Talk:Dutch language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dutch language is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 A chart 2 Spreektaal vs. schrijftaal 3 British English .v. American English 4 <l> 5 IJssel etc 6 Dutch vs "Deutsch" 7 [ˈne:dərlɑnts] vs [ˈne:dəɹlɑnts] 8 References, people! 9 Flemish vs. Netherlandic Dutch 10 Error on map? 11 Shibboleth 12 Immigrant language 13 Sweden??? 14 Netherlands and Belgian Sections 15 25% of Bruxellois? Nope 16 Belgium Section 17 The Map 18 Deutsch 19 Origin of AN 20 "Contemporary" map 21 number of speakers 22 Vowels and diphtongs 23 Netherlandic 24 Translation of Nederlands

[edit] A chart

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3: Aug 2005–May 2006 Archive 4: June 2006-May 2007

English	Frisian	Low Saxon	Dutch	High-German	Remark
eat cat town	ite kat tún (1)	eten Katt Tuun (3)	eten kat tuin (1)	essen Katze Zaun (2)	English, Frisian, Low Saxon and Dutch have kept Germanic t; German has shifted t to [s] or [ts]
apple pipe thorpe	appel piip terp (4)	Appel Piep Dörp	appel pijp dorp (5)	Apfel Pfeife Dorf (5)	English, Frisian, Low Saxon and Dutch have kept Germanic p; German has shifted p to [f] or [pf]
think through thorn	tinke troch toarne	dinken ~ denken dör(ch) Doorn	denken door doorn	denken durch Dorn	English has kept Germanic þ; Frisian has shifted þ to [t], Low Saxon, Dutch and German have shifted þ to [d]
there brother	dêr broer	daar Broder ~ Broor	daar broeder ~ broer	da Bruder	English has kept Germanic ð; Frisian, Low Saxon and Dutch shifted to ð to [d] or deleted it between vowels; German shifted ð to [d]
yesterday yarn day	juster jern dei	gistern ~ gestern Garn Dag	gisteren garen dag	gestern Garn Tag	Dutch has shifted Germanic g to the velar fricatives [ɣ] and [x], but retained the spelling with <g> and thus at least a visual similarity to German; English and Frisian have shifted g to [j] before palatal vowels
church make	tsjerke meitsje	Kark maken	kerk maken	Kirche machen	English and Frisian shifted k to [tʃ] before palatal vowels, Low Saxon, Dutch retained Germanic k, German shifted k to [x] or [ç] when it was not in initial position

See also High German consonant shift. Note semantic shifts: 1. 'garden'; 2. 'fence'; 3. 'garden' in northwestern dialects, 'fence' elsewhere; 4 .'hill' 5. 'village'

[edit] Spreektaal vs. schrijftaal

User:PaddyBriggs, there is nothing "unusual" about the distinction between colloquial and written Dutch, and the differences are nowhere as great as is suggested by the examples you give. Any newspaper will write "vandaag" for "today", not "heden", which is a very archaic word that is only used in an extremely formal context nowadays. For a review of your source, see Taalunieversum, which shows that even the more recent version of this grammar (and not the one from 1977 you mention), with all due respect, is considered rather old-fashioned by today's native speakers of Dutch. Iblardi 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Dutch is very unusual in having this distinction. And my reference, which is from a non-Dutch source but perfectly acadamically robust, is s valid one. Tot ziens! PaddyBriggs 17:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Iblardi. First of all, heden; rijwiel etc. are very archaic even in written language (cf thy and thou in English). Second English also distinguishes between written and spoken language (e.g. ain't). Third, if you refer to a reference you should give that in the article, without this, your statement is a violation of WP:OR. The reference should (explicitly) metion 2 things: 1) There is this difference between written and spoken language in the Netherlands 2) This is unuasual for other languages. For your example you need further references to make clear that the written language is not merely archaic use, but is still in common use in written language. Without these references inline in the article the statement is just not supported (hence I removed it for now). Also make sure that whatever academic reference you use it is recent; academic ideas only last as long as the next competing theory gains prominence. Mind you, there are also academic source claiming the earth is flat (although most are prior to 1492). Arnoutf 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Although rijwiel is archaic, heden is certainly not. Where I live, the phrase tot op heden is more often used than tot op de dag van vandaag. I assume this is the case in many more regions. Mallerd 07:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What you mention is a fixed expression. Heden as a synonym for vandaag is archaic. See the second meaning of heden at Van Dale. Iblardi (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British English .v. American English

I am informed that American rather then British English pronounciation is that which is now being taught in Dutch schools. Certainly most student-age people I met recently spoke with a very pronounced US accent whereas older people did not. I am not aware of what spelling is taught.

IanWorthington 16:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the pronounciation has more to with the dominance of US movies and TV-series (which are subtitled not voiced over in the Netherlands). I am not sure what version is taught in schools. I fail to see the relevance for this specific article anyway. Arnoutf 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

British English (both spelling and pronunciation) is being taught in schools in the Netherlands, but the mentioned dominance of US movies and TV series results in an increase in Dutch people who speak English with an American accent. Maarten 13:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, English taught in Dutch schools is typically British, with idioms and pronunciations unheard of in America. However, most Dutch people speak with a slightly American accent, because American English is most dominant. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to the films etc., Dutch people are starting to use American idioms and phrases as well. But as mentioned :-) it is not taught in schools. Mallerd 07:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] <l>

Is <l> velarized in final position like in English?Cameron Nedland 22:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is. Iblardi 22:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Cameron Nedland 06:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Except in Belgian Dutch. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IJssel etc

