Talk:Dutch language/Archive 1

message: As far as I can tell, if you put together all inhabitants of Flanders, the Netherlands, Suriname, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, the number of Dutch speakers barely exceeds 23 million. Also, Afrikaans is not a "dialect of Dutch", nor is it widely considered such -- at any rate not by the academic world. Afrikaans speakers may find that comment offensive. Let's not overestimate the role and presence of our mother tongue here. Captain Q
: It is certainly defensible to call Afrikaans a dialect of Dutch. See for example www.afrikaans.nu and especially www.afrikaans.nu/pag5.htm. Mutual understanding is quite easy (after getting used to it). --Woodstone 23:34, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
:: Certainly, it is. But I'll use the classic example of Norwegian and Swedish, which are also mutually intelligible to a large degree, yet are considered seperate languages. On academic grounds, your claim is defensible, but politically, Afrikaans is considered a different language. Captain Q 11:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On academic grounds, one standard language - e.g. Afrikaans as such - cannot be the dialect of another standard language :o)
MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are all correct to a certain extent. Strictly speaking, I don't think the differences between Afrikaans and Dutch are bigger than, let's say, the differences between Swiss German and standard written German. Nevertheless, Swiss German speakers are usually included in the total number of speakers of the German language worldwide. The main difference is though that Swiss German is used only as a vernacular, whereas Afrikaans, for nationalistic reasons, has been historically upgraded to a standard written language. In reality, linguistically speaking, both Afrikaans and Swiss German could be considered languages in their own right, but the former has achieved a political status the latter has not. —This unsigned comment was added by 161.24.19.82 (talk • contribs) .
Actually Afrikaans is a totally different language. (I speak it) Verb structure other grammer is totally different from Dutch. --Sandertje 14 Nov.
As a non native Dutch speaker I have always found that I can read Afrikaans without a problem but find it more difficult to understand it when spoken. That said I spoke Dutch on an Afrikaaner farm this year and was understood. Happy to leave it to the language experts, 'though! PaddyBriggs 08:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 32 million speakers?

message: Can someone help me with this? I'm editing a few things for clarity, but I can't make heads or tails of this:
"Of all the major modern languages, Dutch is the one that is closest to English. The lesser-known Frisian language, very closely related to Dutch, is even closer to English."
How can Dutch be closest to English if Frisian is even closer to English? Perhaps someone else should tackle this first, since I'm out of my depth with Frisian, and I'll sweep up behind you if need be. Thanks!GreenPen
: I think what is meant, but poorly expressed is that of all MAJOR MODERN languages, Dutch is closest to English. Frisian is even closer to English, but it is not a MAJOR language; it's only spoken by a small group of people. Jeronimo
Hmm. That helps a bit. I've puzzled over this for a couple of days, and still haven't come up with anything better. Perhaps if I come with problems, someone else can bring solutions, or at least better suggestions. The paragraph in question:
Of all the modern Germanic languages, Dutch is closest to English. The lesser-known Frisian language, very closely related to Dutch, is even closer to English. Another language that is very closely related to Dutch is Low German, while Afrikaans derives from Dutch.
The first line is my revision, and it's wrong. The second sentence makes no sense. The third sentence...well, Low German is not a language but a group of dialects. I'll take out the first sentence and the reference out to Afrikaans, as that is covered more thoroughly in a previous paragraph. 
I also question the wisdom of comparing languages like this. Dutch (just to have a specific example) is closer to another language in what sense? Geographically closer, closer in grammar, syntax, semantics, pronunciation? GreenPen
Of course, German is the closest relative to English.
The article is as such written as to avoid any reference to the closeness of German to Dutch. Maybe a Dutch speaking writer who hates Germany and the Germans? Who knows?
Striking the denying any identity of the word "Dutch" with "Deutsch". A falsification I dare say!
Fact is Dutch is closer to German than an English speaking person might imagine. 
Anyone a mind to correct this?
Spazzo, 5th January 2005
:The proximity is almost certainly meant in terms of language geneology.  The Anglo-Saxons immigrated from the low countries and took with them their Germanic dialect.  The speakers of said dialect had recently split off from the speakers of the dialect that was on its way to becoming Dutch and had much earlier split off from the the speakers of what would become Platt and still earlier split from the speakers of what ultimately became standard German.  The speakers of this pre-emigration Germanic dialect who stayed on the continent became Frisian speakers; the ones who had moved to Britian came to speak English, Scots and the other Anglo-Saxon dialects of the British Isles.  Ergo, Dutch is far closer to German than to English, but English is closer to Dutch than German.
:Arguably, Scots is a separate language and is far closer to English (while retaining a number of contiental Germanic words and features like kirk for church (compare to the Dutch kerk).
:This "genetic" approach to language classification is linguistic orthodoxy but has in recent years had some detractors.  Nonetheless, it is still the mainstream method of evaluating language similarity.  It is in that light this should be interpreted.
:Diderot 10:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Closeness" can mean two things: close genetic relationship and close morphology. Standard Dutch has only been slightly influenced by Saxon dialects. It's mainly Franconian. Standard German has a much stronger Saxon component. As the West Germanic roots of English are mainly Saxon too, in this genetic respect English and Standard German are closest. However, standard German is High German and as such more derived than the more primitive, "plesiomorphic", Dutch and English. In this respect Dutch and English are closest. Nevertheless in many other ways English is much more derived (what with its strong Danish component and all). So in this third respect Dutch and German are closest. But of course there's also Frisian, which is closest to English in some plesiomorphic respects. And in some derived respects. And closest to Dutch the same way! Language is fun.
MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutch closest to English

