Talk:Dutch language/Archive4

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.

Contents

Problems with the Map of Dutch Language

The map incorrectly paints entire countries such as South africa and namibia as africaans speaking. Unless someone has statistics showing a substantial percentage (may be 10%, 25% or even 50%) speak africaans in these countries this map goes. In order to paint carelessly entire countries, the statistics with correct references must be shown.

For instance references must be shown as to how many africans speakers are there as of 2005-2006. Any statistics older than 2000-2001 should not be included.

Suggestion: The yellow paint on african countries should be removed and replaced with one or two dots on those african countries for which there are references, otherwise this blatantly wrong depiction should not be reverted.

I strongtly suspect that not more than 5-10% of population in any of these african countries speak africaans even though they have colonial experience with holland. Their education system etc is all in their own languages and english is second most spoken language.

Your suspicion is wrong. Approximately 14 % of the South African population speak Afrikaans as their first language. In the Western Cape, the percentage of Afrikaans speakers exceeds 50 % and, in the Northern Cape, it is close to 70 %. We can safely say then that the western half of South Africa is majoritarily Afrikaans-speaking. Moreover, Afrikaans is a common second language in South Africa and the percentage of South Africans who can speak it is actually much higher than the percentage of native speakers only (cf. French in Canada). 161.24.19.82 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

TOO many random dots: I also have problems with too many dots in indonesia and australia. For greater accuracy each dot should represent a number.

For example one square should represent : 1 million or something like that. Dots or squares should not be too big so as to overwhelm the map itself. This can give erroneous view so that it may seem like a large percentage of people in indonesia speak dutch, but inreality less than 1% speak dutch. I suspect less than 0.1% (230,000) speak any dutch in indonesia.

Again, references should be provided.

Some suggestions on dots: I tend to think that unless at least 1% of population speaks a particular language there is no need to provide a dot. Otherwise we would have to provide dots all over the world, since in almost every country there may be dutch consulates, dutch tourists and dutch speaking native guides, etc etc, dutch business offices. unsigned edit 27 Oct 2006 02.00 by user:Samstayton

Sounds like a reasonable argument; I would say that we might want to make two bands. Use an unsaturated (gray-ish-yellow) colour for regions (with reference) wherer Dutch speaking is between 25%-75% and the bright yellow where Dutch speaking is over 75%. (ps please sign your edits using ~~~~ ) Arnoutf 07:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

===Recommendations=== I googled the dutch language query both as first and second language. I found that both first and second language speakers combined together amount to 21-22 million speakers, which is same as that provided in the top right corner in the article.

Here is some math:

1. netherlands: 16 million speakers 2. Belgium: another 5 million out of a population of 10 million (this is an estimate) 3. Suriname: Another half million. 4. Aruba: Few thousands.

  • Total: more than 21.5 million

This can only mean one thing. There are not more than a few thousand dutch speakers (both first and second language) in other parts of the world. here is a government link http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/december/GermanicBranch.html to support this.

This also means that unless we have credible references to prove that dutch is spoken by the millions or at least one million in countries like Indonesia, we should not put large squares around the globe. I presume that some of us still have colonial hang over to go on putting dots indiscriminately everywhere on the globe. Such maps will be deleted.

 Samstayton 02:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I object to the number of only 5 million speakers in Belgium. Cia.gov pointed that 60 percent of Belgium speaks Dutch. The population of Belgium is 10,379,067 (July 2006 est.) That means that 6.2 million people speak Dutch. The Netherlands has 16.5 million inhabitants.

So: 1. Netherlands: 16.5 mln 2. Belgium: 6.2 mln 3. Suriname: 440 thousand. = 23 million.

Section header

It is unclear to me why the section header "The Dutch spoken in Belgium is not called Flemish" is continually reinserted. It quite patently is called Flemish. Saying that it is not called Flemish is blatantly and transparently incorrect. Change the section heading to something else if you don't like it, but don't make a section heading that is patently false. Nohat 06:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dutch in Flanders is Dutch all the same.This article has already wasted way to much time and effort to the whole Flemish thing.The section header will remain as it is now.The VTR always uses the term "Nederlands" not "Vlaams" when concerning the language of Flanders,period. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 11:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But it's patently false. Every English dictionary has under the entry entitled "Flemish", something along the lines of "the Germanic language of the Flemings that is made up of dialects of Dutch" [1]. The varieties of Dutch spoken in Belgium are, indeed, called Flemish and stating that they are not is simply false. This is not in any way a disputable matter. Nohat 16:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no "Flemish language".There is only Dutch. Various dialects of Dutch are called Flemish, nobody denies that, but DUTCH is not called Flemish. Just like English in the USA is called ENGLISH and not AMERICAN. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire: one of the definitions given for the noun American in Merriam-Webster is "American English" [2], so again, you have made another unsubstantiated (and false) claim. To be clear, no one has said anything about a "Flemish language". However, the English spoken in Scotland is called "Scottish", the English spoken in Australia is called "Australian", and the Dutch spoken in Belgium is called "Flemish" just as the English spoken in the United States is called "American". Nohat 17:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous, in Scotland they either speak Scottish English or Scots, in Australia they speak Australian English and in the USA they speak American English.They all speak English, be it with minor spelling and pronounciation differences.

In Belgium they speak Dutch, not "Belgian Dutch" and not Flemish.Flemish is a dialect, Dutch is the language, they refer to what they speak as Dutch and any foreigner with some minute knowledge about the country knows it too.

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


You misunderstand. No one is claiming that the Dutch spoken in Belgium is not called Dutch. But it is also called Flemish, and saying that it is not called Flemish is wrong. You are directly contradicting what the dictionary says. If a dictionary says a word means something, then it prima facie means that thing, and unless you have some kind of competent and reliable source that says otherwise, your claims are patently wrong. No one is contradicting the claim that Dutch is spoken in Belgium. But the claim that the Dutch spoken in Belgium is not called "Flemish" is on its face a false statement. The Dutch spoken in Belgium is called "Flemish". I'm going to add some references to the article and let the readers decide for themselves. Nohat 20:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Flemish refers to a number of dialects in the West of Flanders.I don't care whay nonlinguists think what it means, that's it. Dutch spoken in Belgium might be called Flemish, but certainly not by the majority simply because it's incorrect. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that "Dutch spoken in Belgium might be called Flemish", but you continue to advocate for a section header that says "Dutch spoken in Belgium is not called Flemish". Either it is called Flemish, or it's not. I think it has been sufficiently established that it is, and you acknowledge it. So why does the section title continue to contradict the established facts? You know, it is not linguists who decide what words mean; it is the people who use those words who decide what the words mean. If the Dutch spoken in Belgium is called "Flemish" (which it is), then "the Dutch spoken in Belgium" is on its face one of the meanings of the word "Flemish", regardless of whether you like this fact or not. The fact the some people consider this to be "wrong" does not make it so. Nohat 21:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Flemish can refer to a) the non standardized collection of dialects in (depending on your definition) three different areas (some exclude parts of Flanders and/or include parts of the Netherlands) or b) unofficially, and exclusively in the Netherlands, Dutch as spoken in Belgium. The latter use is to be discouraged, especially in a scientific context. Bye, Shinobu 22:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
"Exclusively in the Netherlands" is plainly not the case: this is a standard meaning of the English word "Flemish" in English-speaking countries, as evidenced by the definitions given in English dictionaries. "Is to be discouraged": that's quite a value-laden claim to be made in the agentless passive voice. Discouraged by whom? And who gave them the authority to encourage said discouraging? This all sounds suspiciously like a subversive attempt to legislate the meaning of words. Nohat 01:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for you: The Holocaust is an event of which some groups claim it never happened. Does this mean that the article should start:

"The Holocaust, also known as The Shoah (Hebrew: השואה HaShoah), is the name applied to the SUPPOSABLY state-led systematic persecution and genocide of the Jews and other minority groups of Europe and North Africa during World War II by Nazi Germany and its collaborators"

Of course not.Why? Because even though some people disagree experts (and hopefully the majority of the general public) KNOW it happened. The same thing applies to Flemish.Some people think it means Dutch spoken in Flanders.But the majority, including the Flemings themselves and every single linguist you 'll ever meet, know it's false and incorrect and that Dutch in Belgium, is simply called Dutch.

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 07:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am tempted here to invoke Godwin's Law and declare you the loser of this argument, but instead I will simply point out that Holocaust deniers are not reliable sources, but English dictionaries are. Your analogy would only be applicable if I were attempted to put forward the opinions of unreliable sources. But, when it comes to the meanings of English words, English dictionaries are about as reliable as you can get. Nohat 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Flamish is a very odd word. Usually Netherlands people call Flemish Flamish just because of the accent. And yes, there are a few words that are different, the dictionary Van Dale, the largest dictionary in NL, uses the term belgicisme , belgicism, what means that the word is only or mostly used in Belgium, but not wrong per se. So regarding to Van Dale, there is no Flamish, but just a few Belgian Dutch words that are different. I show for instance gracht or sate. In the Netherlands a gracht is within a city, in Belgium it is between grassfields. In the Netherlands sate refers to some mean on a stick with brown sauce, in Belgium it is a peace of meat, a peace of vegetable, a piece of meat etc on a stick without the brown sauce. You can see that more as culturedifferences as a different language.

But when you state that Flamish is a dialect, you should however state imho that there are multiple dialects in Flanders. Such as Western Flemish (vls.wikipedia). I would advice you to talk on this behalf with user:Henna and/or user:GerardM and/or user:steinbach. The first is a user who lives in Flanders, and has quite a lot experience on NL/BE language differences. GerardM is working a lot with dialects and languages because of his work on WiktionaryZ. Steinbach has done quite some work on setting up vls: . effeietsanders 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. This is not a discussion of what the Dutch word vlaams means. This is a discussion of what the English word Flemish means. The two words are very similar and have similar meanings, but it seems that they do not have exactly the same semantic nuances. According to English dictionaries, the word Flemish, means, variously "A group of Dutch dialects spoken in the southwestern Netherlands, northwest Belgium, and parts of northern France", "the Germanic language of the Flemings that is made up of dialects of Dutch", and so forth. If anyone disagrees that this is what the English word Flemish means, then a reliable source will have to be presented, and then the disagreement between the sources can represented using the NPOV in the article. In the meantime, the article continues to claim "Dutch spoken in Belgium is not called Flemish" which is quite clearly something that is not universally agreed upon, and should be changed to a more neutral statement. Nohat 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The well known Dutch dictionary van Dale shows for the word "Vlaams":
  • (noun) het Nederlands dat in de Nederlandstalige gewesten van België gesproken wordt
(The Dutch spoken in the Dutch speaking regions of Belgium).
Looks like pretty conclusive evidence about the usual meaning of the word. −Woodstone 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
So why does the article still say "Dutch spoken in Belgium is not called Flemish"? Nohat 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Dutch. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 08:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not a valid argument. Just because A is B doesn't mean that A is not C. Nohat 16:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That might be, but 1+1 is still 2 I believe. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. Arithmetic has nothing to do with simple set theory. My argument was that even though Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Dutch (A is B), Dutch spoken in Belgium is also called Flemish (A is C). It is true that Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Dutch--no one disputes that--but it is also true that Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Flemish. Therefore the statement that "Dutch spoken in Belgium is not called Flemish" is false. It should be removed from the article. Nohat 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just jumping in here, having read the above discussion. I haven't agreed with everything I've ever seen Nohat say at Wikipedia, or every bit of his style of presenting his viewpoints. But, here, I agree with the basic point he's making. — President Lethe 01:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you even know how stupid this sounds? The Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Dutch it says the same thing twice. Like the English in England is called English.Duh! Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 10:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What is stupid-sounding is your total unwillingness or inability to accept even the simplest, most elementary aspects of logic. The statement "Dutch spoken in Belgium is not called Flemish" has been conclusively established as false, and your continuing to reinsert it is bordering on wanton uncooperativeness. Nohat 16:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you seem to have a problem with accepting the fact that your not right.

