so much more than a dialect of High German. We the Dutch have our own identity, as do the Swiss and Austrians, but our language really doesn't ever get the exitingly far from German. Maybe this is because I am from Limburg and my dialect is much more German than Dutch anyways, but as a child, I liked the German children's shows on television much more than the Dutch ones (not because of the language but the German cartoons were better) and I never had any dificulty understanding what they were saying. Speak to any child from Limburg or Gelderland in German, and they will probably think ou are speaking a different dialect of Limburgs or Niedersaksisch and will answer you just fine in their dialect.
There is no attribution. In looking at it, I doubt that it is OE, however my opinion isn't all that relevant. On the other hand, unless sources meeting WP:RS and WP:V are found to support it, it needs to not be put back. Also, if sources are found, name the linguists. (And if the thesis that it is OE is debated by other linguists, that should go in the article as well.) •Jim62sch• 17:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
For a long time this sentence was considered to be the earliest recorded Dutch, but some linguists are convinced it is in fact Old English.{{fact}}
The piece of oldest Dutch is already in the article. Rex 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I know, I made that article ;-) Rex 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted Rex's recent reorganisation of this article, as it removes information and merely adds unsourced statements - not to mention that it looks messy. The information brought over from History of Dutch seems a little too specific and anorakish to sit in the main article on Dutch. I'd be gratified if Rex would come to the Talk page and discuss what he/she was trying to achieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Mustard ( talk • contribs)
Why should one mention a dialect continuum in the history section? Rex 13:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) – A comparison between the Netherlands and Flanders, of the Dutch language as heard on TV.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
===Recommendations=== I googled the dutch language query both as first and second language. I found that both first and second language speakers combined together amount to 21-22 million speakers, which is same as that provided in the top right corner in the article.
Here is some math:
1. netherlands: 16 million speakers 2. Belgium: another 5 million out of a population of 10 million (this is an estimate) 3. Suriname: Another half million. 4. Aruba: Few thousands.
This can only mean one thing. There are not more than a few thousand dutch speakers (both first and second language) in other parts of the world. here is a government link http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/december/GermanicBranch.html to support this.
This also means that unless we have credible references to prove that dutch is spoken by the millions or at least one million in countries like Indonesia, we should not put large squares around the globe. I presume that some of us still have colonial hang over to go on putting dots indiscriminately everywhere on the globe. Such maps will be deleted.
Samstayton 02:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I object to the number of only 5 million speakers in Belgium. Cia.gov pointed that 60 percent of Belgium speaks Dutch. The population of Belgium is 10,379,067 (July 2006 est.) That means that 6.2 million people speak Dutch. The Netherlands has 16.5 million inhabitants.
So: 1. Netherlands: 16.5 mln 2. Belgium: 6.2 mln 3. Suriname: 440 thousand. = 23 million.
It is unclear to me why the section header "The Dutch spoken in Belgium is not called Flemish" is continually reinserted. It quite patently is called Flemish. Saying that it is not called Flemish is blatantly and transparently incorrect. Change the section heading to something else if you don't like it, but don't make a section heading that is patently false. Nohat 06:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Dutch in Flanders is Dutch all the same.This article has already wasted way to much time and effort to the whole Flemish thing.The section header will remain as it is now.The VTR always uses the term "Nederlands" not "Vlaams" when concerning the language of Flanders,period. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 11:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no "Flemish language".There is only Dutch. Various dialects of Dutch are called Flemish, nobody denies that, but DUTCH is not called Flemish. Just like English in the USA is called ENGLISH and not AMERICAN. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous, in Scotland they either speak Scottish English or Scots, in Australia they speak Australian English and in the USA they speak American English.They all speak English, be it with minor spelling and pronounciation differences.
In Belgium they speak Dutch, not " Belgian Dutch" and not Flemish.Flemish is a dialect, Dutch is the language, they refer to what they speak as Dutch and any foreigner with some minute knowledge about the country knows it too.
Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Flemish refers to a number of dialects in the West of Flanders.I don't care whay nonlinguists think what it means, that's it. Dutch spoken in Belgium might be called Flemish, but certainly not by the majority simply because it's incorrect. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I have a question for you: The Holocaust is an event of which some groups claim it never happened. Does this mean that the article should start:
"The Holocaust, also known as The Shoah (Hebrew: השואה HaShoah), is the name applied to the SUPPOSABLY state-led systematic persecution and genocide of the Jews and other minority groups of Europe and North Africa during World War II by Nazi Germany and its collaborators"
Of course not.Why? Because even though some people disagree experts (and hopefully the majority of the general public) KNOW it happened. The same thing applies to Flemish.Some people think it means Dutch spoken in Flanders.But the majority, including the Flemings themselves and every single linguist you 'll ever meet, know it's false and incorrect and that Dutch in Belgium, is simply called Dutch.
Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 07:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Flamish is a very odd word. Usually Netherlands people call Flemish Flamish just because of the accent. And yes, there are a few words that are different, the dictionary Van Dale, the largest dictionary in NL, uses the term belgicisme , belgicism, what means that the word is only or mostly used in Belgium, but not wrong per se. So regarding to Van Dale, there is no Flamish, but just a few Belgian Dutch words that are different. I show for instance gracht or sate. In the Netherlands a gracht is within a city, in Belgium it is between grassfields. In the Netherlands sate refers to some mean on a stick with brown sauce, in Belgium it is a peace of meat, a peace of vegetable, a piece of meat etc on a stick without the brown sauce. You can see that more as culturedifferences as a different language.
But when you state that Flamish is a dialect, you should however state imho that there are multiple dialects in Flanders. Such as Western Flemish (vls.wikipedia). I would advice you to talk on this behalf with user:Henna and/or user:GerardM and/or user:steinbach. The first is a user who lives in Flanders, and has quite a lot experience on NL/BE language differences. GerardM is working a lot with dialects and languages because of his work on WiktionaryZ. Steinbach has done quite some work on setting up vls: . effeiets anders 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Because Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Dutch. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 08:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That might be, but 1+1 is still 2 I believe. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you even know how stupid this sounds? The Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Dutch it says the same thing twice. Like the English in England is called English.Duh! Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 10:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you seem to have a problem with accepting the fact that your not right.
Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No, because there are no versions of Dutch, there is only one standard.People in Flanders speak Dutch, which is Dutch and not Flemish, which is a dialect. A line like "Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Flemish" is totally wrong and unacceptable.Because the language of Belgium is NOT refered to as Flemish but Dutch, despite colloguial use. And more so because that header IMPLIES that the only correct name for Dutch in Belgium is Flanders.Ridiculous. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
My main point of interest is that the article says that:
Just to help clear some of the confusion, Yes Standard Flemish and Standard Dutch are indeed the same. Their exist dialects of Dutch in the Netherlands and also dialects of Dutch in Belgium (also referred to as Flemish). Flemish people are never insulted when they are speaking Standard Dutch and it is referred to as Flemish. I am Dutch and was born and lived my first 20 years of life in the Netherlands, about 10 minutes from the Belgian border. Also, What is this about Low German never being a language? My father is from Lower Saxony in Germany and I am able to converse in Plattduutsch, do I speak a non-existant language?
Good to see people digging up good sources. See also Flemish (linguistics) and Flemish. There is a controversy between the scientific (linguistic) POV and the vernacular POV, which all need to be described, if only because many millions of people incorrectly call Dutch spoken by Flemings "Flemish". Attempt to pull it all together for possible use in the article (please correct where wrong):
Area:
Language (from the linguistic POV):
Language (from the vernacular POV in the Netherlands):
Language (from the vernacular POV in Flanders):
AvB ÷ talk 12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes they are wrong. Low German is just a subgroup of West Germanic language, it was never an actual spoken language.
Rex
18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Linguistically, it's very simple really.
We'll start at Old Dutch/Old Low Franconian.
