![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article merged: See old talk-page here
This article was not written by an English speaker, thus a lot of sentences are either grammatically wrong or confusing.
"Notably the Netherlands is amongst a small number of countries, who have a singular name for their country, while the English uses a plural form."
This needs to be expressed better, the form is clearly singular in English, as the above sentence itself demonstrates: "the Netherlands is".
In Portuguese 'Países Baixos' is only the official, formal designation. It occurs seldom and the Netherlands are normally called 'Holland'.
Excellent article, the historical explanation of the 'Low Countries' is very clear and informative!
António.
"People from these provinces usually do not always appreciate being called Hollander." This is incorrect grammar. I removed the word usually. Tijmen de Haan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.126.243 ( talk) 21:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Both these points are the subject of the discussion under further confusion.
JHvW ( talk) 09:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"In languages other than Dutch, including English, Holland is commonly and incorrectly used as a synonym for the Netherlands as a whole, while actually it just refers to the central-western part of the country."
The 'incorrectly' is seriously POV. There is considerable disagreement even within the Netherlands whether calling the country "Holland" in English is something one should care about. There is also no citation or reference for the claim that the name "Holland" is factually incorrect. Sure, there is a history here in which "Holland" was explicitly used for designating a specific part, but that is mostly no longer the case. Even people from other provinces do not generally complain about calling the Netherlands Holland, and I don't think it's fair to reflect the opinion of a select few in this article as fact. Gijs Kruitbosch 16:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
How about a diagramm like this one [1] for the Netherlands too? -- Soylentyellow 20:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be, erm, The Netherlands' embassy? What's being said in this paragraph, to me, seems to be based on something that was misinterpreted. -- MooNFisH 05:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it should be, but the Dutch remain convinced that "Netherlands" is an adjective, although it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdls ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The article links to Guiana, which is forwarded to Guianas, whereas Dutch Guiana forwards to Suriname. Wouldn't the link to Guianas be out of place here? I'm not too sure about this myself though, since there is no other link in the article to Guiana. My question is more: should there be one if only dutch guiana is mentioned? -- MooNFisH 05:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ehm, to confuse things even further: the eastern part of North Holland is actually the historic region of West Frisia. The distinction was dropped officially in 1815, but in republican times the States would be termed "The States of Holland and West Frisia". One might also add that Papiamento, the language spoken on the Leeward Netherlands Antilles, does not know the distinction between "Holland" and "Netherlands". Rather akwardly, when wanting do denote the Queen as head of state of the whole Kingdom, including the Antilles, she is styled Reina di Reino Hulandes, "Queen of the Dutch Kingdom"...-- 129.125.156.37 07:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This section is interesting but fails to note that the Low Countries is not only a historical tzerm but also a geographical one. TinyMark 09:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Netherlandic — which isn't currently mentioned in the article — was recently introduced in my organisation as a politically-correct (I think) version of the language "Dutch".
It also seems to be listed as a synonym (of sorts) of Netherlandish — which is currently mentioned in the article.
Note: The
Dutch language article mentions (only) the dialects(?) "Belgian Dutch" and "Netherlandic Dutch".