• Could someone say something here, and in the article, about the practice of spelling words like IJssel with a double capital? This strikes many English-speakers as peculiar and needs an explanation. Why not just write Yssel which I gather is the old spelling and seems more logical.
• Also I am currently reading Jonathan Israel's The Dutch Republic, and I notice he consistently puts a stop after the letters -sz at the end of personal names. I have never seen this before. Can someone explain it?
• Something might also be said about what seems to be a long tradition of latinising Dutch names, eg de Groot = Grotius. Intelligent Mr Toad 18:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I can answer your second question: the period is there to indicate that the surname is an abridged form (for instance Gerritsz. voor Gerritszoon). I am not sure what the official guidelines are, and whether or not this spelling is optional. As for the Latinised names, that was common international practice for centuries with authors who wrote in Latin (see names like Albertus Magnus, Nicolaus Copernicus etc.). It is not restricted to the Netherlands. Iblardi 18:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes it was a practice everywhere, but it seems to have been more common in the Netherlands, and I get the impression that it is still done. Intelligent Mr Toad 18:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your observation may be partly right. The "active" Latinising isn't done anymore, but there is indeed still a group of fixed names which were Latinised at some point in the past, such as Winsemius, Nauta ("sailor"), Nolthenius, Couperus and the like. Iblardi 18:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To you first question. The double capital IJ is not a double capital at all but a Dutch specific digraph. It is not the same as the Y, hence you cannot replace the IJ in IJssel with an Y. In older Dutch typewriters the IJ/ij was a single character. It may look particular (try to get it through a spelling checker) but it is just as it is; there is no alternative spelling. Arnoutf 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The article should explain that. Intelligent Mr Toad 08:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Y is only used in loanwords. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that at one time Dutch used both ij and y but that today's Dutch has settled for ij, while Afrikaans has settled for y. Booshank 20:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch vs "Deutsch"

Hi, I added the entry for Dutch vs Deutsch as a misconception. Although it's now morphed into something where it states English users aren't generally confused, it's one of the most common questions I get (being Dutch and living in the U.S). Many folks do not understand the difference between Dutch & Deutsch and often ask for further clarification. Not to even go into the fact the Dutch and the Danes are the same thing either. I suggest this should be captured as part of the paragraph, but want to ensure I'm following some guidelines and have agreement (as a newbie here). 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Malbers

The problem here is that Americans asking you to explain the difference does not make up for the claim that it is a very common misconception (you may have been talking to all American's who have this problem, and in that case it would be only a very small minority). There is another issue involved that is a core Wikipolicy directive that is not to include original research into articles. Your observations are made by you, the interpretation that this is a big problem is also made by you, hence the conclusion (which you put in the article) is original research. This is the reason I flagged your remark with the -fact- / citation needed tag. Since then people have been changing the text to better fit their "truth" which is the idea behind Wikipedia, change ideas by other to make them better.

About the Dutch Deutsch idea contentwise; I think you are right in your claim, but we need a published report to make the claim stick. As long as that is not found, changing, altering and ultimetaly deleting is open for anyone. (Obviously the same goes for the Danish-Dutch thing). Hope this explained why your contribution was changed as quickly and dramatically as it was (and why this is actually a good instead of a bad thing). Arnoutf 20:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dutch being a german dialect name for Deutsch,

[edit] [ˈne:dərlɑnts] vs [ˈne:dəɹlɑnts]

The infobox currently says that the name of the language is pronounced [ˈne:dərlɑnts]. However, the R in 'auslaut' (placed after the vowel in a syllable) is pronounced ɹ in the Randstad and some parts of Zeeland and Utrecht, ʁ in Brabant/Limburg, R in the rest of the Netherlands (primarily the north and east) and as a lengthened r in Flanders. What to do? Melsaran 14:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest a regular "r" be used to cover all the pronunciation variants. --Targeman 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  that doesn’t quite work in phonetical transcription. -moyogo

Melsaran: do you mean r in the rest of the Netherlands or ʀ? R isn’t an IPA symbol. --moyogo 17:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That was an error; I meant "r" :) Melsaran 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dutch language#Consonants says :

The realization of the /r/ phoneme varies considerably from dialect to dialect. In "standard" Dutch, /r/ is realized as [r]. In many dialects it is realized as the voiced uvular fricative [ʁ] or even as the uvular trill [ʀ].

So [ˈne:dərlɑnts] seems to be the standard Dutch pronunciation. Does the R-auslaut still apply? --moyogo 17:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the first one, just like the Italian "r". Iblardi 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here in Belgium, it's either the voiced uvular fricative [ʁ] or the voiced tap (ɾ). I'd propose to use the standard Dutch pronunciation, disregarding dialects. --Targeman 17:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge as a native speaker, the conservative pronunciation (which I guess can be considered "standard") of an Auslaut-r is r. Iblardi 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References, people!

This article is almost completely unreferenced. Do something about it. Shinobu 18:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flemish vs. Netherlandic Dutch

This comes from the article introduction:

The difference between Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch is roughly comparable to the difference between American and British English, though only pronunciation-wise as both countries use the same written standard. However, most Belgian Flemings, if asked what their mother-tongue is, will give it as Dutch rather than Flemish.::

This paragraph is in my opinion not very successfull in characterising the differences between Flemish and Dutch. As a flemish speaker and being familiar with the way Dutch is spoken in various areas in the Netherlands (except Friesland) I would say that in general the differences between Flemish and Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands boil down to this:

Flemish:

• Flemish speakers generally have no difficulty in understanding native speakers from the Netherlands (except for specific dialects).
• Flemish uses a lot of old words - like schelm - that are either known but not used by or unknown to native speakers from the Netherlands.
• Common Flemish (flemish not spoken by all flemish speakers yet understood by all of them) uses a lot of expressions that are not official Dutch (in Flemish: 'k zal sebiet is afkomen, in Dutch: Ik zal dadelijk eens langskomen, in English: I'll come by shortly).