message: The expression 'Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands' is not used anymore; it's called 'Algemeen Nederlands' nowadays.
:Then someone needs to correct the page it links to, as well as the wording on this page. GreenPen
There is no mention of Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands on the entire Taalunie web site, which suggests to me that that is not the term they are using to describe standard Netherlandic.
Does anyone know where the name ABN comes from?--branko
:ABN or Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands is considered obsolete. In the Dutch version of the Wikipedia we decided to use the current name Standaardnederlands (standard Dutch). See http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algemeen_Beschaafd_Nederlands and http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standaardnederlands (both are in Dutch of course). Also note that the Taalunie, unlike some authoritative Dutch dictionaries, uses Standaard Nederlands (with a space). Perhaps a native English speaker can adjust the English Wikipedia accordingly. Thanks, René. 194.109.127.162 19:35 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
::In Belgium we use AN, which stands for Algemeen Nederlands. We just droped the B from ABN. Do they say it otherwise in the Netherlands? I should contact some people who live there perhaps...
:::Currently I mostly see Standaardnederlands or AAN: Algemeen Aanvaardbaar Nederlands. — Jor 14:38, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
::::This is first time I see the term Algemeen Aanvaardbaar Nederlands. I suspect it more something for the Netherlands. And ABN is maybe not political correct but still the most know term for it in my surroundings (Brussel). Walter 21:37, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I also never heard of AAN, and I'm from the Netherlands. A google search reveals that the only pages mentioning AAN are Wikipedia and an article  (Dutch) by linguist Jan Stroop from 1992 in which he coins the term AAN. I propose the remove AAN from the article. Mtcv 11:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ABN

message: The final 'n' of the plural ending -en is often not pronounced (as in Afrikaans).
This is ambiguous: is it pronounced, or not pronounced, in Afrikaans?
Sebastjan
:Depends on the word and the dialect. — Jor 14:38, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
:Depends on where you are in NL; in the randstad dialects the -n is dropped; as in koe - koeie'. In the northern and eastern dialects the e preceding the n is dropped; koe - koei'n. This not only true for nouns, similar for verbs; lopen - lope' - loop'n, where the final n sounds like an m; loop'm.
::"Northern" and "eastern" dialects being the Low Saxon ones.
MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation of final 'n'

message: I was on a computer at school and I happened to come across your discussion. I am currently studying first year German in America and having heard and seen Dutch in text, I was very confused by the similarities and differences. Thank you for making it a little more clear what the relationship really is between Dutch and German. 
-Grant (USA Ninth Grade)
:No thanks...;o)
MWAK--217.122.44.226 17:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank You 

