![]() | This page 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. |
What is a 'thorpe'?
Is Dutch word stress lexical or metrical? --- moyogo 05:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
There is a mistake in note 6) on the pronunciation of Dutch consonants.
The phoneme /w/ is never pronounced as a voiced labial-velar approximant (except by the speakers of Surinamese Dutch). In the Southern dialects the phoneme /w/ is pronounced as a bilabial approximant. 84.193.165.47 18:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't agree with the statement on the joining of words in Dutch. Though this is common in German, as is stated correctly, this is not the case in Dutch. Even words which were formerly joined through the use of "trema" are now mostly at least broken up through hyphenation (the famous "zee-eenden-eieren" or sea bird eggs). In Dutch it is not accepted to simply combine words into new words and therefore the examples of "long" words in the Dutch language must be qualified as pure fabrication. There are no words in Dutch such as "randjongerenhangplekkenbeleidsambtenarensalarisbesprekingsafspraken" or "hottentottententententoonstellingsmakersopleidingsprogramma". No Dutchman will use such words and they are not accepted in school in, for instance, spelling tests or essays. In German, it is however quite common to find such extended cojoined words.-- Michaelmarinus 20:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll need know how is pronounced the word ending '-tie' (as in politie, coördinatie), as [siː] or as [tiː] IPA-transcription?
Ludor 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Since it is not a stressed syllable, I think the correct rendering would be [tsi] in received pronunciation. Dialectic form (especially in the Amsterdam region) is [si], also occurring in other regions in rapid speech. I have never heard [ti]. − Woodstone 14:42:46, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
In Belgium they use [siː] on the offical broadcast on the VRT 213.119.220.51 18:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC) – and in all dialects in the Flemish region. Either [siː] or [tsiː] used consistently by a speaker, is correct standard Dutch. Some derivates maintain the sound, e.g. 'politioneel' or the compound 'politiezone', though '-tie' must become [tiː] when it receives some suffixes, e.g. 'politie' [(t)siː] (police) –> 'politiek' [tiːk] (politics, political); 'negatie' [(t)siː] (negation) –> 'negatief' [tiːf] (negative) -- SomeHuman 2006-06-23 22:49 (UTC)
"Further examples for the close vicinity of Dutch and German:
Op de berg staat een klein huisje (Dutch) - Auf dem Berg steht ein kleines Häuschen (German) (in English: "There's a small house on the mountain", or alternatively, "On the mountain is a small house", demonstrating English's ability to conform to Dutch/German word order in this sentence)"
This is a bad example of English's ability to conform to Dutch/German word order, because the word order is exactly the same in both languages. Does someone know a correct example?-- 194.78.199.56 14:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
'There's a small house on the mountain,' isn't the translation of: 'Op de berg staat een klein huisje'. It is the translation of: 'Er is een klein huisje op de berg.' And 'On the mountain is a small house,' should be: 'On the mountain stands a small house.' What value does such an example has if it isn't translated as closely as possible? Details like that are not necessarily significant in regular translating, but in this case they are significant.( 83.118.38.37 19:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC))
Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself.
This seems to me to be a blatantly false statement. Afrikaans is a creole. Many other languages have produced creoles and remained a language in their own right, like English, a particually noteable example being the Hawaiian Pidgin, which is, at this point, not really a pidgin anymore. Any objections to my removing that line? Arturus 06:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Scots, isn't a dialect or derived language from middle English.It's a language deriving from Anglo-Saxon (Old English if you like) just like English itself.Just like Spanish and Portuguese both derive from Latin.
Besides that, 'English' didn't produce scots. Old English did. While Afrikaanse came out of Dutch while the language is still alive while OE is dead as can be.
Sandertje 12:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious to me, I dare anyone to name me 10 language (of the total of 6000) that have resulted in another language (no creoles or pidgins)while still being spoken natively. Although I normally see Latin as a dead language (no native speakers) I'll allow it for this time.
Sandertje 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
What's this?! ' I do not know enough about languages to answer this question '?! The where do you get the idea you're suited to claim my statement is a lie? Talking about arrogance.
Sandertje 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting I'm making mistakes or lying be clear, speak your mind instead of twisting words.
You admit you know nothing about languages and yet you want some sort of reference? How are you going to verify that? More so, what do you expect that reference to say or to be?! A list with all 6000 languages? " citation needed " isn't enough you know.I want a clear question or assignment or some sort.
My own opinion? What kind of opinion is "Dutch is one of the few languages that while still spoken themselves have produced another language " That's not opinion that's a fact.
You may have noticed, I detest laymen who start making demands.
Sandertje 20:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the tone in this discussion is getting a bit too hostile. The general demand that if a definite claim is made some kind of reference is needed is not a strange nor unreasonalbe 'demand'. Neglecting reasonable demands (even by what are considered lay-persons) is very arrogant. So as a non-accountant, I (the layman) should not be allowed to demand any kind of customer orientation of the tax service.... detest me for it, I will still demand that. But to quit joking, I do not think that a complete list of 6000 languages is asked for, however a reference confirming Dutch as the mother language of Afrikaans (with Afrikaans being an acknowledged language), and a reference that only few languages originate in other modern languages would strengthen the point very much. Especially as I intuitively can accept that your point holds for many European languages (possibe exceptions English and French), but how about non-western languages as Russian, Chinese, Arabic and the continental African languages? Of course you may know that they did not create languages, but please follow accepted scientific practice and share your source of that knowledge with us (i.e. put up a reference). Thanks in advance Arnoutf 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You question 'my' remark yet, have done nothing to back up the reasons for questioning it in the first place, except for: "I don't believe that" well even a blind person knows that's a not an argument but an opinion. I'm reverting your edit and even more; I'm calling for a mediation if you keep bugging people who have worked long and hard on this article.
I hope we understand eatch other.
Sandertje 14:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I visit the best libraries in the country so don't worry about that.I'd advise you however to get familiar with the concept of "Knowing what you're talking about" I'm sure it will open a whole new world for you. As for the 3 vs. 1 story you wrote down, that doesn't make you or them right now does it?
Sandertje 15:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a pointless argument. "I should be allowed to violate the NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH rule because I'm an expert" just doesn't fly. Stuff needs to be verifiable. Yes, it burns when I realize that something I've written, something I know to be true, is edited out, but this is a settled issue: it's more important to be correct than to be complete. If you're an expert, you should be familiar enough with what's been published that you can provide references. If you don't like the policies here, it's easy enough to latch onto the software, start your own wiki, and show Wikipedia a thing or three.... ClairSamoht 15:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sandertje, you are being unnecessarily confrontational. Modify your tone and people will be more inclined to engage with you. You are definitely right that Afrikaans evolved out of a from of Dutch. I doubt very much that we can say this is an unusual situation, though: it is the normal development of new languages. They start with small variations (American English developed out of British English) and become more and more different until they are separate languages. I see nothing unique or special about this example. And I am a historical linguist, so while you are welcome to disagree with me you cannot pull rank as you tried to with Andries. --
Doric Loon
19:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to check, is this the way you found this particular discussion
Doric Loon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ADoric_Loon&diff=40147963&oldid=40136846
A few things, I don't believe there are certain ranks between linguists, like in the millitairy.I base it on respect for ones ideas, and frankly a supporter of a theory saying that AE and BE will one day become different languages, doesn't have to expect a lot of that.
--Sandertje 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's not what I said about AE/BE, and that's not what "pulling rank" means. But I think you know that really, don't you. This is not the way you engage with people, and you will never win your argument as long as you take such a tone. That's just a friendly tip from a neutral in this debate. --
Doric Loon
19:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
These are the Indo-European languages, not all of course because there are currently 443 of them, but the most prominent/known/spoken of them.Of Which, according to my count, around 100 languages (not hypothetical subgroups) are represented on the map.Only 2 of these can claim the following:
To have produced another language while still being spoken
These languages are Dutch and German who produced Afrikaans and Yiddish respectively.
Because it would be an virtually impossible task to make a list of all human languages let alone a tree. (And get or create all the information needed for relating them to each other) I will use mathematics to prove my point.
2 of the 100 language have produced other languages (not pidgins or creoles) that's 2 %.
The suspected totall of all languages on earth is 6000, 2% of is 120 languages that have produced other languages while still being spoken today.
Now I don't know what all you 'opposers' think, but when 2% of the people survives a certain dissease, then they are part of the lucky 'few'.
Therefore, the remark:
" Dutch is one of the few languages to have produced another language while still being spoken itself. "
Stands proven.
--Sandertje 22:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
As a mathematician, I will concede that 2% can be characterized as few; however, as a mathematician, I must point out that you cannot prove something based on untrue conjectures. Your chart is unreadable, sir, even when I magnify it, so I will point out that:
That's four offshoot languages, sir, right off the top of my head. Your proof is, therefore, dopplick.
But it doesn't really matter one way or the other. The Wikipedia does not exist to publish the truth. The Wikipedia exists as a compendium of that which others have published. If you aren't willing to accept that, you need to set up your own Wiki, sir. Click on the MediaWiki logo at the bottom right of this page. The software runs on economical standard LAMP webhosting, and if you are uncomfortable in installing it yourself, I'd be happy to recommend a host offering free installation. Or you can decide to stick around and contribute. I think everyone here would be happy if that happened. But you're trying to ignore a basic principle on which Wikipedia is built. I'd characterize your chances of success as "few". ClairSamoht 23:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm honoured by the sir bit, your proof is not worth anything.
The Amish speak a German dialect,not a language. Portueguese is the same language as "brazillian" which is called "Brazillian Portuguese" ( Portuguese). And Rhyming Cockney is a form of slang and Ebonics is a dialect.
Even I as a non-mathematician can tell your arguments are worth 0.
As for the non readability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages#Satem_and_Centum_languages
--Sandertje 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Like I said to Clairsamoth then use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages#Satem_and_Centum_languages that one is more clear.