Dutch as spoken by native speakers in the Netherlands:

• Native Dutch speakers from the Netherlands don't tend to use old words as much as flemish speakers.
• Native Dutch speakers from the Netherlands are generally confused by common flemish expressions. From my experience, if Flemish speakers don't do an effort to speak AN people from the Netherlands will have a hard time to understand them.
• Native Dutch speakers from the Netherlands tend to use words that are never used and sometimes not understood by flemish speakers, like peuk.

This list is not exclusive but it's my attempt to demonstrate we need to come up with a better way to describe the difference between Flemish and Netherlandic Dutch than roughly comparable to the differences between American and British English. 62.102.20.12 16:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me begin with stating that the sentence you quote is very, very hard to understand (a.o) because of its structure, so a copy edit is needed.

In response to your comparison: I think there are more Dutch dialects then you think. E.g. Rotterdams dialect uses words like "stuf" for "vlakgom"; switches "leggen" en "liggen" (dat leg op tafel); Limburgers poor coffee in a tas (lit. a bag) a lona word from German tasse, and they sit "langs" someone else (instead of "naast"), Brabanters are talking about "Ons Mam" rather then "mijn ma". However, in general Dutch dialects are closer to AN compared to Flemish and most Dutch people can talk in AN when talking with people from other regions.

Use old words in Flemish, maybe the case, but that is more an issue of style than of language. But I agree that is a difference.

Again for expressions there is a substantial difference between regions within the Netherlands to an extent that not all expressions are understood between the regions. The Flemish expressions are perhaps a bit more removed from the mainstream Dutch ones compared to the differences between Dutch dialects, but I think that is mainly a shade of grey.

I don't know how to classify the difference between Nl-Dutch and Flemish-Dutch. I think the whole paragraph needs rephrasing. How about:

One of the major dialect groups of Dutch is Flemish, which is spoken in the northwestern part of Belgium. "Flemish" or Southern vernacular is sometimes used as the name of one of the languages in Belgium. Officially, Flemish is not a distinct language as both Belgium and the Netherlands have adopted Standard Dutch as an official language. If asked what their mother-tongue is, most Flemish-Belges will report it being Dutch rather than Flemish. The difference between Belgian and Netherlandic use of Dutch lies in the pronouncation and the choice of words and expression. As such it is roughly comparable to the difference between American and British English although there is only one spelling to be used in both countries.

If no objection I will exchange it Arnoutf 17:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would entirely remove the comparison between American/British English and Netherlands/Flemish Dutch. If we want to keep it we first have to understand the differences between American and British English, then understand the difference between Netherlands aend Flemish Dutch, and then decide if these differences are roughly similar.

I would suspect they are not similar, not even roughly. The Netherlands and Flanders territories form a discrete region where Dutch dialects have emerged throughout the centuries. American English on the other hand has evolved in a region that is geographically seperated from Britain. In this context maybe it would make more sense to compare the differences between Afrikaans and Netherlands Dutch to the differences between American/British English.

We both don't fully understand the actual differences between Flemish and Netherlandic Dutch. I guess the only solution is for an academic to step in and clarify the differences.62.102.20.12 18:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call, let's remove the UK-US comparions. I agree about specialist help, the academic should be a linguist preferably; otherwise his/her input is probably as bad as mine (as I am an academic, but not a linguist) Arnoutf 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the comparison. It does not have to be proven in a deep scientific way. It serves to give the non-Dutch-speaker reading the article an impression of the distance between the two. Just like English and American, they are considered one language, and just like them they are instantly distiguisheable. −Woodstone 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, it's the impression that the comparison invokes with the readers that's important. However, I would like it to be more specific. Things cleared up a little for me and after reading the paragraph again I noticed it makes a specific reference to spelling. This is the important part.

You see, if you would dictate a text to an American and a Brit - assuming they don't make any spelling errors - you would get two text that use different spellings for some words. If you would dictate a text to a Dutch and Flemish person you would end up with exactly the same text, not taking spelling errors into account.

In a similar exercise, if you would let an American explain his weekend to a Brit the Brit would probably understand the American. However, if the Brit would explain his weekend to the American and the Brit is a native from Aberdeen it's not entirely sure the American would understand a single word.

Based on my personal experience I have little difficulty understanding Dutch speakers as long as they don't use dialect or slang words or expressions. Again based on my personal experience Dutch speakers don't always understand me when I'm talking in my regular flemish way without using dialect words.

So my conclusion is that although Dutch and Flemish speakers use the same spelling in writing their pronounciation differs enough so that in some cases they don't understand each other. The same if true for me when I'm listening to a speaker from West Flanders by the way.

So I would like to rephrase the last phrase of Arnoutf's re-write:

As such it is roughly comparable to the difference between American and British English although there is only one spelling to be used in both countries. However, Flemish and Dutch speakers use different words, expressions and pronounciations that sometimes make it impossible for them to understand each other.

It's probably not perfect but it at least gives the reader a better understanding of the differences between Flemish and Netherlandic Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.12 (talk) 20:51, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error on map?

On the map that shows where Dutch is spoken in significant numbers There is a green marker that looks to be on South Central Pennsylvania. This would be incorrect because it is a dialect of German that is spoken in South Central PA not Dutch, although the misnomer "Pennsylvania Dutch" would say else wise. The Dutch vs Deutsch really is a common misconception, which is what lead to the misplacement of the marker on the map. So in short this map should not be used and should be replaced with a better one.4.238.155.113 01:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this marker is not that inaccurate, because it might refer not to Pennsylvania, but to Upstate New York (Albany, a.o.) and New Jersey, where remains a of a Dutch pidgin had existed at least up to 1945. Today, however, this variety could be completely extinct overthere. See Jersey Dutch for more on this dialect. Ad43 12:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shibboleth

There is a well-known Second World War anecdote in which the name of Dutch town Scheveningen was used as a Shibboleth by the Dutch Resistance, as there is also no phonetic counterpart in German. Native German speakers will pronounce the consonant cluster sch in Scheveningen as /ʃ/ (as in the English word short), while Dutch native speakers will pronounce it as /sx/. This linguistic difference provided an excellent thumb instrument to uncover German spies in the ranks of the Dutch resistance.