—DIV (
128.250.204.118
09:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
I'm trying to find out when exactly English switched to saying "The Netherlands is" instead of "The Netherlands are". Does anyone have information on this? It would be nice to have it in the article, addressing also António's comment at the top of this discussion page. Classical geographer 09:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"as this is an article about English terminology, we don't have to worry about the fact that current Dutch usage is "Nederland" (singular), and how that shift came about. English usage has simply not followed the Dutch shift to the singular." But I also think it worth mentioning the country's election of the singular ought to be respected without English usage experts mandating tradition. Without a formal statement from the country that the singular should be preferred in other languages, it would be too much to mandate in the other direction. But I agree there should be a mention of inertia being the reason for continued use of the plural in English despite the country's own statement of solidarity in being 'Netherland'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.16.228 ( talk) 02:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
In this article, it states that "In languages other than Dutch, including English, "Holland" is often used as a common but technically incorrect synonym for the Netherlands as a whole." However, in the article " Holland", "Holland" is also informally used in English and other languages, including sometimes the Dutch language itself, to mean the whole of the modern country of the Netherlands." If "Holland" is also used in the Dutch language to refer to the whole country then that should be added to this article, if it is not then it should be removed from the other. -- Credema ( talk) 05:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not a comparable example as we are ignoring language. If someone when speaking English uses "England" to refer to the whole of the "UK" they are indupitably being incorrect (although this sort of sloppiness is commonplace, and I'm sure I do it a lot). But when someone speaking English says "Holland" they are using an English word for a country that a Dutch-speaking person would probably call, in Dutch, "Nederland" (we could also, in English, say "The Netherlands". The fact that there is a Dutch word "Holland" which refers to a region of "Nederland" is not really relevant (although clearly confusing and provoking of debate). Analogously, people call the Swedish city of "Göteborg", when speaking English, "Gothenberg" and Swedish people don't seem to mind, and probably wouldn't mind even if there was a suburb of "Göteborg" that happened to be called "Gothenberg". Same for "Bombay" and "Mumbai" and "Peking" and "Beijing" except that, apparently, in those cases the local governments have specifically asked English-speakers to use the new names (for varying reasons). So if the government/people of "Nederland" specifically asked English-speakers to stop calling their country "Holland", we should probably respect that (we are happy to call "Upper Volta" "Burkina Fasso"), but at present it is not wrong, it is just the (annoying to some people) English-language name for the place. Similarly, I think it is probably ok for a German-speaker to call someone from anywhere in UK "Engländer" (as that is their generally-used word for people from the UK, but not OK for me to say William Wallace was "English".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Carden ( talk • contribs)
It occurred to me that the article obfuscates the difference between the etymologies of the Dutch and English versions of the toponym that refers to the present-day Benelux area. The etymology of the Dutch word "Nederlanden" is pretty clear. It derives from the practice of the Burgundian overlords of the area to distinguish between their patrimonial lands, South of Champagne and Lorraine, as "les pays de par delà" (or the lands over there) and their more recent northern acquisitions (roughly the current Benelux countries) as "les pays de par deça" (or the lands over here). This usage was predicated on the fact that the Duke spent most of his time in the Benelux ("here"), instead of in Burgundy ("there"). After the death of Charles the Bold in 1477, and the subsequent transfer of the Benelux part to Habsburg "ownership" (while the Burgundy part reverted to France at the same time) "les pays de par deça" became "les pays d'embas" in which the archaic French term d'embas, the opposite of dessus, may be translated as "lower" or "nether." One may liken this usage to the distinction between "upper" and "lower" in other geographical designations, like Upper and Lower Silezia; it has nothing to do with the fact that part of the present-day Netherlands is a low-lying area. In those days, French was the language of government in the area as a whole, but as the people and administrators in the Flemish and Dutch speaking areas did not use French in daily life (if they were conversant at all), translations of technical terms like "pays d'embas" had to be provided which found their way into Flemish and Dutch. The Flemish/Dutch translations of these French expressions were pretty straightforward: "les pays de par deça" became "landen van herwaarts over" and later "les pays d'embas" became "Nederlanden," in both cases literal translations from the French. [2].
However, this does not explain where the English word "Netherlands" originates. It seems clear that the alternate designation "Low Countries" is a translation of the French "Pays-Bas" (which itself apparently derives from "les pays d'embas"). But is "the Netherlands" equally related to the Dutch "de Nederlanden?" It seems likely, especially as the English construct "nether-lands" sounds like the Dutch "neder-landen" even though it feels awkward as a translation ("low countries" would be a better translation). More likely, "Netherlands" may have entered the English language as a bastardization of a Dutch word (like "jacht" became "yacht"). But it is dangerous to jump to conclusions in these matters. I have been looking for the "first use" of the term "Netherlands" in the English language but have been unsuccessful up to now. One would expect that such first use would go back to Tudor times, but my impression is that the designation then was "Flanders," or "Low Countries," whereas the northern Netherlands were usually designated as "United Provinces" (instead of "United Netherlands"), or simply "Holland" (fine distinctions in matters geographical not being a strongpoint of the Anglo-Saxon mind even then :-).