message: I removed the sentence, "Dutch did orginally belong to the German language area, being a Low German language, but eventually became considered a language of its own." Dutch is indeed a member of the family of West Germanic languages, but that is different from how that sentence put it.
Instead I would put it as "Dutch is descended from Old Low German, and is a member of the West Germanic family of languages." However, that's in the box, so it seems redundant.
The main difference is that Germanic languages is not the same as the German language area. That latter phrase implies that there was such an area that is related to what we specifically call the German language. If the phrase were changed to replace "German" with "Germanic" that would also be untrue, as Dutch is still a Germanic language, and that is separate from its development into a separate language.
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 15:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Edits by [[User:83.109.164.193]] 

message: Is überhaupt still spelled with the umlaut?
:Yes it is. Meursault2004 14:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trema/Umlaut in loanwords

message: I am interested in the oldest fragments of the Dutch language which are allegedly older than the famous sentence: "Hebban olla ..." My question is: "Where have you found this information?" Can you tell us more about this? And besides how come you are so sure about the fact that it is Old Dutch. These sentences might also be regarded as Old English, Old Low Saxon etc ..., who knows. Thanx! Meursault2004 14:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Earliest attested Dutch

message: It is perhaps a minor matter, but the link to "Flemish" in the first paragraph points to a disambiguation page, Flemish language. Normally, this is something to avoid, but I can see that in this case there might be something to be said for leaving it the way it is. Still, I think a real article on the Flemish language would be better. Any volunteers? ;) I can't write one from scratch myself, but I would be more than happy to translate one from Dutch, er... Flemish. -- Viajero 15:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I took a little over from nl:vlaams but it still could use some attention. -- Viajero 15:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with your article is that it supposes there is a "Flemish language". But there simply isn't one. :o) I've changed it - and I hope the changes speak for themselves. Also the talk page of West Flemish should be most informative...--MWAK 09:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link in intro to "Flemish" 

message: I've either read or heard that several Germanic languages besides German used to capitalise all common nouns. In Danish this practice was abolished in a spelling reform in the late 1940s. Can anybody tell me if this was ever practiced in Dutch and if so when was it abolished? — Hippietrail 06:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first official Dutch spelling, that of Siegenbeek (18 december 1804), didn't use many capitalisations; not even for ranks or months. It reflected normal usage of that time. However in earlier centuries some writers did use capitals, often rather haphazardly to give special emphasis to concepts, persons or events. I'm not aware of any statistical studies ever being done (though they probably do exist :o)
--MWAK 09:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former capitalisation of commoun nouns? 

