Talk:Old Dutch

message: 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)
thread_title:  naughty 

message: In the article under "Older Sentences" is mentioned that Old Dutch was discovered in the "Lex Salica" and on the sword sheath of Bergakker and that both should be better considered as Old Frankish instead of Old Dutch. This is not correct since both are clearly seen as expressions of Old Dutch. This is amongst others clearly evidenced by: accepted as Old Dutch by the INL and by reputed scollars as Frits van Oostrom and Nicoline van der Sijs. Both sources are clearly accepted as Old Dutch by the Istituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie (INL) and are incorporated in the Old Dutch dictonary (see:http://gtb.inl.nl/?owner=ONW ).--86.95.48.226 (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Older Sentences

message: There is no Dutch language. And of course no Old Dutch. Dutch means "the common people" and is actually the proper word for all western Germanic speaking people on the continent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.99.45.29 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're mistaken. CodeCat (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

text: OK, if there is no Dutch, what do you propose we call the language waarin deze woorden geschreven zijn? Netherlish? Netherlandish? West-Low-Germanic? Neo-Low-Franconian? (It is true that the modern appellation evolved from something else, and is one of the reasons most Americans to this day do not quite understand the difference between Germans and the Dutch, or the languages they speak.)2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:2884:4E05:2EAE:21 (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no Dutch language. And of course no Old Dutch. 

message: The text currently claims that final devoicing is already found in the Bergakker inscription. How does that work? The only word-final obstruent in the entire inscription is s, and 1) that's the genitive singular and the plural ending, expected to be *s anyway, plus 2) it dates from a time when *z was long gone, so there was nothing to devoice!
At least the quote from the Wachtendonck Psalms contains a devoiced mit. This establishes devoicing around 900, quite some time before it reached Middle Low and Central German. But is there any evidence either way earlier than that? And when does final devoicing show up in Old French – earlier or later than in Old Dutch?
David Marjanović (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The source (Bernard Mees) presumes that the expected NWG form is logonez.--MWAK (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final devoicing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Old Dutch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170827051320/http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/laat2 to http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/laat2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I recently replaced this map, with this one. The main differences being that the latter is of a higher resolution and includes the other  Germanic languages (Old English, Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Old High German) mentioned with regard to Old Dutch in subsections concerning the relation between them and Old Dutch. I think this greatly clarifies the linguistic geography mentioned in the article, apart from being of a better quality. Apparently, given the multiple reverts, Kleuske disagrees. Perhaps support for his/her position (yet to be clarified though) includes others,  or, perhaps more people fail to see (like myself) the logic behind these reverts. Cheers, AKAKIOS (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this article is on Old Dutch, It's preferable to show a map that concentrates on "old Dutch", instead of that language being buried amongst other languages. Since both images are schematic, resolution isn't a main factor. Apart from that, the sources of your image are not mentioned, so i'm left with the impression that your main reason for preferring that image is that it's yours. Kleuske (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article on a West Germanic language in its earliest stage, the relation to other related languages is quite helpful. This is, I say again, corroborated by the article itself ... which mentions all the languages shown on the map. As for the sources, the previous map does not list sources at all. I would seem as if I forgot to add mine, something I will fix immediately on commons. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Now an addtional argument in favor of this map is the fact that it it's sourced, as opposed to the other map, which has apparently been made by a user who has since been banned from Wikipedia. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... WP:AGF is out the window and I don't trust your sayso on the subject of sources. Kleuske (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly care about that, it's your personal opinion. Am I to assume this is your way of conceding; or are you still going to defend the unsourced map by the banned user? AKAKIOS (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of map 

message: The word ann, found in the partially-translated inscription is coined as the oldest Dutch by linguists Nicoline van der Sijs and Tanneke Schoonheim from Genootschap Onze Taal. They attribute that word to the ancestor of the modern Dutch verb root gun, through the addition of the prefix ge-.
That may all be true, Nicoline and Tanneke, but would you mind rewriting this using intelligible English? Coin is odd in this context (proposed would work better) and attribute likewise simply does not work that way in English (perhaps you had toeschrijven in mind); good alternatives would be propose to be or relate to. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:2884:4E05:2EAE:21 (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ann, gun