Finally, as this is an article about English terminology, we don't have to worry about the fact that current Dutch usage is "Nederland" (singular), and how that shift came about. English usage has simply not followed the Dutch shift to the singular. The usage of "the Netherlands" (plural) in combination with the singular verb tense ("is" instead of "are"), a subtly different phenomenon, seems an instance of a general lowering of standards in English (on a par with using other plural nouns, like "the media," with singular verbs)-- Ereunetes ( talk) 02:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The table in the Netherlands (terminology)#In other languages section makes no sense. I do not know what the columns were intended to mean, but there is no meaning that is consistent with the entries that are now in there. Some possible meanings are:
-- 71.106.173.110 ( talk) 05:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the table makes a lot of sense, as is pointed out above. But that it is cluttered up. The latin and indonesian entrees are among wrong entrees. Some people just add things without reading or thinking. I'll clean it up, for as far as I can. -- Eezie ( talk) 19:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The article could be interesting in a separate page, but the concept itself of "other languages" is disturbing. It reminds of the outdated "domestic/international" dichotomy the US is trying to get rid of. Wikipedia is global. 15:07, 14 sept 2009 (UTC)
Today I revised the entire article, always using the description "streamline" in the edit history. That is, I tried to rewrite it without changing the meaning. (It may yet benefit from another editor who tries to do the same.) Someone who knows everything ;-) should check to see that I have not corrupted the meaning. Now I have some remarks about the meaning.
Section 0: I don't understand the specific reference "Being the dominant regional area," (what does it explain about what?) or the distinction introduced by "It seems likely," and "More likely," (is it even a distinction?).
Section 1: Maybe the half-paragraph "Such use of a part to designate its whole ..." should be relegated to a footnote.
late 17th century: Is there no relation between English-language names for the Dutch, their country, and their language are the period before 1688 (was it 1664-88?) when many of the British were exiles in Holland, and the subsequent conquest or insurrection called the Glorious Revolution? --And also no relation to the global rivalry between the countries?
Dutch in America: I suspect that Dutch is simply a corruption of Deutsch. I may be wrong. A history of American slang may help because Dutch for the German people or for a German-American man may be slang. -- P64 ( talk) 01:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The Netherlands is not a correct term. Nor is Holland. The correct translation is Netherland (no, not Neverland).
Holland is an archaic term used to describe the ancient Netherlands, which at that time were wooded or forested, giving rise to the expression Holtland, which became Holland. Currently, there are only two provinces which retain this name: Noord-Holland and Zuid-Holland. These are two provinces (of thirteen) with the name Holland in them.
The Netherlands is correctly translated as the "Low Countries". This includes part of nowadays Belgium. Although Dutch is spoken in all these regions, the Flemish are not Dutch but Belgian. There is a great dispute wether Flemish is a dialect or a separate language. This debate continues today.
The distinction is therefore difficult. The none mountainous region stretching to the North Sea is the "Low Countries" but in part they are the Netherlands, but a significant part is nowadays Belgium. The fact that the Netherlands are called the "Low Countries" in other languages confuses (French: Pays Bas, Spanish: Pajos Bajos) things even more. But this is in part caused by historical reasons. Under French and Spanish rule the Low Countries consisted of the Southern and Northern Low Countries. Meaning the none mountainous region stretching to the North Sea, where Dutch was spoken. Today this distinction is no longer used. The Netherlands and Belgium are seperate sovereign states. Parts of what was called the Southern Low Countries is now part of the Netherlands.
There is even more confusion. Dutch is in some parts of the world a synonym for Deutsch or Deitsch (which means German). This is incorrect. Dutch refers to someone or the language from "Nederland". The Pennsylvania Dutch are predominantly German, they are not Dutch.