This is nonsense. There is /x/ in German. Germans who don't know dutch probably will read that name with /ʃ/, but I doubt that spies or anyone with good knowlege of dutch wouldn't be able to read it correctly. See German_orthography#Grapheme-to-phoneme_correspondences and Dutch_orthography#Basic_graphemes--88.101.76.122 12:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point here. Germans cannot pronounce the word-inital combination of /sx/ in a word as Scheveningen. Not only is this a linguistic fact, it is a very hard historic one too. Ad43 16:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience they can, so I never understood the alleged "Scheveningen" shibboleth. Känsterle 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps after a very extensive training, but not in any more natural way. It may be a mere anecdotical thing, but at least there is a lot of verifiable truth and plausibility in it. The argument can be reversed, for that matter. Fluent Dutch speakers of German can often be recognised as such after speaking only a very few syllables in German. Ad43 22:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this combination should be harder to pronounce than any other. Places of articulation are entirely different, so no quick movements are necessary. And why no other nations used words with /sx/ to discover spies?--88.101.76.122 15:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The story is that the /sx/ is typically Dutch and only the Dutch would be able to pronounce it easily. It seems like an urban legend to some extend, and probably more of trivia anyway. Arnoutf 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not typically Dutch. /sx/ is also common in most (if not all) Slavic languages. --88.101.76.122 15:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the Dutch resistance was a bit more arogant about the uniquenes of their language??? Anyway, the whole issue seems trivia anyway and could (in my opinion) best be removed per WP:TRIVIA or WP:NOT Arnoutf 16:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Scheveningen-story may be somewhat anecdotical, still an intresting morphonological difference of Dutch vs German or English is this characteristic /sx/, which must be an articulatory nightmare for all neighbours of the Dutch and Flemings. This is what counts here. Ad43 13:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So should we mention this in every language which has /sx/? And I'm still not convinced that this consonant cluster is significantly more problematic than any other.--88.101.76.122 14:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me 1 word in German where you pronounce an /sx/. Sure they have the /x/ sound in for instance Bach, but if you want to say Schumacher you hear: shuma/x/er. Mallerd 14:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I said in Slavic languages, like Russian, Czech, Slovak etc. Right, there is no word with /sx/ in German, but places of articulation are entirely different, why it should be hard to pronounce?--88.101.76.122 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but then, I am not raised as a German speaker. I am Dutch. Mallerd 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that the problem is that /x/ is not a separate phoneme in German, but just an allophone of /ç/ after back vowels. I used to have problems pronouncing /ŋ/ not followed by k or g. So I guess that German people have similar problem to pronounce /x/ not preceded by a back vowel. So, maybe German people say /sç/ and /sç/ sounds to Dutch people like /ʃ/?--88.101.76.122 15:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am a German native speaker, and I have absolutely no problem saying [sxe]. (by the way, IP, [sç] occurs only when the diminutive "-chen" follows a syllable ending on "s" (Hase [haːzɘ] (hare) > Häschen [hɛːsçen] (little hare, bunny)). It seems to me that the only reason you could uncover a German spy by letting him say Scheveningen is that initial "sch" is always pronounced [ʃ] in German and the combination [sx] does not occur naturally. As a spy, he needs to be very dumb not to know the basic differences between German and Dutch pronounciation. But combining [s] and [x] is not a serious problem. In some dialects, eg. Swiss German, you can say "s'Chäfi" [ˈsxæfi] (Das Gefängnis - the jail). What would be more of a problem is the [ɣ] (or [ʝ]?) in "Gent", since this sound does not exist in standard German at all. -- megA 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As a Flemish speaker wgo has lived in Germany, I agree with MegA, /sx/ is quite easy for German speakers, the main problem would be the pronunciation of the initial letter in "Gent" But the pronounciation of this letter is also one of the main differences between Holland "hard g" and Flanders "soft g" (and other regions of course, I'm not going to name them all) the soft g in particular is very difficult for German speakers, in my experience --Lamadude (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, this perennial "folk legend" of Germans-cannot-pronounce-Dutch-sch does not feature in the article itself. Very noticeable nonetheless is the frequency with which the words "difficult" and "difficulties" appear in the article. I wonder: why DO so many Dutch seem to prize and hug to themselves this notion that foreigners will NEVER master 100% native accuracy pronunciation of their language? Is it perhaps (I ask mischievously) the reverse facet of Netherlanders' fluency in so many other languages which they nevertheless speak with VERY DISTINCT Dutch accents!! :) -- Picapica (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Immigrant language

Dutch is an immigrant language in U.S.A, Brazil, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

How about South Africa? Mallerd 14:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely different issue. While during the colonial age the Dutch had colonies in (current) US and Australia, the main immigration in all these countries is 20th century. Afrikaans is an official language of South Africa; descending from the Dutch colonial settlers in the region pre 1800.Arnoutf 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong here, but I know that is the case. I was unclear, sorry for that, but I was referring to the migration of Dutch people to South Africa. I hear many stories of people and their families moving to South Africa. So I was wondering how much Dutch is actually spoken in South Africa. Mallerd 21:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not really a non-issue. In the 50's the numbers of Dutch immigrants were so high, that the possibility existed of a new, more modern Dutch variety of Afrikaans. Yet, such a mixed language didn't come out. At last all Dutch immigrants got absorbed into and assimilated to Afrikaans, as it should be. Ad43 07:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay :-)