It seems to be pretty common to place Afrikaans as if it arose from middle Dutch (1150-1500), which is impossible really because South Africa wasn't colonized at that time. Rex 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Flemish, together with Limburgish, Brabantian (the dialect of most Flemmings), Hollandic, and Dutch Low Saxon formed Middle Dutch. - 5 main entities-
Afrikaans, originated from 17th century Modern Dutch dialects. (Mainly Hollandic and Zealandic) but it didn't develope into an actual language, rather than a dialect of Dutch untill the late 19th century and it became official language around 1920. Rex 20:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, SomeHuman. I had begun to think that Rex Germanus and I were the only ones still writing in this section—and I was disappointed that nobody was explicitly addressing my theory that two different things (a form of Low German and a form of Dutch) were (are) both spoken in Flanders and that both are sometimes called by the English word Flemish. (And, still, nobody is addressing this.) It's nice to see your contribution.
Anyway, your post was definitely one of the more interesting ones, though I don't know much to say about it, because, unfortunately, I know only little about Dutch.
Indeed, when I wrote "whether something called Flemish is part of Dutch or part of German", I meant Low German, not (High) German. Although there is a sort of continuum from High German to Low German (to Flemish?) to Dutch to Frisian to English, it's possible that I sometimes drop the "Low" if I think that others know that I don't mean High German ... and this, I suppose, is because I (erroneously? correctly?) think of Low German as closer to High German than to Flemish or to Dutch.
The other day, I thought of something that may resolve some of this definitional question. Then again, maybe it won't. — Just about any American or Australian or Canadian (or other person from a country whose main language is English but which country is not called England), encountering someone from, say, Holland or France or Namibia or Sri Lanka or China, will ask "Do you speak English?" Asking "Do you speak American (or Canadian, &c.)?" would be quite odd. So, while "American" is definitely a dialect (or a whole group of dialects) of English and may sometimes be called American for purposes of distinction, Americans all know that "American" is really English (albeit a distinct form of it). — The situation in Belgium might be different; but, if it's not, then a simple way to settle at least part of the matter might be simply to discover whether a person whose first language is Flemish, on encountering another person and wanting to know whether this second person speaks the same first language, asks the equivalent of "Do you speak Flemish?", or "Do you know Dutch?", or "Do you understand Low German?", or what.
Just an idea.
Also, it would be nice if someone would wholly or partly confirm or refute my idea that the English name Flemish might sometimes be applied to a form of Low German and sometimes be applied to a form of Dutch, and that forms of both those languages might be spoken by various Flemings.
President Lethe 15:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but just when we've nearly solved the whole Flemish thing, User:SomeHuman starts to use yet another term "Zuid-Nederlands". I mean seriously, how do you make up these things?
No, I'm sorry but I don't participate on Dutch wikipedia, thanks for the advise though. Rex 19:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that problem is called Zuid-Gelders.Which is Brabantian all the same, but located above the major rivers. Rex 13:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Kleve, is a city in Germany near the Dutch border. Rex 15:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Rex, I'll put my comments here instead of starting an edit war over such a minor issue. But still, I think this image currently raises the question "what is the difference between the dark and light orange areas?", which isn't answered anywhere in the article, and worse, there's nowhere an indication where one can find such an answer. You and I know the answer, but the average reader doesn't. We're here to answer questions, not raise them. My addition solved that problem, but I'm open to different solutions. I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't build on my admittedly imperfect solution, but deleted it instead. I have a second problem with the image, which is that the coloured pieces "taken out" of the image aren't very clear. The image becomes a puzzle: where does this piece fit? I'd rather use a solution like on Image:Verbreitungsgebiet der heutigen niederdeutschen Mundarten.PNG. – gpvos (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Edited 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC) and 17:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, that map bases itself on information received 50 years ago.It calls Limburgish "Flemish South Limburgish" and according to it, Hollandic is spoken in the whole of North Brabant, Zealand and the northern half of Dutch Limburg, and apart from that it says "Flemish" is spoken in the middle of Flanders.It's terrible and I'm very thankfull it isn't used anywhere anymore on wikipedia.
