![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
That statement is misleading or at least confusing; there is no reason to replace IJ by Y here.
—
Herbee 13:24, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
That was quick, Darkelf. Is there any particular reason why the article's title should be 'Dutch Y' and not 'Dutch IJ'? Would you mind if I move it?
—
Herbee 21:15, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
As far as I know (and I'm a native speaker), the ij in vrolijk is always pronounced as a schwa, and never as ii. The ij in the word bijzonder is pronounced as ii, but it is also the only case I know of. So probably this needs to be refined, or another example of ij being pronounced as ii in standard Dutch has to be found (except of course for words als bijzonderheid).-- Berteun 12:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) It is indeed tha same as 'bijzonder' 13:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Cornelis (native dutch) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.242.97.51 ( talk)
The article opens with "IJ (also IJ)", but on my system, with the default font the two are rendered identically, as though it said, "IJ (also IJ)", which looks pretty silly. Just letting you know. -- Furrykef 00:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What is the difference (besides the dis-ambiguation suffix) between the article's title and what the message claims to be the correct title?? Georgia guy 20:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
The title can be considered POV, since not everybody considers the digraph a letter, not even among Dutch speakers. IJ (alledged letter) would be kind of stupid. But should we rename (move) to IJ (ligature), or better yet, IJ (digraph)? – Adhemar 08:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
About the letter IJ: Some, especially Flemish people, deny the existence of the letter ij. But every Dutch child learns about this letter (see the word 'gijs' on the Dutch ' leesplankje'), so it is silly not to talk about the letter ij. On the Dutch wikipedia, there is an annoying thing going on, people trying to push their personal conviction as fact. The latest succes of the opponents is to rename the entry from ij (letter) to ij (digraph), as if you can make something disappear if you refuse to mention it. The fact is, this is an article about a letter, about how people write, not about typesetters and how they handle things like 'fl' and 'fi'. If you want to talk about pink elephants, you have to call it pink elephants, even if there are some people who are convinced that pink elephants should be eliminated. So change the title back to ij (letter). Its status is comparable to letters like ß, å and ø, even though they, indeed like the letter w, have an origin in the combination of two letters, and are not used in all applicable writing systems. For instance, the ß is not used in Swiss German. Likewise, ij is not fully recognised as a letter in Flanders, but nevertheless, to millions of people it does exist. 82.93.232.101 11:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we simply not use the digraph character and just use the letters I and J to spell IJ. The two are going to be rendered identically in most fonts anyway, which ties into the "wrongtitle" thing above, mainly, it may well not make any sense until you look at the wiki code or until you try to select one of the two characters only to find it's one character. Of course we could still note that there's a Unicode codepoint for it. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 12:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
In medieval times, before the letter j emerged as a distinct letter, a series of letters i in Roman numerals was commonly ended with a flourish; hence they actually looked like ij, iij, iiij, etc. This proved useful in preventing fraud, as it was impossible, for example, to add another i to vij to get viij. This practice is now merely an antiquarian's note; it is never used. (It did, however, lead to the Dutch diphthong IJ.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruud Koot ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The IJ ligature in Unicode is only intended to be compatible with legacy processing systems. Since Wikipedia isn't a legacy processing system, the IJ ligature should not be used in the wikipedia article.
From Unicode 4.0 standard, page 71-72:
• Compatibility decomposable characters are a subset of compatibility characters included in the Unicode Standard to represent distinctions in other base standards. They support transmission and processing of legacy data. Their use is discouraged other than for legacy data or other special circumstances.
• Replacing a compatibility decomposable character by its compatibility decomposition may lose round-trip convertibility with a base standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.163.208 ( talk) 00:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The title of this article should probably be changed back to IJ. Or does this cause problems like the previous wrongtitle? What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.163.208 ( talk) 00:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
It says: in the handwriting of most Dutch speakers ÿ and ij are identical. I don't think that is correct. Look at these typical examples: http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg/ij.html The first word bijou has two letters i and j. The second word ijs has one letter ij, and the word yoghurt has one letter y. -- 213.84.55.218 23:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Agree. The example of the Garamond italics variants shown on the page gets the point across quite well - there is a subtle difference between y with diaresis and ij which is reflected beautifully by Garamond here. There is a difference in "feel" which I suspect is universal among Dutch natves, nothwithstanding the apparent examples to the contrary of roadside graffiti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 ( talk) 10:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
If it is noted that the name is ij lange (long ij) to distinguish it from short ij, I think that the transcription shall be with long sign (:) as [e:ɪ] not only [eɪ].