It is hard to draw a line between dialect,pidgen,creole and language (some linguist say there are no lines at all) but in these modern times the changes for dialects like Amish (Deitsch) or Brazillian Portuguese becoiming lannguages are very small.My predictions for those particular languages are that Amish will probably disappear wether due to the pressure of English or the desolving of the sect, and Brazillian Portuguese and Portueguese will unite in a new standard form (due to internet,tv and other forms of interaction between the two)
This wasn't the case with Afrikaans, Afrikaans (or still Dutch at the time) was pretty much isolated for 200 years and had no contact with other Indo-European languages.Then when the English took over the cape (ie South Africa) the Afrikaners/Dutch were cutt of from the mother language (from which it had already been diverging for 150 years or so) allowing it to develop seperately from Dutch.
While they may look very alike Afrikaans has a very different grammar a different orthography as well as pronounciation and, which is usually the thing that seals the deal for most people, it's recognised as a national language.
--Sandertje 09:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
>> Your so-called proof discusses only the 430 Indo-European languages, which are a very small portion of the 6912 living languages on this globe. <<
Yes, which I explained in one of the first sentences.You're not blind are you?
>>The Amish aren't disappearing; their numbers are doubling every 20 years. And they aren't abandoning their language; they use it at home and in their worship.<=
Why should I believe that? Where is your proof?Your reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Language
>>But there are plenty of other examples. Ocracoke split off from English while English remained a living language. Cayuga and Seneca split off from Onondaga while Onondaga remained a living language. But what's the point in listing examples? Whether you are right or wrong is immaterial. Your assertion is not verifiable.<<
Again, where are your references? After a quick google/wikpedia search, only Seneca ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_language ) and ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onondaga_language) showed up and nowehere is mentioned that Onondage is the ancestor of Seneca. "Ocracoke" doesn't even show up. How am I supposed to know if your comments are verifiable?
>> That's a primary principle around here. Asking Wikipedia to ignore verifiability is like asking a Mother Superior to turn the convent into a whorehouse, with the nuns serving the clientele. It ain't gonna happen. ClairSamoht 10:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)<<
Oh please, where you trying to impress me? Lol, no but seriously where's your proof? In the so called arguments above that is ... because I can't see any of it.
--Sandertje 11:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
And since you are having trouble using google, allow me to extend to you a link: Ocracoke language search
Your level of ignorance and your level of intellectual dishonesty is why original research is prohibited here on Wikipedia.
As far as proof, it's right here| in the first item. Please quit vandalizing this site! ClairSamoht 18:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Just look at you... you lost the debate.A personal feud? Very adult of you.But I'm going to pass this time.Come back when you have arguments.
Sandertje 19:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I can believe that nearly half of the space on this talk page is devoted to one little sentence, and even now, while the point has been proven the opposers (lead by a lost mathematician and a layman of all sorts) still continue their futile actions against the sentence in question. If there is one thing that (should) characterise civil behaviour on wikipedia it's that once proven wrong you admit you were wrong.If you're too proud for that, fine leave then but don't keep bugging people trying to make a good article.
How long will it take for them to find that out, and will it happen before or after interference by higher spheres on wikipedia?
Goodnight.
Sandertje 20:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I had no knowledge of such a rule.
However, this has gone too far.I've requested a mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronline#Mediation_request3.
User:Sandertje 22:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
A small but important point: the genders of Dutch are said in the article to be 'animate' (de) and 'neuter' (het). Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Dutch will know that this is misleading and untrue- a child is HET kind and yet a table is DE tafel!! I suggest the frequently used terms 'common gender' and 'neuter' to describe the genders of Dutch.
Also, I think the word 'collapse' to describe the transition from a 3-gender to a 2-gender system is rather imprecise- this word suggests that the change happened all of a sudden, whereas it is the combination of gradual sound changes and then a slow process of catch-up in the spelling system which removed unpronounced forms such as 'den', 'ener' etc.
It might also be worth noting that the Dutch do actually use 3 genders fairly consistently with some words (particularly with feminine abstract nouns such as 'vrijheid' and 'bewering'), using 'zij' and 'haar' when referring back to them. If you look in the Van Dale the 3 genders are all consistently indicated, and during my time in Belgium there was no sign of a 'collapse' amongst speakers of the standard language.
This is obviously only a minor issue and a small part of the text but it demonstrates the scope for improvement and extra precision in the article.
--Anonymus
Everything is explained in:
Dutch grammar Gender in Dutch grammar
--Sandertje 10:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah sorry my fault.
--Sandertje 17:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Babel entry for Dutch native speakers says this: Deze gebruiker heeft het Nederlands als moedertaal. Wouldn't it be a little nicer if it were to say something like "Deze gebruiker spreekt Nederlands als moedertaal"? Or "Deze gebruiker draagt bij met Nederlands als moedertaal"? The links to the templates here: Template:User_nl, Template:User_nl-1, Template:User_nl-2, Template:User_nl-3, Template:User_nl-4.
Does anybody have any further suggestions? Do you think that it should be changed at all? Let's hear what you have to say. -- Michiel Sikma 19:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd leave out the "het" for the flow but otherwise it's good as it is now...
Sandertje 22:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Sander has requested a mediation on this article. I have taken this case. From what I see here, there seems to be a dispute between various versions of this article, to do with the "Classification and related languages". It would be great if each of the editors involved in the dispute would give their own opinion on the matter, so that we can come to a resolution as soon as possible. Simply perpetuating the revert war, and name-calling other users, won't do much to solve the dispute. Thanks,
Ronline
✉
05:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
_____________________________________________________________________________
I assume the mediation will take place here? Good.
In a nutshell; There was a line: << Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself. >> which User:Andries questioned, although he is a layman concerning languages, and asked for a reference. I explained a reference would be impossible to get because nobody is to write or has written an article called "Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself.". After continuous reverts and edits, I provided my proof, namely a mathematical assumption.Which can be seen below:
This a map of the Indo-European languages; a linguistic group numbering 443 languages (and dialects). The total estimate of languages spoken on earth lies around 6000.The most known/spoken are listed here.
![]() |
This is a List of Indo-European languages (443)
Now, only 3 languages can say that they have produced a language (not a pidgin or dialect)while still being spoken itself and those are Dutch, German and Latin (which is considered dead by most) according to me, that make dutch one of the few.
Now after I suplied the proof/reference they still revert the sentence.
Sandertje 18:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
When do you start to understand it Andries? You can't make a report on all languages on earth, most of them haven't even been recorded,let alone named.
IE languages make out 1/15 of the total languages spoken on earth, they also are the most widespread,most documented and 2nd most spoken on earth.If 3 language of the 443 IE languages have produced other languages (under ideal circumstances: Fall of Roman empire, NL > SA and German + Hebrew) while still being spoken today then how logical would it be if other groups would have similar numbers? Dutch is clearly part of the few.
It's just your personal war against me that slowing down the process.
PS: I did not know about the 3revert rule, which I've said before on this talk page. (Somehow it's typical for a person like Andries to "miss" or " overlook" such a comment)
Sandertje 20:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
As a linguist, I find the statement Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself to be rather odd. First of all, the definition of one language separate from another is difficult. I wonder whether we should count
mixed languages,
creole languages and
pidgins. That two branches of a language separated culturally or geographically undergo different changes over time and are then considered to be different languages is the entire history of genetic language development. I think that if we allow for all historically documented occurences like this, and allow for other variations of language change, particularly those produced on contact with others, we shall find that this category is not so special. --
Gareth Hughes
12:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
As another linguist, I do not find the statement that hard to understand; of course the definition has to be relevated. In essence a "language" is pretty much everything used to communicate, wether verbally or non-verbally.I want to make clear that I'm not taking creoles,'mixed languages' or pidgins into account here.
Ronline,
To answer your questions,
<<<<<Romanian and Aromanian, now two separate languages, broke off from a common language. One can argue that that language was "Romanian" (it's now called proto-Romanian). Today, both of them exist as languages. Would that be the same as the Dutch case? Or is Dutch unique because it hasn't really evolved at all since the time when Afrikaans split off, and it hence gave rise to a new, isolated language while still maintaining its form?<<<<<<<<
The language there started out like Dutch, but then it started to diverge from Dutch.Untill 1814 when the "life-line" with the "mother language" was cutt because the British took over South Africa.(Nieuwnederlands (New/Modern Dutch) is the language spoken from around 1500 to the present day and has changed little) with the life-line cutt the already diverging dialect was allowed to develop into a seperate language.
-- Sander 16:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The statement is true and it's verifiable.Of course, when you don't want to see that....
Sandertje 21:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>And I think most would agree Dutch has changed since the separation (I recall my struggle with 18th century literature in high school.....). In my opinion these reasons about relevance alone would be enough to strike the phrase even if evidence is provided<<<<<<<<<<<
I can read Jacob Cats' poems without any problem those almost 350 years old.besidedes wether you can read it or not, it's still modern Dutch.
Sandertje 21:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not about which is more special it's about a link to Afrikaans and an explanation to it's history. Afrikaans derives from Dutch, then why does the opposition here write "a close relative"? If you want a close relative pick German, if you want a derived language pick Afrikaans.
Referencing a matter as this is impossible, nevertheless anyone with a sound mind should be able to grasp that this is the truth and nothing but the truth.
What if I asked Andries to prove he is really Andries, by using articles about himself? Nonsense.
Sandertje 13:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
No no no, I understand and apriciate what you're doing/did (really), I'm not going for "total victory" here but what I do want is the paragraph on is changed.It will not remain how it is now, since it's missing it's potential.Your 'interference' has been very helpful.
Sandertje 15:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point, the dutch written after the publication of the Statenbijbel is modern Dutch. "Hebban olla vogela" or what was it again is old dutch.350 was modern dutch as is modern Dutch. Changes in spelling or insignificant.
Sandertje 21:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Science didn't get were it is now because of agreeing with the majority.If it was the earth would still be flatt.I doesn't matter how many people oppose another one, it's about who's right. And when nobody is willing to discuss the matter (-because of a lack of arguments?-) but instead reverting time and again with no argumentation ...
Sandertje 17:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Since when did this became a theory? It's a statement, and more important, a true one. Of course it is normal that languages originate from another language.It is however special that the ancestral language continues to be spoken.Without the language in question being a creol or pidgin. Sandertje 22:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
If you think it's so trivial... then I wonder where all these messages are good for. If you payed attencion (which you purposely didn't) you would have seen I already 'proved' my point.