Dutch Low saxon and Limburgish are of Low Frankish origin, but they have been influenced (sometimes) greatly/moderatly by, in this case, Low Saxon and Upper German.
That's why they are lighter, as explained in the text.I fail to see your problem.If it's easier for you. We can work this out on my talk page, in Dutch if you like. Rex 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I can actually read. Seriously though: What is your problem exactly? Rex 19:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That sure is the right wikipedia attitude! Rex 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Quote: '... "angstschreeuw" features actually 6 consonants ng-s-t-s-ch-r which is further reduced in everyday pronunciation - e.g. "ch" and "r" will usually blend into one sound.' In fact, I would still pronounce 6 consonants: the t and second s would just become very short and less loudily produced though not totally mute. I'm afraid there is no everyday pronunciation of "angstschreeuw" except perhaps in classes for people with speech problems: it generally belongs to the written language. I can't recall anyone ever actually saying "Ik hoorde een angstschreeuw" (I heard a scream of fear). -- SomeHuman 2006-06-28 17:30 (UTC)
The Dutch page for the Dutch language also mentions Surinamese Dutch and Antillean Dutch as Dutch dialects. However, there is no reference to these dialects at English Wiki nor the Dutch dialects template has hint for these two (notwithstanding the Surinamese flag present in the image). Also, the Surinamese "accent" mentioned in the text of the article redirects to Sranan Togo which is (as far as I know) an English-based Creole language. The Dutch dialects issue in its current form seems to me as handled in a rather "Euro-centric" way. Am I mistaken? Expert consideration please. -- Behemoth 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Surinamese Dialect of Dutch hasn't got a page on wikipedia yet. I'll try to do something about that as soon as possible. Rex 08:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course some of the dialects have incorporated French loanwords. Does this need to be said while not mentioning German loanwords in other dialects or, more recently, English loanwords in other and possibly in more dialects. Without a statistical comparison of the frequency in daily use, the phrase is too subjective. The standard Dutch also includes loanwords; a comparison between the number of loanwords in any group of dialects with their number in standard Dutch should also be available before setting the dialects apart. One should also be careful about defining a loanword: often the same French loanword occurs in a dialect or in northern standard Dutch as a close approximation of the French pronunciation while in other dialects or in southern standard Dutch that word has been changed to a more local pronunciation (e.g. 'dossier'); contrarily the most common word for an engine is 'motor' with English pronunciation in standard Dutch, 'moteur' with French pronunciation in some dialects. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-03 00:50 (UTC)
I reworked the "Language of Flanders" subsection for NPOV, clarity, and so on. Check it out and enjoy (and chill!). CJ Withers 04:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but what exactly did you do? Because when I looked at the diffs ... I did not see any POV statements, or areas which weren't very clear. Also, do you have any idea how many times that particular section was reverted/edited/rewritten before it was considered acceptable? Rex 09:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
When we talk about evolution, we talk about things getting better/improving.The version before you modified it was fine. Don't get me wrong though, I love the way wikipedia articles evolve and become better, but that doesn't mean I can't spot atavism when I see it. Rex 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be a nice effort, however, it does not belong into Wikipedia because this is original reseach.The followint is Wikipedia policy:
See: Wikipedia:No original research
The editor is encouraged to search into the scientific literalture in linguistic to find samples or Dutch languages, I am sure there are some. Andreas (T) 00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
No, there is very little useful information on Dutch dialects in terms of vocabulary, let alone dialectal dictionaries. I don't quite see how this is original research though, afteral ... I don't see much differnce between this and the examples of Dutch in the article itself. Rex 08:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It's direct assertion of the content of arguments, not what people expect or should see in an encyclopedia. We're not here to "give a voice" for expression of views. -- Improv 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
These aren't expressions of views, merely of facts. Rex 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Though the style and some of the content might be improved, there is nothing unencyclopedic about mentioning misconceptions and clarifying the matter. It is often shorter and more efficient than lengthy explanations that are unlikely to be read carefully by the ones most easily caught by a false concept. This is not a plea for simplistic clarifications. — SomeHuman 2006-08-11 22:17 (UTC)
As I said, style and content might be improved. Diffusing an article by explaining several misconceptions will not make the article better readable, nor (as I stated earlier) will it help to replace misconceptions by proper insight. Your view on the dialect issue sounds more POV than the present content of that item in the article section. — SomeHuman 2006-08-12 00:41 (UTC)
I wonder what you mean with POV, I can't see it. Apart from that, I have seen this style of writing many times on wikipedia, I can only see it in the headers here. If you want to do something useful instead of this (no offence) go to Roman military tactics I think you'll love improving that one. Rex 10:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Dutch experts - your help is needed here: Talk:Dutch_name#Sorting_prefixes. Thanks. -- Amir E. Aharoni 12:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Now the difference between a language and a dialect is more political than anything else, but I'm a bit surprised to see Limburgish marked as a Dutch dialect, whereas Frisian is not included (because it's considered a separate language). As a native speaker of Limburgish, I know for a fact that it differs enough from Dutch to warrant a status as a separate language, moreso than most other regional variations to be found in the low countries.