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is you who is unwilling to accept you are in error. I have demonstrated conclusively that the statement "Dutch spoken in Belgium is not called Flemish" is false by citing evidence and making logical arguments. You have simply denied it without providing any verifiable sources or reasonable argument. I have provided reliable, verifiable sources that say "Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Flemish". If you wish to contest that claim, you will have to provide reliable, verifiable sources that say otherwise. Nohat 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This discussion keeps popping up from time to time.
  1. Solution from policy and Wikipedia community practice: Relevant, reliable sources have already been cited so disputed text has to go.
  2. Solution in case this is some kind of translation issue: Rex seems to interpret "is called" as indicating the language's one and only (official) name. To native speakers of English it obviously indicates there may be other names as well.
  3. Solition with original research, not offered as support for the article but appealing to Rex's common sense since he knows it's all true: The fact is that many people (most of them from the Netherlands but it is not unheard of in Belgium) say "Flemish" when referring to "Belgian Dutch". They shouldn't, it's officially wrong from the POV of those who officially named the official language of the northern part of Belgium and the entire Netherlands Dutch, it's so wrong, but there it is: they do, and as long as they do, their dictionaries will reflect that meaning.
I hope this helps a bit. AvB ÷ talk 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion: the only official language is Dutch. The people in Belgium speak Flemish as much as the people near Assen speak Drents (the local dialect) and inhabitant of Rotterdam speak Rotterdams (which is as much a separate language as Cockney in London is from English). I think a way out may be some reference to the dialects in the lines of The version of Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Flemish which is true, while not denying it is still Dutch. Can everyone live with that line Arnoutf 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because there are no versions of Dutch, there is only one standard.People in Flanders speak Dutch, which is Dutch and not Flemish, which is a dialect. A line like "Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Flemish" is totally wrong and unacceptable.Because the language of Belgium is NOT refered to as Flemish but Dutch, despite colloguial use. And more so because that header IMPLIES that the only correct name for Dutch in Belgium is Flanders.Ridiculous. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that this is about the use of "Vlaams" when referring to standard Dutch with some typically Belgian aspects, not about "Vlaams" as a name for dialects like "Westvlaams". A line like "Dutch spoken in Belgium is called Flemish" is as obviously wrong as the line "Dutch spoken in Belgium is not called Flemish".
Rex, since you clearly do not accept the various arguments (policy aspects, possible misunderstanding of the English "is called" and an appeal to your common sense) and completely disregard the developing consensus here, and instead keep arguing from authority, I would like to encourage you to consider policy aspects and consensus aspects much more carefully. You may want to pay special attention to the undue weight section of the WP:NPOV policy. AvB ÷ talk 20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
On a side note, some editors here may want to WP:AGF and be more WP:CIVIL. This especially applies to edit summaries since changing them requires special editing tools not available to most users. AvB ÷ talk 20:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Rex Germanus, you wrote "the language of Belgium is NOT refered to as Flemish but Dutch, despite colloguial use". As far as I can tell, your "despite colloquial usage" means "despite what it's referred to as in colloquial issue". So, we could rewrite your sentence, replacing "referred to as" with "called", and get "the language of Belgium is NOT called Flemish but Dutch, despite its being colloquially called Flemish". That, right there, demonstrates the logical fallacy. It's kind of like saying "an apple is not called an apple except by people who call it an apple", which is a pointless truism. I think the closest you can get to the truth, when you consider points that you seem to concede in roundabout ways while refusing to concede them in a straightforward way, is "Even though I really, really don't like it, and I think it's an unofficial and nonstandard name, I have to admit that some people, and even some English-language reference books, use the English word Flemish to describe Dutch when they're talking about language of Belgium." A toilet on a ship is often called a head; imagine how silly I would look if I kept insisting that, because "head" is part of the set "toilet", "A ship's toilet is called a toilet and is NOT called a head." — President Lethe 21:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps the name for the section should incorporate a quotation from Rex Germanus's own post: "Various dialects of Dutch are called Flemish". :-)
Really, though. Dialects are subsets of languages. So, when a dialect is called x, it means that one of the names for part of the larger language is x. There are tons of dialects of English, for example: and, when someone is speaking Cockney, which is a dialect and accent of English, we say "This person's version of English is called Cockney." We're not denying that it's part of the English set: but it also does have another name. Insisting otherwise is like insisting that the letter B is not called B but only alphabet. — President Lethe 21:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Also, as may have been suggested already, let's remember that, here, we're talking only about English. Non-English words with similar pronunciations, spellings, and/or meanings are not the issue. We're talking only about English words.
Quotes from some reputable sources:
• From the "Flemings" article of the 1983 The World Book Encyclopedia:
Language differences have long been a source of conflict between the Flemings and the Walloons. The Flemings speak Dutch, and the Walloons speak French. When Belgium gained independence in 1830, French became its only official language.
• From the "Flemish Language and Literature" article of the 1983 The World Book Encyclopedia:
The Flemish language is a form of Low German (see GERMAN LANGUAGE). Many people speak Flemish in Belgium, especially in the provinces of East Flanders, West Flanders, Antwerp, Limburg, and Brabant. Some people also speak Flemish in The Netherlands. Flemish sounds much like the official language of The Netherlands. But many words are not pronounced and spelled the same way in Flemish as they are in Dutch. Flemish also resembles French.
• An entire entry from The World Book Dictionary (1983):
Flem|ish (flem´ish), adj., n. — adj. of or having to do with Flanders, its people, or their language. —n. 1 the people of Flanders. 2 their language, one of the official languages of Belgium. Flemish is a form of Low German closely related to Dutch.
• Dictionary.com's quote from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000):
adj. Of or relating to Flanders, the Flemings, or their language or culture.
n. 1. A group of Dutch dialects spoken in the southwestern Netherlands, northwest Belgium, and parts of northern France. 2. (used with a pl. verb) The Flemings.
It says it's from the "Middle English, probably from Middle Dutch Vlaemisch."
• Dictionary.com's quote from Princeton University's WordNet (2003) "flemish" entry:
adj : of or relating to Flanders or its people or language or culture; "the Flemish population of Belgium"; "Flemish painters" [syn: Flemish]
n 1: an ethnic group speaking Flemish and living in northern and western Belgium [syn: Flemish] 2: one of two official languages of Belgium; closely related to Dutch" [syn: Flemish, Flemish dialect]
• From page 1 of Dutch: A Complete Course for Beginners (1994):
Where is Dutch spoken?
Dutch is the native language of approximately 20 million people living on the North Sea coast in an area around the Rhine delta. The majority of these Dutch speakers live in The Netherlands, about 15 million. The remaining Dutch speakers live in the northern area of Belgium, known today as Vlaanderen. There are some differences in pronunciation and accent between speakers who come from these two main areas and also one or two small differences in vocabulary but Dutch is the native language of all of them, although Belgian Dutch speakers often refer to their language as Vlaams.
• An entire entry from Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language (1909, 1913, 1920):
Flem´ish, n. The Low German language of northern Belgium. It is closely related to Dutch. See INDO-EUROPEAN.
• From the opening paragraph of English-language Wikipedia's "Belgium" article:
Two major languages are spoken in Belgium: Dutch (or rather its Flemish variant) is mainly spoken in Flanders to the north, while French in Wallonia in the south.
• From the "Belgium" article on the 2001 Standard Edition CD-ROM of The World Book Encyclopedia:
Belgium has two official languages—Dutch, which is spoken by the Flemings; and French, which is spoken by the Walloons. The Belgian dialect of Dutch, previously called Flemish, now is referred to as Dutch. The official language for education and all public communication is Dutch in Flanders, French in Wallonia, and German in a tiny area of eastern Belgium. Both Dutch and French are used in the city of Brussels.
This CD-ROM's dictionary gives a definition of Flemish that is almost identical with that of the 1983 World Book Dictionary; the difference is in the second noun denotation: "their language, formerly one of the official languages of Belgium. Flemish is a form of Low German closely related to Dutch."
• The opening of English-language Wikipedia's "Flemish (linguistics)" article:
The term Flemish can be a linguistic one, referring to the speech of the Flemings, inhabitants of Flanders, or a geographical one, referring to any attribute of Flanders, but not to its official language, which is exclusively Dutch. It is used to describe certain non-standardized dialects spoken in Flanders, and sometimes to Dutch as spoken in Belgium. The latter usage, though widespread, is not considered correct by linguists: boundaries between areas of distinct groups of historical Dutch dialects do not coincide with the national borders.[1][2][3]
Also, Rex Germanus, you once wrote "There is no ‘Flemish language’.There is only Dutch." It seems possible here that you're misunderstanding a possible meaning when English puts such an adjective in front of the word "language". We can talk, for example, about "this Indian language"—and we're not necessarily saying that the name of the language is Indian, but are simply using the adjective Indian to describe a language (for example, a language of India, or a language spoken by the peoples who have been in the Americas the longest).
Enough for now.
President Lethe 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


By the way, I may have figured out Rex Germanus's "1+1=2" argument. Perhaps R.G. was trying to say "If Flemish is worth 1, and Dutch is worth 1, and we put Flemish and Dutch together, then we get 1+1=2—which is inapplicable, because they are not two separate languages." So maybe there was some sense to it.
Of course, all this stuff about Flemish as a dialect of Dutch contradicts the sources that describe Flemish as a dialect of Low German and only a relative of Dutch.
President Lethe 01:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Preslethe, for your cool-headed approach and as usual copious citations to reliable, verifiable sources from a variety of types of works. Nohat 03:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


I started and finished writing this post before seeing Nohat's comment immediately above:
I happened to be reading some of the extensive front matter of that 1920 Webster's New International Dictionary. On page xxi, I came across the following; this part of the book is headed "A Brief History of the English Language. By James Hadley, LL. D., Professor of the Greek Language and Literature in Yale College. Revised by George Lyman Kittredge, LL. D., Litt. D., Professor of English in Harvard University.", and is more specifically under the heading "Languages Akin to the English"; I'll transcribe the whole section, despite the possible reasons for objection to this lengthier transcription:
§ 12. 3. The West Germanic, conveniently divided into High Germanic and Low Germanic.
I. The High Germanic is the language of Upper or Southern Germany. The Old High German is seen in Otfrid's Krist, Notker's translation of the Psalms, and other monuments, most of them in verse, from the eighth century to the end of the elevent. The Middle High German, from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, has a rich poetical literature, including the Nibelungen Nôt with its attendant epics, and the lyric poetry of the Minnesinger. The New High German is the language of Luther's Bible version and of all German literature since the Reformation.
II. The Low Germanic, spoken in Northern Germany and the Netherlands. Here belong: (a) The Friesic or Frisian, which was once spoken along the whole northern coast of Germany, from the Elbe westward. Its early monuments consist almost wholly of laws, beginning with the fourteenth century. For a long time it has existed only as a popular idiom, and is now confined to a few small and scattered localities. (b) The Anglo-Saxon (sometimes called simply Saxon, and often known as Old English), which in the fifth and sixth centuries was transplanted from Northern Germany to Britain, and has had its subsequent development and history in that island. (c) The Old Saxon, which was spoken in Northern Germany between the Rhine and the Elbe, south of the narrow sea-coast region, which was occupied by the Friesic. It is known almost solely from the Hêliand (i. e., Savior), a metrical narration of the gospel history, preserved in manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries. (d) The Old Low Frankish, the language of the Netherlands in the same period, which was closely allied to the Old Saxon. Its modern representatives are (1) the Dutch, or Netherlandish, spoken in Holland, and used as a literary language since the last part of the thirteenth century; and (2) the Flemish, spoken in Flanders and often erroneously regarded as a dialect of the Dutch. (e) The Low German, stricktly so called (or Plattdeutsch), the idiom of the common people in Northern Germany, is the lineal descendant of the Old Saxon. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it was used as a literary language; but political circumstances, giving ascendancy to the High German, have reduced it to the inferior position of a popular dialect.
Now, obviously, that's only one bit of scholarship, and it's at least 85 years old; but it is yet another source saying, along with some of those that I quoted earlier today, that Flemish is not a dialect of Dutch.
This pushes me further toward wondering (in a topic that, I confess, I don't know hugely much about) whether perhaps there are two different things here, each one sometimes being called Flemish (to the objections of one camp or another):
• a dialect of Dutch that is spoken in the part of Belgium called Flanders
• a language or dialect tied more closely to Low German than to Dutch, and spoken in the part of Belgium called Flanders
Look at some of what we have here:
• "The Flemings speak Dutch" — "Flemings", The World Book Encyclopedia, 1983.
• "Many people speak Flemish in Belgium"; "Some people also speak Flemish in The Netherlands. Flemish sounds much like the official language of The Netherlands. But many words are not pronounced and spelled the same way in Flemish as they are in Dutch. Flemish also resembles French." — "Flemish Language and Literature", The World Book Encyclopedia, 1983.
• "Flemish is a form of Low German closely related to Dutch." — "Flemish", The World Book Dictionary, 1983.
• "A group of Dutch dialects" — "Flemish", The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2000.
• "one of two official languages of Belgium, closely related to Dutch" — "flemish", WordNet, 2003.
• "Belgian Dutch speakers often refer to their language as Vlaams" — Dutch: A Complete Course for Beginners (1994).
• "The Low German language of northern Belgium. It is closely related to Dutch." — "Flemish", Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language (1920).
• "Dutch (or rather its Flemish variant)" — "Belgium", Wikipedia.
• "The Belgian dialect of Dutch, previously called Flemish, now is referred to as Dutch." — "Belgium", The World Book Encyclopedia, 2001.
• "Flemish is a form of Low German closely related to Dutch." — "Flemish", The World Book Dictionary, 2001.
• "the speech of the Flemings"; "It is used to describe certain non-standardized dialects spoken in Flanders, and sometimes to Dutch as spoken in Belgium. The latter usage, though widespread, is not considered correct by linguists: boundaries between areas of distinct groups of historical Dutch dialects do not coincide with the national borders." — "Flemish (linguistics)", Wikipedia.
These things seem to be evidence of two separate definitions, controversy over which should be described in the article. Again:
• a dialect of Dutch that is spoken in the part of Belgium called Flanders
• a language or dialect tied more closely to Low German than to Dutch, and spoken in the part of Belgium called Flanders
The problem with such definitions as "of or relating to Flanders or its people or language or culture" is that they are unclear about whether they mean "a dialect of Dutch spoken by Flemings and/or in Flanders" or "a dialect of Low German spoken by Flemings and/or in Flanders".
One reputable source’s saying one thing and another reputable source’s saying something else, plus other sources’ seeming lack of precision, make evidence of a controversy of terms that should be addressed in the article if it's not already. (And section titles should not take sides in the controversy.)
President Lethe 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


My main point of interest is that the article says that:

  • People in Flanders speak Dutch.
  • Flemish a group of dialects.
  • Flemish, due to being a homononym to "Flemish" (as in Flemish people) creates much confusion.
For example, when a Fleming says "De Vlaamse taal" what does he mean? "The Flemish language" or "The language of the Flemmings"?

Rex 11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


But, mostly, we're not talking about what someone means when uttering the non-English words "De Vlaamse taal". We're talking about what people mean when they create English sentences using the English word Flemish. — President Lethe 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to help clear some of the confusion, Yes Standard Flemish and Standard Dutch are indeed the same. Their exist dialects of Dutch in the Netherlands and also dialects of Dutch in Belgium (also referred to as Flemish). Flemish people are never insulted when they are speaking Standard Dutch and it is referred to as Flemish. I am Dutch and was born and lived my first 20 years of life in the Netherlands, about 10 minutes from the Belgian border. Also, What is this about Low German never being a language? My father is from Lower Saxony in Germany and I am able to converse in Plattduutsch, do I speak a non-existant language?

Good to see people digging up good sources. See also Flemish (linguistics) and Flemish. There is a controversy between the scientific (linguistic) POV and the vernacular POV, which all need to be described, if only because many millions of people incorrectly call Dutch spoken by Flemings "Flemish". Attempt to pull it all together for possible use in the article (please correct where wrong):

Area:

  • Roughly the northern half of Belgium is taken up by an area called Flanders. Together with the Netherlands this forms a continuum where the official/cultural/literary language is Dutch (with the exception of the bilingual Belgian city of Brussels).

Language (from the linguistic POV):

  • Dutch is a standard language spoken and understood by virtually all "native" inhabitants of the entire area.
  • Dialects: In addition to the standard language, many parts of the area also have a dialect of Dutch (e.g. East Flemish in Belgium and Gronings in the Netherlands). Some parts even have a separate Germanic language such as Frisian or Limburgish. Some characteristics of these underlying dialects and languages spill over into standard Dutch locally, resulting in slightly different word choice/pronunciation/idiom/etc. (which are all part of standard Dutch). Flemish is the overall name for the West Flemish and East Flemish dialects spoken in the old county of Flanders.

Language (from the vernacular POV in the Netherlands):

  • Dutch: People are generally aware of the dialects spoken in the Netherlands, correctly distinguishing between "Dutch" and local dialects/overlapping languages such as Limburgish. They call Dutch spoken in the Netherlands "Dutch" or sometimes "Hollandish". Dutch spoken in Flanders is sometimes called "Dutch".
  • Flemish: People often incorrectly call the standard Dutch spoken in Flanders "Flemish" due to slight variations in word choice/pronunciation/idiom/etc. This is perceived as an insult by some Flemings.

Language (from the vernacular POV in Flanders):

  • Dutch: People are generally aware of the dialects spoken in Flanders, correctly distinguishing between "Dutch" and local dialects/overlapping languages such as West-Flemish or Brabantian. They call Dutch spoken in the Netherlands "Dutch" or sometimes "Hollandish".
  • Flemish is the overall name for the West Flemish and East Flemish dialects spoken in parts of Flanders. A minority prefer to call the standard Dutch spoken in Flanders "Flemish", sometimes politically motivated.

AvB ÷ talk 12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good effort, AvB. But what about the several sources that I cited that say that some kind of linguistic thing called Flemish is a dialect of Low German and not a dialect of Dutch?
I pulled together everything editors here need to know to solve the problems related to the question at the top of this section: It is unclear to me why the section header "The Dutch spoken in Belgium is not called Flemish" is continually reinserted. I did not address the controversy you saw, because it is unrelated to these problems. But it should be easy to find the solution to the Low German v. Dutch problem, and indeed the answer to the question whether there is a controversy in the first place: Editors should only consider scholarly (peer-reviewed scientific) sources when trying to describe a scientific point of view (in this case the linguistics POV). AvB ÷ talk 02:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I reïterate that what I've read just in the last day or so seems to be evidence of two separate definitions, controversy over which should be described in the article. Again:
• a dialect of Dutch that is spoken in the part of Belgium called Flanders
• a language or dialect tied more closely to Low German than to Dutch, and spoken in the part of Belgium called Flanders
The problem with such definitions as "of or relating to Flanders or its people or language or culture" is that they are unclear about whether they mean "a dialect of Dutch spoken by Flemings and/or in Flanders" or "a dialect of Low German spoken by Flemings and/or in Flanders".
One reputable source’s saying one thing and another reputable source’s saying something else, plus other sources’ seeming lack of precision, make evidence of a controversy of terms that should be addressed in the article if it's not already. (And section titles should not take sides in the controversy.)
One reputable, albeit old, dictionary even specifically says that it's an error to consider Flemish a dialect of Dutch and that it's actually a dialect of Low German.
Are these sources that use the word Flemish to describe a dialect of Low German, not a dialect of Dutch, just wrong, or ... ?
President Lethe 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes they are wrong. Low German is just a subgroup of West Germanic language, it was never an actual spoken language. Rex 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I know what Low German is. But Dutch is also "a subgroup of West Germanic language". This is too vague to be helpful.
First, a few more citations, and then an attempt at clarifying a point.
• From The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1991):
Flemish /ˈflemɪʃ/ adj. & n. —adj. of or relating to Flanders. —n. the language of the Flemings. [MDu. Vlāmisch (as FLEMING)]
• From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969):
Flem•ish (flĕm´ĭsh) adj. Abbr. Flem. Of or pertaining to Flanders, the Flemings, or their language. —n. Abbr. Flem. 1. The West Germanic language, related to Dutch, spoken by the Flemings. 2. The Flemings. Preceded by the. [Middle English, from Old Norse Flæmskr, from Middle Dutch Vlāmish, from Vlām-, FLANDERS.]
• Based on a part of the "The Indo-European Family of Languages" chart on the back endsheet of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969):
Proto-Indo-European
Germanic
West Germanic
Old Dutch
Middle Dutch
Dutch
Flemish
Afrikaans
Old Low German
Middle Low German
Low German
Here's the point I'm trying to make:
1. We have sources that are simply too vague. They say that the word Flemish means things like "the language of the Flemings" or "the language of Flanders". This is just too vague. It could mean "a language that is totally unrelated to all other Earthly languages" or "part of Dutch" or "part of Low German".
2. We have sources that clearly say that Flemish (the language of Flanders, the language of the Flemings) is part of Dutch.
3. We have sources that clearly say that Flemish (the language of Flanders, the language of the Flemings) is part of Low German.
It is possible that the sources in point 2 or point 3 are wrong.
But, at least in logic, if not in real life, there is another possibility. This possibility is a pair of two things:
4. Some people in Flanders speak a form of Low German. Some people in the world call this form of Low German Flemish.
5. Some people in Flanders speak a form of Dutch. Some people in the world call this form of Dutch Flemish.
I don't know whether 4 is true in the real world. But I have cited sources that say it is.
I don't know whether 5 is true in the real world. But I have cited sources that say it is.
This often happens with language. Example:
6. Some people wear a certain undergarment. Some people in the world (e.g., Britons) call this undergarment pants.
7. Some people wear a certain 'overgarment'. Some people in the world (e.g., Americans) call this 'overgarment' pants.
These two garments definitely are not the same thing (even though they are both part of the larger group of garments that cover the legs)—yet they are both called pants.
So,
8. If some Flemings speak a form of Low German, and if this form of Low German is sometimes called Flemish (the cited sources already say so), then the article should point out that one of the uses of the word Flemish is to describe a form of Low German spoken by Flemings.
9. If some Flemings speak a form of Dutch, and if this form of Dutch is sometimes called Flemish (the cited sources already say so), then the article should point out that one of the uses of the word Flemish is to describe a form of Dutch spoken by Flemings.
10. If points 8 and 9 are both true, than the article should point out that the word Flemish is used to describe both one form of speech that is a Flemings' version of Low German and is used to describe another form of speech that is a Flemings' version of Dutch.
President Lethe 19:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
A single CD-ROM by one reputable publisher has an encyclopedia that says "The Belgian dialect of Dutch, previously called Flemish, now is referred to as Dutch" and a dictionary that says "Flemish is a form of Low German closely related to Dutch". Some may take this as evidence of poor editorship; it can also be taken as strong evidence of disagreement on whether something called Flemish is part of Dutch or part of German—which could support the contention that two different things (a form of Dutch and a form of Low German) are both spoken in Flanders and are both called Flemish. — President Lethe 19:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Linguistically, it's very simple really.

We'll start at Old Dutch/Old Low Franconian.

  • Old Dutch
    • Middle Dutch (consisting of 5 main entities)
      • Modern Dutch (and its dialects)
        • Afrikaans (1920)

It seems to be pretty common to place Afrikaans as if it arose from middle Dutch (1150-1500), which is impossible really because South Africa wasn't colonized at that time. Rex 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not being sarcastic, but just pointing out that I don't see the word Flemish in your latest post.
Also, the question I indirectly posed is whether some persons in Flanders speak a form of Dutch while other persons in Flanders speak a form of Low German.
And what do you mean by "(1920)" next to "Afrikaans"? The language existed long before then, even if it only became an official South African language in the '20s—and the 17th century is a lot closer to 1500 than 1920 is.
President Lethe 19:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Flemish, together with Limburgish, Brabantian (the dialect of most Flemmings), Hollandic, and Dutch Low Saxon formed Middle Dutch. - 5 main entities-

Afrikaans, originated from 17th century Modern Dutch dialects. (Mainly Hollandic and Zealandic) but it didn't develope into an actual language, rather than a dialect of Dutch untill the late 19th century and it became official language around 1920. Rex 20:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Preslethe, in your 19:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) edit, you wrote "whether something called Flemish is part of Dutch or part of German". I hope you meant Low German. 'German' is the English word that generally refers to High German. Dutch dialects and Flemish dialects used to relate in a very similar way to the dialects once generally spoken in the flat northern part of what is now Germany. Some had been using the name Diets to imply that Flemish, Dutch and Low German were variants of a single language. The very existence of standard or dominant languages, Dutch and High German, not only caused the local speeches to drift apart but also some dialects to disappear. In my home town, I haven't heard proper plat Mechels (vulgar Mechlinian) in the last 35 years, but I remember how completely different it was from my Burgermechels (civil Mechlinian), still the local standard anywhere out of a good school's classroom then. I could understand plat Mechels pretty well, though it required some imagination to grasp the idea behind the many colourful expressions, I couldn't possibly try to imitate it, not even produce the vowels - my Antverpian would have been much more convincing (but to an Antverpian). Both proper dialects were only native within the city walls and perhaps another 300 metres in a few directions. Though close to Burgermechels, the dialect in Battel – less than 2 km away – is easily recognized by any 10-words sentence. About 15 years ago, frequenting a very plain pub, I could hear characteristics of plat Mechels shimmer through the Burgermechels of a few customers.
    Young people now need to pay a good deal of attention just to understand me today; as I am one of the youngest sufficiently mastering Burgermechels, I expect my native language – in Dutch, we phrase this as mother's language – to be forlorn in another 30 years. While I knew Mechlinian still being spoken in prep school, I remember my first lower grade year mostly because I learned my second language, ABN which was General or Common Civilized Dutch. It was a bit further away from my Brabantian dialect than the speech of my West-Flemish best friend. (Every year since I was two, I had been staying for 3 to 4 weeks at the coast, after which he used to come for a short month to Mechelen). The speech I now hear from younger people, is a clearly Flemish style of standard Dutch coloured with numerous non-standard assumedly common Flemish dialectical words, word order, expressions, accent, etc. Though it still feels as only my second language, my standard Dutch is much more correct than the half-hearthed attempt of youngsters: they no longer make a language switch as I do, but merely automatically 'clean up' their speech slightly more or less according to the public and its environment. In fact, this had been the way my grandparents spoke all their lives when visiting Antwerp. At school, my parents had already learnt to speak on the letter: pronounce as the Dutch language is written. The recent style may be 'incorrect', but it's a more natural language and comes close to the single use of a person's regional speech, as in most countries: I assume Flemish will come to stand towards Dutch like northern English stands to English. All the people I mentioned always spoke and those alive speak Flemish.
    Politically incorrect statement of the day: I do not know how polite Dutchmen are when they seem to kind-of-like the Flemish accent, any speaker of even correct standard Dutch from the northern provinces in the Netherlands, produces a hard accent that gives a feel on the back like the scratching of chalk on a blackboard; a commercial on Flemish TV for some 'Mora' sausage, made a lot of Flemish people quickly run to the toilet before 'that Holland woman' opened her mouth. It's just their sound, the people can be nice enough.
    Your understanding might be easier accomplished by feeling, than by logical analysis of the irrational: I'm afraid that's how everyone else who makes some sense once in a while, got it.
  • One paragraph that Rex has been repeatedly wiping entirely from the article, may be of interest: most Flemish people do not find it disturbing that their language is called 'Nederlands' which for most (native) speakers of English probably sounds as a language from another country than Flanders. Not quite true, but unfortunately for the Flemish, the English do not say Netherlandic but Dutch. Here's that paragraph:
In Dutch, 'Nederland' means the Netherlands, another country than Belgium. 'De Nederlanden' means the Low Countries. Still in Dutch, 'Nederlands' may mean from the Netherlands or from the Low Countries of which the capital was once even located in the present region of Flanders. Thus Flemish people do not generally perceive the name of the language 'Nederlands' as foreign. In English though, the word Dutch means from the Netherlands and thus the English name for the language sounds as foreign to the Flemish people, (as if) not distinguishing the Flemish people from the Dutch people. This may more easily arouse controverse about the use of the words and distinction between Dutch and Flemish, in an English discussion.
SomeHuman 2006-06-24 03:09 (UTC)

Hi there, SomeHuman. I had begun to think that Rex Germanus and I were the only ones still writing in this section—and I was disappointed that nobody was explicitly addressing my theory that two different things (a form of Low German and a form of Dutch) were (are) both spoken in Flanders and that both are sometimes called by the English word Flemish. (And, still, nobody is addressing this.) It's nice to see your contribution.

Anyway, your post was definitely one of the more interesting ones, though I don't know much to say about it, because, unfortunately, I know only little about Dutch.

Indeed, when I wrote "whether something called Flemish is part of Dutch or part of German", I meant Low German, not (High) German. Although there is a sort of continuum from High German to Low German (to Flemish?) to Dutch to Frisian to English, it's possible that I sometimes drop the "Low" if I think that others know that I don't mean High German ... and this, I suppose, is because I (erroneously? correctly?) think of Low German as closer to High German than to Flemish or to Dutch.

The other day, I thought of something that may resolve some of this definitional question. Then again, maybe it won't. — Just about any American or Australian or Canadian (or other person from a country whose main language is English but which country is not called England), encountering someone from, say, Holland or France or Namibia or Sri Lanka or China, will ask "Do you speak English?" Asking "Do you speak American (or Canadian, &c.)?" would be quite odd. So, while "American" is definitely a dialect (or a whole group of dialects) of English and may sometimes be called American for purposes of distinction, Americans all know that "American" is really English (albeit a distinct form of it). — The situation in Belgium might be different; but, if it's not, then a simple way to settle at least part of the matter might be simply to discover whether a person whose first language is Flemish, on encountering another person and wanting to know whether this second person speaks the same first language, asks the equivalent of "Do you speak Flemish?", or "Do you know Dutch?", or "Do you understand Low German?", or what.

Just an idea.

Also, it would be nice if someone would wholly or partly confirm or refute my idea that the English name Flemish might sometimes be applied to a form of Low German and sometimes be applied to a form of Dutch, and that forms of both those languages might be spoken by various Flemings.

President Lethe 15:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know where to begin, Preslethe.
  • Using today's names of the geographical regions, the dialects in Lower Germany (the flat north of Germany), the Netherlands, and Flanders are all closely related. But in fact, the largest part of the Netherlands formed a north-western group of dialects, the south of the Netherlands and Flanders formed a south-western group, the Lower German an eastern group. There were no razor-sharp borders that when crossed would have caused people suddenly having a much greater problem in understanding one another. Upper German dialects are also of germanic, Franconian origin but further from each of the three closely related groups of Low Franconian dialects. There are some smaller areas especially near the border of the Netherlands and Germany where the dialects did not quite match this oversimplified general pattern (like Frysian). The low countries including northern Germany, had good agriculture ground and thus a lot of paysants. High German is called that way because it was spoken in an area with a quite different landscape, also the French speaking part of Belgium is hilly. Upper Germany became dominant thus the language of the paysants was strongely influenced by Upper German. Thus nowadays the language one will usually hear in the north of Germany will sound rather German – that is Upper German. The Netherlands and Flanders artificially created and imposed (by books, by school, TV) a common standard language. The Flemisch at the time were a second class paysants people dominated by the French speaking Belgians. Thus the input of the proudly independent Netherlands with its history of colonies on the standard language was significantly larger. Linguists usually point out that emigrants from Brabant in the present region of Flanders, a few hundred years ago under harsh catholic suppression, ran to the protestant north and thus significantly contributed to the language from which standard Dutch was created. I can not honestly say that present-day Flemish people get that impression when comparing Hollandic and Brabantian speech with standard Dutch. Anyway, there is not some obscure separate speech in Flanders: as in the Netherlands, there are just the dialects and the standard Dutch. The dialects in Flanders are just a trifle more distant from the standard language. Recently our beloved Europe decided that Limburgish is a separate language, just to complicate matters or let's say this is a political decision to grant rights as a minority group to the people of an area that perhaps may not have fully enjoyed economical growth. But it shows that the distinction between 'different dialects of one language' and 'separate languages' can be rather arbitrary. Since 'Flemish' is used by speakers of English to mean 'the speech of people in Flanders', just as 'French' is the speech of people in France, 'German' of people in Germany (though we all know that also other countries have a French and/or German speaking population), this 'Flemish' just as the Dutch language word 'Vlaams' means whatever speech is spoken there: the same person may speak a pure local dialect in his family and with his neighbours, nearly perfect standard Dutch with his boss, a mix of standard Dutch with few or many influences by his dialect when colloquially speaking with people living at a distance of twenty or a hunderd kilometers. Historically, the Netherlands and Belgium were once a single country, thus the east-to-west border between groups of dialects is further north than the east-to-west border between these present nations. The influence of each nation on its own regions, has pulled the southern part of the Netherlands culturally and (thus) linguistically gradually closer to the north, Flanders own culture did not undergo that influence and had to fight for equal rights against a French speaking domination. Thus one may say that Flemish, except for the dozen people who are able to speak standard Dutch without any accent, is different from Dutch as spoken by any Dutchman, except for the half dozen not having a betraying accent. But is not another language. These days, for writing there is only standard Dutch. While even standard speech is easily recognized, usually by just a few syllables, it may take close attention to spot the nationality of a writer (usually by their choice of words but also typical grammatical styles or minor mistakes like germanisms etc). The variation in spoken dialects even within a same group, e.g. Brabantian and only its stretch within Flanders, can be mindboggling for a speaker of English: just fifty kilometres apart, the difference may be like American versus Australian English. Assuming Rex is having a fit by now, please understand that all this is an extremely personal, utterly unscientifical, shameless generalization and oversimplification. SomeHuman 2006-06-27 00:47 (UTC)
The fundamental and indeed rather unscientific :o), mistake you make is to assume that there was a distinction between a south-western and a north-western group. In fact the main isogloss bundles run right through your supposed south-western group. Hollandic is more closely related to Brabantic.--MWAK 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Southern Dutch

I'm sorry, but just when we've nearly solved the whole Flemish thing, User:SomeHuman starts to use yet another term "Zuid-Nederlands". I mean seriously, how do you make up these things?

Rex 11:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask around on nl:Overleg_Wikipedia:Belgisch_Nederlands. No need to forget to WP:AGF or be WP:CIVIL. AvB ÷ talk 18:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry but I don't participate on Dutch wikipedia, thanks for the advise though. Rex 19:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to say: Zuid-Nederlands/Southern Dutch is not used by any notable group/person/whatever I know of. AvB ÷ talk 11:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I never wrote about 'Southern Dutch', but merely mentioned the Dutch term 'Zuid-Nederlands' which translates to 'Southern Dutch'. Here's a group in a whatever: (Dutch) Univerity of Ghent, Department Dutch Linguistics (And there might be a few others.) I'm not too fond of the 'Zuid-Nederlands' myself because it has three different meanings, of which two are of a linguistic nature – one as I had stated, the second as only of the current region of Flanders just like one of our meanings of 'Flemish', the third (and most common) means about any subject from the current region of Flanders that dates from the time the Low Countries were still united... thus only adding to the confusion. Though about the first one (for which there is no other word that I can think of, just the rather common description 'Nederlands beneden de grote rivieren' (Dutch below [=south of] the large rivers): without even shortly mentioning it as I had done, Wikipedia is a little less complete – which means: contributing to the illusion of a not so confused understanding. -- SomeHuman 2006-06-26 15:19 (UTC)
Thanks for this interesting source. For those interested, the museum's taalkamer (language room) is now also on-line here with soundclips of various dialects and information on these dialects (in Dutch). AvB ÷ talk 13:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
One question I assume Rex can properly answer: Is there any geographical difference between 'below the large rivers', 'below the Moerdijk', (both as borders within the Netherlands between groups of dialects), and/or the area of the dialect groups Brabantian + Limburgish + from countship Flanders? -- SomeHuman 2006-06-26 15:36 (UTC)

Yes, that problem is called Zuid-Gelders.Which is Brabantian all the same, but located above the major rivers. Rex 13:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rex. (I just vaguely recall a large northern chunk of Gelderland being separated from another large chunk to the South.) – I wonder why you call it 'that problem', and figure I can look further into it from here. Your link mentions 'Zuid-Gelders (Kleverlands)', I'm not familiar with the term 'Kleverlands' but the location and name will get me going for 'Land van Cleve' or 'Kleef' as well, need to freshen up my memory. -- SomeHuman 2006-06-26 16:23 (UTC)

Kleve, is a city in Germany near the Dutch border. Rex 15:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Image colours

Okay, Rex, I'll put my comments here instead of starting an edit war over such a minor issue. But still, I think this image currently raises the question "what is the difference between the dark and light orange areas?", which isn't answered anywhere in the article, and worse, there's nowhere an indication where one can find such an answer. You and I know the answer, but the average reader doesn't. We're here to answer questions, not raise them. My addition solved that problem, but I'm open to different solutions. I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't build on my admittedly imperfect solution, but deleted it instead. I have a second problem with the image, which is that the coloured pieces "taken out" of the image aren't very clear. The image becomes a puzzle: where does this piece fit? I'd rather use a solution like on Image:Verbreitungsgebiet der heutigen niederdeutschen Mundarten.PNG. – gpvos (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Edited 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC) and 17:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That map (Image:Verbreitungsgebiet der heutigen niederdeutschen Mundarten.PNG) is flawed and inaccurate.If you read the text accompanying the image you will see that the differences between the light and dark orange areas is explained perfectly.
Rex 18:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, re-reading it, it's not as bad as I first thought. Still, it's not as good as it could be. As it stands, the text implies that the light orange regions have a politically recognised regional language; even though West Flemish might also qualify for that status, it doesn't have it because of political reasons. I'd much rather show the more relevant linguistical and scientific grouping, in which the dark orange regions have common traits due to their Low Franconian origin, as opposed to Low Saxon and Middle Franconian. This is not addressed at all in the article. Apparently I'm too dumb, so please quote the lines where it is mentioned for me. As for my second criticism: I mentioned Image:Verbreitungsgebiet der heutigen niederdeutschen Mundarten.PNG not for the data it displays, which is indeed flawed (I'll fix that soon; please note that the image is not mine), but for the way it presents it. Those cut-outs really aren't very clear, and their placement (Hollandic in the top right???) is just terrible. – gpvos (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that map bases itself on information received 50 years ago.It calls Limburgish "Flemish South Limburgish" and according to it, Hollandic is spoken in the whole of North Brabant, Zealand and the northern half of Dutch Limburg, and apart from that it says "Flemish" is spoken in the middle of Flanders.It's terrible and I'm very thankfull it isn't used anywhere anymore on wikipedia.

