Talk:Dutch language/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Thorpe

What is a 'thorpe'?

See thorp. 惑乱 分からん 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

English disease

I believe the term 'English disease' is mainly used to describe the increasingly common error of writing two words seperately, where according to Dutch grammar they should have been 'glued together', as mentioned in the article. Using too many English loanwords is not referred to as 'English disease' as far as I know, and I'm a native speaker of Dutch. Is there anyone who agrees with this?

Hi, guess you're right. But just asking for interest: When in the Netherlands I had the impression that the Dutch -for all their usual competence in English- even more than the Germans tended to write together English compounds that ought to be written seperated. Guess you could call that "reverse English disease" (more catchy than "Non-English Germanic desease" ;ö) Anybody else have an opinion on that? Edwing 12:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Word Stress

Is Dutch word stress lexical or metrical? ---moyogo 05:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Parameters for word stress: comparison of English and Dutch

Mistake

There is a mistake in note 6) on the pronunciation of Dutch consonants.

The phoneme /w/ is never pronounced as a voiced labial-velar approximant (except by the speakers of Surinamese Dutch). In the Southern dialects the phoneme /w/ is pronounced as a bilabial approximant. 84.193.165.47 18:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Don't agree with the statement on the joining of words in Dutch. Though this is common in German, as is stated correctly, this is not the case in Dutch. Even words which were formerly joined through the use of "trema" are now mostly at least broken up through hyphenation (the famous "zee-eenden-eieren" or sea bird eggs). In Dutch it is not accepted to simply combine words into new words and therefore the examples of "long" words in the Dutch language must be qualified as pure fabrication. There are no words in Dutch such as "randjongerenhangplekkenbeleidsambtenarensalarisbesprekingsafspraken" or "hottentottententententoonstellingsmakersopleidingsprogramma". No Dutchman will use such words and they are not accepted in school in, for instance, spelling tests or essays. In German, it is however quite common to find such extended cojoined words.--Michaelmarinus 20:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

With which part don't you agree? We do join words without spaces and hyphens (except in the former-trema-case you mention). (I once added this explanation, but apparently that was a bit to long). Sixtus 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, as far as the commonness of "such extended cojoined words" is concerned, I'd like to point out that also in German examples like the ones above are made-up jokes. It is true however that words tend to get "long" in German more often than in Dutch (which has something to do with bad style and German thoroughness) but your perception is -like all perceptions- subjective and in this case selective insofar as it may simply not acknowledge all those (80-90%) of cases where German words aren't really longer than Dutch ones, only those that "stick out". Edwing 12:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

-tie pronounciation

I'll need know how is pronounced the word ending '-tie' (as in politie, coördinatie), as [siː] or as [tiː] IPA-transcription?

Ludor 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

both [siː] and [tsiː] are used. the former is more common in the south, the latter in the north. [tiː] is rare and generally considered incorrect. --Lenthe 06:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Since it is not a stressed syllable, I think the correct rendering would be [tsi] in received pronunciation. Dialectic form (especially in the Amsterdam region) is [si], also occurring in other regions in rapid speech. I have never heard [ti]. −Woodstone 14:42:46, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

In Belgium they use [siː] on the offical broadcast on the VRT 213.119.220.51 18:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC) – and in all dialects in the Flemish region. Either [siː] or [tsiː] used consistently by a speaker, is correct standard Dutch. Some derivates maintain the sound, e.g. 'politioneel' or the compound 'politiezone', though '-tie' must become [tiː] when it receives some suffixes, e.g. 'politie' [(t)siː] (police) –> 'politiek' [tiːk] (politics, political); 'negatie' [(t)siː] (negation) –> 'negatief' [tiːf] (negative) -- SomeHuman 2006-06-23 22:49 (UTC)

word order

"Further examples for the close vicinity of Dutch and German:

Op de berg staat een klein huisje (Dutch) - Auf dem Berg steht ein kleines Häuschen (German) (in English: "There's a small house on the mountain", or alternatively, "On the mountain is a small house", demonstrating English's ability to conform to Dutch/German word order in this sentence)"

This is a bad example of English's ability to conform to Dutch/German word order, because the word order is exactly the same in both languages. Does someone know a correct example?--194.78.199.56 14:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a good example of the close vicinity of Dutch and German. The English translation only serves to help understand the example. AvB ÷ talk 22:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

'There's a small house on the mountain,' isn't the translation of: 'Op de berg staat een klein huisje'. It is the translation of: 'Er is een klein huisje op de berg.' And 'On the mountain is a small house,' should be: 'On the mountain stands a small house.' What value does such an example has if it isn't translated as closely as possible? Details like that are not necessarily significant in regular translating, but in this case they are significant.(83.118.38.37 19:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

The article gives a correct translation of the sentence 'Op de berg staat een klein huisje.' (If you think you have a better one, feel free to propose it here). The current version of the article contains the word-by-word translation 'On the mountain stands a small house'. AvB ÷ talk 22:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Derived languages section

Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself.