Confusing to some, except of course those living in ........ The national colour is unofficially orange. The Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy. The monarch stems from the House of Orange (named after the town in the South of France), the colour has been adopted as a national symbol. The Orangemen wear orange in remembrance of King Wiliam, one of the ancestors of the current Queen Beatrice. JHvW ( talk) 09:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been suggested that a diagram, like the Euler diagram for the UK might clear things up. But this could also make things more difficult. The BeNeLux has been in operation for a long time now. Initially this meant that the distinction between the countries dissappeared in some regions. In the province of Zeeland, the people are referred to as "zeeuwen". But there is a part of Zeeland which continues into Belgium that is called Zeeuws Vlaanderen. This region would be translated as the region of Flanders where people from Zeeland live, but it is in both countries. JHvW ( talk) 09:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Correction: Zeeuws-Vlaanderen = 100% in The Netherlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.496 ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I went to the English site of Nederlandse Spoorwegen just now, the one to be found at this page, and rather to my surprise found the large slogan "Holland by Train". Probably not significant enough for the article, but it might be useful in some supporting context somewhere. 86.132.137.129 ( talk) 16:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Great page. Had a lot of fun! :-)) Allow me to make some remarks (both sentences refer to the entire article and talk page)
(note that, even being Belgian myself, I use the words 'Dutch' and 'French' :-))) but the reason why the Walloon call 'Antwerpen' Anvers is the same as why the French call 'London' Londres. The 'official languages' of Belgium have nothing to do with that.
(In high school we learn as the correct English terms:
But, that being said, I'm very much aware that English is not my mother tongue and that I should leave the English terminology to the English) David.496 ( talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Currently this article is linked to the Benamingen van Nederland page on Dutch wikipedia. However, I think that the contents of the page fit better with the page Benamingen van de Lage Landen on Dutch wikipedia, if only because that page extensively treats etymological questions. Could somebody who knows how to edit Wikidata please change the link?-- Ereunetes ( talk) 22:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This article was just moved from Netherlands (terminology) to Netherlands (toponymy). I don't see any discussion of the proposed move, much less a consensus for it, and I think the prior title was much better because the classifier is far more common. I've left a note on the talkpage of the editor who made the move, advising that I'm inclined to move the page back to the original title, but I also inquire here if anyone has any thoughts on the issue. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest removing the reference to the 'oer' and 'oud' prefix in the head part of this article. It is off topic for it is no explanation for the use of Holland for the whole country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.165.122 ( talk) 14:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I propose that Names for the Dutch language be merged into Netherlands (toponymy). Dutch is simply the adjective of the Netherlands, so both articles are explaining the same thing. "Netherlands (toponymy)" should then be renamed "Netherlands (terminology)" which covers the subject more effectively. The merged article should follow the structure of the article "Names for the Dutch language" which is more clear and explanatory. Watisfictie ( talk) 15:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 02:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Low Countries (terminology) →
Name of the Netherlands –
<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 15:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho ( talk) 00:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
There's been some real mess-up here.
From what I can figure out, there was an article originally at
On 23 June 2013 User:Io Herodotus moved this article (without discussion) to
On 13 March 2016, User:Watisfictie merged a large amount of material [4] into this article, apparently from Names for the Dutch language but without stating so in the edit summary.
On the same date, the same user performed a cut-and-paste move of the material from Netherlands (toponymy) back to
leaving the original pre-2016 edit history at Netherlands (toponymy).
On 14 April 2016 User:Watisfictie moved Netherlands (terminology) to
On 3 May 2016 admin User:Amakuru moved the old talkpage from Talk:Netherlands (toponymy) to follow the article to Talk:Low Countries (terminology), but without fixing the broken history of the article page.
On 11 June 2016, an RM was closed as moving Low Countries (terminology) to
This is where it is now, but only including the edit history from March 2016.
I'm going to have to do a history merge. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The text implies that the name of Belgium or Belgica somehow derives from a Latinized word meaning "low country" which isn't true. It's from a Latin approximation of a Celtic word meaning "to swell up" or something like that. The text is either wrong or confusing and needs to be fixed. -- Jayron 32 19:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The section "Holland (pars pro toto)" contains an image that highlights the County of Holland but also the County of Zeeland. I don't think that was intented to be shown? Thayts ••• 20:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and replaced it with an image that better fits the context. Thayts ••• 10:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article merged: See old talk-page here
This article was not written by an English speaker, thus a lot of sentences are either grammatically wrong or confusing.