Dutch Low saxon and Limburgish are of Low Frankish origin, but they have been influenced (sometimes) greatly/moderatly by, in this case, Low Saxon and Upper German.

That's why they are lighter, as explained in the text.I fail to see your problem.If it's easier for you. We can work this out on my talk page, in Dutch if you like. Rex 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you actually read? I wasn't talking about content, but about presentation. I have no quarrel with your data at all. – gpvos (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can actually read. Seriously though: What is your problem exactly?  Rex  19:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've given up. Do with this article as you wish. – gpvos (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That sure is the right wikipedia attitude!  Rex  20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Aargh

Quote: '... "angstschreeuw" features actually 6 consonants ng-s-t-s-ch-r which is further reduced in everyday pronunciation - e.g. "ch" and "r" will usually blend into one sound.' In fact, I would still pronounce 6 consonants: the t and second s would just become very short and less loudily produced though not totally mute. I'm afraid there is no everyday pronunciation of "angstschreeuw" except perhaps in classes for people with speech problems: it generally belongs to the written language. I can't recall anyone ever actually saying "Ik hoorde een angstschreeuw" (I heard a scream of fear). -- SomeHuman 2006-06-28 17:30 (UTC)

Dutch dialects

The Dutch page for the Dutch language also mentions Surinamese Dutch and Antillean Dutch as Dutch dialects. However, there is no reference to these dialects at English Wiki nor the Dutch dialects template has hint for these two (notwithstanding the Surinamese flag present in the image). Also, the Surinamese "accent" mentioned in the text of the article redirects to Sranan Togo which is (as far as I know) an English-based Creole language. The Dutch dialects issue in its current form seems to me as handled in a rather "Euro-centric" way. Am I mistaken? Expert consideration please. --Behemoth 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Surinamese Dialect of Dutch hasn't got a page on wikipedia yet. I'll try to do something about that as soon as possible. Rex 08:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dialects: French loanwords

Of course some of the dialects have incorporated French loanwords. Does this need to be said while not mentioning German loanwords in other dialects or, more recently, English loanwords in other and possibly in more dialects. Without a statistical comparison of the frequency in daily use, the phrase is too subjective. The standard Dutch also includes loanwords; a comparison between the number of loanwords in any group of dialects with their number in standard Dutch should also be available before setting the dialects apart. One should also be careful about defining a loanword: often the same French loanword occurs in a dialect or in northern standard Dutch as a close approximation of the French pronunciation while in other dialects or in southern standard Dutch that word has been changed to a more local pronunciation (e.g. 'dossier'); contrarily the most common word for an engine is 'motor' with English pronunciation in standard Dutch, 'moteur' with French pronunciation in some dialects. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-03 00:50 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 'ui'

From an English perspective : every Dutch person I have ever heard pronounces 'ui' as the English 'ou' in 'hour'. Jess Cully 23:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The only resemblance between sound of 'ui' in Dutch writing, and the sound of English 'hour' is the typical diphthong slide: their initial sounds are nearly as far apart as any two vowels can be, or say as 'sour' from 'sire'. The initial Dutch sound of 'ui' does not occur in any English dialect I ever heard. In dialects of Dutch in some areas (and in the standard Dutch spoken by most people from those areas), the sound for 'ui' is simply and only the vowel that elsewhere leads the diphthong. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-13 02:52 (UTC)
Jess: Your comment is welcome, but it cannot be mentioned in the article because it constitutes original research. According to Wikipedia policy, "articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position". So we have to stick to what is found in the textbooks.  Andreas   (T) 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
As a Dutch native speaker who listens to English television programming quite often, I can assure u that the "ou" in en:"hour" and the "ui" in nl:"huis" sound nothing alike (apart from both being diphtongs). Shinobu 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Jess, that's probably because you have grown up without ever hearing a Dutch 'ui' sound (I think research has indicated that between 3 and 6 months is an important age in this regard; it's probably on Wikipedia somewhere :-)), and apparently your brain perceives it as 'ou'. The Dutch have the same problem with some nuances of English pronunciation. – gpvos (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Shinobu, it is the very fact that you are a native Dutch-speaker that disqualifies you from asserting that the "ou" in en:"hour" and the "ui" in nl:"huis" sound nothing alike ...to a native English speaker [my addition]. Jesse's point was that to many, if not most, English English-speakers , they do sound very alike. He was talking about perception. My own explanation for this is that there are certain English dialects (particularly in the south Midlands and adjoining south-western areas of England) where "house" is pronounced very like "huis". (SomeHuman – The initial Dutch sound of 'ui' does not occur in any English dialect I ever heard – you clearly have not travelled much in, say, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Dorset.) When an English-speaker hears another English-speaker say "uit o' the tuin" (with near-Dutch ui), he automatically interprets this as "out of the town", so it is not surprising that he when he hears a Dutchman talk about his "huis", he hears (something "as near as dammit" to) "house". Dutch-speakers always seem to get very irritated whenever English-speakers make this connection (which is, after all, almost always an etymological one too): "What do you call that little brown animal in Dutch? – We call it a muis – Oh, so do we!". The shoe is on the other foot when English-speakers sometimes get exasperated by Dutch- (and especially German-) speakers who call the Rolling Stones a "bend" and their organized followers a "fen clap" (gpvos makes an important point here about the perception of the sounds of foreign langauages and the "smoothing-out" of nuances). --Picapica 11:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like ou in hour at all, I can't think now of an English word wich you pronounce with ui. But believe me the ou is more like the au in German 'sauerkraut'. 81.69.203.77 11:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Mallerd (a Dutch boy)
In Dutch spelling there are actually two versions for the ou as in hour diphtong: ou and au. They are pronounced the same way as in English (with local variants, about as much as in English). The 'ui' sound is a very different sound for Dutch-speaking people and they would immediately recognize the difference; so the original poster's statement would not be useful as a pronunciation guide, or as an indication of what the sound sounds like. The difficulty probably lies in the fact that the diphtong glides from an [œ] or [ɛ] to an [y] (a sound that corresponds to the 'uu' in 'buur'), a vowel that is completely absent from English. Isk s
To be honest I think English have to be very careful in adressing the Dutch sound; but also the other way around (I hear Dutchmen talking about a 'Hoovercreft'). The Dutch 'ou' and 'au' are much closer to the sound in 'town' or 'mouse' (no diphtong shift)compared to that in 'hour'. 'To our Dutch ears the 'ui' is however also very different from the 'ou' in 'hour' as we learn at school (but then again what we learn and hear is mainly BBC English alternated with American tv series), and I think the point above about the northern dialects is well made. Arnoutf 08:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The original example of 'hour' is indeed unfortunate because of the diphtong shift introduced by the r. However, I do think one can be too careful in comparing sounds and just because to some English speakers the 'ou' in some Northern dialects sounds close to what they hear as 'ui', that does not make it so. I must say that I never heard anything approaching the [ɛy] diphtong in any language other than Dutch (though presumably it's there in the ancient greek ɛυ like in λɛυκοσ). The same goes for 'ei/ij' [ɛi], by the way. To imagine what they sound like, the IPA charts do a pretty good job, anyway, even though they're not perfect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isk s (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
Good question. I'm German, and I can say 'ui' sounds very close to öü. The combination of ö and ü is NOT found in German, but in some Saxon dialects the word Frau (= woman) is EXACTLY pronounced "fröü" and yes - don't laugh! - this DOES resemble the 'ui' in Dutch "buiten". Yes I am serious. -andy 80.129.116.55 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The ui sound can be found in French as well: the ending of "trompe l'oeil" sounds about the same. --Nazdrovje 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

AN versus ABN

The statement "Algemeen Nederlands replaced the older name Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands ('Common Civilized Dutch', abbreviated to ABN) which was no longer considered politically correct because it implied that people who didn't speak ABN were not civilized." is historically misleading: during the third quarter of the 20th century, mankind was still considered make-able (Dutch maakbaar) and it was a governmental task to educate people towards higher standards as were then relatively little disputed. The early decades of the still strictly official broadcast TV stations reflected the sociological and psychological viewpoints of the time, just a did the term 'Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands': there was a clear intention and one wished to state that much. The possibility to uplift the human race has become questioned if not entirely abandoned; the language on television, once maintaining civilized standards, became notably more colloquial or vulgar at numerous occasions. This constituted a new situation: there no longer was a difference in degree of expressing a civilized education between standard language and dialect speech. Thus still maintaining the term 'ABN' implied that using the standard language would be more civilized than using a dialect – which might never have been considered 'politically correct' and, if interpreted as such, might even have turned speakers of dialects away from ABN and this was never the intention at all. The renaming as 'AN' was clearly forced by actual changes in daily life, not as if 'ABN' might have been a badly chosen term that one afterwards wanted to correct. '[N]o longer considered politically correct' is in fact a POV statement, hiding the fact that one abandoned the earlier efforts to reeducate the people, such abandoning was not to be mentioned with that many words. My addition of a practical change in conjunction with the 'official' version, puts things in a NPOV perspective. Since all this has little to do with the Dutch language itself (a similar change of perception about governmental tasks and practical use of language on TV was seen in countries speaking other languages), I do not wish to elaborate inside the article but this must not be an excuse to allow masking the evolution that basically caused ABN to become AN. — SomeHuman 2006-07-22 11:25 (UTC)

Hi SomeHuman I see part of your point. Yes I think it is true that the maakbare mens (makeable human) illusion may have been a reason for focusing on ABN. And yes I think (and am glad) that this is no longer prominent. However your phrase: the language on television, once maintaining civilized standards, became notably more colloquial or vulgar at numerous occasions. Does too much credit to the efforts of last century. I think it is highly uncivilized to try to make mankind something it is not (well perhaps pushing a bit). So although I agree with the meaning the prhasing is a POV in itself (ascivilized has a positive connotation'and vulgar a negative one). I would rather say something like: the language on television, once enforcing and trying to stimulate use of ABN, has become notably more down to earth, and closer to differences in the spoken Dutch (or something like that).Arnoutf 12:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume my now entirely revised phrase meets your concern, though it no longer allows smoothly mentioning the controversy between standard language and dialects to this respect that had been worded as excuse for the name change. This name change now being properly digested, my current matter-of-fact phrase will most probably not be POV. — SomeHuman 2006-07-22 13:22 (UTC)

As one had already removed the entire phrase (including the part that had been in the article for a while), I reverted. The argument in the edit comment stated that the term 'ABN' was still being used. I wonder by whom. I do not see the term in relatively recent texts. People no longer need to take special care of not out-of-habit saying 'ABN' to avoid sounding out-of-date: now rarely abbreviated in speech, 'Algemeen Nederlands' comes quite naturally these days. But the existence of older texts makes it absolutely necessary to mention the earlier term in the article. — SomeHuman 2006-07-22 13:33 (UTC)

The above is in my view just rationalising the shift to a more politicly correct term. The actual variant of the language meant by the term has not changed. I certainly still have to pay special attention to avoid the term ABN in favour of AN. −Woodstone 16:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The political correctness of the term is a result of the political incorrectness of striving to reeducate people. That incorrectness is in turn a result of a) the declining confidence in the makeability of humans [stressed in my original point], and b) the disappearing of a generally accepted direction to which one might change people, in itself caused by the absence of a recognition of one or another culture as inherently 'superior' [as I interpret Arnoutf's expressed concern]. Tip: try not to think about an abbreviation and concentrate on 'Algemeen Nederlands', that way I think I've been doing well the last couple of years. Like it :-) or not :-( our 'Algemeen Nederlands' is here to stay. This does not prevent one's personal vocabulary to favour some behaviour in communicating ;-) — SomeHuman 2006-07-22 18:05 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm some kind of old sock (34 years old, native speaker of Dutch!), but I have rarely encountered the term "Algemeen Nederlands" or its abbreviation "AN." Instead, everyone I know (family, friends, etc.) uses "ABN" (though rarely the full phrase "Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands"). This discussion about "makeable man" I find little helpful (and not really on topic). I will not insist on a reversion to "ABN"--go ahead and use the term "AN" (never really heard or read it). But I would urge that the description of how ABN got replaced by AN be deleted because I consider this comment not NPOV. I would suggest something like "Nowadays, many Dutch-speaking scholars use the term "Algemeen Nederlands" (Standard Dutch) to refer to the standard language, replacing the earlier "Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands." Lufiend 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To my idea the change from ABN to AN is relatively recent. I think this issue should be treated on Dutch wiki, but I am not sure whether the history of the term is relevant for English wiki (except for Dutch readers of course, but should we write Eng Wiki for us Dutchies?).Arnoutf 06:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

and the Flemish Community Peace Prize goes to...

