Talk:Dutch declension/ArchiveADD1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is the old talk page of the former article Archaic Dutch Declension, a POV fork that existed between October 2006 and March 2007. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Dutch_Declension) is a mess.

Problem number one: Dutch declension and inflection have never had a clear distinction between "archaic" and "modern". It has evolved gradually over time and if one is to title this article "Archaic Dutch Declension" it needs to be made clear exactly wqhat period of Dutch is being described. In other words, there is no such thing as a unified "Archaic Dutch Declension". This is an invention. However, it appears that the article seems to be referring to the arbitrary, limited declension system used in early-mid 20th century revisions of the 1618/1619 States-General Version of the Dutch Bible (which was never used in spoken Dutch as it reads). To this extent the article contains a number of errata.

Errata:

Definite Articles

  • 1. DAT PLU article has no alternative "der" - "den" is the only correct form.

--> Normally only den is used, sometimes der is allowed Bombshell 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • --->This claim must be verified with real evidence then. There is no historical basis for using "der" for the dative plural. The "Van Dale Woordenboek" (Dutch Dictionary)lists der as only being used archaically for the GEN PLU ALL GENDERS & FEM SING DAT, GEN.

The only time "der" might have been used as a dative plural was when some linguists argued for making the dative case more complex by using the article "der" to define animate dative feminine groups. However this is an obscure usage indeed. Duprie37 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • 2. The statement "Only the nominative case and the genitive case are still being used, although the use of the genitive seems to be a little archaic." is misleading. The genitive case is no longer productive in Dutch. It is only used in stock phrases. In any case, this is supposed to be an article about archaic Dutch declension.

-->Genitive is still used a lot regarding to persons e.g. Anns auto (Ann's car)

  • ---> This is a relic of the Genitive Case (as in English "Dave's car"). It is not a productive use. The genitive declension is only added to the end of (mostly) proper nouns in an adjectival position and there is some debate as to whether this even counts as an instance of the Genitive Case or whether the "-s" is just a clitic. This minimalit use of the genitive only marks possession, its not properly "declension", because nouns don't mark Genitive gender or number and adjectives don't inflect for gender or number according to the Genitive case either. We can say "Anns auto" to indicate possession, but if that phrase were in the Genitive as we know it historically (but archaically) it would have to read "De Auto der vrouw Ann" (The car of the woman Ann). 58.179.199.68 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

-->About the archaic part, you're being right, this is due to discussion at Dutch declension -->Most of this is found under regular Dutch at the Dutch wikipedia, the archaic parts are explained in this article and on Dutch wikipedia Bombshell 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • 3. "The accusative is only used in fixed expressions and after prepositions with a figurative meaning.
  • in den regel (in principle)
  • op den duur (eventually)
  • aan den toog (at the bar)"
  • The author has mixed his cases up here. These are stock expressions in the dative case, that precede the particular "archaic declension system" the author is writing about by some hundreds of years, when the dative case was still productive and used after prepositions governed by the dative case. --> these frases are clearly accusative, dative nouns take -e in the singular, they are examples of accusatives on the Dutch wikipedia Bombshell 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ---> Correct: "Op den duur" is indeed accusative. The other two are clearly dative in form and function though. 19th century Latin favouring linguists arbitrarily decided that the dative case nouns "proper" should once again take an -e declension. Many stock phrases, preceding rules made up by prescriptive linguists by some centuries, had long since lost the dative "-e" declension due to apocope. (Cf. the expression "te zijner tijd" which is indisputably dative: "tijd" has lost the "-e" declension.)

The function of the dative case in Dutch, when it was productive, was (in the same way as German does) to mark location and position in place, time. The phrases "in den regel" & "an den toog" are clearly Dative phrases in this sense. (Cf. German equivalents "In der Regel" & "An der Bar") Duprie37 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite Articles

  • 1. There is no indefinite article "ene". It was spelled "eene"

--> true, but since the article was actually about current Dutch, in current Dutch there exists an article ene Bombshell 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • ---> please see point 3 below: this is not an indefinite article, butan adjectival noun inflecting as normal, for nominative case, common gender "de ene, het ene". Modern Dutch has no article "ene" only "een". Where a FEM SING NOM ACC article existed in the past it was as in point 2 below (eene) Duprie37 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 2. Nominative/Accusative Feminine Singular was --->ARCHAICALLY "eene" not "een". Duprie37 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Nominative Masculine Singular was only ever "een" never "ene".