P.S. as it should be? Mallerd 07:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean, this proved that Afrikaans could sufficiently stand on its own feet and that it really deserved to be recognised as a language of its own, in stead of some kind of corrupted Dutch or kitchen Dutch. Ad43 07:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I see, but I don't believe that Dutch speakers were planning to make Dutch the official language of South Africa. I was just pointing out that there were/are many Dutch immigrants in South Africa and I was wondering if that was notable for this article ;) Mallerd 09:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I never meant it was a non-issue (although my wording may have implied different). The argument above about Afrikaans being a stable stand-alone language - and the new wave of Dutch immigrants assimilating, was basically what I meant. In that regard it is a completely different issue from the other mentioned territories. In any case I think, the South African situation is unique, and deserves more/different attention from the more "common" immigration destinations. Arnoutf 10:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting here is also, that many Dutch speaking immigrants now at first use English to get understood. Only after a long presence there one is able to communicate using Dutch to people speaking Afrikaans and vice versa. Mutually using English is usually far more convenient. Ad43 11:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone provide actual evidence for the claim that in the 1950s high levels of Dutch immigration to South Africa briefly endangered the distinction between Afrikaans and Dutch? Lex3000

I think this has never been more than a very theoretic possibility. For comparable reasons a lot of people in the Netherlands fear that their language will be subordinated to English on the long run, while most experts foresee 'at worst' a form of switch-on/off bilingualism in the future, as we can observe already in some Scandinavian countries. Ad43 (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there reasons for keeping this then? It's little more than historical speculation and the hybrid Afrikaans-Dutch language which theoretically could have evolved had this happened would still have been recognisable as a language of Dutch descent, which we know Afrikaans is anyway. Lex3000 —Preceding comment was added at 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly it could be rephrased a little. At least, three interesting points are:

• 1. Emigration numbers from the Netherlands were that high partly because of the close relationship between the two languages.
• 2. In no other immigration country a comparable chance of any more lasting influence from Dutch could have been that high.
• 3. This influx came too late to really influence Afrikaans. E.g. a century of half a century a earlier, its impact could have been more substantial. Ad43 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden???

infobox mentions dutch spoken in sweden. i only know 2 people who speak it here and know it has not much of an official presence... waht's the source ofthis claim? 77.116.230.85 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it seems weird, maybe true, but then needs reference. I took it out for now. Arnoutf 20:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Same in France !! no one speaks dutch there!! weird .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.87.93.59 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Netherlands and Belgian Sections

What's with the Netherlands section? it's full of errors, and i don't even know what the editor was trying to say so i can't fix it. --Nodoubt9203 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Same with the Belgian section. Looks like a learner of English has decided to rewrite large parts. As well as the grammar, the info in the Belgian section is also incorrect. Maybe it would be easiest to revert all the recent edits and go back to the last decent version. (To the person learning English, if you read this, I don't mean to offend, but we do have to maintain the writing standards of Wikipedia.) --Gronky 16:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not the editor of those parts, but I regard these criticisms as both too harsh and too cheap. To simply cancel these additions would be less fair. You better demonstrate your objections by carefully and prudently correcting the additions concerned. Ad43 08:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the Belgium section. Aside from the language, I doubt a lot of the content. The Flemish being famous among the French for their language pride? 25% of Brussels population speaks Dutch? I agree with the "most of the inhabitants are bilingual", but it forgets to mention that their second language is English or Arabic at least as often as it's Dutch (to the extent that we're talking about second languages that people speak well).

Flemish people have told me that even the police and the train station staff often don't speak good Dutch in Brussels. Keep in mind that many in Brussels are neither native French nor Dutch speakers - up to 30% according to author Alain Maskens. As for the Wallonia section, half of that info seems off-topic in an article about the Dutch language, but maybe that's just me.

If someone wrote a stunningly insightful, well-reference section with grammatical faults, I'd jump in to help, but that's not the case here. --Gronky 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I've just given my humble help to get these poor sections somewhat repaired and improved, but still rather superficially. Might this be a first step trying to meet your high standards? You're welcome. Ad43 22:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you want to avoid discouraging this new contributor. I can understand that, but I think you may be going too far and your approach may backfire. By tolerating a significant drop in the standards of the article, you might avoid offending this one new contributor, but when others see an article with incomprehensible sections, they will be less likely to bother contributing.

So, how many other potential contributors is it worth sacrificing for this one? I see another person has now complained about the factuality of that editor's contributions too now. --Gronky 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two things. One is helping a new editors becoming a better editor; and exerienced editors are in general causing less troubles once they learn norms and values of the Wiki project. I hope Ad43 will succeed here. It is another thing if this editor is not accepting any changes to his/her edits and becomes a stubborn POV pusher. Assumig good faith I think the first is more likely ;-) Arnoutf 19:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are also some expressions which are not scientific or informative in nature such as saying: "In comparison with the Dutch, the Flemish people are remarkably proud of their language"; this is not rational at all. Also I do not see any usefulness in telling the readers about the BHV political problem (it has its own article on Wikipedia). The same thing applies to the municipalities problems!! I think the section needs a new rewrite here and the editor who added the information can add all these language disputes (Flemish being remarkably proud of their language than the Dutch people + Belgium politically linguistic divisions) to another article and put it in the see also section. If I am not wrong, there's an article about Flemish identity where we can talk about it. Bestofmed 02:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think for the context there may be something of interest in the pride, especially as the Flemish tend to use much fewer loanwords compared to the Dutch; if this is indeed the consequence of being proud of the language this has an effect on the language itself, and is hence relevant. Of course references should be provided. Arnoutf 09:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Spot on, Arnoutf, the Flemings are much more puristic in their usage of the language. They still are in the defense, whereas the Dutch paradoxically show more self esteem in this respect. (This is a deep one!) Ad43 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Flemish use fewer loan words? That's backwards. Flemish is peppered with "tja" (fr:tien), "ça va", "salut", "ik ben content", "fa" (fr:fin or enfin), and plenty of others that I just can't remember right now. They do reject some French words in written contexts, such as "entrée" (used in the Netherlands) where they say "ingang". That may be because they don't want to lose out on having their language written above the door, but in general usage of the language, my experience has been that they use more French load words than the Dutch do. --Gronky (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Update: and "allez". Every conversation includes an "allez" or two. --Gronky (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Other striking examples in spoken Flemish are dégoûtant and embêtant, but I don't know if this is quantifiable. More interesting perhaps is the influence of French on grammar, as exemplified by the well-known cases where the preposition aan is used as a direct translation of French à (whereas the standard language would use voor or met, depending on the situation). Iblardi (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether this cosy little chat is going somewhere, though. Iblardi (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what you might find off-topic. We're discussing Wikipedia's info about the Dutch language. Specifically, we have one or two people claiming that in Flanders, the Dutch language is "purer" than in the Netherlands, and we have one or two people arguing the opposite. --Gronky (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would probably be correct to say that on the one hand spoken Flemish is more heavily influenced by French than the version of the language spoken in the Netherlands, while on the other hand there appears to be some puritanism (if it should indeed be interpreted as such) in Belgian Dutch regarding the pronunciation of certain French loanwords, such as dossier (pronounced as ìf it were a Dutch word), bureel (for bureau) and probably many other words of that kind. Iblardi (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 25% of Bruxellois? Nope