"Notably the Netherlands is amongst a small number of countries, who have a singular name for their country, while the English uses a plural form."
This needs to be expressed better, the form is clearly singular in English, as the above sentence itself demonstrates: "the Netherlands is".
In Portuguese 'Países Baixos' is only the official, formal designation. It occurs seldom and the Netherlands are normally called 'Holland'.
Excellent article, the historical explanation of the 'Low Countries' is very clear and informative!
António.
"People from these provinces usually do not always appreciate being called Hollander." This is incorrect grammar. I removed the word usually. Tijmen de Haan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.126.243 ( talk) 21:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Both these points are the subject of the discussion under further confusion.
JHvW ( talk) 09:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"In languages other than Dutch, including English, Holland is commonly and incorrectly used as a synonym for the Netherlands as a whole, while actually it just refers to the central-western part of the country."
The 'incorrectly' is seriously POV. There is considerable disagreement even within the Netherlands whether calling the country "Holland" in English is something one should care about. There is also no citation or reference for the claim that the name "Holland" is factually incorrect. Sure, there is a history here in which "Holland" was explicitly used for designating a specific part, but that is mostly no longer the case. Even people from other provinces do not generally complain about calling the Netherlands Holland, and I don't think it's fair to reflect the opinion of a select few in this article as fact. Gijs Kruitbosch 16:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
How about a diagramm like this one [1] for the Netherlands too? -- Soylentyellow 20:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be, erm, The Netherlands' embassy? What's being said in this paragraph, to me, seems to be based on something that was misinterpreted. -- MooNFisH 05:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it should be, but the Dutch remain convinced that "Netherlands" is an adjective, although it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdls ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The article links to Guiana, which is forwarded to Guianas, whereas Dutch Guiana forwards to Suriname. Wouldn't the link to Guianas be out of place here? I'm not too sure about this myself though, since there is no other link in the article to Guiana. My question is more: should there be one if only dutch guiana is mentioned? -- MooNFisH 05:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ehm, to confuse things even further: the eastern part of North Holland is actually the historic region of West Frisia. The distinction was dropped officially in 1815, but in republican times the States would be termed "The States of Holland and West Frisia". One might also add that Papiamento, the language spoken on the Leeward Netherlands Antilles, does not know the distinction between "Holland" and "Netherlands". Rather akwardly, when wanting do denote the Queen as head of state of the whole Kingdom, including the Antilles, she is styled Reina di Reino Hulandes, "Queen of the Dutch Kingdom"...-- 129.125.156.37 07:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This section is interesting but fails to note that the Low Countries is not only a historical tzerm but also a geographical one. TinyMark 09:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Netherlandic — which isn't currently mentioned in the article — was recently introduced in my organisation as a politically-correct (I think) version of the language "Dutch".
It also seems to be listed as a synonym (of sorts) of Netherlandish — which is currently mentioned in the article.
Note: The
Dutch language article mentions (only) the dialects(?) "Belgian Dutch" and "Netherlandic Dutch".