--> I think you're confusing Dutch with German: German: ein Mann, eine Frau; Dutch: een man of ene man ('ne man), een vrouw (certainly not ene vrouw or eene vrouw or whatsoever)Bombshell 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • ---> please refer to the States-General edition of "de Bijbel" published around 1900: It was "eene" in archaic Dutch which has now fallen totally out of use. Modern Dutch only has "een" for all genders, all numbers and all cases. There is no variation left. Duprie37 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 3. The nominative singular "ene" is really an adjectival inflection for common gender/nominative case and is not at all archaic. EG: "Van de ene naar de andere" (From the one to the other) is standard modern Dutch. To the extent it is still used in Belgium withhout a preceding definite article (--->I'm not sure if it is, I have never it like this Duprie37 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)) is simply a variant of Modern Dutch.

-->true Bombshell 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Indefinite Article used as a noun

  • 1. FEM SIN NOM/ACC should be "eene" not "een"

-->remark see above Bombshell 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • --->Here ind. article is an adjectival noun. In ARCHAIC Dutch it was SPELT "de/het eene" (MAS FEM NEUT SIN NOM; FEM NEUT SIN NOM ACC) In MODERN Dutch it is just spelt "ene" all genders, all cases (de ene, het ene). However this article is (or was) about ARCHAIC Dutch declension. In MODERN Dutch declension only the form "ene" exists no matter what gender or "case".Duprie37 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 2. PLU all cases and genders: you can't have plural forms of the indefinite article (ie there is no literal equivalent sentence in Dutch to English "the ones over there" --> *"De enen daar". Correct would be "Degenen daar"). Even if you could, almost this whole box is declined wrong.

-->Of course De enen daar is wrong, as the article says it should allways be used in combination with de anderen: De enen drinken graag koffie, de anderen thee (Some like coffee, others like tea) is a correct, modern Dutch sentence Bombshell 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • --->I disagree. if this is so, you are speaking of dialect Dutch, not standard Dutch. "enen" does not appear in "Van Dale Groot Woordenboek". "Degene" "Diegene" does. It is a noun and prularized the normal way, by adding an -n. So "degenen daar drinken koffie, de anderen thee" is correct. "De enen" does not exist in Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands. Duprie37 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I could go on and on, but I don't have the energy. My point though is, as it stands this article should not even be on Wikipedia because it is not accurate and there are no citations.

For a referenced, accurate description of the Middle Dutch case system refer to:

--->Bombshell, I have a feeling that either you are a speaker of a dialect variant of Dutch or you are not a native Dutch speaker at all. I'm not sure. But if you are talking about dialect forms of Dutch it should go somewhere else. This article should refer to "Standard Modern Dutch" (Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands) and nothing else if it called "Dutch". Duprie37 09:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Duprie37 13:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

tag removed

Being wrong is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Tag changed. 20:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is in fact correct, the only problem is that the declension isn't archaic. See declensions on http://nl.wikipedia.org Bombshell 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cross-referencing to other Wikipedia articles is not a way out of a referencing problem. The fact is that the declension system as described here is so archaic that if you went up to a dutch speaker and tried using it they would ask you what on earth you were talking about. Just because some declension avidists have written some articles about a redundant, never-used proposed dutch declension system, which they would have liked to have seen made real doesn't make for a dutch declension system. If I suddenly wrote a number of articles about an imaginary English declension sytem, which is not at all an impossible project as English did at one stage have a declension system, it would be chucked off wikipedia in a minute. The same should go for here. My biggest problem with this whole article is that the system as described here was NEVER EVER SPOKEN by any Dutch person. It was just some grammatical invention by a bunch of Latin and German loving Dutch linguists (who are, by the way, generally considered traitors, and there is a political thing going on here as well). It was never even used by the Dutch! Declension fell out of use in Dutch in the 1700s. This whole "declension system" as described here is a fantasy. Prove me wrong if you will. Duprie37 14:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The article has many errata, and as a native speaker of Dutch I can vouch that this declension system as listed here is the archaic one. It looks nothing like the modern one which is much simpler than the one as it appears here. Duprie37 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article can be deleted, as there allready exists a better variant Dutch Declension System, in which both modern and archaic Dutch are explained Bombshell 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • ---> Please note the introduction to Declension at NL Wikipedia:

"Men merke vooraf op dat de accusatief en datief vormen verouderd zijn, men treft deze vrijwel alleen nog aan in vaste uitdrukking als ‘van dien aard’, ‘met alle gevolgen van dien’, et cetera. De genitiefvormen komen nog slechts sporadisch voor, en dan ook alleen in vaste uitdrukkingen als ‘wat dies meer zij’ en ‘in dier voege’. " [Translation: Please note at the outset that the accusative and dative forms are archaic, these are only encountered in stock phrases such as 'van dien aard', 'met alle gevolgen van dien', etc. The genetive forms only occur sporadically, and then also only in fixed expressions such as 'wat dies meer zij' and 'in dier voege'.] Duprie37 10:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


See the article has been merged with Dutch Declension System, so this page should be deleted Bombshell 12:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)