Sandertje 21:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Trivial sentences should be deleted (as being irrelevant), so if the majority finds this issue trivial you should accept deletion of the debated sentence. So yes, it IS important to note this as trivial as it is an important argument for deletion of the debated sentence
Arnoutf
22:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It IS relevant.And I'll tell you why:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Derived languages
A close relative of the Dutch language is Afrikaans, a language spoken in South Africa and Namibia, originating primarily from 17th century Dutch dialects, and a great deal of mutual intelligibility still exists. One who can speak Dutch is usually able to read and understand Afrikaans. There are also Dutch-based creole languages.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.Why is the language called a (close) relative, when the language originates from Dutch itself?In that case 'relative' is kind of an understatement.One related by kinship, common origin, or marriage is what the dictionary says.
- By blood? Maybe, if one sees Afrikaans as a 'son/daughter' of Dutch, but we're dealing with linguistics here, not genealogy.
- Marriage? 3x See below.
- Family relationship, See 2x above
2. The linguistic tree of Afrikaans is the following:
Dutch is clearly mentioned in the tree as the ancestor of Afrikaans.Therefore, derived is so much better than close relative.Not just because of the accuracy, but because relative suggests related(which is correct of course), but German and English are also related.Hell, even Russian, Spanish and Greek are related.
3. Then the one of the few part, I have already proven that
Dutch (and
German) are the only Indo-European languages to have produced another language (so I'm not including
mixed languages,
creoles, or
pidgins) Based on information found on wikipedia.So, by
the logic of chance, it would characterise as one of the few when compared to the other languages.And if that's too hard to grasp for you (plural) then it still stands that
Dutch is one of the few
Indo-European languages to have produced another language while still being spoken itself.
4. It not only gives extra information, it also makes both language extra special. Afrikaans for being a language with a living ancestor, and Dutch as a living language with a decendant.
In my opinion, wikipedia should provide as much information as possible,so leaving out this particular piece of info because you (plural) don't like me (because that's what it all comes down to) is just not going to happen.
User:Sandertje 18:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
As much information as possible should be limited to relevant information as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific library. Not liking is not an argument, but if any of us do not like you, I think you caused this by your own hostile response on critisism. You asked for mediation yourself so please have the manners to leave the conclusion open. If the mediation results in the conclusion that leaving out the information is the best course, then it will be left out.
Arnoutf
20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The mediation would result in a conclusion if the opposition would provide arguments like I've been doing the past weeks. Maybe you'd like to be the first Arnoutf? User:Sandertje 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I did a Google search for "language tree" and found on the fist page of results the following sites and partial trees:
There was no site among the first ten that had Afrikaans as a direct descendent of Dutch. Of course this is far from a scientific investigation, but it looks like the disputed statement is surely not generally accepted wisdom and should be discarded. The stronger idea that Dutch is one of the few living languages with offspring has become a moot point. − Woodstone 21:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Most of those trees are far from accurate,
Dutch and afrikaans originate from Low Franconian. (As for English, I don't know which meaning of 'low german' they're using here
Flemish isn't a language, not even the western dialects + Old Dutch for Afrikaans is impossible
Apart from the Flemish/Dutch mix, middle Dutch is also impossible considering the time
Again, timing and the Flemish part.
Limburgish is not a language (speacial reason) again timing Low Franconian -> Afrikaans is imposible furthermore, this wasn't a tree but classification.
Sandertje 23:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Woodstone, why do you keep focussing on the 'me-being-alone-in-my-opinions'part instead of providing ARGUMENTS?
14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, I'm shouting through messages? I was accentuating the word "arguments" because you're not suplying them.
You say you provided 5 charts from public (internet) sources, do you happen to see that all of them contradict eachother too?
Sander 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who started this whole mess, and my take on it at this point is this: Afrikaans is derived from Dutch, and it's perfectly reasonable to say so. I don't even have diffuiculty accepting that it's one of the few non-creole languages to have a living parent. What I object to is not counting creole languages without saying so in the text. That's what caused me to see the statement as blatantly false: without any other specification, my natural inclination would be to include creole languages in the count. Arturus 18:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
So, you'd have not problem with the statement if it was mentioned creoles, mixed languages and pidgins weren't taken into account?
Sander 21:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Not really, no. Creoles are created all the time, non-creole languages are considerably more rare. Pidgins aren't really full languages, so I'm not concerned by whether or not they get mentioned. Some of the other people here might want to keep attacking it on the grounds they've been going with, but that's their issue, not mine. Arturus 04:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sander 11:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
From all sides in this debate? a debate means you respond to eatchothers arguments.What do you expect?Me debating myself? Please, don't create lies. Anyway, the final opinion from the mediator would be a good idea, the only problem being that the mediator needs to compare arguments to reach a good conclusion. I've provided mine, where are yours? Sander 14:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC) edit: one should the above comment with a tone of despair, not agression.
User:Andries has reverted the comment today (5-3-2006) while providing no arguments on the talk page. Sander 14:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I would/could respect that if Andries would provide arguments for his cause. You ( Arnoutf) might be one one of the few that have provided them, others have not.
Sander 17:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the case regarding Afrikaans and its derivation from Dutch has reached an agreement. Thanks,
Ronline
✉
07:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
No, not really it's a stalemate.After reading the mediation disccusion, and noting that the opposers have provided no arguments whatoever and the person who questioned it in the first place agrees now... Do you, as a mediator, think the sentence " Dutch is one of the few language to have produced another language while still being spoken itself", which provides more information than the current line and also shows a unique side of both language, is acceptable? Sander 16:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I would support the idea of the ArbCom.For the millions of people who edit Wikipedia everyday are not represented in a 7vs4 vote. Sander 20:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that
User:Big Adamsky has edited the article and stated the Afrikaans was an official language of RSA until 1925 -
. AFAIK, Afrikaans is still an official language of the RSA, along with English and a number of African languages. Additionally, I do not see the relevance of writing about the official status of Afrikaans in an article about the
Dutch language. If anything it could be written that "Afrikaans, a language derived from Dutch, is an official language in South Africa". Thanks,
Ronline
✉
07:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to inform you that I have/are going to put up a request for a Arbitration.
Mainly because I feel, we've reached a stalemate and the mediation (to me at least) was merely an extension of the discussion rather than a solution.
I have left the "" Statement by party 2 "" open as I don't want to put false words in your mouths, but please make sure that someone fills that piece of text explaining your views. (500 words)
[Because I need to inform all of you before posting my request, this piece of text will soon be replaced by the link to the ArbCom request. All involved users will recieve a message on their talkpage as wel]
Sander 10:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Sander 11:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sandertje, you are changing chunks of the article without citing any sources whatsoever. One of these changes affects the disputed text for which you have put up an Arbcom request. Please cite your sources for all of these edits. Please note that your edits may be reverted if you do not provide citations referring to verifiable, notable information provided by reputable sources. AvB ÷ talk 00:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The matter at Arbcom is resolved in theory, it is rejected. Not because one side has been proved wrong.But the because the Arbcom, like myself, thinks this matter was too trivial. (maybe I should reenter the request but then as a "personal feud" of you & co against me?)
Please name the articles in question Avb, this is too vague. Sander 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear AvB,
You are also on my watchlist, and to be honest, you don't provide sources to all your edits as well.A crude translation of a Dutch proverb springs to my mind: "Enhance the world but start with yourself" I think it's in place here. Your objection to my question comes as a surprise, as your recent behaviour can hardly falls within the 'lending a hand' catagory.No offence.
Sander 12:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I have posted a warning on Sandertje's Talk page here. Unsigned comment by User:AvB ^
Sander has taken notice of the 'warning' above and thinks that Avb could better devote his time to expanding Wikipedia rather than provoking conflicts between users. Sander 12:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Since Sandertje has not accepted the compromise offered here I am reverting to the original version before his disputed edit. Sandertje, do not re-insert your disputed edit without convincing other editors that it does not violate WP:NPOV. At the very least you need to attribute the "falsely" qualification to a person or persons in order to make it factual; you also need to provide sources to document that this is not only Sandertje's opinion but a notable POV somewhere out there in the real world. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. AvB ÷ talk 00:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
<<Ignoring insinuations made by AvB >>
Point here is that I wat to create clarity, for a good and easy to understand wikipedia.I don't think making euphemisms is wikipedia policy. If you can please explain to me, the difference between "not formally correct." and "false"? Sander 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear AvB,
My cooperation isn't hard to get at all, problem is you've never tried and by spewing filth (I threatened you with the Arbcom? I believe it was you who brought it up in the first place) about me on this talkpage you're not getting any closer too.
Your philosophy is "once an argument always an argument".If that's what you want, fine.Not that I'll sleep even a second less because of it.
Van Helsing,
I know that Dutch spoken in Northern Belgium is often called Flemish of course you're right about that, point is that that isn't the case.They don't speak Flemish, but Dutch.What word makes it more clear than 'falsely' ? Sander 15:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No Peter, it's much simpler.
Even if Dutch spoken in Belgium is often called Flemish (Which I don't deny). It is still Dutch, Flemish is not a language and in the linguistic sense (Which I hope we're using in this language article) it refers only to the West-Flemish dialect of Dutch.Thus calling Dutch spoken in Belgium Flemish is just plain wrong,even if it's often called that.Just like the Netherlands are often called Holland, but it's still wrong as Holland was a province that doesn't exist anymore. Sander 18:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Believe me, if you want trivial look at the afrikaans part in the middle of Dutch talk.Pfff.
Anyway, although I get your point, I have some remarks.
Well, it doesn't, in the sense of the language of the Flemish people.
When compared to UK and USA English the differences are even smaller.
Well, they did, if they refered to the language of the Flemish, instead of the dialect
Believe me, if it were up to me, most of the references to the Flemish dialect on Dutch language would be deleted.Flemish has received far more attencion than all other Dutch dialects putt together.
Hmm, in a way they do.They lack one national language but on the otherhand and there is no Belgian languageOn the other hand German, Dutch and French were spoken there for centuries,so they have 3 national languages.