This seems to me to be a blatantly false statement. Afrikaans is a creole. Many other languages have produced creoles and remained a language in their own right, like English, a particually noteable example being the Hawaiian Pidgin, which is, at this point, not really a pidgin anymore. Any objections to my removing that line?Arturus 06:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaans, is a separate language that evolved from Dutch, not a creole.

Sandertje 14:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I was mistaken, but the point stands without afrikaans being a creole. Creoles are languages like any other, so that point is moot. What does matter is that languages produce other languages through any number of means; for afrikaans it seems to have been an isolated pool of dutch speakers being influenced by surrounding languages and true dutch creoles. For a creole it begins with a population of pidgin speakers.

For a non-creole example, I can provide Scots, which developed from an isolated dialectical group of middle english speakers. Middle english is generally considered to be part of the same language as modern english, despite it's differences. Even if you dispute this, what can't be disputed is that Scots became it's own language and Middle English remained in force, at least for some time. The line between dialect and seperate language is terribly blurry here, mush like the case for the line of what determines a different species of animal and not just a isolated genetic pool of the same animal.

The point is, whatever standards you define to make afrikaans a derivitive language which does not replace it's parent language, the same standards will show a large number of similar cases. If you want to define it without using creole languages, fine, that does cut down on examples by a large amount. But it needs to say that, and this sort of thing is still not uncommon. Arturus 23:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Scots, isn't a dialect or derived language from middle English.It's a language deriving from Anglo-Saxon (Old English if you like) just like English itself.Just like Spanish and Portuguese both derive from Latin.

Besides that, 'English' didn't produce scots. Old English did. While Afrikaanse came out of Dutch while the language is still alive while OE is dead as can be.

Sandertje 12:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sandertje, such a generalization "Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself."(that I personally consider doubtful) must be supported by notable or scholarly sources, otherwise it is original research and must be removed. Andries 13:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me, I dare anyone to name me 10 language (of the total of 6000) that have resulted in another language (no creoles or pidgins)while still being spoken natively. Although I normally see Latin as a dead language (no native speakers) I'll allow it for this time.

• Latin
• ????

Sandertje 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not know enough about languages to answer this question and I do not have to answer this question because in Wikipedia the burden of proof for a statement (esp. if stated as a fact) is on the contributor who wants to insert it. I do not want be unreasonable and I only ask for references and citation for statements that I find doubtful. Andries 19:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)~

What's this?! ' I do not know enough about languages to answer this question '?! The where do you get the idea you're suited to claim my statement is a lie? Talking about arrogance.

Sandertje 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that you are lying. Everybody makes mistakes, you know. If you are an expert on languages, then it would be easy for you to find references or citations for this disputed sentence. If you are not, then please understand that what you have been doing is against policy, that is inserting your personal opinions and ideas in Wikipedia. Of course, everybody does it sometimes when it seems like common sense, logical and undisputed, but in this case your common sense contradicts my common sense and in such a case I have the right (and may be the duty) to ask for references. Thanks. Andries 20:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I'm making mistakes or lying be clear, speak your mind instead of twisting words.

You admit you know nothing about languages and yet you want some sort of reference? How are you going to verify that? More so, what do you expect that reference to say or to be?! A list with all 6000 languages? " " isn't enough you know.I want a clear question or assignment or some sort.

My own opinion? What kind of opinion is "Dutch is one of the few languages that while still spoken themselves have produced another language " That's not opinion that's a fact.

You may have noticed, I detest laymen who start making demands.