The article exagerates the number of people speaking Dutch. --Gronky 16:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And another intresting question would be how many of the new Francophones or their parents have (had) another mother tongue, be it Flemish Dutch or otherwise. Ad43 08:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That would indeed be interesting to know. (Although it would belong on the Brussels article.) --Gronky 20:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium Section

This section seems very POV and I feel like it reads like an argument for Flemish politics/ language. I think it can be cleaned up some, but wanted to discuss it here first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.140.93 (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it is not about the language but about the problem in Belgium. Arnoutf 19:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree also, it's no more about linguistics but about politics of Belgium and the languages dispute there, this section should include things related only to Flemish as a variant of dutch in Belgium and not as a national identity. Ok to change. Bestofmed 01:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the section some. If some one could review it and make any other needed changes, that would be great. Tnxman307 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And I've just added a very trustworthy reference in the blamed editor's case. Ad43 06:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Map

The map on this page is ridiculously exaggerated. Saying that Dutch is a 'less important' language in Japan and the DRC is almost hilarious. Also people in the Rhineland do not speak Dutch and the language is only of minor importance in Indonesia. No one speaks it there, only some history and law students need to learn it. In my humble opinion this map was based on very, very, very, very wishful thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.175.70 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes the map is woeful. The inclusion of Japan in the map must be inspired by the fact that Dutch merchants were allowed to establish a small colony in Nagasaki several centuries ago. I believe that a small Japanese/Dutch dictionary was compiled (but I have no sources to confirm this information). Augusta2 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems as if the designer of this map had in mind not so much the Total situation of Dutch (Low Franconian), including native speakers, users as colonial language and school language, but rather All countries where Dutch is used, has ever been used or played a certain role whatsoever. And if this is were his real objective, he could even have included the Dutch colonies in the 17th century, as there were New Amsterdam (aka New York) and in Bresil (Recife, Olinda). Ad43 (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, the map is ridiculous and only serves to lower the quality of an otherwise good article. "Less important colonial language" has to be some sad new record in original research, and marking Afrikaans as Dutch on the main map is alsp a bit strange. As no-one has spoken for the map, I'm removing it. JdeJ (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deutsch

"It would be a mistake for an English speaker to assume a direct similarity for the words Dutch and 'Deutsch'". I've no idea what the term "direct similarity" means, but the terms "Dutch" and "Deutsch" DO have a common origin. Moreover, in the past, the term "Dutch" used to be used with reference to Germany. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology says that "Dutch" was first used to mean "German" in the 14th century, and was only later restricted to the sense "pert. to the people of Holland" (16th century). The Middle Dutch word "dutsch", from which our word "Dutch" is taken, could mean "Dutch" OR "German". 86.134.10.71 (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

All fine and true, but the historic and etymologic roots are less relevant than the sharp distinction in usage that exists since centuries. Dutch and German are sister languages. This fact is well reflected in the very existence of both terms. Ad43 (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the statement it would be a mistake for an English speaker to assume a direct similarity for the words Dutch and 'Deutsch' is wooden and unclear English (the writer does not appear to know what the English word "similarity" means -- it does not mean "equivalence" but "appearing or being almost, but not exactly, the same"). I am totally aware that "Dutch" and "Deutsch" do not mean the same thing: I am also perfetly entitled, as an English-speaker, to observe that the words are indeed very similar in both sound and appearance. The whole paragraph needs re-writing. -- Picapica (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the style maybe improved (but not the concepts). I had a go at it, feel free to amend. Arnoutf (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section, retaining the "concepts" (I hope you will agree, Arnoutf) while adding some further information and attempting to lose the rather haughty tone of "it would be a mistake for an English speaker to assume..." etc. -- Picapica (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of AN

http://taalschrift.org/reportage/000659.html Here you can read that AN was based on Southern Dialect to a very small degree. This is why I have added as "citation needed"-thingy in the section about Flanders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.220.208 (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Contemporary" map

I would suggest that the map currently displayed in the article is somewhat ridiculous, not least in suggesting that Dutch is NOT the chief language of such towns as Zwolle, Deventer, and Zutphen (as opposed to, say, Düsseldorf and Duisburg). The map (which claims to show the "Contemporary continental [...] Dutch language area") is in fact a depiction not of the distribution of modern Nederlands but of the Niederfränkisches Sprachgebiet (Low Franconian language area): not the same thing at all... -- Picapica (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is a historical map of Low Franconian. Arnoutf (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Dutch vocabulary is predominantly Germanic in origin, considerably more so than English. "

How was that arrived at? Sounds made up. Was the corpus the entire Oxford English dictionary??? Needs citation otherwise POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.123.170 (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] number of speakers