But I challenge you,
Could you create a mix between tact, while making it absolutly clear that it is totally wrong? Sander 20:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
AvB ÷ talk 16:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear AvB,
How can I return something I did not receive in the first place?You haven't treated me with courtesy, you've only made semi-sarcastic remarks (one even triggered the personal attack warning on your talk page) and talked to others about me. Please refrain from these kind of remarks, unless you're really trying to provoke me into a fight.In that case, please warn me so that I can ignore you, I've chosen to avoid senseless fights,arguments or discussions from now on, I am/was hoping you'd do the same thing.
Sincerely Sander 17:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll make another edit with another compromise re Flemish. I would advise you not to revert it under any circumstances, in order to avoid the appearance of WP:POINT. If my edit does not get consensus while I'm gone, let other editors revert it. Yep, I'm walking away from this article (again) and won't return for a week or so, if at all. And do not forget: all this nonsense started with ONE SINGLE WORD you were editwarring about while others were doing their very best to help you understand why that word is not allowed.
Apparently you don't consider such interventions help, you consider them criticisms, but you should realize what it is: help. You should thank others for their help, not attack them because you feel criticised. That is another considered opinion of mine about your contributions or lack thereof <wow, an English pronominal adverb!>. An opinion I will underpin with diffs and defend everywhere on Wikipedia should the need arise. You should take it seriously.
I am available to talk this over with you on IRC. I'm even available on the phone. Just let me know. AvB ÷ talk 23:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Although I completly fail to see the difference beween 'false' and 'not correct', as does the cambridge dictionary: [4] I will accept this compromise, which according to AvB is based on the Flemish (linguistics) article; ironicly an article which I myself wrote, in order to escape from this utterly futile discussion. Sander 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
User Aeusoes1 has started systematically delinking IPA symbols from their formal description article. This destroys a lot of work done by other people. Before continuing, please discuss first at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(pronunciation)#Linking_single_IPA_symbols. − Woodstone 16:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What we have here is a case of polysemy that can lead to the logical fallacy of equivocation, like Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks? This is a common problem in rhetorics that can be avoided by careful wording. The word Flemish as a synonym for Dutch is a colloquialism that is used in certain contexts in Belgium or by Belgians. This is not wrong, because it is actuall used in this way, so declaring this usage wrong would be prescriptive. When used in scientific nomenclature, the same word has usually a different meaning, namely a group of Dutch dialects. So I would propose the following:
Dutch spoken in Belgium is colloquially also referred to as Flemish (Vlaams), although this usage is not consistent with its definition in lingustics. For details, see Flemish (linguistics). Andreas 19:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting quite irritated by your tone when adressing me Peter, I'm talking about synonymity.And that's when you went wrong.The languages/regions where "Flemish" and "Dutch" can be used interchangeably, ie "The people in Urecht speak Flemish", are extremely limited. Sander 14:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have not denied that at all woodstone.I advise you to reread my comments. Sander 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I am always prepared to make concessions, but there are limits.And the more convinced I get about being correct, the chance on concessions gets smaller. Sander 08:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry? References?! I should have references for the word falsely?! I don't think so, I will continue to edit, revert and expand wikipedia and I don't care what or how you, or people like you, think about that.Thank you. adding: Your edit was reverted, because it makes it seem as if it's true, but not official. I support clarity on wikipedia. Sander 11:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi all,
A close friend of mine who grew up in the netherlands and is a native speaker of dutch claims that one of the examples used in the "similarities" table for english/dutch/german is incorrect. She says that "tuin" is not a "town", but rather a garden and is neither correct nor a good example for similarity amongst these languages.
I propose removing this entry in the table. Because, although it is convenient to imagine that the Zaun/Tuin correspondence is legitimate, it is actually incorrect.
Lesotho 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Edwing,
It seems I didn't read the section carefully enough. I now agree that the "point" of the table is to demonstrate the phonetical similarities. However, i certainly agree with your musings about how placing the english word in the first column of the chart might create a misleading scenario (clearly i was mislead...). Since this is the "english" wikipedia, many wikipedians might assume that the meanings of both the dutch and the german words are centered around the english meaning, which is neither true nor the point of the chart.
thanks for the clarification
cheers
Lesotho 17:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, edited the section on "Dutch as a Foreign Language" to reflect the difference between orthography and phonology. Okay, e.g. phonetics and morphology would also be issues when counting the number of sounds (and thus consecutive consonants) in word of a certain language, but I guess it's allright like that, or would somebody disagree?
Edwing 13:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
What does "transvesting" mean? Should this be "transversing", or is there some meaning in the word "transvesting"? If so, can this be noted with the citation.( 83.118.38.37 17:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC))
Transvesting is apparently what transvestites do; that is, they cross a boundary line between identities that are culturally conceived as opposites. I have no objection to using grown-up words where they are appropriate, but in this case,
It's quite possible the gist of the jibe may be correct, and it's possible that with a little explanation, it would make a marvelous commentary on the language, but as it stands, it appears to be of questionable value to users as well as patently unverifiable. ClairSamoht 18:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with such statement, I think it might be debatable. Any thoughts? -- Andrelvis
I begg you're pardon? debatable?! What is there to debate ? In fact, I dare to say that German has more chance of being a dialect of Dutch than the other way around.
No offence Andrelvis, but if you think this matter is debatable do you also think the statement "Latin is a French dialect" is debatable. Sander 20:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Why thank you.It's always a good thing to start unprejudiced don't you think? Dutch can be considered to predate High German, Dutch left the prehistoric fase in 476-496 High German,in the form of Allemanic didn't do so untill the early 6th century.
Then of course there is the fact that High German, as the name indicates, experienced the High German(ic) consonant shift and Dutch didn't, it remained.
So instead of basing thing arguments for your revert on nationalism try basing it on facts next time.Therefore it will be reverted again. Sander 09:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not claiming anything about standard dutch.But if you're going to deny the excistence of the high german consonant shift ... Sander 09:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course do I mean the time when the language was first written down. Sander 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I have problems with the examples given to show that "Dutch is grammatically similar to German":
- The 'chameleon' example is very farfetched, the meaning of the sentence distracts too much from the subject in hand i.e. the similarity between Dutch and German word order and their difference from English word order.
- 'Op de berg staat een klein huisje' is a phrase you could possibly find in a fairy tale: Far, far away there is a mountain, shrouded in mist... On the mountain there is etc. The correct non-poetic Dutch phrase is 'Er staat een klein huisje op de berg', the word order of which, I'm afraid, is quite similar to English - the most interesting feature here being the staan/liggen/zitten verbs of position in Dutch (the book stands in the bookcase/lies on the table/sits in my pocket) which are less prominent in German and virtually absent in English - but that's another story and probably not fit for this Wikipedia article.
- 'In de stad leven veel mensen': there is a so-called anglicism in there: this example should at least be changed to 'In de stad wonen veel mensen' (and likewise 'wohnen', or even better 'gibt es', in the German sentence). This phrase may be tolerable purely as an example of Dutch/German word order, but in practice it does not exist, just like the little house on the mountain doesn't. 'In een stad wonen veel mensen' would be slightly more logical; it could be the childish answer to a child's question 'What is the difference between a village and a city?' But, more to the point, the real Dutch phrase would be 'Er wonen veel mensen in de/een stad'; which, at 'best', translates into German as 'Es gibt viele Menschen in der Stadt'. All of this rather undermines the point the example is trying to make.
It is true: there is a big difference between Dutch and German versus English word order within a sentence. (There are also significant, but smaller, differences in Dutch versus German word order.) But the Dutch example phrases given in the article are virtually non-existent in the real live language. I'd like to see that changed.
Rather than slashing into someone else's text I'd like to invite the original contributor to amend it; but I'd be happy to provide some examples myself.
What's the point of giving two German translations of the sentence about the chameleon? And the second one is even false: Chamäleon is of the neutral gender not the male. I will edit it out. Azzurro 03:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Perfectly normal, isn't it? Shinobu 04:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The Spanish version of Wikipedia calls the Dutch language "Idioma neerlandés", not holandés. Does somebody know what the official correct term is for "Dutch" in Spanish?
I believe neerlandés is the official form, but if (like in many other countries) holandes or similar is also used ... I think both should be in included. Sander 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The Scots article acknowledges that there is debate about whether Scots should be considered a language or an English dialect. I believe that we should mention that here when we talk about the closest language to English. What do others think? A discussion here would be a lot more productive than an rv war in the article. David 16:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
See my talkpage [5] Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, someone removed most of the links to dictionaries from the page and added the Cleanup-spam template. I had found the links quite useful, actually, even though I suspect some of it was spam. I am puzzled by the ones that remain. They are not particularly major dictionaries, and while the names imply they have a list of all dutch dictionaries, they don't. Unless there are objections, I will either create a list of the major useful Dutch and Dutch-English dictionaries or look for a comprehensive neutral list to link to on an external site and delete all but Wiktionary. Tono-bungay 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree the site woorden-boek.nl has more then 9000 Dutch words, and could be usefull for readers of this article. Also the vandale link should stay since it is the major dutch dictionary besides kramer.
Hi all, I have a few small remarks I wish to share:
1) Dialects: In Flanders, Antwerps is considered to be an important dialect as well. There used to be sitcoms in this dialect (Den Bompa), and there's still the Echt Antwaarps Theater, a well known theater group who performs in this dialect.
Also, the last few years the city of Antwerp has used a pun on the dialect in it's public campaigns: the use of an A as it's symbol, which is also the local dialect for jij (you). So slogans like 'Zot van A' (Crazy about A) can be interpreted as Crazy about Antwerp / Crazy about you. Most recent example of a slogan is 'Het verdriet is van A' (The sorrow is yours / The sorrow is of Antwerp) after a tragic shooting.
I hope I won't get bashed for bringing up a Flemish dialect in a Dutch article, but since the other 4 were there, I thought Antwerps (or Antwaarps) was worth mentioning too.
2) Dutch as a foreign language: In Belgium, German is less widely spoken, and not always required, but it still spoken by a considerable number of people.
Well, German is an official Belgian language, and a part of Belgium (de oostkantons) which we got after one of the World Wars (... lack of history knowledge here, sorry) speaks German. Might want to mention it here. But maybe the title is wrong alltogether: Foreign languages for those who speak Dutch seems better fit for this section.
All thoughts on this are welcome :)
Ninja neko
13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
What is a 'thorpe'?