I reworked the "Language of Flanders" subsection for NPOV, clarity, and so on. Check it out and enjoy (and chill!). CJ Withers 04:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Peace Prize goes ... at least so far not to a North American. Perhaps CJ Withers might explain here which parts of the text he had considered POV. That text came to exist after discussions and modifications by users with six distinct points of view: Dutch people, Flemish people enforcing Dutch as the standard language (supporting the official status) and seeing 'Flemish' as a misnomer [and POV of CJ Withers' text], (not always Flemish) people accepting Dutch as the standard language but realizing that the practical use of the word 'Vlaams' ('Flemish') often refers to the standard language with the typical variations common in the Flemish Region (or in the larger Dutch speaking area that comprises southern provinces in the Netherlands), mainly Flemish people who accept non-standardized 'tussentaal' (as one of the most popular TV stations in the Flemish Region does), people from either nationality considering 'Flemish' to refer strictly to the dialects of the former countship of Flanders, and native speakers of other languages. Since some of the aspects are explained in other articles, links 'for more detais see ...' are needed to keep the subsection 'The language of Flanders: Dutch or Flemish?' at a reasonable lenght. — SomeHuman 2006-07-24 09:24 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what exactly did you do? Because when I looked at the diffs ... I did not see any POV statements, or areas which weren't very clear. Also, do you have any idea how many times that particular section was reverted/edited/rewritten before it was considered acceptable?  Rex  09:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the history; it's all there. It's unfortunate that the improvements I made were ALL deleted, esp. those that corrobated the section's main thrust. The article is in evolution and that "acceptable" version was just that, acceptable to some; it needed improvement to be of higher quality, for "acceptable" does not mean "significant" or "high-quality". Note that, a NPOV correction does not imply bias; in the case of my improvements, I added further distance, thus objectivity. The section's organization was poor due to over-editing. If you take the time to read the changes, comparing the original to the corrections, you should see how the topic is more clearly presented and strengthened by the changes, while keeping references intact. On a Wikipedia level, it's unfortunate how the links I added, esp. concerning dialects, varieties, and the East and West Flemish dialects as well as strategic and appropriately placed links to the Flemish and Flemish (linguistics) links, were deleted across the board. I invite you to compare my improvements with the previous version, side by side. For that matter, why not improve my improvements instead of unilaterally deleting what you have not understood?
Btw, references to my place of origin belie a façade of neutrality, the more so in that informed and enlightened opinions need not "come from" various ethnicities/nationalities in order to create balance. CJ Withers 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

When we talk about evolution, we talk about things getting better/improving.The version before you modified it was fine. Don't get me wrong though, I love the way wikipedia articles evolve and become better, but that doesn't mean I can't spot atavism when I see it.  Rex  15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You're confused. Your allusion to atavism seems to distort my one-person contribution. Wikipedia is the product of just that, many individual's contributions. The paragon of atavism would be your decision to scrap everything good _without reading_ and without consulting others. Confirmation of this is your lack of will to discuss point by point ANY of the corrections. CJ Withers 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Collection of dialect samples is original research

This appears to be a nice effort, however, it does not belong into Wikipedia because this is original reseach.The followint is Wikipedia policy:

  • Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

See: Wikipedia:No original research

The editor is encouraged to search into the scientific literalture in linguistic to find samples or Dutch languages, I am sure there are some.   Andreas   (T) 00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but I could probably find some local dictionary's (dialect to standard Dutch) or something similar. I suppose we could use those? Maraud 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there is very little useful information on Dutch dialects in terms of vocabulary, let alone dialectal dictionaries. I don't quite see how this is original research though, afteral ... I don't see much differnce between this and the examples of Dutch in the article itself.  Rex  08:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Popular misconceptions section is inappropriate

It's direct assertion of the content of arguments, not what people expect or should see in an encyclopedia. We're not here to "give a voice" for expression of views. --Improv 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

These aren't expressions of views, merely of facts. Rex 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Though the style and some of the content might be improved, there is nothing unencyclopedic about mentioning misconceptions and clarifying the matter. It is often shorter and more efficient than lengthy explanations that are unlikely to be read carefully by the ones most easily caught by a false concept. This is not a plea for simplistic clarifications. — SomeHuman 2006-08-11 22:17 (UTC)

  • Reviewing each point individually,
    • The first should be reduced to a one sentence point somewhere else in the article. Wikipedia isn't meant to act as a "response to arguments/misconceptions", and that's the form this is taking.
    • The dialect issue is POV and at the very least badly organised as a "response"
    • The relation to english could better be handled in a "relations to other languages" section, and should be better written to do so
    • Something like "Dutch, not to be confused with Deutsch (see such-and-such), is ..." could be worked into the article earlier on
  • Again, this reads like an essay or a response, which is not what Wikipedia is for. --Improv 00:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, style and content might be improved. Diffusing an article by explaining several misconceptions will not make the article better readable, nor (as I stated earlier) will it help to replace misconceptions by proper insight. Your view on the dialect issue sounds more POV than the present content of that item in the article section. — SomeHuman 2006-08-12 00:41 (UTC)

I wonder what you mean with POV, I can't see it. Apart from that, I have seen this style of writing many times on wikipedia, I can only see it in the headers here. If you want to do something useful instead of this (no offence) go to Roman military tactics I think you'll love improving that one. Rex 10:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


I can understand the reasoning behind the grievances of the opponents of the section. However, the Dutch are such a quirky nation, that they just must have such a section, the name alone warranting one...and the need to explain why it's "Dutch", with "Deutsch" dropped...much like in northern Germany. Ulritz 12:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is not for the Dutch, it is about a language that they happen to speak. We are an encyclopedia -- our content and style is not driven by individual topics. If the roman military tactics article needs improvement, then I'll look there next, but I don't think that "look somewhere else" is a good argument in a discussion like this. Read articles about other languages -- they have nothing like this, and for good reason. If need be, we can do a straw poll on this -- with appropriate mention in order to draw in enough outside eyes, I believe (but am not sure) that a consistent and good style will be affirmed to lack sections like this. --Improv 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree the article is not (primarily) for the Dutch, but none of the Dutch (or Flemish) are likely to hold any of these misconceptions.
The misconceptions mainly seem to stem from the (strange) English name Dutch which does not match the country name (Netherlands) and is closer related to the German local name (Deutsch). I thik the four topics are all relevant (although some copyedit may improve them). The main article seems fairly standardised; only this section is special. I am fairly certain other language articles also have specialised sections as the situations demands (e.g. randomly chosen my 2nd pick Latvian Language sports a unique 'Language and politics' section; and English Language has a Basic and simplified versions section). The special reason to include the misconception section for Dutch is (obviously) the (fairly unique - anyone other examples??) lack of relation between Country (Netherlands) and Language (Dutch) name in English.
In short I do not support removing this section. Arnoutf 15:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Name ordering

Dutch experts - your help is needed here: Talk:Dutch_name#Sorting_prefixes. Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 12:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Limburgish a dialect?

Now the difference between a language and a dialect is more political than anything else, but I'm a bit surprised to see Limburgish marked as a Dutch dialect, whereas Frisian is not included (because it's considered a separate language). As a native speaker of Limburgish, I know for a fact that it differs enough from Dutch to warrant a status as a separate language, moreso than most other regional variations to be found in the low countries.

Now my belief is obviously not a criterion for this information to be included in Wikipedia, but what's missing from this page is that Limburgish is a tonal language. This is something that no other language/dialect in the area has, and in my opinion, it puts Limburgish quite apart from other languages or dialects in the low countries.

A similar line of reasoning goes for Lower Saxon and Frisian, by the way, but I don't know much about those.

Because if you consider Limburgish to be a Dutch dialect, you could consider Dutch to be a German dialect. After all, they have the same origin. SeverityOne 11:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Limburgish is considered a "streektaal", a regional language. In Dutch, the definition of "streektaal" is blurry at least. As a native Dutch speaker I'm sure you're aware of this. It is marked as a synonym of "dialect" in the dictionaries while in a political sense they could have 2 meanings;
  • The same meaning as the dictionary.
  • A (separate) language in a certain area. (regional language)
The most basic need for the latter classification is to have had little or no influence on the standard language, this goes for all 3 Dutch (as in Netherlands) regional languages (Low Saxon, Limburgish and West Frisian).
But ... there's much more to it. You see Low Saxon and Frisian especially, are far more distantly related to Standard Dutch than Limburgish.
  • Limburgish and standard Dutch are both Low Frankish of origin (some exceptions though), Low Saxon and Frisian are not. *Dutch and Limburgish have a common ancestor (Old Low Frankish/Old Dutch, in the Dutch linguistical sense). Dutch, Low Saxon and Frisian are assumed only have one in Common West Germanic.
Limburgish also isn't one single entity, it doesn't stop at the Dutch border, but also has variants in Germany and Belgium. Limburgish spoken in Northern Dutch limburg and Western Belgian Limburg is very similar to Brabantic, while the Limburgish in the South of Dutch Limburg is very similar to Central High German dialects. This means that if one would have to be objective, one would have to cut away large portions of the Limburgish area in order to isolate the areas in which a dialectal form is spoken which differs enough to be considered a language of sorts of its own. Apart from all that, the historical area of limburg has had a turbulent history with French and German rule, these languages all left certain features in terms of vocabulary and pronounciation, but mostly superfacially.
Most Dutch linguists therefore know and acknowledge that Limburgish is a "special" Dutch dialect, but also note that it isn't distant enough overall to be considered a separate language, in the limited way of "language".
On a smaller note: German and Dutch, like Dutch, Frisian and Low Saxon have a common ancestor in common West Germanic, so they'll never be eachothers dialects.
Rex 12:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
User SeverityOne mentions Limburgish as being a tonal language. Though everyone in other parts of the Flemish region perceives its Limburgers as singing because of the peculiar intonation, I doubt if it may be called a tonal language. The latter has phoneticaly identical words of which only the tone determines the distinct meaning, for instance in Thai the word that we would in our alphabet write as 'ma' and sounds like a Dutch language title for 'mother', means 'horse', 'dog', or 'to come' solely depending on the pitch. I do not think this to be usual for Limburgish in any area of the Limburg provinces. — SomeHuman 26 Aug 2006 14:08 (UTC)
Well, Limburgish is full of those. One example is 'wies', which means 'tune', and 'wieës', which means 'orhpan'. Or 'schöp' (spade) and 'schäöp' (plural of sheep). The Weertslands dialects (which are the ones that I'm familiar with) have some 56 different vowels and diphthongs, compared to 'only' 15 for Dutch. The concept of tonality is alien to Dutch speakers, and they're bound to mispronounce Limburgish words, for the simple reason that they use the wrong tone. So it's not a question whether Limburgish is a tonal language, because it is most definitely. The question is, is Limburgish a separate language? There is ample documentation to be found on the internet that states so (Taal in Nederland is a random example), which is why I'm surprised that the opinion here seems to be opposite to that.
You just have to do a quick Google to find academic publications on Limburgish and its status as a separate language and its tonality. It's also clear that Limburgish in itself doesn't even exist, but the various Limburgish dialects, from Venlo to Maastricht, are mutually intelligible (although I may to make an exception for Kerkraads) - for native speakers, that is. Non-native speakers will have as much trouble understanding Limburgish as I do understanding Frisian. So, it in that sense, you can talk about Limburgish as a language, because of the common features of the dialects, tonality probably being the most important one. SeverityOne 17:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, the fact alone that you manage to write 'wies'/'wieës' and 'schöp'/'schäöp' differently, makes it clear that it is similar to other Dutch dialects that pronounce a vowel longer or as a diphtong, often in very different circumstances than standard Dutch. What I meant about typical tonal languages as Thai, Chinese, etc. is, that the sound of the vowel is exactly the same and exactly as long as in another word, but simply pronounced at a normal, a higher, a lower, a rising, or a sharply lowering tone; this does not create a different vowel or a diphtong, nor does it allow another character for the vowel (eventhough Thai, including combinations of its 20 vowel characters, can differentiate 32 vowels/diphtongs in writing!) to indicate such (in Thai writing, a kind of accent may indicate the tone). I thus assume that the tonal differences in Limburgish are not the major indicators of the meaning of a word, but may help to differentiate more clearly (redundancy is an important element in the capacity of a language to ensure it is not misunderstood).
As for Weertslands, maybe it is not tonal. But before you can say that Limburgs is not a tonal language, please do a little more research. Where I am from, Valkenburg, we have many words wit the exact same vowel, which said in different tones makes a difference. For example: oug 'also' and oug in a falling tone means 'eye', and sjtein in a steady tone translates to rock wherease the plural of the word is formed by puting the word into falling tone. If one would like to consider Limburgs a dialect and not a language, I as a native speaker, would call it more a dialect of High German than a dialect of Dutch. comparison:English: I haven't seen the old man at all today. Dutch: Ik heb de oude man vandaag helemaal niet gezien. Limburgs (valkenburgs): Ich hub d'n auwe man (vandaag/huuj) gar neet geseen. German: Ich habe den alten Mann heute gar nicht gesehen.
I learned to understand West Flemish from when I was merely two years old and thus at an age one quickly learns languages, and stayed for weeks at the coast or elsewhere in that province every year, several times amidst native speakers of the dialect. My home is equidistant to the Belgian/Dutch border of southern Limburg, where as an adult I only passed a few hours (actually closer: Bokrijk) once, and years afterwards a day at Riemst (Kanne, at the border). When there I overheard obviously locals talk amongst themselves at the bar of a pub, it was more easy to understand than at such a situation in West Flanders. For a part this is due to the relative slower speech of Limburgish, much like (Belgian) Brabantian dialects as my own, compared to the staccato speed of the West Flemish who generally pronounce their 'long' vowels as shortly as my short vowels. Nevertheless, as far as mutual understandability is indicative, if thus Limburgish is another language than mine, then there must be many more languages in the Dutchspeaking area (especially standard Dutch, but I got quite used to that one). — SomeHuman 26 Aug 2006 21:14 (UTC)

I know that some limburgish variants have a certain amount of tonality, I also know that other variants do not have this. Overall I wouldn't say that Limburgish is a tonal language (like swedish) but that certain variants have certain tonal features. Rex 14:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not prevalent in all Limburgish dialects, but certainly in the southern ones. De tonen van het Limburgs is an article in Dutch discussing this, although the area of Weert is omitted from the map, which is a mistake: Weertlands is tonal. I can't vouch for dialects to the north, though, because I lack the literature (works on Limburgish are hard to come by in Malta...). SeverityOne 17:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Limburgs is most definitely tonal (with 2 tones), and recognised as a language by the Dutch government. Its being called a language is further supported by the fact that it differs more from "Hollands" than any other variety spoken in the Netherlands, including Friesian: http://taal.phileon.nl/kaart/hoppenbrouwers.php#ffm

Sephia karta 14:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Streektaal and Taal do not have the same meaning. Also Frisian isn't included on the map you provided because it's not Dutch. Rex 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Short facts: Frisian is recognized as the official language of Fryslân and Limburgs and Nedersaksisch are recognized as regional language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in the Netherlands. Maartenvdbent 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Streektaal is used by some people as a synonym for dialect, but in this context it is used as a translation of "regional language". By signing the charter, the Dutch government has recognised Limburgisch as a language.
Furthermore, the map does include Frisian, what else would they have used for the Frisian part of the map? The tree below the map demonstrates how Frisian is related more closely to Standard Dutch than is Limburgish. Sephia karta 17:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No you misinterpret the map. The map doesn't show Frisian, it shows Dutch spoken in Friesland. Rex 17:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A few points: while the misuse of the terms language and dialect is often due to political pressures, in linguistics they cornerstone is mutual inteligibility. Frisian is clearly a separate language as it straddles English and Dutch but is not mutually inteligible with either. Limburgish could be argued to be a dialect if one merely looked at the words, but the syntax and grammar are closer to Frisian than to Dutch, and mutual inteligibility with Dutch is highly doubtful. Thus both Frisian and Limburgish are separate languages from Dutch, and not by fiat. •Jim62sch• 21:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And you base this on [...] ? Rex 21:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This which? The whole statement? For the whole, it would be my training as a linguist. For beginners, though, feel free to go here [3]. •Jim62sch• 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe, yes well ethnologue generally isn't considered a reliable resource on wikipedia. Limburgish is an advanced Dutch dialect, and it's not one single dialect but a whole network of dialects grouped under "limburgish". Rex 21:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Ethnologue, what? That, I'd like to see that cited. In any case, I think you might be missing the key point: are Limburgish and Dutch mutually intelligible? They are farther apart in syntax, grammar, orthography and vocabulary than are Norwegian (both Bokmal and Nynorsk) and Swedish, and tonality is not something that appears in Dutch at all. Additionally, the argument regarding Limburgish being a group of dialects is correct insofar as they are dialects of Limburgish. The same phenomenon occurs with Rhaeto-Romansch, Corsican, Romanian and Sardininan, to name just a few. •Jim62sch• 23:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Difference between pronouns 'u' en 'jij'

