Talk:Old Dutch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Old Dutch is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Contents

[edit] naughty

oh, good, i can start the discussion off with a complaint.

i originally wrote this article.

i appreciate the addition of modern Dutch translations of the OLFr sentences....

but, i was shocked to find someone had changed the following things:

  • the rewording of "especially the west middle german dialects" > "those dialects affected by old frankish"
  • the removal of the mention of Limburgish veer


- i can only assume a native Dutch speaker (or someone who has read some in Dutch on the history of the language) made these changes. in english, terms such as 'old frankish' (as well as 'low german' or even 'dialect') do not mean the same thing as in Dutch. in fact, old frankish is not a linguistic term; 'frankish' is only used to refer to certain modern dialects of German (Ripuarian Frankish, Rheinland Frankish, etc.). historically, it is perhaps accurate to say that the Ripuarian Franks probably spoke a version of East Low Franconian, but by the first appearance of these dialects in writing (Oaths of Strasbourg), they had become more like Upper German (in certain respects); but since they're significantly different from either Low Franconian (Dutch) or Upper German (Swabish, Bavarian), they formed their own group - Middle German. in any case, they were not affected by old frankish; just the opposite, they were influenced by old high german.

- if you doubt veer is the right Limburgish word for standard Dutch wij, then please consult the link at the bottom of this article (Streektaal); you'll find a brief grammatical outline where veer "we", oos "our", ós "us" = wij (we), ons/onze, ons. you may also consult the Limburgs Woodenboek Interactif: http://www.limburghuis.nl/Interact/menunl_wdb.html

Flibjib8 20:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] oh dear

Rex, if you really, absolutely, must see the title "Old Dutch" over "Old Low Franconian" to be able to sleep at night, I will not try to stop you, but try to preserve the proper terminology[1]. "Old Dutch" is synonymous to Old West Low Franconian (Western Old Low Franconian). The distinction between the two dialects was completely lost in your revision. I have no idea why you hate the term "Old Low Franconian" so much, but that's what the language is called. dab (ᛏ) 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I will and a section explaining the particular difference soon. An no, my sleep wasn't effected by my long desire of seeing this articles title changed. But you're right;
  • Oudnederlands
  • Old Low Franconian
  • Altniederländisch
was a "thorn in my eye" for quite some while, apart from that it's inaccurate. So, I finally made my move.
Rex 17:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry, what was the rationale behind the move? Ulritz 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the above and you'll find out. Rex 13:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguation

I am sorry, apart from the {{disambig}}, it is entirely unclear why this page should be a disambiguation page: the text explains the term "Old Low Franconian", hence it is a genuine article (albeit a very short one) about Old Low Franconian. It is also unclear what ambiguity there is supposed to be here: afaics, "Old Low Franconian" is used in only a single sense. Rex, I am very willing to listen to your concerns with an open mind, but I am afraid you to not make your intentions and motives clear at all. All that is obvious is that you feel emotional about them, but your decisions, including moves/splits/disambigs are just not clear: I honestly don't see the problem. dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to make clear you're talking about the Old Low Franconian page, not this one, right? We have two options: If we find that the difference between "OD" and "OLF" is significant enough to warrant two separate articles, we can simply remove the "disambig" notice from OLF, and de-redirect the talk pages. If not, we must again turn one of the two pages into a redirect. What do you prefer, dab? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, strictly, if one wants to make an article on Old Dutch then Old Low Franconian is incorrect (be it with a razor thin margin) as a synonym because that would be Old West Low Franconian. In the same way Old Dutch does not cover Old Low Franconian. In the ideal situation we'd have 2 separate articles; one on Old Dutch and the other on Old East Low Franconian, and a disambig at Old Low Franconian.
Rex 20:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody describe what's the linguistic differences between Old Dutch and OELF? The article currently has sections on linguistic relations to neighbouring varieties, but this one is missing, and it would be the most important item to justify the separation of articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well to be honest it's all quite blurry, but try to stick with me. Modern standard Dutch (+/- 1600+) is almost completely based on 2 Middle Dutch dialects: Brabantian and Hollandic. These 2 dialects, decended from Old Dutch/Old West Low Frankish. In the East there was another Old Low Frankish dialect, Old East Low Frankish, and it too "fathered/influenced" middle Dutch dialects (Limburgish for example) but its decendants did not or barely had any effect on Modern Dutch, hence eventhough at the time they have got to have been extremely close, Old Dutch (because it resulted in Dutch) is considered the direct ancestor and not OELF. But it has to be said that because both "languages/variants" have left extremely little written accounts (compared to Old English or Old High German) that they are treated as virtually the same language by (at least Dutch) linguists. Old Dutch, in the Dutch langauge is often used, by linguists as well to indicate either. It is only on special occasions that a difference is made (for example when determining in what variant an Old Dutch (see...) text is written. Its a bit double because the modern decendants of Old East Low Frankish (and also its historical one) are treated as Dutch. Rex 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's so close, and we don't have any concrete linguistic information to fill the second article with, that would tend to support treating both under a single article, I'd say. Possible wording variants in lead paragraph:
  • Old Low Franconian, also known under the name of its best-attested member, Old Dutch, was a group of dialects [...] Strictly speaking, Old Dutch refers only to the western subdialect of Old Low Franconian, the ancestor of Brabantian and Hollandic Middle Dutch, while Limburgish and other varieties are classified as Eastern Old Low Franconian.
  • Old Dutch, also known as Old Low Franconian [...] Strictly speaking, Old Low Franconian refers to a group of dialects slightly larger than Old Dutch [...]
Take your pick where you want the article to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case I'd go for the second one, given the terminology in Dutch. With a propper and throrough explanation it would be an easy to grasp concept. Rex 11:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Rex (Germanus) is obviously a Dutch nationalist who, furthermore, seems to have a problem with everything that might link Dutch culture to German culture. Taking these two facts into account, it is clear that, from his perspective, the article has to be named "Old Dutch" instead of "Old Low Franconian" ("Altniederfränkisch") although the last cited notion is the terminus technicus. (194.9.5.12 09:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

Why you use the German term next the English goes past me, it has no value whatsoever Also, what you're trying to accomplish? Calling me a nationalist is not going to get you anywhere.
Rex 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on, Rex, please, what was e.g. your intention to create this lovely synomyms for Germans-side, honestly? (194.9.5.10 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

For "Germans-side"? Rex 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_words_for_Germans (194.9.5.12 14:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

Hey, could you two perhaps take your personal feud elsewhere? Like, outside in the parking lot or somewhere? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no personal feud whatsoever. I (think I) do not know this contributor, I can't help that some people look for confrontation. Btw, I replied to your comment on my talkpage. Rex 14:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