Is Dutch word stress lexical or metrical? --- moyogo 05:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
There is a mistake in note 6) on the pronunciation of Dutch consonants.
The phoneme /w/ is never pronounced as a voiced labial-velar approximant (except by the speakers of Surinamese Dutch). In the Southern dialects the phoneme /w/ is pronounced as a bilabial approximant. 84.193.165.47 18:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't agree with the statement on the joining of words in Dutch. Though this is common in German, as is stated correctly, this is not the case in Dutch. Even words which were formerly joined through the use of "trema" are now mostly at least broken up through hyphenation (the famous "zee-eenden-eieren" or sea bird eggs). In Dutch it is not accepted to simply combine words into new words and therefore the examples of "long" words in the Dutch language must be qualified as pure fabrication. There are no words in Dutch such as "randjongerenhangplekkenbeleidsambtenarensalarisbesprekingsafspraken" or "hottentottententententoonstellingsmakersopleidingsprogramma". No Dutchman will use such words and they are not accepted in school in, for instance, spelling tests or essays. In German, it is however quite common to find such extended cojoined words.-- Michaelmarinus 20:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll need know how is pronounced the word ending '-tie' (as in politie, coördinatie), as [siː] or as [tiː] IPA-transcription?
Ludor 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Since it is not a stressed syllable, I think the correct rendering would be [tsi] in received pronunciation. Dialectic form (especially in the Amsterdam region) is [si], also occurring in other regions in rapid speech. I have never heard [ti]. − Woodstone 14:42:46, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
In Belgium they use [siː] on the offical broadcast on the VRT 213.119.220.51 18:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC) – and in all dialects in the Flemish region. Either [siː] or [tsiː] used consistently by a speaker, is correct standard Dutch. Some derivates maintain the sound, e.g. 'politioneel' or the compound 'politiezone', though '-tie' must become [tiː] when it receives some suffixes, e.g. 'politie' [(t)siː] (police) –> 'politiek' [tiːk] (politics, political); 'negatie' [(t)siː] (negation) –> 'negatief' [tiːf] (negative) -- SomeHuman 2006-06-23 22:49 (UTC)
"Further examples for the close vicinity of Dutch and German:
Op de berg staat een klein huisje (Dutch) - Auf dem Berg steht ein kleines Häuschen (German) (in English: "There's a small house on the mountain", or alternatively, "On the mountain is a small house", demonstrating English's ability to conform to Dutch/German word order in this sentence)"
This is a bad example of English's ability to conform to Dutch/German word order, because the word order is exactly the same in both languages. Does someone know a correct example?-- 194.78.199.56 14:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
'There's a small house on the mountain,' isn't the translation of: 'Op de berg staat een klein huisje'. It is the translation of: 'Er is een klein huisje op de berg.' And 'On the mountain is a small house,' should be: 'On the mountain stands a small house.' What value does such an example has if it isn't translated as closely as possible? Details like that are not necessarily significant in regular translating, but in this case they are significant.( 83.118.38.37 19:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC))
Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself.
This seems to me to be a blatantly false statement. Afrikaans is a creole. Many other languages have produced creoles and remained a language in their own right, like English, a particually noteable example being the Hawaiian Pidgin, which is, at this point, not really a pidgin anymore. Any objections to my removing that line? Arturus 06:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Scots, isn't a dialect or derived language from middle English.It's a language deriving from Anglo-Saxon (Old English if you like) just like English itself.Just like Spanish and Portuguese both derive from Latin.
Besides that, 'English' didn't produce scots. Old English did. While Afrikaanse came out of Dutch while the language is still alive while OE is dead as can be.
Sandertje 12:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious to me, I dare anyone to name me 10 language (of the total of 6000) that have resulted in another language (no creoles or pidgins)while still being spoken natively. Although I normally see Latin as a dead language (no native speakers) I'll allow it for this time.
Sandertje 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
What's this?! ' I do not know enough about languages to answer this question '?! The where do you get the idea you're suited to claim my statement is a lie? Talking about arrogance.
Sandertje 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting I'm making mistakes or lying be clear, speak your mind instead of twisting words.
You admit you know nothing about languages and yet you want some sort of reference? How are you going to verify that? More so, what do you expect that reference to say or to be?! A list with all 6000 languages? " citation needed " isn't enough you know.I want a clear question or assignment or some sort.
My own opinion? What kind of opinion is "Dutch is one of the few languages that while still spoken themselves have produced another language " That's not opinion that's a fact.
You may have noticed, I detest laymen who start making demands.
Sandertje 20:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the tone in this discussion is getting a bit too hostile. The general demand that if a definite claim is made some kind of reference is needed is not a strange nor unreasonalbe 'demand'. Neglecting reasonable demands (even by what are considered lay-persons) is very arrogant. So as a non-accountant, I (the layman) should not be allowed to demand any kind of customer orientation of the tax service.... detest me for it, I will still demand that. But to quit joking, I do not think that a complete list of 6000 languages is asked for, however a reference confirming Dutch as the mother language of Afrikaans (with Afrikaans being an acknowledged language), and a reference that only few languages originate in other modern languages would strengthen the point very much. Especially as I intuitively can accept that your point holds for many European languages (possibe exceptions English and French), but how about non-western languages as Russian, Chinese, Arabic and the continental African languages? Of course you may know that they did not create languages, but please follow accepted scientific practice and share your source of that knowledge with us (i.e. put up a reference). Thanks in advance Arnoutf 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You question 'my' remark yet, have done nothing to back up the reasons for questioning it in the first place, except for: "I don't believe that" well even a blind person knows that's a not an argument but an opinion. I'm reverting your edit and even more; I'm calling for a mediation if you keep bugging people who have worked long and hard on this article.
I hope we understand eatch other.
Sandertje 14:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I visit the best libraries in the country so don't worry about that.I'd advise you however to get familiar with the concept of "Knowing what you're talking about" I'm sure it will open a whole new world for you. As for the 3 vs. 1 story you wrote down, that doesn't make you or them right now does it?
Sandertje 15:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a pointless argument. "I should be allowed to violate the NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH rule because I'm an expert" just doesn't fly. Stuff needs to be verifiable. Yes, it burns when I realize that something I've written, something I know to be true, is edited out, but this is a settled issue: it's more important to be correct than to be complete. If you're an expert, you should be familiar enough with what's been published that you can provide references. If you don't like the policies here, it's easy enough to latch onto the software, start your own wiki, and show Wikipedia a thing or three.... ClairSamoht 15:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sandertje, you are being unnecessarily confrontational. Modify your tone and people will be more inclined to engage with you. You are definitely right that Afrikaans evolved out of a from of Dutch. I doubt very much that we can say this is an unusual situation, though: it is the normal development of new languages. They start with small variations (American English developed out of British English) and become more and more different until they are separate languages. I see nothing unique or special about this example. And I am a historical linguist, so while you are welcome to disagree with me you cannot pull rank as you tried to with Andries. --
Doric Loon
19:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to check, is this the way you found this particular discussion
Doric Loon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ADoric_Loon&diff=40147963&oldid=40136846
A few things, I don't believe there are certain ranks between linguists, like in the millitairy.I base it on respect for ones ideas, and frankly a supporter of a theory saying that AE and BE will one day become different languages, doesn't have to expect a lot of that.
--Sandertje 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's not what I said about AE/BE, and that's not what "pulling rank" means. But I think you know that really, don't you. This is not the way you engage with people, and you will never win your argument as long as you take such a tone. That's just a friendly tip from a neutral in this debate. --
Doric Loon
19:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
These are the Indo-European languages, not all of course because there are currently 443 of them, but the most prominent/known/spoken of them.Of Which, according to my count, around 100 languages (not hypothetical subgroups) are represented on the map.Only 2 of these can claim the following:
To have produced another language while still being spoken
These languages are Dutch and German who produced Afrikaans and Yiddish respectively.
Because it would be an virtually impossible task to make a list of all human languages let alone a tree. (And get or create all the information needed for relating them to each other) I will use mathematics to prove my point.
2 of the 100 language have produced other languages (not pidgins or creoles) that's 2 %.
The suspected totall of all languages on earth is 6000, 2% of is 120 languages that have produced other languages while still being spoken today.
Now I don't know what all you 'opposers' think, but when 2% of the people survives a certain dissease, then they are part of the lucky 'few'.
Therefore, the remark:
" Dutch is one of the few languages to have produced another language while still being spoken itself. "
Stands proven.
--Sandertje 22:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
As a mathematician, I will concede that 2% can be characterized as few; however, as a mathematician, I must point out that you cannot prove something based on untrue conjectures. Your chart is unreadable, sir, even when I magnify it, so I will point out that:
That's four offshoot languages, sir, right off the top of my head. Your proof is, therefore, dopplick.
But it doesn't really matter one way or the other. The Wikipedia does not exist to publish the truth. The Wikipedia exists as a compendium of that which others have published. If you aren't willing to accept that, you need to set up your own Wiki, sir. Click on the MediaWiki logo at the bottom right of this page. The software runs on economical standard LAMP webhosting, and if you are uncomfortable in installing it yourself, I'd be happy to recommend a host offering free installation. Or you can decide to stick around and contribute. I think everyone here would be happy if that happened. But you're trying to ignore a basic principle on which Wikipedia is built. I'd characterize your chances of success as "few". ClairSamoht 23:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm honoured by the sir bit, your proof is not worth anything.
The Amish speak a German dialect,not a language. Portueguese is the same language as "brazillian" which is called "Brazillian Portuguese" ( Portuguese). And Rhyming Cockney is a form of slang and Ebonics is a dialect.
Even I as a non-mathematician can tell your arguments are worth 0.
As for the non readability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages#Satem_and_Centum_languages
--Sandertje 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Like I said to Clairsamoth then use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages#Satem_and_Centum_languages that one is more clear.