I'm not a linguist, so I'm not going to make a change in the article, therefore this is a proposal for an edit. What I found lacking was a discussion of the difference between the formal 'u' en informal 'je/jij' as opposed to the use of you in the english language ('thou' is seriously outdated ofcourse). I'm sure there's a nice linguistic term and terminology for all this, but since I lack any knowledge of that, I think the article would be more complete when it mentions this. Cryforhelp 21:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is more intricate than one may realize. The 'je'/'jij' ('jou', 'jouw') form is less formal than 'u' (let alone the capitalized 'U' in strictly formal writing). In Dutch one is more readily inclined to use the informal form, than in French one would drop 'vous' and say 'tu', 'toi'. So far I assume everyone will agree. But in the last 50 years or so, the 'u' form has become still more rarely used; a more informal communication has become part of the culture. Older people may have slightly different sensitivities than youngsters.
Strictly, standard Dutch still accepts the form 'ge'/'gij' as well; but even in the Flemish areas where the dialects only know these words, which have no polite or informal form, education has taught to consider 'ge'/'gij' as obsolete and deprecated. The lack of sensitivity for switching from formal to informal in the native 'ge'/'gij' areas, and uneven evolution of cultural style, have caused regional differences.
Thus for certain situations, in the north one may use 'je'/'jij' where in the south (or parts thereof) this may sound a bit too informal for the occasion. It will thus not be wise to simply give a few samples that clearly indicate when to use 'je'/'jij' and when 'u' – for such samples in the article are likely to become disputed.
And then there are for instance company (or department) policies: a manager and an employee may address one another by 'u' and use the titles as 'meneer A', 'mevrouw B', 'juffrouw C' (mister, etc) but in the next office everyone is addressed by the firstname and 'u' is never heard... — SomeHuman 27 Aug 2006 01:05 (UTC)
Perhaps – I'm walking on thin ice now – one can state that 'je'/'jij' goes together with addressing by firstname, and the occasions at which this is considered proper, are similar in Dutch and in English: I assume there may be differences between Perth, Australia; Perth, Scotland; and Nova Scotia, and office policies and the like may seem arbitrarily chosen in some English speaking parts as well. — SomeHuman 27 Aug 2006 01:31 (UTC)
This indeed very complex. It even depends on the circuits you are working in. A university professor may e.g. want freshman students to use the informal 'jij' while being addressed as 'U' by the prime minister. We see television struggle with this regularly (you (U) asked me to address you (U) as JIJ in this interview). The choice is highly fuzzy, some trial and error is sometimes involved (starting out with the safe and formal in a first meeting "u" and than gradually introduce "jij" in subsequent discussions. I think a good linguist should write this section, because I think it is interesting but non-specialist may easily mess it up Arnoutf 10:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think in Dutch this "problem" isn't that hard is it? It's not like in German where they adress everyone over 16 and everybody except family and close friends with "Sie", I tend to use U for strangers, when they say I can say "Je/Jij" I do, if they don't I wont. I though it was sort of the same everywhere? Rex 10:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rex:It's rather more complicated actually, and of course not only dependent on what form the other person uses. It's more like SomeHuman describes it varies according to location and social circles. There is, like in German a certain age before which 'u' is improper, but after that it's always a bit of a guessing game. But there certainly is a correlation between first-name usage and informal 'jij' usage. I think that by mentioning that you would have a sufficient definition. Any better definition of when to use which noun does not exist and would always be severely disputed in the Dutch language areas. Cryforhelp 11:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To make it even more complicated, here in (southern) West-Flanders 'je/jij' are hardly ever used. 'U' is used as only a slightly more formal version of 'ge/gij', while when used as an adjective 'uw' is less formal than 'jouw'. If I were to refer to someones coat for instance and said 'jouw jas' that person would consider it more formal than 'uw jas'.Maraud 22:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled by Maraud's comment: I never heard 'u' and 'ge/gij' as subject of a sentence being used either in any standard Dutch context or within a dialect. It seems such mix might only occur when a speaker of a dialect (or of so-called 'verkavelingsvlaams') is in a situation at which one balances between maintaining this speech (and its 'ge'/'gij'), and switching to standard Dutch which is then perceived more formal as reserved for use with strangers and thus causes its 'u'.
Note that 'to you' can never become 'aan ge/gij' or 'aan je/jij' and must be 'aan u' [singular or plural] or 'aan jou' [plural 'aan jullie'] respectively; while as in English 'to' can be and nearly always is dropped (To whom did you give that book? I gave the book to him = I gave him the book), in Dutch 'aan' can be dropped (Ik gaf jou het boek) [Though one cannot say 'Ik gaf aan je het boek' (in any word order), we often say 'Ik gaf je het boek' = 'Ik gaf jou het boek']. In this context, using '(aan) u' is the only (formal or informal) possibility in a speech using as subject 'ge'/'gij'. When using 'je'/'jij' versus more formal 'u' as subject, '(to) you' becomes '(aan) jou' versus more formal '(aan) u'.
The possessional pronoun 'your' becomes invariably 'uw' for users of 'ge'/'gij'; but for users of 'je'/'jij' and 'u' as subject, it becomes 'jouw' and 'uw' respectively.
In West Flemish dialects (if I recall well), the pronoun 'joen' (In this Dutch script, 'joe' sounds like English 'you' but very short) [plural 'joender'] is the normal (and I think the only) counterpart of 'uw' in other 'ge'/'gij' dialects (or in the rare occasions of standard Dutch using 'ge'/'gij' as subject). This 'joen' might be etymologically related to 'jouw' [plural 'jullie'] or its usage might be confused with the usage of 'jouw' though these words belong in different regional languages or dialects.
Considering that in the Belgian region Flanders, dialects and standard Dutch are heard and often switched to and from as soon as during a conversation another person speaks, is spoken to, or (re)joins it, foreigners have a near impossible job in learning the Dutch language properly. It's hard for the Flemish as well. — SomeHuman 2 Sep 2006 10:23 (UTC)
From my above comment, compared with Maraud's statement "If I were to refer to someones coat for instance and said 'jouw jas' that person would consider it more formal than 'uw jas'":
  • In a conversation with local speakers of a West Flemish dialect together with non-local speakers, one will tend to speak towards the latter saying 'jouw jas': using the as more formally perceived standard Dutch or 'tussentaal' (with 'je/jij' versus 'u') but not treating that person as an outsider and thus using the informal 'jouw' and not the formal and thereby too distanciating 'uw'.
  • In this same conversation, speaking towards another local, using the as less formally perceived and between themselves normal dialect one may say 'uw jas' (*): here 'uw jas' is the only and thus also the informal form within a (ge/gij) dialect.
Thus Maraud may perceive 'uw jas' as less formal (as used amongst local friends) and 'jouw jas' as more formal (as used with a welcome outsider). I do not think however, that Maraud would use 'jouw jas' and 'uw jas' within one single pure dialect (or within pure standard Dutch) with this perception of formality.

(*) However I would have expected 'joen jas' in West Flanders but I'm more used to hear the coastal speech than the southern dialects. I spent a few weeks in southern Menen and Kortrijk too but as a speaker of another regional dialect (Brabantian Mechlinian), I may not have noticed the inner-regional subtleties. I might be wrong on 'joen' also being used as possessional pronoun – I have only a passive understanding of West Flemish.

— SomeHuman 2 Sep 2006 11:49 (UTC)
For me, living in Zuid Holland, 'ge/gij' sounds even more 'formal' then 'U' - probably because it is not normally used in either formal or colloquial speech, it sounds positively 'Biblical'. I remember being surprised that for my cousins in Brabant, it was the opposite- for them it was more informal even then 'jij', probably because they considered dialect inherently less formal then 'ABN' (this was before we dropped the 'B'). 80.60.242.12 03:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
In Flanders, it seems that 'u' (you) is always very formal, but 'uw' (yours) can be either formal or colloquial depending on context. It is common to use 'uw' between friends, and I suspect this is because the colloquial alternative 'jouw' sounds almost Netherlandish and wholly out of place in Flemish. However, the colloquial alternative for 'u' is 'je'/'jij' and although nobody uses 'jij' in Flanders for the same reason, 'je' is fine.
Depending on the circumstances, even 'je' may conjure up images of tulips and windmills, in which case 'ge' is substituted, and the rest of the sentence accordingly changed to dialect.
- BL User:157.193.108.144 22 Dec 2006 11:43 (UTC)
The use of 'jij' versus 'je' is in Flanders as in the Netherlands; it puts some more emphasis on the pronoun used as subject of the sentence than 'je' does (e.g. "You are not the person to tell me..." could never be expressed by 'je' but requires 'jij'). Such is less often heard than 'je' in normal speech [and is just like 'gij' compares to 'ge']. Furthermore, 'je' is more often heard because "I give you a pen"/"I give it to you" is "Ik geef je een pen"/"Ik geef het je" (or "Ik geef jou een pen"/"Ik geef het aan jou" which stresses 'to you, not to someone else') and cannot possibly be "Ik geef jij een pen" or "Ik geef het jij". One does not in standard Dutch say 'uw' either between friends or more easily than 'u'; but where 'ge'/'gij' is normal, instead of "Ik geef je een pen"/"Ik geef het je" such must be expressed by "Ik geef u een pen"/"Ik geef het u" (or "Ik geef het aan u"). Since in Flanders 'ge'/'gij' is common in dialects, and also in standard Dutch (though generally considered as deprecated, as if not proper Dutch) heard in colloquial speech by some speakers [of tussentaal aka verkavelingsvlaams, a mix of dialect and AN], this (to you) 'u' or 'aan u' feels normal and may be heard from uncareful speakers mixing the 'je'/'jij' subject with a form that actually should only occur between friends when using as subject 'ge'/'gij'. Because for 'your', 'ge'/'gij' must go with 'uw' or 'van u', versus 'je'/'jij' with 'jouw' or 'van jou', a similar practical usage occurs for 'uw'. The same is true for 'yours': 'ge'/'gij' must go with 'het uwe', versus 'je'/'jij' with 'het jouwe'; those (yours) forms however, are in Flanders uncommon and in its dialects even absent, it is usually rephrased as 'dat van u' versus 'dat van jou'. — SomeHuman 22 Dec 2006 15:03-16:11 (UTC)

Dutch spoken in Germany?

Where exactly in Germany is Dutch spoken? According to the box at the top right hand corner of the page it is spoken there, but the article makes no mention of it.

It's simply spoken in Germany by the 114,100 Dutch people living there, though I assume they live close to the Dutch border.
Rex 21:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, but there are Dutch people living in Canada and the US who speak Dutch as well. There may not be as many Dutch speakers as in Germany, but I'm sure there are more than in 'eastern Guyana'.

The box should differenciate between countries with native speakers and those with only immigrant speakers of Dutch; now it's either misleading or else looks like unduly promoting the language's importance. — SomeHuman 29 Aug 2006 23:41 (UTC)

Well ... it already kind of does that doesn't it? The box now makes a difference between "spoken in" and "official language of" but I agree it could be made more clear. Though you'd probably have to change the template to do so. Rex 12:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion Dutch people living in other countries should be discarded from the count. I suppose there are more Dutch people living in the U.S.A. than in Germany. But we would not want to add that country to the list (and a few dozen others as well). −Woodstone 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should allow for countries with significant Dutch speaking minorities (i.e. 10.000 Dutch speaking in Andorra are a more significant minority than 1 million Dutch speaking in the USA). I would also argue to add that countries that have typical Dutch speaking regions (e.g. a (fictitious) Dutch speaking province in the Himalaya). So if there is a clear significant presence of Dutch speaking people in Germany (e.g. a border province where Dutch is a main (minority) language; or let's say more than x% of the population) I would support adding, otherwise I think it does not add anything. Arnoutf 20:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
About Arnoutf's suggestion: such specific region, district, city of the country should then be mentioned behind the country, if not quasi 100% Dutch speaking with the percentage in that local circumscription; for a wider or geographically undetermined ocurrance of a reasonably significant minority, the country could be mentioned with its percentage of Dutch speakers. The list might show all in descending order of absolute number of Dutch speakers. E.g.:
The Netherlands
Belgium (Flanders ; Brussels:10%)
Andorra (15%)
Nepal (southern Mount Everest:40%)
Here partially following the earlier fictitious samples, of course. — SomeHuman 30 Aug 2006 22:00 (UTC)
Do people in Germany along the border actually speak Dutch proper, or do they just speak some other very similar Low German Language? Ameise -- chat 05:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Was wondering the same thing, isn't it just the limburgish dialect they speak? Because you can't really count that as Dutch, since it's just as much like German. Maraud 11:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No they speak Dutch. Limburgish is largely a dialect of Dutch only in the far south of the Province (east of Maastricht) do they speak a clearly German dialect. Rex 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources? Ameise -- chat 16:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? Rex 16:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
First off, learn how to properly branch what you are replying to -- second, sources that say that Limburgish is a Dutch dialect, and that most of the people there speak Limburgish? Ameise -- chat

Limburgish (or rather the largest portion of what we call Limburgish) is a low franconian dialect, be it one with a High (middle) German and French influence. In Dutch linguistics it once was explained to me the following, if it's low franconian and its spoken within the Dutch SD zone then it's a Dutch dialect otherwise it's open to debate. A bit crude, yes, but it does help viewing it that way. (Also note that in Dutch streektaal is a synonym of dialect) Rex 14:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Classification and related languages

In the section about Classification and related languages, the example of the english word town is translated as tuin (dutch) and zaun (german). The literal english translation of the dutch tuin would be garden. Town would translate as stad in dutch. I've never heard of the german word zaun, but I'm dutch myself so I can't confirm this, but I think this is incorrect.

Those aren't about a vocabulary comparison but about linguitic drift. Rex 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

'Zaun' translates roughly as 'Fence'. Ameise -- chat 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As does 'tuin' in my dialect (from Ypres). A 'tuen' (diphtongs here) is a fence, especially around a meadow or grassland. Björn- 3 November 2006

Dutch in NZ

Of the inhabitants of New Zealand, 0.7% say their home language is Dutch (see article on New Zealand). I can't find this anywhere on the New Zealand page?? possibly out of date info? Goldfinger820 06:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A wikilink to New Zealand would be appropriate, but Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source when it comes to verifying the statement. Official Wikipedia policy is that "facts" which are not supported by citations from reliable sources may be removed by any editor at any time. It doesn't matter whether the "facts" are true or not; it's whether they are supported by a citation.
I didn't spend much time studying http://www.stats.govt.nz/people/arts/language.htm, but at first glance, that number appears to be wildly incorrect. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 07:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This site gives 16,347 people speaking Dutch in New Zealand in 2001 (60% of the ethnic Dutch there).

Given the total population of New Zealand (4,086,153) this accounts for 0,4% of the total population. Rex 08:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, now we know where the number came from. That's not the number who do use Dutch in the home, though, but the number who could carry on an everyday conversation in Dutch if they had to. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 16:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We know where the number came from? From where then? I don't think the site on which I based myself was used in those other references. What are you saying?! Rex 17:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Euhm I read above remark of ClairSamoht as a (slightly blunt version of): "Thanks Rex for the link to the site, this helps me because now I know where the number comes from. However, when I carefully read the text provided on the website kindly provided by you I interpret the data given on the website as not the number who do use Dutch in the home, though, but the number who could carry on an everyday conversation in Dutch if they had to." Arnoutf 18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
nice to have that sorted out - having being born and bred in NZ that statement came as somewhat of a surprise to me cheers all

Goldfinger820 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is wrong

Where did this come from? There are errors out the aarsje:

The word Dutch comes from the proto-Germanic word *þeudisko-z, later transliterated by the Romans into Latin as theodisk, meaning 'of the people', 'vernacular' as opposed to official, i.e. Latin or later French. Theodisk became Duutsc in Middle Dutch, which later gave the two early modern Dutch forms, Duits in the north and Diets in the south. Duits has taken on the meaning of "German" and Diets meaning "Dutch" (along with "Nederlands") but no longer in general use (see the Diets article), dropped for its Nazi-era overtones. German Deutsch meaning "German" has the same origin.