—DIV (
128.250.204.118
09:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
I'm trying to find out when exactly English switched to saying "The Netherlands is" instead of "The Netherlands are". Does anyone have information on this? It would be nice to have it in the article, addressing also António's comment at the top of this discussion page. Classical geographer 09:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"as this is an article about English terminology, we don't have to worry about the fact that current Dutch usage is "Nederland" (singular), and how that shift came about. English usage has simply not followed the Dutch shift to the singular." But I also think it worth mentioning the country's election of the singular ought to be respected without English usage experts mandating tradition. Without a formal statement from the country that the singular should be preferred in other languages, it would be too much to mandate in the other direction. But I agree there should be a mention of inertia being the reason for continued use of the plural in English despite the country's own statement of solidarity in being 'Netherland'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.16.228 ( talk) 02:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
In this article, it states that "In languages other than Dutch, including English, "Holland" is often used as a common but technically incorrect synonym for the Netherlands as a whole." However, in the article " Holland", "Holland" is also informally used in English and other languages, including sometimes the Dutch language itself, to mean the whole of the modern country of the Netherlands." If "Holland" is also used in the Dutch language to refer to the whole country then that should be added to this article, if it is not then it should be removed from the other. -- Credema ( talk) 05:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not a comparable example as we are ignoring language. If someone when speaking English uses "England" to refer to the whole of the "UK" they are indupitably being incorrect (although this sort of sloppiness is commonplace, and I'm sure I do it a lot). But when someone speaking English says "Holland" they are using an English word for a country that a Dutch-speaking person would probably call, in Dutch, "Nederland" (we could also, in English, say "The Netherlands". The fact that there is a Dutch word "Holland" which refers to a region of "Nederland" is not really relevant (although clearly confusing and provoking of debate). Analogously, people call the Swedish city of "Göteborg", when speaking English, "Gothenberg" and Swedish people don't seem to mind, and probably wouldn't mind even if there was a suburb of "Göteborg" that happened to be called "Gothenberg". Same for "Bombay" and "Mumbai" and "Peking" and "Beijing" except that, apparently, in those cases the local governments have specifically asked English-speakers to use the new names (for varying reasons). So if the government/people of "Nederland" specifically asked English-speakers to stop calling their country "Holland", we should probably respect that (we are happy to call "Upper Volta" "Burkina Fasso"), but at present it is not wrong, it is just the (annoying to some people) English-language name for the place. Similarly, I think it is probably ok for a German-speaker to call someone from anywhere in UK "Engländer" (as that is their generally-used word for people from the UK, but not OK for me to say William Wallace was "English".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Carden ( talk • contribs)
It occurred to me that the article obfuscates the difference between the etymologies of the Dutch and English versions of the toponym that refers to the present-day Benelux area. The etymology of the Dutch word "Nederlanden" is pretty clear. It derives from the practice of the Burgundian overlords of the area to distinguish between their patrimonial lands, South of Champagne and Lorraine, as "les pays de par delà" (or the lands over there) and their more recent northern acquisitions (roughly the current Benelux countries) as "les pays de par deça" (or the lands over here). This usage was predicated on the fact that the Duke spent most of his time in the Benelux ("here"), instead of in Burgundy ("there"). After the death of Charles the Bold in 1477, and the subsequent transfer of the Benelux part to Habsburg "ownership" (while the Burgundy part reverted to France at the same time) "les pays de par deça" became "les pays d'embas" in which the archaic French term d'embas, the opposite of dessus, may be translated as "lower" or "nether." One may liken this usage to the distinction between "upper" and "lower" in other geographical designations, like Upper and Lower Silezia; it has nothing to do with the fact that part of the present-day Netherlands is a low-lying area. In those days, French was the language of government in the area as a whole, but as the people and administrators in the Flemish and Dutch speaking areas did not use French in daily life (if they were conversant at all), translations of technical terms like "pays d'embas" had to be provided which found their way into Flemish and Dutch. The Flemish/Dutch translations of these French expressions were pretty straightforward: "les pays de par deça" became "landen van herwaarts over" and later "les pays d'embas" became "Nederlanden," in both cases literal translations from the French. [2].
However, this does not explain where the English word "Netherlands" originates. It seems clear that the alternate designation "Low Countries" is a translation of the French "Pays-Bas" (which itself apparently derives from "les pays d'embas"). But is "the Netherlands" equally related to the Dutch "de Nederlanden?" It seems likely, especially as the English construct "nether-lands" sounds like the Dutch "neder-landen" even though it feels awkward as a translation ("low countries" would be a better translation). More likely, "Netherlands" may have entered the English language as a bastardization of a Dutch word (like "jacht" became "yacht"). But it is dangerous to jump to conclusions in these matters. I have been looking for the "first use" of the term "Netherlands" in the English language but have been unsuccessful up to now. One would expect that such first use would go back to Tudor times, but my impression is that the designation then was "Flanders," or "Low Countries," whereas the northern Netherlands were usually designated as "United Provinces" (instead of "United Netherlands"), or simply "Holland" (fine distinctions in matters geographical not being a strongpoint of the Anglo-Saxon mind even then :-).