message: I've noted that Sarcelles changed the section about "Flemish" dialects in the article about the Dutch language. He apparently based these changes on the Dutch article about Dutch and the German article about Limburgish. At first blush they seem very reasonable. They also pose a few major problems however:
I. He is now mixing up two irreconcilable systems. What most German linguists mean with Limburgisch-Bergisch is not the same either in range or interpretation as the Limburgs of linguists in the Low Countries. Hint: the old town of Limburg is today located in Germany.
II. He uses Dutch and German names. However there are English ones and obviously these should be preferred, especially when they link to already existent articles.
III. He uses the higher-level grouping of the Dutch article. It's not a very bad system and often used, but there is no consensus whatsoever among linguists about its validity. The relations between the various Low Franconian dialects are extremely complex. East Flemish in particular is very difficult to categorise. In some ways the southern Brabantic dialects and East Flemish are very closely related. That's one reason to talk about a Central Dialect Group. However there's also a very strong isogloss bundle between them, while there's none between the southern and more northern Brabantic dialects. And in some ways West Flemish and East Flemish are more closely related. So it seams preferable to me to use a more traditional and "atomistic" lower-level approach and to speak of four groups. Of course we should then add that according to some criteria East Flemish should be grouped with Brabantic.
IV Strangely however the system is in some ways too atomistic: it shows divisions where there are none. Now why should it do that? The answer is: Hollandocentrism. Holland has been for four centuries the dominant province in The Netherlands. The normal sociological process has taken place of creating a value system in which the Hollander is at the top and the others are his inferiors. To emphasize his uniqueness his language also has to be set apart. In reality however the standard Dutch the Hollander today uses is basically Brabantic in origin. To repress this painful truth defence mechanisms have been activated. One other reason to use the term Central Dialect Group, is that "Brabantic" can be avoided. Also the fact is hidden that Brabantic very gradually fades into present Hollandic. So artificial dialects are created in the system to form a buffer, like the non-existent Zuid-Gelders (no isogloss bundle exists) and the barely discernable Utrechts (very weak isogloss bundle). The same trick is used to keep the Flemish away by talking about Zeeuws which in fact is northern West Flemish. But is there no justification to be found to distinguish a separate Zeeuws in the fact that the dialect continuum is broken by the geographical division in several islands? No. For the dialect of each islands then would have be considered its own dialect group: they form no unity.
--MWAK 09:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed back to your last version.
However, I still think that Limburgisch-Bergisch can be integrated into this system, even if most Dutch speaking respective German linguists disagree about the scope of Limburgish.
Sarcelles 20:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree: I've changed the Limburgish article to clarify matters a bit. But it's a contentious subject, to say the least. :o)
--MWAK 13:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: many senior citizens there are unable to speak standard Dutch 
This statement regarding Belgium seems doubtful. Is a replacement of the expression   
standard Dutch with Hollandic suitable ?
Sarcelles 20:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In Belgium only a tiny minority of people born before the war can speak the standard language fluently (but they can often modify their dialect a bit), although those that are literate (quite a few aren't) and have received their primary education in Dutch (instead of French - French of course was very common among the middle and upper classes) can read it without much difficulty. Neither they nor their teachers had often met someone who knew how to pronounce it and in most schools the local dialect was the normal language of discourse for all involved. Standard Dutch was as rare in Belgium as Irish in Dublin. Only when a TV set became a common houshold commodity (and that was as late as the Sixties) children for the first time learned the spoken standard - but for most adults it was too late. Most people under the age of fifty can expres themselves well - and most older than sixty can't. Of course this is dependent on the local dialect: Brabantic dialects are much closer to the standard. But adults from Flanders proper or Limburg often ask for subtitles to be used in broadcasts as they are unable to penetrate any standard accent whether "Northern" or "Southern".--MWAK 06:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Algemeen Nederlands is mentioned without referring to Hollandic.
However the phrase hottentots which as far as I know has no meaning is used.
Sarcelles 21:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What system of dialect classification to use?

message: Is the difference of limburgish to other parts of zuidrijnmaasfrankisch greater than the difference of Zuidrijnmaasfrankisch and Zuid-Gelders ?
If yes, the remainder of Zuidrijnmaasfrankisch should be mentioned.
Sarcelles 12:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the difference is far less. In fact the Cleves dialects and those of the Bergish group are mutually unintelligible to most speakers.--MWAK 13:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Zuidrijnmaasfrankisch]]

message: There is a lack of a category Dutch language.
Sarcelles 14:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Dutch language 

message: I arranged the IPA tables to the side of the examples for a better overview. I could however not find an acceptable way of moving the notes under the IPA chart. Anyone knows how to? −Woodstone 17:59, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
:1) I'm not sure what you intended with "better overview", but as a matter of fact, the two consonant tables now overlap (Mozilla Firefox 1.0 PR).
:2) There is a factual error in the consonantal IPA chart. Either the sounds denoted by k, g are velar, in which case they should be listed as such, or they are palatal, in which case they should be written as c, ɟ. EJ 14:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter. And 800x600 is not a particularly low resolution. I've also tried it on another machine with 1024x768, and it was still overlapping unless the browser window was occupying the full width of the display. All in all, this is hardly acceptable. Moreover, the benefit is only minor (the tables are not really side by side, as the second one is just too long), thus I am restoring the original layout. EJ 09:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout