Talk:Dutch Low Saxon

Dutch Low Saxon as a "Dutch dialect"

This is sure an argument of Dutch linguistic nationalism. Even the article text asserts that Dutch Low Saxon dialects share many traits common with Westphalian a Low Saxon language but somehow it is classified as a dialect of Dutch, which is a Low Franconian language. Also a funny thing is that the area of Dutch Low Saxon is adjacent to German-Dutch political border. This is arbitrary (if not purposeful) nationalistic propaganda. --Behemoth 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. This "Dutch Low Saxon" stuff is completely without rhyme or reason. It arbitrarily lumps together Westphalian and Northern Low Saxon varieties (the latter with Frisian influences) just because they are spoken within the borders of the Netherlands and have been influenced by Standard Dutch (or non-standard Hollandic varieties) over time - as if the neighboring Low Saxon varieties in Germany weren't influenced or completely replaced by Standard German either. It's ridiculous. I'd really want to know whether Gronings (genuine Gronings, not Gronings Tussentaal, or Gronings Nederlands if you will) is closer to Dutch Westphalian dialects or to East Frisian Low Saxon despite all the Standard Dutch influences on the former. Perhaps it should be grouped with the latter, instead of labelling it "Northern Low Saxon". It seems to me that the rather nonsensical nature of the "Dutch Low Saxon" label is precisely because of Gronings. If Gronings didn't exist in the first place (or if it'd been so influenced by Frisian that it could no longer be recognized as a Low Saxon variety), "Dutch Low Saxon" would simply mean "Westphalian dialects of Low Saxon spoken in the Netherlands", which makes a lot more sense.

The only possible main use of this article (unless we're gonna go the WP:CONTENTFORK road) is describing the status/situation of Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands. If there are any unique features of Low Saxon spoken in the Netherlands (besides a generic "it's influenced by Dutch"), we should mention them as well. It seems to me that in many places the initial ⟨g⟩ (as well as ⟨g⟩ that is both postvocalic and preconsonantal at the same time) has devoiced, lenited and (slightly) backed to [χ] (a post-velar fricative with a uvular trill component, the same as in Northern Standard Dutch), so that Grunnegs is pronounced [ˈχrʏnəχs], or something like that. Uvular varieties of /r/ have developed independently (or semi-independently) on both sides of the border in Low Saxon and standard languages (Dutch and German) alike so that probably shouldn't be mentioned. Dark /l/ in the coda and in other positions, on the other hand, should, as it's probably unique to the Netherlands. I don't know about sibilants but they're probably more retracted/low-pitched in the Netherlands (but probably in Denmark as well, due to the Standard Danish influence) than in the related Low Saxon varieties in Germany. Also, in some Dutch Low Saxon there seems to be no /ʊ-ɔ/ and perhaps also /ʏ-œ/ opposition. That, probably, is Dutch influence, and it has been observed in some dialects of Limburgish as well. The phonemicity of open front, central and back vowels [æ, æː, a, aː, ɑ, ɑː] (also [ɒː] wherever it occurs) should also be discussed and whether the /ɔː-ɑː/ opposition is stable or whether it collapses to [ɒː~ɔː] in some dialects.

The article should probably be moved back to Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands. EDIT: Or not, I might've misunderstood the meaning of "Dutch Low Saxon". As long as we make it clear that it's not the main linguistic classification of the Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands we're good to go. Sol505000 (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

http://www.wjheeringa.nl/thesis/thesis09.pdf has Urkers, Groningian and the remainder as separate. The remainder seems to be called Zuidnedersaksisch or Zuid-Nedersaksisch. The aformentioned study is quite good, though hardly covering Germany, were I am unsurprisingly from. I suggest a move of this article excluding information pertaining Urkers and Groningian.

Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

To me when I look at this page it just looks like a page to include all Low Saxon variants spoken in the Netherlands, completely ignoring the relation to the variants just over the border. I can understand why as this is the area of Low Saxon under Dutch influence. It is not a dialect classification but just a term to include all variants of Low Saxon in the Netherlands. To me the 'Dutch' in Dutch Low Saxon doesn't classify the Low Saxon variants as part of Dutch, but indicates that these variants or spoken in the Netherlands, and therefore the geographical reference 'Dutch'. Grwen (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This concept is used in scholarly literature. However, nl wikipedia should be involved in this issue.

Sarcelles (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I have opened this issue at nl:Wikipedia:Taalcafé#Nederlands_Nedersaksisch.Sarcelles (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

there is an ongoing discussion.Sarcelles (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Northern Low Saxon and other terms

Hello,

Northern Low Saxon is among the terms also concerning Germany used in the article. Is this justified? If yes, should the article be split, as there are doubts in the section above?

Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)