It is hard to draw a line between dialect,pidgen,creole and language (some linguist say there are no lines at all) but in these modern times the changes for dialects like Amish (Deitsch) or Brazillian Portuguese becoiming lannguages are very small.My predictions for those particular languages are that Amish will probably disappear wether due to the pressure of English or the desolving of the sect, and Brazillian Portuguese and Portueguese will unite in a new standard form (due to internet,tv and other forms of interaction between the two)
This wasn't the case with Afrikaans, Afrikaans (or still Dutch at the time) was pretty much isolated for 200 years and had no contact with other Indo-European languages.Then when the English took over the cape (ie South Africa) the Afrikaners/Dutch were cutt of from the mother language (from which it had already been diverging for 150 years or so) allowing it to develop seperately from Dutch.
While they may look very alike Afrikaans has a very different grammar a different orthography as well as pronounciation and, which is usually the thing that seals the deal for most people, it's recognised as a national language.
--Sandertje 09:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
>> Your so-called proof discusses only the 430 Indo-European languages, which are a very small portion of the 6912 living languages on this globe. <<
Yes, which I explained in one of the first sentences.You're not blind are you?
>>The Amish aren't disappearing; their numbers are doubling every 20 years. And they aren't abandoning their language; they use it at home and in their worship.<=
Why should I believe that? Where is your proof?Your reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Language
>>But there are plenty of other examples. Ocracoke split off from English while English remained a living language. Cayuga and Seneca split off from Onondaga while Onondaga remained a living language. But what's the point in listing examples? Whether you are right or wrong is immaterial. Your assertion is not verifiable.<<
Again, where are your references? After a quick google/wikpedia search, only Seneca ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_language ) and ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onondaga_language) showed up and nowehere is mentioned that Onondage is the ancestor of Seneca. "Ocracoke" doesn't even show up. How am I supposed to know if your comments are verifiable?
>> That's a primary principle around here. Asking Wikipedia to ignore verifiability is like asking a Mother Superior to turn the convent into a whorehouse, with the nuns serving the clientele. It ain't gonna happen. ClairSamoht 10:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)<<
Oh please, where you trying to impress me? Lol, no but seriously where's your proof? In the so called arguments above that is ... because I can't see any of it.
--Sandertje 11:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
And since you are having trouble using google, allow me to extend to you a link: Ocracoke language search
Your level of ignorance and your level of intellectual dishonesty is why original research is prohibited here on Wikipedia.
As far as proof, it's right here| in the first item. Please quit vandalizing this site! ClairSamoht 18:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Just look at you... you lost the debate.A personal feud? Very adult of you.But I'm going to pass this time.Come back when you have arguments.
Sandertje 19:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I can believe that nearly half of the space on this talk page is devoted to one little sentence, and even now, while the point has been proven the opposers (lead by a lost mathematician and a layman of all sorts) still continue their futile actions against the sentence in question. If there is one thing that (should) characterise civil behaviour on wikipedia it's that once proven wrong you admit you were wrong.If you're too proud for that, fine leave then but don't keep bugging people trying to make a good article.
How long will it take for them to find that out, and will it happen before or after interference by higher spheres on wikipedia?
Goodnight.
Sandertje 20:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I had no knowledge of such a rule.
However, this has gone too far.I've requested a mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronline#Mediation_request3.
User:Sandertje 22:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
A small but important point: the genders of Dutch are said in the article to be 'animate' (de) and 'neuter' (het). Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Dutch will know that this is misleading and untrue- a child is HET kind and yet a table is DE tafel!! I suggest the frequently used terms 'common gender' and 'neuter' to describe the genders of Dutch.
Also, I think the word 'collapse' to describe the transition from a 3-gender to a 2-gender system is rather imprecise- this word suggests that the change happened all of a sudden, whereas it is the combination of gradual sound changes and then a slow process of catch-up in the spelling system which removed unpronounced forms such as 'den', 'ener' etc.
It might also be worth noting that the Dutch do actually use 3 genders fairly consistently with some words (particularly with feminine abstract nouns such as 'vrijheid' and 'bewering'), using 'zij' and 'haar' when referring back to them. If you look in the Van Dale the 3 genders are all consistently indicated, and during my time in Belgium there was no sign of a 'collapse' amongst speakers of the standard language.
This is obviously only a minor issue and a small part of the text but it demonstrates the scope for improvement and extra precision in the article.
--Anonymus
Everything is explained in:
Dutch grammar Gender in Dutch grammar
--Sandertje 10:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah sorry my fault.
--Sandertje 17:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Babel entry for Dutch native speakers says this: Deze gebruiker heeft het Nederlands als moedertaal. Wouldn't it be a little nicer if it were to say something like "Deze gebruiker spreekt Nederlands als moedertaal"? Or "Deze gebruiker draagt bij met Nederlands als moedertaal"? The links to the templates here: Template:User_nl, Template:User_nl-1, Template:User_nl-2, Template:User_nl-3, Template:User_nl-4.
Does anybody have any further suggestions? Do you think that it should be changed at all? Let's hear what you have to say. -- Michiel Sikma 19:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd leave out the "het" for the flow but otherwise it's good as it is now...
Sandertje 22:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Sander has requested a mediation on this article. I have taken this case. From what I see here, there seems to be a dispute between various versions of this article, to do with the "Classification and related languages". It would be great if each of the editors involved in the dispute would give their own opinion on the matter, so that we can come to a resolution as soon as possible. Simply perpetuating the revert war, and name-calling other users, won't do much to solve the dispute. Thanks,
Ronline
✉
05:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
_____________________________________________________________________________
I assume the mediation will take place here? Good.
In a nutshell; There was a line: << Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself. >> which User:Andries questioned, although he is a layman concerning languages, and asked for a reference. I explained a reference would be impossible to get because nobody is to write or has written an article called "Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself.". After continuous reverts and edits, I provided my proof, namely a mathematical assumption.Which can be seen below:
This a map of the Indo-European languages; a linguistic group numbering 443 languages (and dialects). The total estimate of languages spoken on earth lies around 6000.The most known/spoken are listed here.
![]() |
This is a List of Indo-European languages (443)
Now, only 3 languages can say that they have produced a language (not a pidgin or dialect)while still being spoken itself and those are Dutch, German and Latin (which is considered dead by most) according to me, that make dutch one of the few.
Now after I suplied the proof/reference they still revert the sentence.
Sandertje 18:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
When do you start to understand it Andries? You can't make a report on all languages on earth, most of them haven't even been recorded,let alone named.
IE languages make out 1/15 of the total languages spoken on earth, they also are the most widespread,most documented and 2nd most spoken on earth.If 3 language of the 443 IE languages have produced other languages (under ideal circumstances: Fall of Roman empire, NL > SA and German + Hebrew) while still being spoken today then how logical would it be if other groups would have similar numbers? Dutch is clearly part of the few.
It's just your personal war against me that slowing down the process.
PS: I did not know about the 3revert rule, which I've said before on this talk page. (Somehow it's typical for a person like Andries to "miss" or " overlook" such a comment)
Sandertje 20:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
As a linguist, I find the statement Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself to be rather odd. First of all, the definition of one language separate from another is difficult. I wonder whether we should count
mixed languages,
creole languages and
pidgins. That two branches of a language separated culturally or geographically undergo different changes over time and are then considered to be different languages is the entire history of genetic language development. I think that if we allow for all historically documented occurences like this, and allow for other variations of language change, particularly those produced on contact with others, we shall find that this category is not so special. --
Gareth Hughes
12:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
As another linguist, I do not find the statement that hard to understand; of course the definition has to be relevated. In essence a "language" is pretty much everything used to communicate, wether verbally or non-verbally.I want to make clear that I'm not taking creoles,'mixed languages' or pidgins into account here.
Ronline,
To answer your questions,
<<<<<Romanian and Aromanian, now two separate languages, broke off from a common language. One can argue that that language was "Romanian" (it's now called proto-Romanian). Today, both of them exist as languages. Would that be the same as the Dutch case? Or is Dutch unique because it hasn't really evolved at all since the time when Afrikaans split off, and it hence gave rise to a new, isolated language while still maintaining its form?<<<<<<<<
The language there started out like Dutch, but then it started to diverge from Dutch.Untill 1814 when the "life-line" with the "mother language" was cutt because the British took over South Africa.(Nieuwnederlands (New/Modern Dutch) is the language spoken from around 1500 to the present day and has changed little) with the life-line cutt the already diverging dialect was allowed to develop into a seperate language.
-- Sander 16:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The statement is true and it's verifiable.Of course, when you don't want to see that....
Sandertje 21:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>And I think most would agree Dutch has changed since the separation (I recall my struggle with 18th century literature in high school.....). In my opinion these reasons about relevance alone would be enough to strike the phrase even if evidence is provided<<<<<<<<<<<
I can read Jacob Cats' poems without any problem those almost 350 years old.besidedes wether you can read it or not, it's still modern Dutch.
Sandertje 21:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not about which is more special it's about a link to Afrikaans and an explanation to it's history. Afrikaans derives from Dutch, then why does the opposition here write "a close relative"? If you want a close relative pick German, if you want a derived language pick Afrikaans.
Referencing a matter as this is impossible, nevertheless anyone with a sound mind should be able to grasp that this is the truth and nothing but the truth.
What if I asked Andries to prove he is really Andries, by using articles about himself? Nonsense.
Sandertje 13:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
No no no, I understand and apriciate what you're doing/did (really), I'm not going for "total victory" here but what I do want is the paragraph on is changed.It will not remain how it is now, since it's missing it's potential.Your 'interference' has been very helpful.
Sandertje 15:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point, the dutch written after the publication of the Statenbijbel is modern Dutch. "Hebban olla vogela" or what was it again is old dutch.350 was modern dutch as is modern Dutch. Changes in spelling or insignificant.
Sandertje 21:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Science didn't get were it is now because of agreeing with the majority.If it was the earth would still be flatt.I doesn't matter how many people oppose another one, it's about who's right. And when nobody is willing to discuss the matter (-because of a lack of arguments?-) but instead reverting time and again with no argumentation ...
Sandertje 17:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Since when did this became a theory? It's a statement, and more important, a true one. Of course it is normal that languages originate from another language.It is however special that the ancestral language continues to be spoken.Without the language in question being a creol or pidgin. Sandertje 22:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
If you think it's so trivial... then I wonder where all these messages are good for. If you payed attencion (which you purposely didn't) you would have seen I already 'proved' my point.
