Talk:West Flemish

message: Question: Is West Flemish just another Dutch dialect, distinct from Flemish, or is it a separate language? -- SJK
Doesn't this page need disambiguation? - Olivier
As a former inhabitant of Zeeuwsch Vlaanderen I can declare that this page is total bunk. Jcwf
Please correct it!
I don't know where the data about Zeeuwsch Vlaanderen came from.
— Toby 07:27 Dec 1, 2002 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a Flemish language, only a myriad of dialect, each of which is older than the only standard language we have :DUTCH Jcwf
I agree.  There is no such language as "Flemish", any more than there is a language called "American" or "Quebecois".  This article should be deleted.  soulpatch
Thank you
Flemish is Dutch, West Flemish is different; I think that the titles clarify this now.
I'm following Ethnologue in saying that West Flemish is distinct from Dutch; if that's wrong, then this article can still exist as an article about a specific dialect, now with minimal changes.
I also don't know if it's spoken in Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen; Ethnologue says yes, but not exclusively.
It may be that West Flemish is distinct from Dutch in France but not in the Netherlands; that sort of thing can happen with languages.
-- Toby 00:07 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
----
'There is no such language as "Flemish"'... It would be as true and fair to say there was no such language as Dutch, bearing in mind that literary tradition goes back further in Flemish dialects than in Dutch ones (e.g. "Til Eulenspiel" or "Til Eulenspiegel"). The fact of the matter is that the language is distinct, not so much in its content as in its attachments to a body of speakers, who can and do distinguish themselves. Approve or not, there is such a thing as the Vlaams Blok. Claiming Flemish does not exist is like the early persecution of people who claimed to speak Afrikaans rather than Dutch. This attitude is strongly reminiscent of claims I have heard that 'There is no such place as Belgium'. PML.
I fully agree. As a fleming, I take great offence in the statement 'there is no such thing as Flemish'. I'm speaking it every day, as are 6 million other Flemings. The fact that there are dialects even among the flemish-speaking populace is of no influence on the fact that Flemish *is* distinctly different from the Dutch spoken in the Netherlands. This sort of statements reflect the old orangenesk-nationalistic tendency of the Netherlands, together with some former misguided elitist flemings in the years between 1930 and 1980 (afraid that Flemish would not be a viable language on it's one) to superimpose their 'correct' Dutch. When in school, I still had to learn that Dutch, which was called "Algemeen beschaafd Nederlands" or "Genral Civilized Dutch"...as if Flemish was somehow 'less civilised'.
Luckily, times have changed, and in a change of mentality, more and more Flemings realise that the old doctrine was foolish and even on all educational levels oàne now accepts that Flemish has a right of its own.
Maybe it's still called Dutch officially, but Flemings speak Flemish, period.
----
To inform the uninitiated, the following scientific facts:
* The Germanic dialects spoken in Belgium do not originally form a unity against those spoken in The Netherlands. As there was no such unity there could not be a valid name for it. Thus "Flemish" is historically not a valid name in this respect.
* They are divided in West Flemish, East Flemish, Brabantic and Limburgian. All of these groups are also spoken in the adjoining areas in The Netherlands. There are over four million people living in these areas. On the level of dialects, the state border between Belgium and The Netherlands is thus not a language border.
* Of the six million people in Belgium that speak Dutch, only a minority uses Flemish dialects. The largest group consists of Brabantic dialect speakers. A second reason why the use of the generic "Flemish" is inaccurate and misleading.
* The Dutch standard language originated in those areas now located in Belgium. As it is mainly Brabantic in origin and reflects the dialects spoken by a majority of the Belgian speakers of Dutch, stressing the contradistinction between Dutch and "Flemish" is utterly absurd. Thus the state border between Belgium and The Netherlands is not a language border on the level of standard languages also.
* From 1830 in Belgium the Dutch standard language was almost completely replaced by French. Its more recent rebirth as a living spoken entity came about by an almost perfect imitation of the language spoken in The Netherlands. So the standard in Belgium differs only slightly from that in The Netherlands. Those differences as there are however, are again mainly of Brabantic, not Flemish origin.