Please answer to me also at my
catalan user talk. THANKS
—
Ludor
15:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, can someone please remove the term short 'ij', there is really no such thing, as every Dutch grammar teacher will teach you. There is the letter/digraph 'ij' and the digraph 'ei'. Talking about 'korte' and 'lange ij' is by some considered almost as dumb as not knowing the difference between 'kennen' and 'kunnen', therefore there shouldn't be a mention of it in a encyclopedia IMHO Remko2 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Is the Dutch letter ij related to the 18th-century Alsatian German letter ÿ?
Did this letter exist in the dialect of German spoken in Alsace in the 1700's?
Some of my ancestors came from Alsace, and I did a lot of genealogical research. I can verify that the following spellings are quite clear in both printing and handwriting in the church record books in the late 1700's and very early 1800's:
The record-keepers occasionally forgot the umlaut and just wrote y instead of ÿ, but they never wrote it as ij.
To add to my confusion, one of the Alsatian record-keepers spelled the number zwei as zwiÿ on one occasion!
The Alsatian language article is just a stub and not very helpful. Lawrence King 07:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The URL European rules for the use of the IJ in public records is not working; is there a good replacement? -- Psiphiorg 06:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The article says "In print (lowercase y with diaeresis) and ij look very different, but in the handwriting of most Dutch speakers ÿ and ij are identical. Fortunately, since the y occurs only in loanwords, the ÿ is extremely rare (if not altogether non-existent) in Dutch." My question is, where, if anywhere does y-umlaut occur, and can it be capitalized? These characters were in the Mac character set from day 1, and when I was working on handwriting recognitin I tried to figure out why; we went ahead and implemented them in the Newton OS 2.0 even though they didn't seem to be good for much. But in 1996 when I happened to visit the Old Church in Amsterdam, I saw what appeared to be a capital Y-umlaut, not IJ, carved in a floor grave stone. What's up with that? Does any language use such characters? Did old Dutch? Dicklyon 00:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think ij is a ligature and not a letter, because wether I write bijectie or ijs my ij stays the same and I allways write it as a ligature, never as two distinct letter. If ij be a ligature, shouldn't the ij in bijectie be a ligature? Because otherwise the word bijectie should look like "bi jectie" in writing?
Is [ɛɪ] the right sound? I haven't heard Dutch spoken much, but I was sure I heard something more like [ʌ:ɪ], so that ijs sounded pretty much like the usual American pronunciation of "ice."
Not R (
talk)
17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The intro states: "in most fonts the two composing characters are not connected, but sometimes slightly kerned together." My impression from looking at some older (pre digital typesetting) Dutch books is that the width of "ij" (almost) equals the width of "u". This appears to hold across different fonts. In several digital fonts (e.g. Palatino, Bookman Old Style, Cambria, Arial), however, "u" is markedly (up to 25%) wider than "i" + "j", so any adjustment of the spacing should actually move them slightly apart. Does anyone know of digital fonts that have a single character for "ij" or that apply kerning to "i"+"j", and how the width of "ij" then relates to the sum of the widths of "i" and "j" and to the width of "u"? -- Lambiam 13:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
In the last couple of years I've noticed that many people I know often write Y instead of IJ when typing in instant messengers or using SMS language. One of the reasons might be that you save a character (which are limited in SMS messages) each time you use Y instead of IJ, and since it is a common letter you save quite a lot of characters this way. For example "Ga jy vrydag mee eten?" Of course these people still write "IJ" in more formal texts -- Lamadude ( talk) 00:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
In Dutch, the letter j (only lower case) sometimes carries an acute accent: this is the case when the ij digraph gets stress in the sentence. As an example, here is the Dutch translation of the blaming English sentence "You [of all people] did that!": "Jíj hebt dat gedaan!" Here, both the i and the j in "Jij" should get an acute accent -- but as far as I have seen up to now, there exists no proper support for this letter. It would be greatly helpful if someone could add some instructions how to get it done. Qaz 94.208.2.11 ( talk) 18:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I am putting this here because I have been informed on nl wiki that ALT-152 may not be Dutch 'ij' but greek y with trema. Because they look the same they might be interchangable, but I am not sure. 195.35.160.133 ( talk) 10:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Martin.
Note that in this image, from the Article Code page 437, it looks the same as a Dutch 'ij':
195.35.160.133 ( talk) 10:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Martin.
OLD TEXT, MOVED FROM ARTICLE TO DISCUSSION:
The lower case Dutch ij is present in code pages 437 and 850, in both cases at position 152. This implies that the character can be typed by typing the alt code ALT-1-5-2 on the numeric keypad.
The text currently states:
I didn't know that it isn't taught as such any more. Can we get a date for when this changed? My primary education was between 1977 and 1983, and it was taught as a single letter to me. – gpvos (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Should this not be placed between X and Z? Otherwise the Dutch alphabet ens up with having 27 characters. 94.208.32.31 ( talk) 20:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
In the article, there are two images of the same "leesplankje" (readboard), but with the underlying text claiming two different things. The first one correctly states that all letters resembling one sound are grouped, like ij, but also oe and ch. The second one uses a different image of the same object as an argument that ij is one letter, since it is grouped together. This could be very confusing for anyone who doesn't know Dutch language. -- Harmenator ( talk) 21:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I have seen the digraph ij in many early music facsimiles and old notation scores, and have always been under the impression that it stood for repetition of the preceding word(s). Does anyone know more about this and would like to expand the article? -- Chrysalifourfour ( talk) 12:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The letters ij or iij, found after the Kyrie's, Christe's or the Alleluia's, are signs of repetition. The ij indicates that what precedes is to be sung twice while the iij calls for a three-fold repetition. The letters are probably an abbreviation of the Latin word idem meaning 'the same.' Hence Kyrie eleison. iij. indicates that Kyrie eleison should be sung three times.—Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 13:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Does someone have access to a copy the Winkler Prins or its website? Does its article on IJ literally state that it "is the 25th letter of the Dutch alphabet, placed between X and Y", or was this claim merely inferred from the fact that WP sorts the IJ between X and Y? — Ruud 22:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
In ZDF documentary Die Deutschen ( [2]) I saw a panoramic painting for Thomas Müntzer's rebellion, which appears the word "Frijheit", who can explain this? -- Great Brightstar ( talk) 20:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
That statement is misleading or at least confusing; there is no reason to replace IJ by Y here.
—
Herbee 13:24, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
That was quick, Darkelf. Is there any particular reason why the article's title should be 'Dutch Y' and not 'Dutch IJ'? Would you mind if I move it?
—
Herbee 21:15, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
As far as I know (and I'm a native speaker), the ij in vrolijk is always pronounced as a schwa, and never as ii. The ij in the word bijzonder is pronounced as ii, but it is also the only case I know of. So probably this needs to be refined, or another example of ij being pronounced as ii in standard Dutch has to be found (except of course for words als bijzonderheid).-- Berteun 12:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) It is indeed tha same as 'bijzonder' 13:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Cornelis (native dutch) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.242.97.51 ( talk)
The article opens with "IJ (also IJ)", but on my system, with the default font the two are rendered identically, as though it said, "IJ (also IJ)", which looks pretty silly. Just letting you know. -- Furrykef 00:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What is the difference (besides the dis-ambiguation suffix) between the article's title and what the message claims to be the correct title?? Georgia guy 20:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
The title can be considered POV, since not everybody considers the digraph a letter, not even among Dutch speakers. IJ (alledged letter) would be kind of stupid. But should we rename (move) to IJ (ligature), or better yet, IJ (digraph)? – Adhemar 08:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
About the letter IJ: Some, especially Flemish people, deny the existence of the letter ij. But every Dutch child learns about this letter (see the word 'gijs' on the Dutch ' leesplankje'), so it is silly not to talk about the letter ij. On the Dutch wikipedia, there is an annoying thing going on, people trying to push their personal conviction as fact. The latest succes of the opponents is to rename the entry from ij (letter) to ij (digraph), as if you can make something disappear if you refuse to mention it. The fact is, this is an article about a letter, about how people write, not about typesetters and how they handle things like 'fl' and 'fi'. If you want to talk about pink elephants, you have to call it pink elephants, even if there are some people who are convinced that pink elephants should be eliminated. So change the title back to ij (letter). Its status is comparable to letters like ß, å and ø, even though they, indeed like the letter w, have an origin in the combination of two letters, and are not used in all applicable writing systems. For instance, the ß is not used in Swiss German. Likewise, ij is not fully recognised as a letter in Flanders, but nevertheless, to millions of people it does exist. 82.93.232.101 11:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we simply not use the digraph character and just use the letters I and J to spell IJ. The two are going to be rendered identically in most fonts anyway, which ties into the "wrongtitle" thing above, mainly, it may well not make any sense until you look at the wiki code or until you try to select one of the two characters only to find it's one character. Of course we could still note that there's a Unicode codepoint for it. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 12:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
In medieval times, before the letter j emerged as a distinct letter, a series of letters i in Roman numerals was commonly ended with a flourish; hence they actually looked like ij, iij, iiij, etc. This proved useful in preventing fraud, as it was impossible, for example, to add another i to vij to get viij. This practice is now merely an antiquarian's note; it is never used. (It did, however, lead to the Dutch diphthong IJ.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruud Koot ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The IJ ligature in Unicode is only intended to be compatible with legacy processing systems. Since Wikipedia isn't a legacy processing system, the IJ ligature should not be used in the wikipedia article.
From Unicode 4.0 standard, page 71-72:
• Compatibility decomposable characters are a subset of compatibility characters included in the Unicode Standard to represent distinctions in other base standards. They support transmission and processing of legacy data. Their use is discouraged other than for legacy data or other special circumstances.
• Replacing a compatibility decomposable character by its compatibility decomposition may lose round-trip convertibility with a base standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.163.208 ( talk) 00:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The title of this article should probably be changed back to IJ. Or does this cause problems like the previous wrongtitle? What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.163.208 ( talk) 00:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
It says: in the handwriting of most Dutch speakers ÿ and ij are identical. I don't think that is correct. Look at these typical examples: http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg/ij.html The first word bijou has two letters i and j. The second word ijs has one letter ij, and the word yoghurt has one letter y. -- 213.84.55.218 23:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Agree. The example of the Garamond italics variants shown on the page gets the point across quite well - there is a subtle difference between y with diaresis and ij which is reflected beautifully by Garamond here. There is a difference in "feel" which I suspect is universal among Dutch natves, nothwithstanding the apparent examples to the contrary of roadside graffiti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 ( talk) 10:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
If it is noted that the name is ij lange (long ij) to distinguish it from short ij, I think that the transcription shall be with long sign (:) as [e:ɪ] not only [eɪ].
Please answer to me also at my
catalan user talk. THANKS
—
Ludor
15:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, can someone please remove the term short 'ij', there is really no such thing, as every Dutch grammar teacher will teach you. There is the letter/digraph 'ij' and the digraph 'ei'. Talking about 'korte' and 'lange ij' is by some considered almost as dumb as not knowing the difference between 'kennen' and 'kunnen', therefore there shouldn't be a mention of it in a encyclopedia IMHO Remko2 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Is the Dutch letter ij related to the 18th-century Alsatian German letter ÿ?
Did this letter exist in the dialect of German spoken in Alsace in the 1700's?
Some of my ancestors came from Alsace, and I did a lot of genealogical research. I can verify that the following spellings are quite clear in both printing and handwriting in the church record books in the late 1700's and very early 1800's:
The record-keepers occasionally forgot the umlaut and just wrote y instead of ÿ, but they never wrote it as ij.
To add to my confusion, one of the Alsatian record-keepers spelled the number zwei as zwiÿ on one occasion!
The Alsatian language article is just a stub and not very helpful. Lawrence King 07:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The URL European rules for the use of the IJ in public records is not working; is there a good replacement? -- Psiphiorg 06:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The article says "In print (lowercase y with diaeresis) and ij look very different, but in the handwriting of most Dutch speakers ÿ and ij are identical. Fortunately, since the y occurs only in loanwords, the ÿ is extremely rare (if not altogether non-existent) in Dutch." My question is, where, if anywhere does y-umlaut occur, and can it be capitalized? These characters were in the Mac character set from day 1, and when I was working on handwriting recognitin I tried to figure out why; we went ahead and implemented them in the Newton OS 2.0 even though they didn't seem to be good for much. But in 1996 when I happened to visit the Old Church in Amsterdam, I saw what appeared to be a capital Y-umlaut, not IJ, carved in a floor grave stone. What's up with that? Does any language use such characters? Did old Dutch? Dicklyon 00:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think ij is a ligature and not a letter, because wether I write bijectie or ijs my ij stays the same and I allways write it as a ligature, never as two distinct letter. If ij be a ligature, shouldn't the ij in bijectie be a ligature? Because otherwise the word bijectie should look like "bi jectie" in writing?