Finally, as this is an article about English terminology, we don't have to worry about the fact that current Dutch usage is "Nederland" (singular), and how that shift came about. English usage has simply not followed the Dutch shift to the singular. The usage of "the Netherlands" (plural) in combination with the singular verb tense ("is" instead of "are"), a subtly different phenomenon, seems an instance of a general lowering of standards in English (on a par with using other plural nouns, like "the media," with singular verbs)-- Ereunetes ( talk) 02:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The table in the Netherlands (terminology)#In other languages section makes no sense. I do not know what the columns were intended to mean, but there is no meaning that is consistent with the entries that are now in there. Some possible meanings are:
-- 71.106.173.110 ( talk) 05:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the table makes a lot of sense, as is pointed out above. But that it is cluttered up. The latin and indonesian entrees are among wrong entrees. Some people just add things without reading or thinking. I'll clean it up, for as far as I can. -- Eezie ( talk) 19:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The article could be interesting in a separate page, but the concept itself of "other languages" is disturbing. It reminds of the outdated "domestic/international" dichotomy the US is trying to get rid of. Wikipedia is global. 15:07, 14 sept 2009 (UTC)
Today I revised the entire article, always using the description "streamline" in the edit history. That is, I tried to rewrite it without changing the meaning. (It may yet benefit from another editor who tries to do the same.) Someone who knows everything ;-) should check to see that I have not corrupted the meaning. Now I have some remarks about the meaning.
Section 0: I don't understand the specific reference "Being the dominant regional area," (what does it explain about what?) or the distinction introduced by "It seems likely," and "More likely," (is it even a distinction?).
Section 1: Maybe the half-paragraph "Such use of a part to designate its whole ..." should be relegated to a footnote.
late 17th century: Is there no relation between English-language names for the Dutch, their country, and their language are the period before 1688 (was it 1664-88?) when many of the British were exiles in Holland, and the subsequent conquest or insurrection called the Glorious Revolution? --And also no relation to the global rivalry between the countries?
Dutch in America: I suspect that Dutch is simply a corruption of Deutsch. I may be wrong. A history of American slang may help because Dutch for the German people or for a German-American man may be slang. -- P64 ( talk) 01:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The Netherlands is not a correct term. Nor is Holland. The correct translation is Netherland (no, not Neverland).
Holland is an archaic term used to describe the ancient Netherlands, which at that time were wooded or forested, giving rise to the expression Holtland, which became Holland. Currently, there are only two provinces which retain this name: Noord-Holland and Zuid-Holland. These are two provinces (of thirteen) with the name Holland in them.
The Netherlands is correctly translated as the "Low Countries". This includes part of nowadays Belgium. Although Dutch is spoken in all these regions, the Flemish are not Dutch but Belgian. There is a great dispute wether Flemish is a dialect or a separate language. This debate continues today.
The distinction is therefore difficult. The none mountainous region stretching to the North Sea is the "Low Countries" but in part they are the Netherlands, but a significant part is nowadays Belgium. The fact that the Netherlands are called the "Low Countries" in other languages confuses (French: Pays Bas, Spanish: Pajos Bajos) things even more. But this is in part caused by historical reasons. Under French and Spanish rule the Low Countries consisted of the Southern and Northern Low Countries. Meaning the none mountainous region stretching to the North Sea, where Dutch was spoken. Today this distinction is no longer used. The Netherlands and Belgium are seperate sovereign states. Parts of what was called the Southern Low Countries is now part of the Netherlands.
There is even more confusion. Dutch is in some parts of the world a synonym for Deutsch or Deitsch (which means German). This is incorrect. Dutch refers to someone or the language from "Nederland". The Pennsylvania Dutch are predominantly German, they are not Dutch.