For the moment the article claims that there are 30.000.000 native Dutch speakers, counting the 23 million native Dutch speakers together with the 7 million native Afrikaans speakers. This is wrong, Afrikaans is not Dutch, it's similar to Dutch, you will understand it if you speak Dutch but it IS not Dutch, it's a separate language. I'm going to change the figures, if you disagree please say so here. --Lamadude (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really going to argue but its easier to understand than some dialects. (Red4tribe (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

That doesn't really matter... those speakers of dialects can still speak Dutch if they want to, and can write sentences in perfectly good standard Dutch, Afrikaans speakers won't be able to do that. Norwegians and Swedes can talk with each other as well, but they're still different standard languages. --Lamadude (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vowels and diphtongs

The list of fourteen simple vowels and four diphthongs listed in this article seems to fall short in that it merely distinguishes between ʏ and øːand omits the intermediate ʏ : as in "deur", "geur" and "zeur". There is a marked distinction between the pronunciation of the diphtong in these words and the pronunciation of both the diphtong øːin "neus", "leut" and "deuk" and the vowel ʏ in "hut", "dus" and "bul". One also notices the absence of œ as in "huid", "uit" and "fuik", which is markedly different from the open œy in "ui", "lui" and "bui". I am hesitant to edit correspondingly since references do not generally appear to support this, but I do wonder what the general feeling about this is. --Roger Pilgham (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not a linguist myself; I am Dutch and I think the difference is subtle (at least in AN dialects). In any case I would say, find a reference that supports it, otherwise it looks a lot like original research to me. Arnoutf (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Arnout. Thanks. --Roger Pilgham (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Netherlandic

Netherlandic is not a term for the Dutch language. Netherlandic is an adjective for of the "Netherlands", a country. It has seen limited use by some English scolars, but in that field it is a term that encompasses Dutch and Afrikaans. Britannica oddly does have an article called Netherlandic, but at the same time does not use Netherlandic in any of its other articles. The language of Belgium and the Netherlands is noted as Dutch. Furthermore a google search results into the following: 1.140.000 for Dutch language, 1.500 for Netherlandic language (most are links to Brittanica) thus for every page that uses "Netherlandic" there are 7427 pages that use "Dutch". A minor mentioning that some scolars use Netherlandic is possible but posing it as a well accepted all used synonym is not.HP1740-B (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree Netherlandic is not in colloquial use, it is indeed a term for the Dutch language as Encyclopedia Britannica] reports. So to be honest there is a problem with above arguments. Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No there isn't.HP1740-B (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me..... I have provided a reliable source that EXPLICITLY states that Netherlandic IS a term for the Dutch language, and an argument by HP1740-B who EXPLICITLY states that Netherlandic IS NOT a term for the Dutch language. How can you say that there is not a problem in the arguments? Arnoutf (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well. You having one source doesn't that mean there is a problem with my arguments. Which I also base on sources, among them Britannica. It's a matter of assessing the most reliable, accurate source. Britannic can, and has been proven to, be wrong too. Britannica has only one article that uses Netherlandic, not just as a title but as a word. At the same time I bring forward the overwhelming use of Dutch, scientific use of Netherlandic and provided a possible solution. Also, the oxford dictionary uses Dutch, and doesn't have an entry called Netherlandic, hence it's not even acknowledged as a word. Furthermore I have the support/agreement of other users on this page. Given this, you having a (singule) source that happens to be the only one that claims it's thé word for Dutch ... doesn't look like a problem to me.HP1740-B (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A search on Google Books turns up several instances which suggest that "Netherlandic language" is used as a synonym of "Dutch language". Here we have a NEB article mentioning the word otherwise than as a title: [1]. Your own suggestion needs to be corroborated with sources. I reverted your edit because it directly contradicted what was explicitly stated in the EB article, which is normally fine to use as a source. The expression may not be widely used, and maybe it should rather be put between parentheses or even made into a footnote, but as it is now it looks as if you're discarding an often-used source only on the base of your opinion. You keep talking about sources you have; fine, but if you want your proposals to be accepted you should show those sources yourself instead of laying the burden of proof on other people and expect them to go and look for them. Iblardi (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You should have made your reasons for reinstalling "Netherlandic" clear in the edit summary, instead of being rude and letting others guess your motives. My sources:

• Google search, proving the <0,01% use of Netherlandic as a term used on the internet for Dutch.
• Google library catalog: 4 books on the Dutch language use "Netherlandic language", all followed by Dutch in their subscripting and all are written by native Dutch speakers. 7140 books on the Dutch language use Dutch.
• Google Scholar: 93 hits for "Netherlandic language", nearly all orginate with 2 books, both written by native Dutch speakers. 12,900 for "Dutch language".
• Dictionary entry: Merriam-Webster:found; adj. of "the Netherlands". ODE: no entry found.
• Use: Britannica uses "Netherlandic languages".[2] Indicating that Netherlandic here refers to the various languages of the Low Countries, not Dutch.
• Use: Nearly all pages speak of "Netherlandic Dutch", in reference to Dutch spoken in the Netherlands. Again, a country is meant, not a language.

Conclusion; use is extremely limited, scholary/academic use is used only in books written by Dutch speakers, no dictionary acknowledges the word, and most use of Netherlandic online is as an adjective of "the Netherlands" or used to indicate the Dutch spoken in the Netherlands.HP1740-B (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you use the Britannica page out of context; you refer to use in the English language page and you omit reference to the Netherlandic language article in Britannica. Furthermore the use on the Eng Lang page states it is the language of the Flemish and the Dutch, not a combination language of Flemish and Dutch (which does not exist as it is Dutch).