Sandertje 21:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Trivial sentences should be deleted (as being irrelevant), so if the majority finds this issue trivial you should accept deletion of the debated sentence. So yes, it IS important to note this as trivial as it is an important argument for deletion of the debated sentence
Arnoutf
22:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It IS relevant.And I'll tell you why:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Derived languages
A close relative of the Dutch language is Afrikaans, a language spoken in South Africa and Namibia, originating primarily from 17th century Dutch dialects, and a great deal of mutual intelligibility still exists. One who can speak Dutch is usually able to read and understand Afrikaans. There are also Dutch-based creole languages.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.Why is the language called a (close) relative, when the language originates from Dutch itself?In that case 'relative' is kind of an understatement.One related by kinship, common origin, or marriage is what the dictionary says.
- By blood? Maybe, if one sees Afrikaans as a 'son/daughter' of Dutch, but we're dealing with linguistics here, not genealogy.
- Marriage? 3x See below.
- Family relationship, See 2x above
2. The linguistic tree of Afrikaans is the following:
Dutch is clearly mentioned in the tree as the ancestor of Afrikaans.Therefore, derived is so much better than close relative.Not just because of the accuracy, but because relative suggests related(which is correct of course), but German and English are also related.Hell, even Russian, Spanish and Greek are related.
3. Then the one of the few part, I have already proven that
Dutch (and
German) are the only Indo-European languages to have produced another language (so I'm not including
mixed languages,
creoles, or
pidgins) Based on information found on wikipedia.So, by
the logic of chance, it would characterise as one of the few when compared to the other languages.And if that's too hard to grasp for you (plural) then it still stands that
Dutch is one of the few
Indo-European languages to have produced another language while still being spoken itself.
4. It not only gives extra information, it also makes both language extra special. Afrikaans for being a language with a living ancestor, and Dutch as a living language with a decendant.
In my opinion, wikipedia should provide as much information as possible,so leaving out this particular piece of info because you (plural) don't like me (because that's what it all comes down to) is just not going to happen.
User:Sandertje 18:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
As much information as possible should be limited to relevant information as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific library. Not liking is not an argument, but if any of us do not like you, I think you caused this by your own hostile response on critisism. You asked for mediation yourself so please have the manners to leave the conclusion open. If the mediation results in the conclusion that leaving out the information is the best course, then it will be left out.
Arnoutf
20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The mediation would result in a conclusion if the opposition would provide arguments like I've been doing the past weeks. Maybe you'd like to be the first Arnoutf? User:Sandertje 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I did a Google search for "language tree" and found on the fist page of results the following sites and partial trees:
There was no site among the first ten that had Afrikaans as a direct descendent of Dutch. Of course this is far from a scientific investigation, but it looks like the disputed statement is surely not generally accepted wisdom and should be discarded. The stronger idea that Dutch is one of the few living languages with offspring has become a moot point. − Woodstone 21:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Most of those trees are far from accurate,
Dutch and afrikaans originate from Low Franconian. (As for English, I don't know which meaning of 'low german' they're using here
Flemish isn't a language, not even the western dialects + Old Dutch for Afrikaans is impossible
Apart from the Flemish/Dutch mix, middle Dutch is also impossible considering the time
Again, timing and the Flemish part.
Limburgish is not a language (speacial reason) again timing Low Franconian -> Afrikaans is imposible furthermore, this wasn't a tree but classification.
Sandertje 23:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Woodstone, why do you keep focussing on the 'me-being-alone-in-my-opinions'part instead of providing ARGUMENTS?
14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, I'm shouting through messages? I was accentuating the word "arguments" because you're not suplying them.
You say you provided 5 charts from public (internet) sources, do you happen to see that all of them contradict eachother too?
Sander 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who started this whole mess, and my take on it at this point is this: Afrikaans is derived from Dutch, and it's perfectly reasonable to say so. I don't even have diffuiculty accepting that it's one of the few non-creole languages to have a living parent. What I object to is not counting creole languages without saying so in the text. That's what caused me to see the statement as blatantly false: without any other specification, my natural inclination would be to include creole languages in the count. Arturus 18:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
So, you'd have not problem with the statement if it was mentioned creoles, mixed languages and pidgins weren't taken into account?
Sander 21:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Not really, no. Creoles are created all the time, non-creole languages are considerably more rare. Pidgins aren't really full languages, so I'm not concerned by whether or not they get mentioned. Some of the other people here might want to keep attacking it on the grounds they've been going with, but that's their issue, not mine. Arturus 04:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sander 11:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
From all sides in this debate? a debate means you respond to eatchothers arguments.What do you expect?Me debating myself? Please, don't create lies. Anyway, the final opinion from the mediator would be a good idea, the only problem being that the mediator needs to compare arguments to reach a good conclusion. I've provided mine, where are yours? Sander 14:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC) edit: one should the above comment with a tone of despair, not agression.
User:Andries has reverted the comment today (5-3-2006) while providing no arguments on the talk page. Sander 14:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I would/could respect that if Andries would provide arguments for his cause. You ( Arnoutf) might be one one of the few that have provided them, others have not.
Sander 17:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the case regarding Afrikaans and its derivation from Dutch has reached an agreement. Thanks,
Ronline
✉
07:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
No, not really it's a stalemate.After reading the mediation disccusion, and noting that the opposers have provided no arguments whatoever and the person who questioned it in the first place agrees now... Do you, as a mediator, think the sentence " Dutch is one of the few language to have produced another language while still being spoken itself", which provides more information than the current line and also shows a unique side of both language, is acceptable? Sander 16:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I would support the idea of the ArbCom.For the millions of people who edit Wikipedia everyday are not represented in a 7vs4 vote. Sander 20:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that
User:Big Adamsky has edited the article and stated the Afrikaans was an official language of RSA until 1925 -
. AFAIK, Afrikaans is still an official language of the RSA, along with English and a number of African languages. Additionally, I do not see the relevance of writing about the official status of Afrikaans in an article about the
Dutch language. If anything it could be written that "Afrikaans, a language derived from Dutch, is an official language in South Africa". Thanks,
Ronline
✉
07:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to inform you that I have/are going to put up a request for a Arbitration.
Mainly because I feel, we've reached a stalemate and the mediation (to me at least) was merely an extension of the discussion rather than a solution.
I have left the "" Statement by party 2 "" open as I don't want to put false words in your mouths, but please make sure that someone fills that piece of text explaining your views. (500 words)
[Because I need to inform all of you before posting my request, this piece of text will soon be replaced by the link to the ArbCom request. All involved users will recieve a message on their talkpage as wel]
Sander 10:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Sander 11:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sandertje, you are changing chunks of the article without citing any sources whatsoever. One of these changes affects the disputed text for which you have put up an Arbcom request. Please cite your sources for all of these edits. Please note that your edits may be reverted if you do not provide citations referring to verifiable, notable information provided by reputable sources. AvB ÷ talk 00:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The matter at Arbcom is resolved in theory, it is rejected. Not because one side has been proved wrong.But the because the Arbcom, like myself, thinks this matter was too trivial. (maybe I should reenter the request but then as a "personal feud" of you & co against me?)
Please name the articles in question Avb, this is too vague. Sander 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear AvB,
You are also on my watchlist, and to be honest, you don't provide sources to all your edits as well.A crude translation of a Dutch proverb springs to my mind: "Enhance the world but start with yourself" I think it's in place here. Your objection to my question comes as a surprise, as your recent behaviour can hardly falls within the 'lending a hand' catagory.No offence.
Sander 12:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I have posted a warning on Sandertje's Talk page here. Unsigned comment by User:AvB ^
Sander has taken notice of the 'warning' above and thinks that Avb could better devote his time to expanding Wikipedia rather than provoking conflicts between users. Sander 12:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Since Sandertje has not accepted the compromise offered here I am reverting to the original version before his disputed edit. Sandertje, do not re-insert your disputed edit without convincing other editors that it does not violate WP:NPOV. At the very least you need to attribute the "falsely" qualification to a person or persons in order to make it factual; you also need to provide sources to document that this is not only Sandertje's opinion but a notable POV somewhere out there in the real world. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. AvB ÷ talk 00:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
<<Ignoring insinuations made by AvB >>
Point here is that I wat to create clarity, for a good and easy to understand wikipedia.I don't think making euphemisms is wikipedia policy. If you can please explain to me, the difference between "not formally correct." and "false"? Sander 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear AvB,
My cooperation isn't hard to get at all, problem is you've never tried and by spewing filth (I threatened you with the Arbcom? I believe it was you who brought it up in the first place) about me on this talkpage you're not getting any closer too.
Your philosophy is "once an argument always an argument".If that's what you want, fine.Not that I'll sleep even a second less because of it.
Van Helsing,
I know that Dutch spoken in Northern Belgium is often called Flemish of course you're right about that, point is that that isn't the case.They don't speak Flemish, but Dutch.What word makes it more clear than 'falsely' ? Sander 15:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No Peter, it's much simpler.
Even if Dutch spoken in Belgium is often called Flemish (Which I don't deny). It is still Dutch, Flemish is not a language and in the linguistic sense (Which I hope we're using in this language article) it refers only to the West-Flemish dialect of Dutch.Thus calling Dutch spoken in Belgium Flemish is just plain wrong,even if it's often called that.Just like the Netherlands are often called Holland, but it's still wrong as Holland was a province that doesn't exist anymore. Sander 18:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Believe me, if you want trivial look at the afrikaans part in the middle of Dutch talk.Pfff.
Anyway, although I get your point, I have some remarks.
Well, it doesn't, in the sense of the language of the Flemish people.
When compared to UK and USA English the differences are even smaller.
Well, they did, if they refered to the language of the Flemish, instead of the dialect
Believe me, if it were up to me, most of the references to the Flemish dialect on Dutch language would be deleted.Flemish has received far more attencion than all other Dutch dialects putt together.
Hmm, in a way they do.They lack one national language but on the otherhand and there is no Belgian languageOn the other hand German, Dutch and French were spoken there for centuries,so they have 3 national languages.