Confusing to some, except of course those living in ........ The national colour is unofficially orange. The Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy. The monarch stems from the House of Orange (named after the town in the South of France), the colour has been adopted as a national symbol. The Orangemen wear orange in remembrance of King Wiliam, one of the ancestors of the current Queen Beatrice. JHvW ( talk) 09:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been suggested that a diagram, like the Euler diagram for the UK might clear things up. But this could also make things more difficult. The BeNeLux has been in operation for a long time now. Initially this meant that the distinction between the countries dissappeared in some regions. In the province of Zeeland, the people are referred to as "zeeuwen". But there is a part of Zeeland which continues into Belgium that is called Zeeuws Vlaanderen. This region would be translated as the region of Flanders where people from Zeeland live, but it is in both countries. JHvW ( talk) 09:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Correction: Zeeuws-Vlaanderen = 100% in The Netherlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.496 ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I went to the English site of Nederlandse Spoorwegen just now, the one to be found at this page, and rather to my surprise found the large slogan "Holland by Train". Probably not significant enough for the article, but it might be useful in some supporting context somewhere. 86.132.137.129 ( talk) 16:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Great page. Had a lot of fun! :-)) Allow me to make some remarks (both sentences refer to the entire article and talk page)
(note that, even being Belgian myself, I use the words 'Dutch' and 'French' :-))) but the reason why the Walloon call 'Antwerpen' Anvers is the same as why the French call 'London' Londres. The 'official languages' of Belgium have nothing to do with that.
(In high school we learn as the correct English terms:
But, that being said, I'm very much aware that English is not my mother tongue and that I should leave the English terminology to the English) David.496 ( talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Currently this article is linked to the Benamingen van Nederland page on Dutch wikipedia. However, I think that the contents of the page fit better with the page Benamingen van de Lage Landen on Dutch wikipedia, if only because that page extensively treats etymological questions. Could somebody who knows how to edit Wikidata please change the link?-- Ereunetes ( talk) 22:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This article was just moved from Netherlands (terminology) to Netherlands (toponymy). I don't see any discussion of the proposed move, much less a consensus for it, and I think the prior title was much better because the classifier is far more common. I've left a note on the talkpage of the editor who made the move, advising that I'm inclined to move the page back to the original title, but I also inquire here if anyone has any thoughts on the issue. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest removing the reference to the 'oer' and 'oud' prefix in the head part of this article. It is off topic for it is no explanation for the use of Holland for the whole country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.165.122 ( talk) 14:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I propose that Names for the Dutch language be merged into Netherlands (toponymy). Dutch is simply the adjective of the Netherlands, so both articles are explaining the same thing. "Netherlands (toponymy)" should then be renamed "Netherlands (terminology)" which covers the subject more effectively. The merged article should follow the structure of the article "Names for the Dutch language" which is more clear and explanatory. Watisfictie ( talk) 15:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 02:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Low Countries (terminology) →
Name of the Netherlands –
<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 15:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho ( talk) 00:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
There's been some real mess-up here.
From what I can figure out, there was an article originally at
On 23 June 2013 User:Io Herodotus moved this article (without discussion) to
On 13 March 2016, User:Watisfictie merged a large amount of material [4] into this article, apparently from Names for the Dutch language but without stating so in the edit summary.
On the same date, the same user performed a cut-and-paste move of the material from Netherlands (toponymy) back to
leaving the original pre-2016 edit history at Netherlands (toponymy).
On 14 April 2016 User:Watisfictie moved Netherlands (terminology) to
On 3 May 2016 admin User:Amakuru moved the old talkpage from Talk:Netherlands (toponymy) to follow the article to Talk:Low Countries (terminology), but without fixing the broken history of the article page.
On 11 June 2016, an RM was closed as moving Low Countries (terminology) to
This is where it is now, but only including the edit history from March 2016.
I'm going to have to do a history merge. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The text implies that the name of Belgium or Belgica somehow derives from a Latinized word meaning "low country" which isn't true. It's from a Latin approximation of a Celtic word meaning "to swell up" or something like that. The text is either wrong or confusing and needs to be fixed. -- Jayron 32 19:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The section "Holland (pars pro toto)" contains an image that highlights the County of Holland but also the County of Zeeland. I don't think that was intented to be shown? Thayts ••• 20:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and replaced it with an image that better fits the context. Thayts ••• 10:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)