Now my belief is obviously not a criterion for this information to be included in Wikipedia, but what's missing from this page is that Limburgish is a tonal language. This is something that no other language/dialect in the area has, and in my opinion, it puts Limburgish quite apart from other languages or dialects in the low countries.
A similar line of reasoning goes for Lower Saxon and Frisian, by the way, but I don't know much about those.
Because if you consider Limburgish to be a Dutch dialect, you could consider Dutch to be a German dialect. After all, they have the same origin. SeverityOne 11:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I know that some limburgish variants have a certain amount of tonality, I also know that other variants do not have this. Overall I wouldn't say that Limburgish is a tonal language (like swedish) but that certain variants have certain tonal features. Rex 14:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Limburgs is most definitely tonal (with 2 tones), and recognised as a language by the Dutch government. Its being called a language is further supported by the fact that it differs more from "Hollands" than any other variety spoken in the Netherlands, including Friesian: http://taal.phileon.nl/kaart/hoppenbrouwers.php#ffm
Sephia karta 14:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Streektaal and Taal do not have the same meaning. Also Frisian isn't included on the map you provided because it's not Dutch. Rex 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No you misinterpret the map. The map doesn't show Frisian, it shows Dutch spoken in Friesland. Rex 17:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
And you base this on [...] ? Rex 21:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Hehehe, yes well ethnologue generally isn't considered a reliable resource on wikipedia. Limburgish is an advanced Dutch dialect, and it's not one single dialect but a whole network of dialects grouped under "limburgish". Rex 21:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a linguist, so I'm not going to make a change in the article, therefore this is a proposal for an edit. What I found lacking was a discussion of the difference between the formal 'u' en informal 'je/jij' as opposed to the use of you in the english language ('thou' is seriously outdated ofcourse). I'm sure there's a nice linguistic term and terminology for all this, but since I lack any knowledge of that, I think the article would be more complete when it mentions this. Cryforhelp 21:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I think in Dutch this "problem" isn't that hard is it? It's not like in German where they adress everyone over 16 and everybody except family and close friends with "Sie", I tend to use U for strangers, when they say I can say "Je/Jij" I do, if they don't I wont. I though it was sort of the same everywhere? Rex 10:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Rex:It's rather more complicated actually, and of course not only dependent on what form the other person uses. It's more like SomeHuman describes it varies according to location and social circles. There is, like in German a certain age before which 'u' is improper, but after that it's always a bit of a guessing game. But there certainly is a correlation between first-name usage and informal 'jij' usage. I think that by mentioning that you would have a sufficient definition. Any better definition of when to use which noun does not exist and would always be severely disputed in the Dutch language areas. Cryforhelp 11:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
(*) However I would have expected 'joen jas' in West Flanders but I'm more used to hear the coastal speech than the southern dialects. I spent a few weeks in southern Menen and Kortrijk too but as a speaker of another regional dialect (Brabantian Mechlinian), I may not have noticed the inner-regional subtleties. I might be wrong on 'joen' also being used as possessional pronoun – I have only a passive understanding of West Flemish.