But I challenge you,
Could you create a mix between tact, while making it absolutly clear that it is totally wrong? Sander 20:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
AvB ÷ talk 16:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear AvB,
How can I return something I did not receive in the first place?You haven't treated me with courtesy, you've only made semi-sarcastic remarks (one even triggered the personal attack warning on your talk page) and talked to others about me. Please refrain from these kind of remarks, unless you're really trying to provoke me into a fight.In that case, please warn me so that I can ignore you, I've chosen to avoid senseless fights,arguments or discussions from now on, I am/was hoping you'd do the same thing.
Sincerely Sander 17:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll make another edit with another compromise re Flemish. I would advise you not to revert it under any circumstances, in order to avoid the appearance of WP:POINT. If my edit does not get consensus while I'm gone, let other editors revert it. Yep, I'm walking away from this article (again) and won't return for a week or so, if at all. And do not forget: all this nonsense started with ONE SINGLE WORD you were editwarring about while others were doing their very best to help you understand why that word is not allowed.
Apparently you don't consider such interventions help, you consider them criticisms, but you should realize what it is: help. You should thank others for their help, not attack them because you feel criticised. That is another considered opinion of mine about your contributions or lack thereof <wow, an English pronominal adverb!>. An opinion I will underpin with diffs and defend everywhere on Wikipedia should the need arise. You should take it seriously.
I am available to talk this over with you on IRC. I'm even available on the phone. Just let me know. AvB ÷ talk 23:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Although I completly fail to see the difference beween 'false' and 'not correct', as does the cambridge dictionary: [4] I will accept this compromise, which according to AvB is based on the Flemish (linguistics) article; ironicly an article which I myself wrote, in order to escape from this utterly futile discussion. Sander 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
User Aeusoes1 has started systematically delinking IPA symbols from their formal description article. This destroys a lot of work done by other people. Before continuing, please discuss first at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(pronunciation)#Linking_single_IPA_symbols. − Woodstone 16:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What we have here is a case of polysemy that can lead to the logical fallacy of equivocation, like Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks? This is a common problem in rhetorics that can be avoided by careful wording. The word Flemish as a synonym for Dutch is a colloquialism that is used in certain contexts in Belgium or by Belgians. This is not wrong, because it is actuall used in this way, so declaring this usage wrong would be prescriptive. When used in scientific nomenclature, the same word has usually a different meaning, namely a group of Dutch dialects. So I would propose the following:
Dutch spoken in Belgium is colloquially also referred to as Flemish (Vlaams), although this usage is not consistent with its definition in lingustics. For details, see Flemish (linguistics). Andreas 19:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting quite irritated by your tone when adressing me Peter, I'm talking about synonymity.And that's when you went wrong.The languages/regions where "Flemish" and "Dutch" can be used interchangeably, ie "The people in Urecht speak Flemish", are extremely limited. Sander 14:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have not denied that at all woodstone.I advise you to reread my comments. Sander 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I am always prepared to make concessions, but there are limits.And the more convinced I get about being correct, the chance on concessions gets smaller. Sander 08:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry? References?! I should have references for the word falsely?! I don't think so, I will continue to edit, revert and expand wikipedia and I don't care what or how you, or people like you, think about that.Thank you. adding: Your edit was reverted, because it makes it seem as if it's true, but not official. I support clarity on wikipedia. Sander 11:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi all,
A close friend of mine who grew up in the netherlands and is a native speaker of dutch claims that one of the examples used in the "similarities" table for english/dutch/german is incorrect. She says that "tuin" is not a "town", but rather a garden and is neither correct nor a good example for similarity amongst these languages.
I propose removing this entry in the table. Because, although it is convenient to imagine that the Zaun/Tuin correspondence is legitimate, it is actually incorrect.
Lesotho 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Edwing,
It seems I didn't read the section carefully enough. I now agree that the "point" of the table is to demonstrate the phonetical similarities. However, i certainly agree with your musings about how placing the english word in the first column of the chart might create a misleading scenario (clearly i was mislead...). Since this is the "english" wikipedia, many wikipedians might assume that the meanings of both the dutch and the german words are centered around the english meaning, which is neither true nor the point of the chart.
thanks for the clarification
cheers
Lesotho 17:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, edited the section on "Dutch as a Foreign Language" to reflect the difference between orthography and phonology. Okay, e.g. phonetics and morphology would also be issues when counting the number of sounds (and thus consecutive consonants) in word of a certain language, but I guess it's allright like that, or would somebody disagree?
Edwing 13:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
What does "transvesting" mean? Should this be "transversing", or is there some meaning in the word "transvesting"? If so, can this be noted with the citation.( 83.118.38.37 17:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC))
Transvesting is apparently what transvestites do; that is, they cross a boundary line between identities that are culturally conceived as opposites. I have no objection to using grown-up words where they are appropriate, but in this case,
It's quite possible the gist of the jibe may be correct, and it's possible that with a little explanation, it would make a marvelous commentary on the language, but as it stands, it appears to be of questionable value to users as well as patently unverifiable. ClairSamoht 18:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with such statement, I think it might be debatable. Any thoughts? -- Andrelvis
I begg you're pardon? debatable?! What is there to debate ? In fact, I dare to say that German has more chance of being a dialect of Dutch than the other way around.
No offence Andrelvis, but if you think this matter is debatable do you also think the statement "Latin is a French dialect" is debatable. Sander 20:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Why thank you.It's always a good thing to start unprejudiced don't you think? Dutch can be considered to predate High German, Dutch left the prehistoric fase in 476-496 High German,in the form of Allemanic didn't do so untill the early 6th century.
Then of course there is the fact that High German, as the name indicates, experienced the High German(ic) consonant shift and Dutch didn't, it remained.
So instead of basing thing arguments for your revert on nationalism try basing it on facts next time.Therefore it will be reverted again. Sander 09:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not claiming anything about standard dutch.But if you're going to deny the excistence of the high german consonant shift ... Sander 09:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course do I mean the time when the language was first written down. Sander 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I have problems with the examples given to show that "Dutch is grammatically similar to German":
- The 'chameleon' example is very farfetched, the meaning of the sentence distracts too much from the subject in hand i.e. the similarity between Dutch and German word order and their difference from English word order.
- 'Op de berg staat een klein huisje' is a phrase you could possibly find in a fairy tale: Far, far away there is a mountain, shrouded in mist... On the mountain there is etc. The correct non-poetic Dutch phrase is 'Er staat een klein huisje op de berg', the word order of which, I'm afraid, is quite similar to English - the most interesting feature here being the staan/liggen/zitten verbs of position in Dutch (the book stands in the bookcase/lies on the table/sits in my pocket) which are less prominent in German and virtually absent in English - but that's another story and probably not fit for this Wikipedia article.
- 'In de stad leven veel mensen': there is a so-called anglicism in there: this example should at least be changed to 'In de stad wonen veel mensen' (and likewise 'wohnen', or even better 'gibt es', in the German sentence). This phrase may be tolerable purely as an example of Dutch/German word order, but in practice it does not exist, just like the little house on the mountain doesn't. 'In een stad wonen veel mensen' would be slightly more logical; it could be the childish answer to a child's question 'What is the difference between a village and a city?' But, more to the point, the real Dutch phrase would be 'Er wonen veel mensen in de/een stad'; which, at 'best', translates into German as 'Es gibt viele Menschen in der Stadt'. All of this rather undermines the point the example is trying to make.
It is true: there is a big difference between Dutch and German versus English word order within a sentence. (There are also significant, but smaller, differences in Dutch versus German word order.) But the Dutch example phrases given in the article are virtually non-existent in the real live language. I'd like to see that changed.
Rather than slashing into someone else's text I'd like to invite the original contributor to amend it; but I'd be happy to provide some examples myself.
What's the point of giving two German translations of the sentence about the chameleon? And the second one is even false: Chamäleon is of the neutral gender not the male. I will edit it out. Azzurro 03:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Perfectly normal, isn't it? Shinobu 04:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The Spanish version of Wikipedia calls the Dutch language "Idioma neerlandés", not holandés. Does somebody know what the official correct term is for "Dutch" in Spanish?
I believe neerlandés is the official form, but if (like in many other countries) holandes or similar is also used ... I think both should be in included. Sander 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The Scots article acknowledges that there is debate about whether Scots should be considered a language or an English dialect. I believe that we should mention that here when we talk about the closest language to English. What do others think? A discussion here would be a lot more productive than an rv war in the article. David 16:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
See my talkpage [5] Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, someone removed most of the links to dictionaries from the page and added the Cleanup-spam template. I had found the links quite useful, actually, even though I suspect some of it was spam. I am puzzled by the ones that remain. They are not particularly major dictionaries, and while the names imply they have a list of all dutch dictionaries, they don't. Unless there are objections, I will either create a list of the major useful Dutch and Dutch-English dictionaries or look for a comprehensive neutral list to link to on an external site and delete all but Wiktionary. Tono-bungay 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree the site woorden-boek.nl has more then 9000 Dutch words, and could be usefull for readers of this article. Also the vandale link should stay since it is the major dutch dictionary besides kramer.
Hi all, I have a few small remarks I wish to share:
1) Dialects: In Flanders, Antwerps is considered to be an important dialect as well. There used to be sitcoms in this dialect (Den Bompa), and there's still the Echt Antwaarps Theater, a well known theater group who performs in this dialect.
Also, the last few years the city of Antwerp has used a pun on the dialect in it's public campaigns: the use of an A as it's symbol, which is also the local dialect for jij (you). So slogans like 'Zot van A' (Crazy about A) can be interpreted as Crazy about Antwerp / Crazy about you. Most recent example of a slogan is 'Het verdriet is van A' (The sorrow is yours / The sorrow is of Antwerp) after a tragic shooting.
I hope I won't get bashed for bringing up a Flemish dialect in a Dutch article, but since the other 4 were there, I thought Antwerps (or Antwaarps) was worth mentioning too.
2) Dutch as a foreign language: In Belgium, German is less widely spoken, and not always required, but it still spoken by a considerable number of people.
Well, German is an official Belgian language, and a part of Belgium (de oostkantons) which we got after one of the World Wars (... lack of history knowledge here, sorry) speaks German. Might want to mention it here. But maybe the title is wrong alltogether: Foreign languages for those who speak Dutch seems better fit for this section.
All thoughts on this are welcome :)
Ninja neko
13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)