Theodisk? With a K? The Romans only used a K for words borrowed from Greek. This history is a bit screwed too. •Jim62sch• 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Latin transliteration has nothing to do with the history of the word as per the West German peoples (the Netherlanders, the Germans, and the Anglo-Friese) Ameise -- chat 05:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not disputing the meaning of the words, Dutch, Duits, Deutsch, etc, (nor should you have inferred that I was). But the etymology is bullshit. And there is other alleged info that is not cited (the Nazi-era bit for one). •Jim62sch• 09:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope you meant West Germanic peoples, not West German peoples. Scientists have stopped using that term quite a while ago. — Rex 10:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
On a mere forum talk, I found an interesting quote from the Oxford dictionary:

"Note. Late Roman writers reckoned the Teutones among the peoples of Germania, and Teutonicus became a common poetic equivalent for Germnicus. It is now however held by many that they were not a Germanic people. But, before 900, German writers in Latin began to follow Latin poetic precedent by using Theutonica lingua instead of the barbarian or non-classical Theotisca, to render the native tiutisch, tiutsch (OHG. diutisc, mod. deutsch = OS. thiudisc, OE. <thorn>odisc, literally "national, popular, vulgar") as a designation of their vulgar tongue in contrast to Latin, as if this German adj. were identical with the ancient ethnic name. In 1200 lingua Teutonica was similarly used, and thenceforth Teutonicus became a usual L. rendering of Deutsch or German. Some Early German comparative philologists (e.g. Bopp in 1820) used Teutonisch as the name for the family of languages including Gothic, German, Scandinavian, and English; but for this Germanisch is now more used in German, and Germanic by many in English. But in English there is an awkwardness and sometimes ambiguity in using Germanic beside German (in its ordinary political sense), which does not arise in German or French, where germanisch and germanique are entirely distinct from deutsch and allemand. To avoid this, many English scholars preferred "Teutonic" as the term for the linguistic family, and it is commonly so used in this dictionary."

Of course, above "<thorn>" must be "þ". In the article too, the current reference shows a wrong character "é" and is followed with "Goth. * iudisks: OTeut. * eudisko-z" and further "OTeut. * eudâ-, Goth. iuda, ON. jó , OS. thioda, thiod, OE. éod" in which I assume the '&thorn;' = 'þ' to be missing and some faulty characters to be shown. I leave it up to qualified linguists to insert the correct characters in the present reference, and possibly either use part of the above reference in the article or add a second thiudisc reference. — SomeHuman 15 Sep 2006 11:22 (UTC)
My edit conflict is quite ironical: Did you mean (West) Teutonic? The Oxford dictionary has stopped using... – Nay! Keep it at (West) Germanic which as the dictionary states is used "by many in English" ;-)) — SomeHuman 15 Sep 2006 11:29 (UTC)
SomeHuman, thanks for noticing that the thorns (þ) were missing, Wiki replaced them with a space (bad Wiki). There was also an edh (ð) missing from the Old Norse word. If you get a chance check it over again to make sure I got everything. Thanks! •Jim62sch• 16:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Rex, I have heard many people on Wikipedia state that scientists stopped using the term 'West German' peoples long ago, but I have never seen any evidence presented to the fact, besides a few Dutch nationalists making random claims here and there... Ameise -- chat 07:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you ease up on that tone, unless you want me to report you for a personal attack. On wikipedia, as well as modern science the term West Germanic (peoples) is used. As for your nationalism claim, I believe we all know (with a simple look at your talkpage) who's the (German) nationalist here and you also know I'm kind of an Ameisenbär to those. Rex 07:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Rex, a word of advice: there's really nothing in that comment by Antman that any admin is going to see as a vio of NPA. In addition, you yourself very well may be in violation of NPA.
In any case, Western Germanic is the preferred (if not only) reference in linguistics (see [4]). There's no reason for an article on Dutch to become an internecine war, or a soapbox for nationalism.
Est Europa nunc unita et unita maneat; una in diversitate pacem mundi augeat. •Jim62sch• 14:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with using the term "West German" -- "Germanic" makes it seem as though there is some huge divide between the languages on part with that between German, and say, Icelandic; Dutch and German are -VERY- closely related languages to the point that there is a dialectual continuum near the border, and trying to differentiate them by using terms designed to induce vagueness is not scientific at all.
As per your comments, Rex: if you see what I said as a personal attack, then go ahead and report me, and we will see how long it takes for an administrator to throw it out. Plus, your second comment just shows you again how ignorant you are of the difference between a Nazi and a Nationalist -- I am an Imperial German, not a Nazi German. I'd put a big Dutch flag with the original orange onto your page with the label "Dutch Nationalist" if I didn't know that that were against many, many standards here. Ameise -- chat 06:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
To the original topic, though, which Rex seems to have been successful in deviating the discussion from (and I am here because I feel that the German and Dutch languages, one of which I have a fair amount of knowledge of, are similar enough to be considered one super-language, with German and Dutch as sub-languages... that's my opinion though... let's not forget, A Language is a Dialect with an Army.)... the word 'Teodisca', if my memory serves correctly, originates from an early Indo-European split, which left the Europeans with a form of 'Teodisca', and the Indo-Iranians with a form of 'Arya', the latter forming the word 'Iran'.
Teodisca devolved further, as the Latins had 'Teodisc', the Germans, it became 'Deutsch' (or Dutch), and to the Celts it because Gaelig (Teodisc, Teodig, Geogig, Geolig, or so). The history as written may or may not be accurate in the article, but the word itself is present in most European languages in some form or another, and they all have related meaning. Ameise -- chat 06:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Antman, I don't care if you are or consider yourself to be an Imperial German (Though I myself do not remember the USA being a part of Imperial Germany) nor your claims of having enough knowledge to say that Dutch and German are similar enough (!) to be considered one "superlanguage" (Something which I would never ever say) and not even you're etymologies (which are false). As for the claim that "A language is a dialect with an army. (in which you capitalized the nouns to make it seem German?) Austria has an army, is Austrian a language? Rex 10:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Germanic is the correct linguistic phrase, and since this is a language article, Germanic is what needs to be used.
Your original research on Teodisc, Gaelig, Arya, etc., is very nice, and yet very wrong. •Jim62sch• 15:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You talk big, but I don't see the evidence, either. Ameise -- chat 19:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you make that comment? Rex 21:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What? Ameise -- chat 21:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why make such a comment when even you don't see the evidence for it? Rex 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are misreading what I am saying. I am pointing out that he made a simple "you are wrong" statement without any substantiating evidence, which is neither productive nor academically proper. You will also note that although it is indeed original research, I have also never posted it in an article, as it is such; however, Rex here is suddenly saying that German and Dutch are nothing alike, sooo... Ameise -- chat 23:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"he" who? •Jim62sch• 03:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
"he" you. You told me I was wrong, but didn't give me any reasoning for it. Ameise -- chat 07:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's original research that's why. Also, I never said that German and Dutch aren't similar. I said that the 2 aren't by far similar enough to be put in a "superlanguage" an idea which I believe the nazis also worked out, no offence. Dutch and German are related but by no means similar enough for your idea. Dutch isn't simply German without the High German consonant shift. If that were the case I wouldn't have spend over 5 years learning the language, its grammar, pronounciation and idiom but would have gotten a list that said: z=s, k=ch, p=pf, etc.

ps. Have you ever heard Dutch? Rex 08:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Antman, the reasons you are wrong are many, and, quite frankly, it isn't my job to teach you linguistics. Here's a clue, though: the words you tried to declare cognates all have different meanings both now, and more importantly at the time of their inception. OK, I'll be nice and give you another clue -- there are no rules of phoneme shifts that support your OR. And a challenge: If you can somehow show how *þeudisko-z, arya, and gael are cognates you'll be the toast of linguistics. Remember that whatever phoneme shifts you propose must be true for PIE as a whole. (BTW, re Gaelig: the root is gael, the -ig is a suffix akin to -ish and -(l)y)
Can you find me a linguistic book published, written, and copyrighted in the past 20 years that refers to West Germanic languages as West German?
Finally, Rex makes a very good point: Dutch sounds absolutely nothing like German. In fact, while I find pronouncing German to be quite easy, I stumble over Dutch pronunciations. •Jim62sch• 12:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, one other point: gael is a contracted root. •Jim62sch• 13:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think one couldn't even find a book published in the past 60 years that mentions "West German" in the sense of West germanic. Rex 13:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said that 'Arya' and 'Theudisko' were cognates, but I did say that in their own groupings, they had similar meanings. Rex, I would suggest that you again refrain from calling me a Nazi.
Just because Dutch and German today sound nothing alike does not make them unrelated. Ameise -- chat 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Arya means noble, *þeudisko-z means people. Yeah, they're related.
To repeat, no one said Dutch and German weren't related. I think the point was that Dutch is not a dialect of German. Believe it or not, German isn't even the first Germanic language of which there are written examples, Gothic is. So is German a dialect of Gothic? •Jim62sch• 22:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

About that, apart from runes, guess which Germanic language was attested after Gothic ... Rex 23:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said that Dutch was a dialect of German, I implied that both Dutch and German are dialects of the same language -- Runic wasn't a language, it was a system of writing... Ameise -- chat 02:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I know runic is way of writing, I implied that the language in which the runes of the 2nd century AD do not count as attested languages as Jim noted that Gothic was the earliest attested Germanic language. I know what you implied and it's still very wrong. Rex 08:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think nobody disagrees that Dutch and German both descend from the same language (probably also the ancestor of Frisian, Danish, Swedish and many other languages). However, their difference is pronounced enough to state they are different languages rather than dialects of a no longer existing proto-Dutch-German language. Arnoutf 09:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There never was a "Proto-Dutch-German language", there was a proto language called Common West Germanic (or Old German in dated linguistics) but this was the ancestor of all West Germanic languages, not just Dutch and German. Rex 09:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that was more or less what I meant to say; thanks for the clarification Rex. Arnoutf 10:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

See Proto-Germanic language -- this was the ancestor of all Germanic languages, and the "offspring" of PIE.
As for Runes, Rex's point is correct. BTW, the second attested Germanic language is Dutch. Old English isn't too far behind, and examples of written OE texts (non-runic) predate examples of OHG texts by 100 years. •Jim62sch• 15:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
As for when Dutch was attested to, how can we actually be sure it is Dutch, and not some other low Franconian or low Saxon dialect? Ameise -- chat 18:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

We can be sure, because the experts say so. Rex 19:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And 'experts' said that the Jews were inferior because they were Jewish -- does that make them right? Plus, I remember reading that many of the enscriptions in Old Dutch were likely Old English -- the fact that they cannot be distinguished does lend credence to the fact, does it. Ameise -- chat 20:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one (and I see you see this differently) do not consider nazis to (have) be(en) authorative "experts". The Old English/Old Dutch texts. There is only one text that some experts believe to be English and that's hebban olla, just one. There's doubt because the writer of the text did speak Dutch, had a West Flemish dialect (which has a number of Anglo-Frisian features) and wrote it in Kent, England. The Salic law however, isn't disputed (AFAIK) by anyone. Rex 20:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Antman, you also remembered reading about a relationship via an early PIE split regarding the precursor words for Gaelic, Dutch and Aryan. I think we've pretty much driven a linguistic stake through that one, yes?
Second, Rex is correct; the "hebban olla" is the only text about which there is a question. As I stated earlier, in my opinion as a linguist and reader of OE the text appears to be Dutch, not OE. Remember, the few linguists who think it is OE are very much in the minority. •Jim62sch• 21:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps -- until we go back in time and ask them "Hey, where did the word 'Gaelic' come from?", we may never know for sure. Ameise -- chat 21:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you serious? Should I even bother? Is there a point? Do you have even the remotest clue of how linguistics works? Answers: sadly yes, no, no and no.
Now the more important question: why are you wasting our time? •Jim62sch• 23:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you are going to resort to personal attacks, then I believe I have nothing more to say to you; I have no need to lower myself to your level. Ameise -- chat 00:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
They all seemed like legitimate questions to me. •Jim62sch• 09:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with jim here, it's okay to have questions antman, but in linguistics you have to trust contemporary developement, not historical views. So to me questions like "how can we sure that [...]" and "how can we be sure those experts are right?" are quite pointless. Rex 10:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Being a native speaker of Dutch, I would have to say that Dutch (with its old unrevised grammar and declensions), is not so much more than a dialect of High German. We the Dutch have our own identity, as do the Swiss and Austrians, but our language really doesn't ever get the exitingly far from German. Maybe this is because I am from Limburg and my dialect is much more German than Dutch anyways, but as a child, I liked the German children's shows on television much more than the Dutch ones (not because of the language but the German cartoons were better) and I never had any dificulty understanding what they were saying. Speak to any child from Limburg or Gelderland in German, and they will probably think ou are speaking a different dialect of Limburgs or Niedersaksisch and will answer you just fine in their dialect.

This may come as a surprise to a Limbabwaan, but Dutch doesn't have declensions. If you see little difference between your language and German, that's mainly because your language isn't Dutch. Shinobu 08:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There are some declensions left, mainly in fixed expressions ('s morgens) so that is not entirely true. I agree the langages are closely related (so there is no exciting distance) but they are different languages. I understand the Portugese and Spanish or the Danes Swedes and Norwegians can understand each other as well (and the Danes probably can understand the Germans). I think the geogrpahical borders more or less divide the more continuous change in language fairly arbitrary. A Limburgian would probably have a hard time listening to a Bavarian or Austrian dialect. And perhaps people living near Aachen understand the Limburgish dialect more easily than a Bavarain. Being from Rotterdam myself I DID (and stiil do) have a hard time following German television, so my Dutch language is not German. Arnoutf 08:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And there's the genetive of course, or what's left of it. What I'm trying to say is that theý're not really a core part of the language anymore. Not like in German, where you can toy around with the meaning of a sentence by fiddling with the articles (it's fun!). As for me, I'm a Noorderling, but if I hadn't learned German in school I wouldn't be able to understand it now. Ede Staal and Herman Finkers pose no problems, but I'm not certain if that qualifies as Low Saxon or not. Probably not. Shinobu 10:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed this because...

There is no attribution. In looking at it, I doubt that it is OE, however my opinion isn't all that relevant. On the other hand, unless sources meeting WP:RS and WP:V are found to support it, it needs to not be put back. Also, if sources are found, name the linguists. (And if the thesis that it is OE is debated by other linguists, that should go in the article as well.) •Jim62sch• 17:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For a long time this sentence was considered to be the earliest recorded Dutch, but some linguists are convinced it is in fact Old English.{{fact}}

I will reinstate this sentence (with reference) mainly because you not only removed that sentence you modified the entire section. For instance from stating that it was one of the Oldest pieces of Dutch according to you it suddenly was thé oldest, thereby robbing the Dutch language of 500 years of history.
Rex 08:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I again changed the opening clause as it was not truly in English. I also noted the linguist's name and what he actually said.
As for robbing the Dutch language, that was certainly not my intention. Do you have an earlier example of Dutch that could ber put in the article? This would be a very good way of showing the development of the language.
Also, Rex, you need to work a bit on civility. •Jim62sch• 14:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The piece of oldest Dutch is already in the article. Rex 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you mean the Salic Law...this piece from the Old Dutch article might be nice if it could be fit somewhere, "Irlôsin sol an frithe sêla mîna fan thên thia ginâcont mi, wanda under managon he was mit mi.". Interestingly close to OE. Anyway, the ODu article also has an interesting progression based on the above from ODu through MDu to Modern Dutch. Old_Dutch#Translation_of_Old_Dutch_sentence_in_Middle_and_Contemporary_Dutch. •Jim62sch• 15:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, I made that article ;-) Rex 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent reorganisation

I reverted Rex's recent reorganisation of this article, as it removes information and merely adds unsourced statements - not to mention that it looks messy. The information brought over from History of Dutch seems a little too specific and anorakish to sit in the main article on Dutch. I'd be gratified if Rex would come to the Talk page and discuss what he/she was trying to achieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Mustard (talk • contribs)

I did not merely remove information and did not add unsourced statements, show me where I did. This information is more plain than the whole Germanic tribes thing and you behaviour (reverting with no explanation) is unacceptable.
Rex 12:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You removed information about the West Germanic dialect continuum - unsourced statements: "linguists can detect somewhat (sic) of a revolution", "like most modern languages" - information exchanged for fluff. And I think that adding that information from History of Dutch clutters up the article, personally. Please tell me what you think you added to the article, and why you don't like the idea of a dialect continuum. Colonel Mustard 00:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Two points:
Both versions are unsourced, although the version by Colonel Mustard will be harder for the average non-linguist to follow. Perhaps there's a middle ground.
Rather than revert each other, how about working out a compromise here? •Jim62sch• 00:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should one mention a dialect continuum in the history section? Rex 13:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a very relevant fact? :o)--MWAK 10:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Map