quite apart from any personal feuds, I see simply no reason to favour the more precise (as admitted by Rex) term "Old Low Franconian" over "Old Dutch" beyond a patriotic pleasure in seeing the word "Dutch" in article titles. I mean, how many articles titled "X" do we have that begin with
"X (more correctly known as Y) ..."?
In any such case, mere common sense suggests a move to Y. dab (ᛏ) 13:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it's really a question of a larger and a smaller classificatory unit, as Rex seems to be saying (OD being a part of OLF), I'm not sure one is objectively more correct than the other. The relevant question in that case seems to be: Is the linguistic information contained in the article, and the information about its extant corpus, representative of OD specifically or equally representative of OLF? What's the implicit scope of the article as actually treated in the text now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, you really meant "...no reason to disfavour..." above, didn't you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Strictly and more correctly speaking Old Dutch should be included, as a part of Old Low Franconian, not as a synonym. Patriotism has nothing to do with it, afterall, Dutch in this sense does not specifically refer to the Netherlands. If you, Dbachmann, still think I made this move on nationalist grounds then please believe me when I say I didn't. I did it because I felt it didn't sound right compared to others (you must agree that Old Dutch is much more recognizable than "Old Low West Franconian") and because (in the end and by the narrowest of margins, I agree) it is incorrect. As for nationalism in linguistics in general (not a confession ;-) it has always been there. I remember not so long ago some linguists called Common West Germanic "Old German" and I also know that during the 19th century English was put in the North Germanic group simply because of the Viking revival, so its always been there, just look at "High German".
Rex 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
As I haven't read the literature (and I assume you have), I can only re-state my question in more precise terms: (1) do the lingustic statements about grammar, phonology, sound changes etc. as contained in this article now apply only to OD proper, or are they equally true for OLF in general? (2) Do the books quoted in the reference section, speaking of "oudnederlands" and "Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal", deal exclusively with OD proper, or do they discuss the history and development of the whole of OLF? We should follow the scope of the literature. If the contents of the article are to be a sketch of narrow OD, as opposed to the rest of OLF, let's have it under "OD". If the contents of the article are to be a sketch of OLF, only illustrated primarily through OD as its best attested variety, then let's have it under "OLF". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
yes, I meant "no reason to disfavour" :) and yes, I meant "more precise" in the sense that OD=OLWF is a subset of OLF, and since OLEF and OLWF are too close to warrant two separate articles, to keep the single article at "OD" would be like, say, discussing the Eastern Iranian languages under the title of Northeastern Iranian languages. (ᛎ) q∀p 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
ɓǃs əɔǃN -- :-) ɟɹədˑʇʌɟ ☼ 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
how could I forget IPA! what say you, mirror symmetry or proper case? (ᛎ) qɐp 15:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. But you might not make friends among IE users with this. :-D Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This article in the way I rewrote it discusses Old Dutch. Rex 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

which means that you now need to create two more stubs, one for OLF and one for OLEF. If you don't, Wikipedia will have no coverage of OLF minus OLWF. If those do not accumulate enough material to stand on their own, they will have to be merged together again, at OLF. Come on, that's just elementary set theory. (ᛎ) q∀p 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the sources FPaS asked for;

  • A. Quak en J.M. van der Horst, Inleiding Oudnederlands. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2002). [(advanced)Old Dutch)]
  • Maurits Gysseling m.m.v Willy Pijnenburg, Corpus van Middelnederlandse teksten (tot en met het jaar 1300) reeks II (literaire handschriften), deel 1: Fragmenten. 's-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1980. [Middle Dutch texts until 1300 (The boundary between Old and Middle Dutch is very blurry and so some text show features of both Old and Middle Dutch, extremely valuable information)]
  • M. Gysseling, "Prae-Nederlands, Oudnederlands, Vroegmiddelnederlands", in: Vierde Colloquium van hoogleraren en lectoren in de neerlandistiek aan buitenlandse universiteiten. Gent, 1970, pp. 78-89. [Old Dutch]
  • M.C. van den Toorn, W.J.J. Pijnenburg, J.A. van Leuvensteijn, e.a., Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1997. [History of the Dutch language]

Dbachman, I believe there is some information on Old East Low Frankish (eventhough any Old Low Frankish source is rare) so yes that article should be created, but I don't think we should turn Old Low Frankish into an article, I'd say a disambig would suffice. Rex 15:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently:
  • The map here at Old Dutch seems to be including Limburg, which according to you was OELF.
  • The maps at Low Franconian and Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages fail to show the boundary between OD and OELF
  • The article Old Dutch fails to describe the linguistic difference between it and OELF.
  • None of these articles describes which sub-dialects within OLF were "East" and "West" respectively.
And the list of references you give above doesn't make it clear to me if the treatment of these works factually covers OELF or not.
Which all seems to boil down to the difference between OWLF and OELF being so elusive that no two separate articles are warranted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not jump to conclusions, like I said I Dutch linguistics Old Dutch is used in a quite broad sense. The map problems are not extremely severe, you see the maps at Low Franconian and LF-LS do not indicate Old Dutch or any other historical language because they give the (semi)modern situation. The map currently which currently indicates "Old Dutch" could easily be modified, for example with a small line marking the "border" while in the same way making a referance to their close connection. As for the differences between OD and OELF ... well I suppose such a section isn't impossible. Rex 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The way the text is now, the Wachtendonck psalms are included in Old West Low Franconian, whereas they are usually cited as our main source for Old East Low Franconian. Klassi 14:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frankish/Franconian