* The only distinction within the continuum of Continental Germanic dialects that makes a dialect Dutch or German, is whether a dialect uses Dutch or German as its standard language. West Flemish is thus a Dutch dialect for the simple reason that the speakers of West Flemish use Dutch as their standard language. The fact that West Flemish is indeed a very aberrant dialect group does not alter the other fact, for there still (or perhaps "again") is a gradient. Of course all this is contingent on future development, for the continuum could yet (or again) be broken, or a separate West Flemish standard language could replace Dutch.
MWAK--217.122.44.226 13:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in a way there is a Standard Flemish: it is called Dutch. :o) The influence of the real Flemish dialects on the Dutch standard language has been quite considerable; and modern Dutch is even largely of Brabantic origin. However Dutch was created a long time ago, in the 16th century. Since then some developments haven taken place that obscure the historical facts. The original dialects of Holland have all but been wiped out and replaced by Dutch so Dutch now seems more Hollandic. Meanwhile the dialects in the south have changed quite a lot. The fathers have alienated from their child. At present the urban dialect of Antwerp is emerging as a new Dutch standard in the South. If you call that standard "Flemish" (though it's really as Brabantic as the Randstad Dutch), you can easily make the mistake to think that the disparate local dialects in Belgium and that new standard are "essentially" the same and form a unity against the language of the North. But the (more) original dialects of Roosendaal and Antwerp are of course much closer to each other than to those of Brughes, Amsterdam and Tongeren, not to mention those of the Saxon and Frisian regions in The Netherlands. dri3s - and the vast majority of the population of both nations - is understandably confused by all this. I think he's upset by the perceived implication that somehow his dialect is inferior or that it would be improper for a person not to follow the conventions of the North. Being a Brabander myself (as you could have guessed) I personally reject that possible implication.
MWAK--84.27.81.59 12:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Eeer , West-Flemish is totally different from Standard Dutch, all the other dialects ( East-Flemish , Antwerp-dialect , Limburgish ) are all quite the same as standard dutch , except pronounciating.
West-Flemish isn't a language , but it certainly has the potential for it ! It dirived from Middle Dutch , and has a different word for almost any Standard Dutch word . Verbs are completely different too. "Ik zien /gie ziet /zie is / em is / wieder zien / zieder zien  " is "to be" in W-Flemish, while the dutch verb for to be is " Ik ben / jij bent / zij is / hie is / wij zijn / zij zijn " . can you see the difference ? I'll bet you can
--81.245.168.155 18:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Middle ages dialects were in fact much closer - with, interesting enough, the possible exception of West Flemish, perhaps due to a Saxon or Frisian substrate. So, of all the Low Franconian dialects, West Flemish is indeed best qualified to form a separate standard language - but for the fact that Dutch's earliest origins are West Flemish! Besides, it would be terribly expensive and awfully awkward to do this in modern times. But then, what with the Hubbert Peak and all, times very soon won't be modern anymore and your desire will be fulfilled. ;>]
MWAK--84.27.81.59 12:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help. 

message: :"It is generally considered a dialect of Dutch but is hardly comprehensible to speakers of the Dutch dialects of Antwerp and Amsterdam."
I wouldn't put Antwerp and Amsterdam in the same category, but anyhow, this is an odd claim. Amsterdam is not necessarily Standard Dutch and, as someone who speaks SD: I can understand West Flemish just fine. I'm really not sure how this can be properly verified. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd claim 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on West Flemish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141112150327/http://www.unesco.org:80/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00206 to http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00206
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I might not be very experienced in languages and such, but it seems kind of odd to me how the code of a different - if similar - dialect (which has its own Wikipedia page) is listed under West-Flemish's language codes. Also, on this talk page, there have been several arguments on if West-Flemish is a language or a dialect of Dutch or some sort of Flemish, whereas almost everyone agrees that Zealandic is a dialect of Dutch
Adriaan1313 (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZEA as ISO 639-3 code