[5] Is this map accurate? From what I understand, in the eastern Netherlands, they speak Low Saxon which is basically a form of Low German (Dutch is Low Franconian), while in Friesland they speak Friese... Ameise -- chat 15:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be accurate? It's the area in which Dutch is spoken, not which dialect or other language they might speak.Rex 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, Fries nor Low German are dialects of Dutch, meaning that Dutch is not spoken in those areas, unless Dutch also happens to be spoken there? Ameise -- chat 15:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Right ... (IQ 128?!) let's do this one step at the time. Do you know what a standard and a national language are? Rex 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes I do. I fail to see the relevance, thoug. Ameise -- chat 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, this will save us a lot of time. Now, do you think you understand the concept of "bilingualism"? Rex 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

... the map emphasizes that Dutch is their -mother- language. Is it their mother language, or a second language to them? I could go and change the map of where English is spoken to every place where someone speaks it as a second language fluently, and make the whole globe whatever color. Ameise -- chat 00:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This is how the map SHOULD be, IMO, if Friese and the Low Saxon dialects should even be painted: Image:Smap.png
Frisian and Low Saxon are the mother tongue to a minority even in Frisia and the Eastern Netherlands; but even there children are raised bilingual (i.e. everyone learns to speak Dutch at a very young age). A larger proportion of the inhabants of these areas speak native Dutch; and have some command of the local language. Therefore your English suggestion does not go. Arnoutf 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to bother even answering that question, besides the fact that you just answered the very question I asked him in the first place. Ameise -- chat 12:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, according to the wikipedia Friese page, Friesian is the majority (albeit not by much) spoken language in Friesland. Ameise -- chat 13:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the image is nice, but that's how a dialectal map of the Netherlands ought to look like. The map in question simply gives the area in which Dutch is spoken natively. Rex 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The borders in the map on the main page aren't even accurate, though... as you can see with the borders on mine where I fixed them. Also, neither Friese

nor Low German are dialects of Dutch. Ameise -- chat 17:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you even read other peoples comments? Let me spell it out for you: T-h-e m-a-p i-s n-o-t a-b-o-u-t d-i-a-l-e-c-t-s. It's simply about where Dutch is spoken. Furthermore, your map is highly inaccurate towards Frisian. Rex 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, you are a very hostile person. Your map (the one you used in the first place) is highly inaccurate to land area and structure, so of course it is going to be inaccurate as per placement! Regardless, I disagree that Dutch is spoken where you colored; in some places it is not, and in others you simply didn't color. It -looks- like you just colored all of the Netherlands (because, you know, the borders of the Netherlands are perfect boundaries linguistically) and then Flanders. Ameise -- chat 21:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It is the official language and tuaght to all junior high school kids in the Netherlands (even Frisia) and Flanders (and parts of Belgian brabant etc). The Low Saxon group is only acknowledged as a regional language recently and is really pretty minor even in its native areas compared to Dutch. So, some discussion about Frisian may be justified (although only about 50% speaks it natively in Frisia; and these are in vast majroity raised bilingual), but not for Low Saxon. There is some Dutch speaking across the border in Germany and Northern France, but you could argue whether that is truly the first language there (I think comparable to the Dutch Frisia relation there is a large minority speakng Dutch in these regions). So I think I would go with Rex' map. Arnoutf 07:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Me too. Sixtus 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not hostile. I'm just flabbergasted that a person with a supposably 128 IQ can't figure out what the map is about. The map is about where Dutch is spoken, and no matter what language or dialects they speak in the North or East of the country, they still all speak Dutch, which is more than can be said for Frisian and Low Saxon.Rex 07:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Since watching this map, why is only Europe shown? On the isles of St. Maarten, Aruba and more Dutch Antills is Dutch spoken, as well as in Surinam and South-Africa. Should these countries not also be added to the map? Amelie poulain 17:09, 1st January 2007 (UTC)


That map's a joke. "Light blue: secondary, non-official language"...since when's Dutch a secondary language in places like Greece, Romania etc? Just because it's an EU country? 172.158.182.49 18:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is one of the official EU languages, so yes that is the reason. Arnoutf 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Popular misconseptions

I really think that this section needs a cleanup, particularly the section which states that Dutch is not a dialect of German, an obvious fact wich doesn't need to be stated.CharlesMartel 23:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)CharlesMartel

Sadly, if you see the many revertions on especially that account it does not seem to be as obvious a fact as it is to you and me. The similarity between German and Germanic has a lot to answer for. Arnoutf 08:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, many laymen think of Germanic as the adjective form of German. Of course it's a fact Dutch isn't a German dialect but it's not that clear to everyone.Rex 14:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I just must say that I am proud German and coming from Germany. But when I just hearing the Hollandisch-Deutsch (ofa DUTCH) I know German when Im hearing it (even though Hollandish-Deutsch is not nearly as smartly spoken as regular German). C'mon Rex should you not stop worring about your little dialect of high German? Also Rex, I just must say you should just work on your English some, with just a little practice you will be speaking and transcribing English as well as me! Good Night good friend Rex!

Oh Ulritz, you're such a laugh.Rex 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the popular misconception that Dutch is really just a strange little mixture between German and English? Or perhaps that's the correct conception! Anyone that speaks German and English could read a Dutch newspaper. The only reason we can't speak it, is we can't quite manage that talking-whilst-gargling sound that typifies the pronunciation! As the Dutch seem to like the Brits more than the Germans (going as far as embracing darts...), don't you think Dutch will eventually become so Anglicised that it will properly be regarded as an English dialect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmcmurdo (talk • contribs)

Haha very funny - Of course everybody knows that German is just a Dutch dialect; and English just Dutch with a lot of Latin words. But no kidding; Spanish can Understand Portugese (and v.v.). French and Italians may also get the general gist. That is because these are Romance languages. In a similar way Dutch, Frisian, German, Danish, Swedish, Norse and Icelandic people may get the general meaning from each others text because they are all Germanic languages (I was in Norway recently and could actually understand most of the headlines in the local newspaper). (English although a Germanic language is a bit more complex due to Celtic, French (Normandy - william the conq.) influences.) That does not mean there are only two languages in Western Europe, it only menas there are two language families. Arnoutf 08:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

N not pronounced in Dutch '-en' plural ending

In the Dutch language article I read that the N in the plural ending '-en' is often not pronounced except in a few areas of the Netherlands, whereas this seems to be wrong. I am not a native Dutch, but I have been corrected by a Dutch speaker when I tried that. Besides, this Dutch speaker was not from either of the areas mentioned so I would assume you always have to pronounce '-en' fully. Luca 11:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am from one of the areas mentioned (west-flanders) and it is true that we pronounce the final "n" but not the "e" so we pronounce "werken" not as "werke" but rather as "werkn". So at least that part of the article is true. And as far as I know, in standard-dutch in the Netherlands the final "n" is indeed dropped in pronunciation. However in standard-dutch in Belgium (for example what you would hear on VRT news broadcasts) the final "n" is often pronounced. I think either way of pronouncing is allowed.--80.201.214.141 00:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am from The Hague/Leiden and speak a fairly neutral form of "Algemeen Nederlands", in which final <n> is NEVER pronounced after shwa, maybe with the exception of short words like <regen> and <toren>, and sometimes the first <n> in the name of our PM <balkenende>, which is omitted by many speakers. Advice to foreign learners of Dutch: always drop your final <n>! Homun 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Another native Dutch here, and this is what I learned/read/heared: the behaviour of the final n after a schwa is much like the r after any vowel in British English. It is usually dropped, except when the next word or syllable starts with a vowel (to make a more fluid connection between words - like Balkenende, Balke-ende would sound like an interruption of speech). As the article states, in the northeast and southwest the n is indeed pronounced, which is also allowed and correct (or at least, not incorrect). Moreover, in norteastern Netherlands the schwa is dropped and in case there is a plosive before the schwa, that will be pronounced as a stop. For example: in "lopen", the p will be a bilabial stop, followed by an m (yes, an m, because the lips are already sealed). 82.217.206.98 23:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think all of this is bullshit. The dialects of some areas - including Leiden - are immaterial. Some dialects (especially in the urbanized regions to the west) drop the "n" consistently and turn -en into -e, and other dialects (especially associated to rural areas) drop the "e" and say -n. Most of the times dropping "n", however, is just bad pronounciation and confined to low social levels. Responsable parents tend to correct their children and make them pronounce -en, like it should be. Agreed, sometimes you'll hardly hear the "n", even so this is very different from dropping "n" altogether. Rokus01 20:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Etymology Dutch and German

Recently there has been some reversion about Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry where in the early twenthieth century one of the students states he is studying Dutch (apparently meaning German, although I am not sure whether it is not actually Dutch as I don't know the novel, but assuming good faith the mix up may be genuine). however the claim made in the article that the etymological confusion remains untill that time seems a bit far fetched. It looks more to me that the confusion stems from the Deutsch(=German)-Dutch similarity rather then historically; so it has no place there. If this is not the case, the section attributing that to etymology is original research (or alternatively a reference has to be provided). Summarised: Without referenced evidence the confusion was etymological rather then based on similar sound the section should not be here. Therefore I took it out. Arnoutf 19:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen.Rex 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Please Rex this kind of gloating is not productive, the original addition was (most likely) honest, therefore you taking it out before without a good summary/argument here was not warranted. Writing a good rationale why you do something has multiple benefits first of all, it prevents edit wars. Second and also very important, it explains to an editor who did something in good faith why his/her edit was changed (ie, it does not unnecessarily disappoint a potentially valuable contributor); and of course it is just the decent thing to do if you throw out someone else's stuff to say why. Arnoutf 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't gloating, you simply said exactly what I was thinking (but forgot to write down) when I removed the line ... It's very probable that User:Ulritz tried to irritate me by reverting (m) but that wasn't the reason for the amen remark. Rex 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ok fair enough, but if I misread you, others may also do that and form an incorrect opinion of your motivations. Arnoutf 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Next time I won't forget a summary or talkpage note.Rex 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Frisian Middle English

Hello, could someone maybe put in the article that Frisian is close to Middle English (...) mainly because they were one of the tribes that along with the Saxons and Angles invaded England? Don't know the years right now but still. 81.69.203.77 11:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Mallerd

Why would one add that to the article concerning the Dutch language?Rex 16:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaker figures

When checking Ethnologue and the info at Nederlandse Taalunie the number of speakers seems to be at most 22 million. Where did we get the extra 4 million from?

Peter Isotalo 12:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Expanded lead

I've made an attempt to provide a summary appropriate to an article of this size as WP:LEAD. I know there was a lot controversy about the description of Flemish in a previous version of the lead, which was then reduced to just a single sentence, and I hope we'll try to avoid the pushy proscriptions ("incorrect" usage) and completely redundant fact statements ("All dialects of Dutch are considered to be the same language").

Peter Isotalo 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek

Does the grammer section really need the overly detailed Star Trek reference? I know some people try to work Star Trek, Star Wars or anime into everything, but I don't really think it's needed here. 85.210.18.247 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a good pointer. In fact, we shouldn't have an example taken from any sci-fi show. It should be replaced with something that is more familiar to most audiences.
Peter Isotalo 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Relation

It is closely related to German and also the North Germanic languages, and has some linguistic connections with English.

Since English is also a West-Germanic language I'd say that Dutch has more linguistic connections with English than with the North Germanic languages... Can someone clearify this? --Dionysos1 08:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know (mind you I am not a linguist so correct me if I am wrong), English is a bit of an odd-one out as it has more extensive influences from Gaelic, from Nordic (Vikings), from French and Latin compared to Dutch or German. So although English can be classified as a W. Germanic language it contains many other influences. Hence the relation between English and other Germanic languages maybe less clear than one may expect. Arnoutf 09:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What Arnnoutf says is mostly true, except English wasn't influenced much at all by Gaelic.Cameron Nedland 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Map

Why is the whole EU highlighted? Yes, Dutch is an official language of the EU, that doesn't mean it is official in all the individual countries of the EU, from Ireland to Bulgaria!--Methodius 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we also color the whole EU then in the English, Spanish, French, German, and Portuguese maps ? Aren't those languages also official EU languages ? That is obviously ridiculous! Furthermore, Dutch is not a significant "secondary language" in Indonesia and South Africa. South Africans speak Afrikaans, which, although tracing its origins to the Cape Dutch dialect, is nowadays a separate language, with a different grammar, spelling, and vocabulary. As for Indonesia, the Dutch language is practically extinct there. Please fix the map colors before they cause further damage to the Wikipedia's reputation.

PS: Just to illustrate, the two paragraphs below (about the Dutch occupation of Brazil in the 17th century) have been copied respectively from the Dutch and the Afrikaans Wikipedia. The Afrikaans version is a close one-to-one translation of the original Dutch text. Although there is mutual intelligibility, the differences between the two languages, especially in grammar, are quite obvious even to an untrained observer.

Standard Dutch: De Nederlanders bleven tijdens hun krappe 24 jaar van heerschappij over de Braziliaanse noordkust een minderheid. Hierdoor ontstond een klein evenwicht tussen de Hollandse protestantse bestuurselite en de Portugese katholieke landadel. Uiteraard waren de Hollandse calvinisten niet populair onder de Portugese katholieken. Dit leidde tot verschillende zeer bloedige opstanden die vanuit Zuid-Brazilië ondersteund werden. Tot 1640 was Portugal verenigd met Spanje. Dat jaar ondersteunde de Republiek Portugals onafhankelijkheidstrijd en men poogde met de nieuwe bondgenoten in Brazilië tot een modus vivendi te komen. Toen Johan Maurits echter verdwenen was, liepen de spanningen hoog op. In 1645 kwam het tot een algemene opstand die het begin vormde van een moorddadige jungleoorlog. In 1647 werd na de dood van Joost van Trappen Banckert viceadmiraal Witte de With met een vloot naar de kolonie gezonden maar hij verzette zich tegen het plan van de Raad van Brazilië zijn matrozen als landsoldaten in te zetten. In 1649 leden de Nederlanders verschillende zware nederlagen en met moeite werd voorkomen dat de hele kolonie verloren ging.
Afrikaans:Die Nederlanders het tydens hulle 24 jaar van heerskappy oor die Brasiliaanse noordkus ‘n minderheid gebly. As gevolg hiervan het ‘n ongemaklike ewewig ontstaan tussen die Hollandse protestantse bestuurselite en die Portugese katolieke landadel. Uiteraard was die Hollandse calviniste nie populêr onder die Portugese katolieke nie. Dit lei tot verskeie bloedige opstande wat vanuit Suid-Brasilië ondersteun is. Tot 1640 was Portugal verenig met Spanje. Die Republiek van die Sewe Verenigde Nederlande het Portugal se onafhanklikheidstryd met Spanje gesteun en hulle het gepoog om met die nuwe bondgenote in Brasilië tot ‘n verstandhouding te kom. Nadat die gewilde Johan Maurits egter vertrek het, het die spanning begin oplaai. In 1645 lei dit tot ‘n algemene opstand wat begin oorgaan het in ‘n moorddadige bosoorlog. In 1647, na die dood van admiraal Joost van Trappen Banckert, word vise-admiraal Witte de With met ‘n vloot na die kolonie gestuur, maar hy het hom verset teen die plan van die Raad van Brasilië om sy matrose as landsoldate aan te wend. In 1649 ly die Nederlanders verie dood vaskeie swaar nederlae en met moeite word voorkom dat die hele kolonie verlore gaan.

200.177.193.47 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Most Common dutch people language mistakes

i have found a common mistake made by a high majority of dutch people, the error is u hebt instead of u heeft. (i am dutch) and think this mistake should end, as i find it highly disturbing as almost everyone with high and low education does it these days which is scary -- Markthemac13:52, 26 may 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss use of the Dutch language (IMHO a language is a living evolving thing). Arnoutf 13:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Consult Renkema's Schrijfwijzer, the ANS and other language guides. If I recall correctly, they state that both forms are allowed nowadays, even though historically the third person 'should' be used. The Taalunie apparently permits both, as in this example. Iblardi 16:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

'Sjawl'

Is this really an English word, or just a misspelling of "shawl"? FilipeS 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that it is the Dutch respelling of the English word "shawl".Cameron Nedland 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 'a'

[ɐ] (a near-open central vowel) is an allophone of unstressed /a/ and /ɑ/.

I suspect that what the writer meant was that [ɐ] is an unstressed allophone of /a/ and /ɑ/. FilipeS 22:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)