As a professional philologist, I am somewhat amused by the presence of an article on "Old Frankish" and the link to it here on Wikipedia. It assumes that "Frankish" was a predecessor to "Franconian." Now, I have never encountered the term "Frankish" in this meaning in any scholarly literature. The exclusive term English for linguistic topics related to the Franks is "Franconian." No historical linguist would talk about "Old Frankish" being a linguistic stage preceding "Old (Low) Franconian." The confusion is made worse by the use of "Dutch" in the modern political meaning for a period at which the Low Countries were inhabited by a variety of Germanic tribes, united under three large confederacies (the Franks, Frisians, and Saxons). The question whether Old Dutch = Old Low Franconian is a pointless discussion. The recent rise of the term "Old Dutch" in scholarly use, does not make me happy. When we talk about the earliest stages of the Dutch language, we are using anachronistic terminology--we cannot use the word "Dutch." Thus, "Old West Low Franconian" and "Old East Low Franconian" are to be preferred because these are neutral terms describing dialects of Franconian without drawing later dialects of Dutch into it. The Wachtendonck Psalms are OELF, the Willeram is a mongrel with an OWLF heart. "Frankish" never existed--instead, historical linguists talk about preliterary Old Franconian or preliterary Old West Low Franconian (or, if they're naughty boys, preliterary Old Dutch). Even the term "West Germanic" is used for the period before literacy. Lufiend 04:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of Old Dutch is by no means recent and fairly accepted and is used more than the subterms OWLF and OELF. Apart from that, I believe wikipedias use of "Old Franish" was caused by German wikipedians calling a German dialect Frankish/Franconian here.Rex 11:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not disagree, really. I am not disagreeing that the term "Old Dutch" is now in fairly widespread use. Nor am I even claiming that the term is recent--it has been around for well over a century (in Dutch and German, too). Also, I am not even arguing that Wikipedia should change the terminology. That discussion, as the talk page indicates, has already been had and I am not such a hothead that I will insist on this change. However, (and here's the but you've been waiting for) I do think the term "Old Dutch" is inaccurate and that it is not nearly as widespread in the specialized scholarly literature as the terms "Old Low Franconian" or "Old West Low Franconian." There has been an increase over the past 15 years or so in the use of "Old Dutch." There has been an outpouring of handbooks on and introductions to the earlier stages of Dutch, especially in Holland and Belgium, and in those circles the term "Old Dutch" is used a lot. Many of these books are meant for undergraduate students, so I can understand the pedagogical choice of "Old Dutch" over the akward "Old West Low Franconian." Methodologically, it should be avoided since it causes a number of problems with regards to the non-Franconian dialects of Dutch. What role do Old Frisian and Old Saxon play in the formation of Dutch? Is it fair to talk of Old Dutch when we are only talking of the Franconian dialects? Additionally, in recent decades serious questions have arisen over the determination of the origin of certain old texts, e.g. the C manuscript of the 'Old Saxon' Heliand (Is it Old Saxon? Anglo-Saxon? Old Low Franconian? A weird mixture of two?) And that famous 'Dutch' sentence haban olla vogala is now even claimed to be Anglo-Saxon by some. Now, I don't want to get into a long discussion over this. I have stated my position and I do not want to make a big deal out of it. I would urge everyone to be careful with these terms, but let's leave it at that.
  • As for "Frankish," however, this is really a mistranslation from German Fränkisch or perhaps a misunderstanding of the English adjective Frankish which is used of cultural matters (i.e. "a Frankish sword"), but never of linguistic matters. I would strongly urge that the term "Frankish," when talking about linguistics, be dropped and replaced with "Franconian." Lufiend 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)