Talk:Hollandic dialect

message: If you are fluent in Hollandic, please go to the following page:
Talk:Dutch_language#Requested_help_from_Dutch_and_Flemish_people_from_all_Dutch_speaking_regions and help complete a project concerning all Dutch dialects.
 Rex  13:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attencion Hollandic speakers! 

message: "As a result the colloquial Dutch in Holland proper (i.e. the area of the old county), spoken in the urban dialects, is today closer to the standard than any Dutch spoken elsewhere; traditionally the Dutch of the urbanity of Haarlem is seen as the most "pure", though this has no basis in linguistic fact."  This statement may raise some questions about what we understand by the concept of "pure" langugage, if this is a meaningful concept.  If Hollandic is the dialect closest to standard Netherlandic, or has even been the basis of the standard, then by some interpretations it may be the purest dialect. PatGallacher (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the sentence refers to the position of Haarlem, not Hollandic as a whole.--MWAK (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pure language?

message: As far as I can see, there is no contradiction whatsoever between the content of this article and that of  :nl:Nederlandse dialecten, let alone a serious one. Who is responsible for this tag and on what grounds could it have been assigned? I am very curious to hear which reservations on whose side there possibly could be here. It looks like some unexplicable mystery. -- Ad43 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unmotivated tag

message: Does it have one? Varlaam (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language code? 

message: A)"The colloquial Dutch in Holland proper (the area of the old county of Holland) is almost unchanged from the 16th century." and B)"The Dutch in Belgium and the original Brabantian language have developed further during the last centuries."
A)Is complete and utter nonsense. Anyone reading the Statenvertaling from 1637 can see that the language has changed significantly since the 17th century. It's certainly mutually intelligible - that's why it's considered to all be "modern Dutch", but "almost unchanged" is completely ridiculous. 
B)Flemish is MORE CONSERVATIVE than standard Dutch (which conforms/is conformed to largely by the modern occupants of Holland), which is accurately described in other articles regarding the Dutch language. I'm not sure if this was the tag that is referred to above from 2008 since that was a very long time ago regarding this page being in conflict. For example, more southerly dialects are more likely to preserve more distinct grammatical genders, formal vs. informal pronouns, the subjunctive... This statement is the complete opposite of the truth. All of Dutch has certainly changed since the 16th Century, but the dialects spoken in Holland have changed more, not less, than those spoken in Flanders. This entire section seems to be uncited and as far as I can tell not at all accurate except to say that Holland dialects are the closest to the standard language. Mathlaura (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The entire "Distance from Standard Language" section is full of misinformation 

message: Hello,
http://www.wjheeringa.nl/thesis/thesis09.pdf has the city of Utrecht having a single dialect at the same level of the dendrogram as the other Hollandic varieties. AFAIK, Hollandic is on dialect level and thus not including any varieties closer to standard. This striking result suggests Utrecht having no dialect in the strict sense of the word anymore.
Kind regards,
Sarcelles (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  City of Utrecht