Where exactly in Germany is Dutch spoken? According to the box at the top right hand corner of the page it is spoken there, but the article makes no mention of it.
ok, but there are Dutch people living in Canada and the US who speak Dutch as well. There may not be as many Dutch speakers as in Germany, but I'm sure there are more than in 'eastern Guyana'.
Well ... it already kind of does that doesn't it? The box now makes a difference between "spoken in" and "official language of" but I agree it could be made more clear. Though you'd probably have to change the template to do so. Rex 12:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No they speak Dutch. Limburgish is largely a dialect of Dutch only in the far south of the Province (east of Maastricht) do they speak a clearly German dialect. Rex 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Limburgish (or rather the largest portion of what we call Limburgish) is a low franconian dialect, be it one with a High (middle) German and French influence. In Dutch linguistics it once was explained to me the following, if it's low franconian and its spoken within the Dutch SD zone then it's a Dutch dialect otherwise it's open to debate. A bit crude, yes, but it does help viewing it that way. (Also note that in Dutch streektaal is a synonym of dialect) Rex 14:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In the section about Classification and related languages, the example of the english word town is translated as tuin (dutch) and zaun (german). The literal english translation of the dutch tuin would be garden. Town would translate as stad in dutch. I've never heard of the german word zaun, but I'm dutch myself so I can't confirm this, but I think this is incorrect.
Those aren't about a vocabulary comparison but about linguitic drift. Rex 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
'Zaun' translates roughly as 'Fence'. Ameise -- chat 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Of the inhabitants of New Zealand, 0.7% say their home language is Dutch (see article on New Zealand). I can't find this anywhere on the New Zealand page?? possibly out of date info? Goldfinger820 06:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This site gives 16,347 people speaking Dutch in New Zealand in 2001 (60% of the ethnic Dutch there).
Given the total population of New Zealand (4,086,153) this accounts for 0,4% of the total population. Rex 08:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
We know where the number came from? From where then? I don't think the site on which I based myself was used in those other references. What are you saying?! Rex 17:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Goldfinger820 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Where did this come from? There are errors out the aarsje:
Theodisk? With a K? The Romans only used a K for words borrowed from Greek. This history is a bit screwed too. •Jim62sch• 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Note. Late Roman writers reckoned the Teutones among the peoples of Germania, and Teutonicus became a common poetic equivalent for Germnicus. It is now however held by many that they were not a Germanic people. But, before 900, German writers in Latin began to follow Latin poetic precedent by using Theutonica lingua instead of the barbarian or non-classical Theotisca, to render the native tiutisch, tiutsch (OHG. diutisc, mod. deutsch = OS. thiudisc, OE. <thorn>odisc, literally "national, popular, vulgar") as a designation of their vulgar tongue in contrast to Latin, as if this German adj. were identical with the ancient ethnic name. In 1200 lingua Teutonica was similarly used, and thenceforth Teutonicus became a usual L. rendering of Deutsch or German. Some Early German comparative philologists (e.g. Bopp in 1820) used Teutonisch as the name for the family of languages including Gothic, German, Scandinavian, and English; but for this Germanisch is now more used in German, and Germanic by many in English. But in English there is an awkwardness and sometimes ambiguity in using Germanic beside German (in its ordinary political sense), which does not arise in German or French, where germanisch and germanique are entirely distinct from deutsch and allemand. To avoid this, many English scholars preferred "Teutonic" as the term for the linguistic family, and it is commonly so used in this dictionary."