Furhtermore, limited use is still evidence of use. I would accept if you added something like "rarely named Netherlandic" or similar but outright removal goes against basic Popperian science (you need only to provide a single black swan to prove not all swans are white). In my opinion your argument above is logically flawed; so I cannot take up your conclusions. Arnoutf (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Britannica article does just that. You said: "the use on the Eng Lang page states it is the language of the Flemish and the Dutch, not a combination language of Flemish and Dutch". The Britannica article in question says this "and West (German, Netherlandic [Dutch and Flemish], Frisian, English)." I don't see me removing any context there. Neither did I 'omit' the "Netherlandic language" article. I used it to prove the multiple inconsistant terms Britannica uses, and hence it unreliabity. Your swann allegory can easily be reversed. If all the swanns on earth were white but one, would that mean that one could not say "Swanns are white", but that you would be forced to say "Swanns are white, except for 1 swann who is/was black". Its existance does not automatically justify its mentioning. I have proven the negliable use and have provided sources on the various interpretations of "Netherlandic" which show it's not a term used officially nor for a single theme.HP1740-B (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Read Karl Popper before you make that inference. To prove that not ALL swans are white you really need only non-white one. Based on finding a single black swan you cannot say anything about the number of black swans. Arnoutf (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not hide behind rhethoric. My comparison was valid as the numbers are there. Why don't you say anything to rebut my remarks on your other arguments? The ones that did not involve poultry.HP1740-B (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant, because you removed a sourced mentioning of the occurence of a synonym and then adduced a multitude of other sources which did not mention it to prove that it didn't really exist. The dispute is about whether the word is used in English as a synonym for Dutch and hence its inclusion in the article is justified, not if it is the more common term. Other examples where the term "Netherlandic" is used in this way are the census lists of the Australian government ([3]) (as inferred from the fact that "Dutch" isn't listed separately and "Afrikaans" is) and at least one English dictionary entry. [4] Iblardi (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No Iblardi, that is not the point. The point here is not wether the word does or doesn't exist, but wether inclusion is justified and helpfull given its extremely limited, contradictory, double and generally vague use. Also, not that it matters for the overall discussion, but I do not consider a dictionary without profesional writers and/or a bound edition to be truly reliable.HP1740-B (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you read the entry again (and see [5]). But you know what, this whole point isn't really worth the drama. As far as I'm concerned, the article is fine as it is now. Iblardi (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Iblardi, also the word "infrequently" adresses your valid point it is not common; while inclusion is validated as the provided reference provides irrefutable evidence that the use does exist. So I think this should be a solution acceptable to both points of view, and hence neutral. (Also note that I started out believing in your claim it should not be mentioned (null hypothesis), but after a quick google search provided evidence of the contrary (my search for the "black swann" yielded one in the form of Britannica) I had no alternative then to change my opinion.) Arnoutf (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of Nederlands

I provided a literal translation of Nederlands as Netherlandic; which was changed to Lowlands with reference to the fact that "Nether" is archaic. While I agree it is indeed archaic, I think in this specific that is actually a very good thing, as the partial "Neder" is archaic in Dutch as well. So by translation Neder as Nether I think you keep both meaning and spirit. Arnoutf (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Second issue; I completely fail to see the reference to Lallans which is a Scottish dialect version of Lowlands. We are not referring to Frisian, or Limburgian names in the naming section, so why would we refer to a Scottish dialect. I just don't see the relevance, can you please explain? Arnoutf (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"-Neder", and its variations "-neer", "-neden", are not at all archaic in Dutch. "-nether" in English is however. "Low", isn't. The meaning is identical. If there is one thing that is typical for archaic words, it's a lost of recognition and spirit. Second issue: Lallans is a term with exactly the same meaning and origin but of English origin. To an English speaker 'lallans' sounds more natural than 'netherlands' hence its inclusion.HP1740-B (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If "neder" is not archaic can you give me examples (names excluded) where it is in common use today (I can only come up with neerwaarts which seems pretty archaic to me). But I agree that either Lowlands or Netherlands covers the meaning (with the latter being archaic). So in my opinion there is a choice to be made there that will be slightly subjective (either use the modern lowlands or the archaic but similar in form word netherlands).

I really don't see that Lallans is relevant though. First of all, it is not English but Scottish (which is as English as Frisian is Dutch). Secondly I seeriously doubt that "lallans" sounds natural to an English speaker (Scots excluded). Thirdly, even if it were natural to English speakers I think the analogy is not sufficiently developed/clear to add to the text. Arnoutf (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nederig. Nederlaag. Neerkijken op, neerleggen, neerslachtig, neerslag, neerstorten, beneden, etc etc.HP1740-B (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok Nederlaag I go with (neder; beneden are not truly combination words); but all the rest use the "neer" form which seems the more modern form evolved from neder. But fair enough, I'll go with lowlands. Arnoutf (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But are we really certain that 'Nederlanden' should be translated as 'low lands', as it seems on first sight? It might also specifically refer to the area as being located 'further downstream' as viewed from a more inland, 'higher' position. This distinction is not uncommon in other languages (e.g. Greek 'anabasis', 'march into the interior', literally 'upward'). In that case 'low' would not have the connotation that it has on first sight, i.e. 'low-lying'. Iblardi (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a new argument. But would translating as "Nether" account for that potential meaning? (my control of the implicit subtleties of that word in English is not sufficient to be sure) If it does not, the new argument is not very relevant. Arnoutf (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure, I am just doubting the value of using 'Lowlands' as a one-on-one translation for 'Nederlanden'. I posted it more as a thought than as an argument in favour of either form, but I think it is not irrelevant to the discussion. The Scottish form would probably loose its relevancy if this were indeed the case. Iblardi (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the argument against Scottish form, but there are in my opinion (see above) more arguments against including that. Arnoutf (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that form was already far-fetched to begin with i.m.o.

My guess would be that 'nether' is more archaic than Dutch 'neder'. But instead of providing a litteral translation, which might be problematic, we could give examples of words in English containing the element 'nether-' and introduce them with a clarifying 'compare'. Iblardi (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)