Is [ɛɪ] the right sound? I haven't heard Dutch spoken much, but I was sure I heard something more like [ʌ:ɪ], so that ijs sounded pretty much like the usual American pronunciation of "ice."
Not R (
talk)
17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The intro states: "in most fonts the two composing characters are not connected, but sometimes slightly kerned together." My impression from looking at some older (pre digital typesetting) Dutch books is that the width of "ij" (almost) equals the width of "u". This appears to hold across different fonts. In several digital fonts (e.g. Palatino, Bookman Old Style, Cambria, Arial), however, "u" is markedly (up to 25%) wider than "i" + "j", so any adjustment of the spacing should actually move them slightly apart. Does anyone know of digital fonts that have a single character for "ij" or that apply kerning to "i"+"j", and how the width of "ij" then relates to the sum of the widths of "i" and "j" and to the width of "u"? -- Lambiam 13:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
In the last couple of years I've noticed that many people I know often write Y instead of IJ when typing in instant messengers or using SMS language. One of the reasons might be that you save a character (which are limited in SMS messages) each time you use Y instead of IJ, and since it is a common letter you save quite a lot of characters this way. For example "Ga jy vrydag mee eten?" Of course these people still write "IJ" in more formal texts -- Lamadude ( talk) 00:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
In Dutch, the letter j (only lower case) sometimes carries an acute accent: this is the case when the ij digraph gets stress in the sentence. As an example, here is the Dutch translation of the blaming English sentence "You [of all people] did that!": "Jíj hebt dat gedaan!" Here, both the i and the j in "Jij" should get an acute accent -- but as far as I have seen up to now, there exists no proper support for this letter. It would be greatly helpful if someone could add some instructions how to get it done. Qaz 94.208.2.11 ( talk) 18:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I am putting this here because I have been informed on nl wiki that ALT-152 may not be Dutch 'ij' but greek y with trema. Because they look the same they might be interchangable, but I am not sure. 195.35.160.133 ( talk) 10:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Martin.
Note that in this image, from the Article Code page 437, it looks the same as a Dutch 'ij':
195.35.160.133 ( talk) 10:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Martin.
OLD TEXT, MOVED FROM ARTICLE TO DISCUSSION:
The lower case Dutch ij is present in code pages 437 and 850, in both cases at position 152. This implies that the character can be typed by typing the alt code ALT-1-5-2 on the numeric keypad.
The text currently states:
I didn't know that it isn't taught as such any more. Can we get a date for when this changed? My primary education was between 1977 and 1983, and it was taught as a single letter to me. – gpvos (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Should this not be placed between X and Z? Otherwise the Dutch alphabet ens up with having 27 characters. 94.208.32.31 ( talk) 20:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
In the article, there are two images of the same "leesplankje" (readboard), but with the underlying text claiming two different things. The first one correctly states that all letters resembling one sound are grouped, like ij, but also oe and ch. The second one uses a different image of the same object as an argument that ij is one letter, since it is grouped together. This could be very confusing for anyone who doesn't know Dutch language. -- Harmenator ( talk) 21:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I have seen the digraph ij in many early music facsimiles and old notation scores, and have always been under the impression that it stood for repetition of the preceding word(s). Does anyone know more about this and would like to expand the article? -- Chrysalifourfour ( talk) 12:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The letters ij or iij, found after the Kyrie's, Christe's or the Alleluia's, are signs of repetition. The ij indicates that what precedes is to be sung twice while the iij calls for a three-fold repetition. The letters are probably an abbreviation of the Latin word idem meaning 'the same.' Hence Kyrie eleison. iij. indicates that Kyrie eleison should be sung three times.—Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 13:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Does someone have access to a copy the Winkler Prins or its website? Does its article on IJ literally state that it "is the 25th letter of the Dutch alphabet, placed between X and Y", or was this claim merely inferred from the fact that WP sorts the IJ between X and Y? — Ruud 22:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
In ZDF documentary Die Deutschen ( [2]) I saw a panoramic painting for Thomas Müntzer's rebellion, which appears the word "Frijheit", who can explain this? -- Great Brightstar ( talk) 20:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)