I suggest you ease up on that tone, unless you want me to report you for a personal attack. On wikipedia, as well as modern science the term West Germanic (peoples) is used. As for your nationalism claim, I believe we all know (with a simple look at your talkpage) who's the (German) nationalist here and you also know I'm kind of an Ameisenbär to those. Rex 07:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Antman, I don't care if you are or consider yourself to be an Imperial German (Though I myself do not remember the USA being a part of Imperial Germany) nor your claims of having enough knowledge to say that Dutch and German are similar enough (!) to be considered one "superlanguage" (Something which I would never ever say) and not even you're etymologies (which are false). As for the claim that "A language is a dialect with an army. (in which you capitalized the nouns to make it seem German?) Austria has an army, is Austrian a language? Rex 10:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Then why did you make that comment? Rex 21:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Why make such a comment when even you don't see the evidence for it? Rex 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It's original research that's why. Also, I never said that German and Dutch aren't similar. I said that the 2 aren't by far similar enough to be put in a "superlanguage" an idea which I believe the nazis also worked out, no offence. Dutch and German are related but by no means similar enough for your idea. Dutch isn't simply German without the High German consonant shift. If that were the case I wouldn't have spend over 5 years learning the language, its grammar, pronounciation and idiom but would have gotten a list that said: z=s, k=ch, p=pf, etc.
ps. Have you ever heard Dutch? Rex 08:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I think one couldn't even find a book published in the past 60 years that mentions "West German" in the sense of West germanic. Rex 13:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
About that, apart from runes, guess which Germanic language was attested after Gothic ... Rex 23:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I know runic is way of writing, I implied that the language in which the runes of the 2nd century AD do not count as attested languages as Jim noted that Gothic was the earliest attested Germanic language. I know what you implied and it's still very wrong. Rex 08:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
There never was a "Proto-Dutch-German language", there was a proto language called Common West Germanic (or Old German in dated linguistics) but this was the ancestor of all West Germanic languages, not just Dutch and German. Rex 09:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that was more or less what I meant to say; thanks for the clarification Rex. Arnoutf 10:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
We can be sure, because the experts say so. Rex 19:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I for one (and I see you see this differently) do not consider nazis to (have) be(en) authorative "experts". The Old English/Old Dutch texts. There is only one text that some experts believe to be English and that's hebban olla, just one. There's doubt because the writer of the text did speak Dutch, had a West Flemish dialect (which has a number of Anglo-Frisian features) and wrote it in Kent, England. The Salic law however, isn't disputed (AFAIK) by anyone. Rex 20:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with jim here, it's okay to have questions antman, but in linguistics you have to trust contemporary developement, not historical views. So to me questions like "how can we sure that [...]" and "how can we be sure those experts are right?" are quite pointless. Rex 10:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Being a native speaker of Dutch, I would have to say that Dutch (with its old unrevised grammar and declensions), is not so much more than a dialect of High German. We the Dutch have our own identity, as do the Swiss and Austrians, but our language really doesn't ever get the exitingly far from German. Maybe this is because I am from Limburg and my dialect is much more German than Dutch anyways, but as a child, I liked the German children's shows on television much more than the Dutch ones (not because of the language but the German cartoons were better) and I never had any dificulty understanding what they were saying. Speak to any child from Limburg or Gelderland in German, and they will probably think ou are speaking a different dialect of Limburgs or Niedersaksisch and will answer you just fine in their dialect.
There is no attribution. In looking at it, I doubt that it is OE, however my opinion isn't all that relevant. On the other hand, unless sources meeting WP:RS and WP:V are found to support it, it needs to not be put back. Also, if sources are found, name the linguists. (And if the thesis that it is OE is debated by other linguists, that should go in the article as well.) •Jim62sch• 17:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
For a long time this sentence was considered to be the earliest recorded Dutch, but some linguists are convinced it is in fact Old English.{{fact}}
The piece of oldest Dutch is already in the article. Rex 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I know, I made that article ;-) Rex 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted Rex's recent reorganisation of this article, as it removes information and merely adds unsourced statements - not to mention that it looks messy. The information brought over from History of Dutch seems a little too specific and anorakish to sit in the main article on Dutch. I'd be gratified if Rex would come to the Talk page and discuss what he/she was trying to achieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Mustard ( talk • contribs)
Why should one mention a dialect continuum in the history section? Rex 13:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) – A comparison between the Netherlands and Flanders, of the Dutch language as heard on TV.