Sandertje 20:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the tone in this discussion is getting a bit too hostile. The general demand that if a definite claim is made some kind of reference is needed is not a strange nor unreasonalbe 'demand'. Neglecting reasonable demands (even by what are considered lay-persons) is very arrogant. So as a non-accountant, I (the layman) should not be allowed to demand any kind of customer orientation of the tax service.... detest me for it, I will still demand that. But to quit joking, I do not think that a complete list of 6000 languages is asked for, however a reference confirming Dutch as the mother language of Afrikaans (with Afrikaans being an acknowledged language), and a reference that only few languages originate in other modern languages would strengthen the point very much. Especially as I intuitively can accept that your point holds for many European languages (possibe exceptions English and French), but how about non-western languages as Russian, Chinese, Arabic and the continental African languages? Of course you may know that they did not create languages, but please follow accepted scientific practice and share your source of that knowledge with us (i.e. put up a reference). Thanks in advance Arnoutf 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Arnoutf, thanks for your reasonable and fair comments. I did not and do not request a reference for the statement that Afrikaans originated from Dutch, because this is common knowledge and undisputed. But I do request a reference for Sandertje's doubtful generalization that is Dutch being one of the few living languagesn that created another living language. Of course, if somebody has a reference for the origin of Afrikaans then please include it as this will increase the credibility of the article. Andries 13:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You are a laymen, a person who knows nothing about languages, as you said yourself but yet you still try to pose as an expert.

You question 'my' remark yet, have done nothing to back up the reasons for questioning it in the first place, except for: "I don't believe that" well even a blind person knows that's a not an argument but an opinion. I'm reverting your edit and even more; I'm calling for a mediation if you keep bugging people who have worked long and hard on this article.

I hope we understand eatch other.

Sandertje 14:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please first visit a good library and try to find references for your generalization before asking the mediation team to intervene. That will hopefully save a lot of work for them. Andries 14:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And Sandertje, please take into account that in this dispute it is three contributors (Andries, Arnoutf, and Arturus) against one (Sandertje). Andries 14:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I visit the best libraries in the country so don't worry about that.I'd advise you however to get familiar with the concept of "Knowing what you're talking about" I'm sure it will open a whole new world for you. As for the 3 vs. 1 story you wrote down, that doesn't make you or them right now does it?

Sandertje 15:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Andries. Please note that nobody is accusing you of lying, only to provide a reference.

You make the claim, you are required to provide evidence, the person asking you to provide the evidence does not need to be an expert. In science there are three accepted grounds to provide such evidence.

1) The claim follows logically from previous arguments, which every reader can reconstruct from the given axioms and arguments and will inevitably lead to the same conclusion

2) The claim follows from your own data collection, the source data, and detailed methods how you acquired them you agree to show upon request

3) The claim follows from a previously published source, which you communicate by providing a reference.

If I am correct, your claim does not conform to type 1, and since you do not refer to own research not to type 2, so the only way you can make the claim is supported by the evidence type 3 (i.e. from previously published work, which requires reference). If I am not correct, please provide your type of source.

Getting aggressive on lay-people is not helping your case. Although I am a lay-person with regard to languages, I am a scientists who has published in internationally refereed journals, so I know what I am talking about when talking about science. To be honest, I think a mediation team would probably support our request for a reference, so I would think twice before asking for their intervention Arnoutf 15:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a pointless argument. "I should be allowed to violate the NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH rule because I'm an expert" just doesn't fly. Stuff needs to be verifiable. Yes, it burns when I realize that something I've written, something I know to be true, is edited out, but this is a settled issue: it's more important to be correct than to be complete. If you're an expert, you should be familiar enough with what's been published that you can provide references. If you don't like the policies here, it's easy enough to latch onto the software, start your own wiki, and show Wikipedia a thing or three....ClairSamoht 15:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sandertje, I agree with ClairSamoht and please see this dispute in which you clearly violate policies as part of your learning curve in contributing to Wikipeda. We all had to learn the policies when we were new. Andries 16:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sandertje, you are being unnecessarily confrontational. Modify your tone and people will be more inclined to engage with you. You are definitely right that Afrikaans evolved out of a from of Dutch. I doubt very much that we can say this is an unusual situation, though: it is the normal development of new languages. They start with small variations (American English developed out of British English) and become more and more different until they are separate languages. I see nothing unique or special about this example. And I am a historical linguist, so while you are welcome to disagree with me you cannot pull rank as you tried to with Andries. --Doric Loon 19:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to check, is this the way you found this particular discussion Doric Loon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoric_Loon&diff=40147963&oldid=40136846

A few things, I don't believe there are certain ranks between linguists, like in the millitairy.I base it on respect for ones ideas, and frankly a supporter of a theory saying that AE and BE will one day become different languages, doesn't have to expect a lot of that.

--Sandertje 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not what I said about AE/BE, and that's not what "pulling rank" means. But I think you know that really, don't you. This is not the way you engage with people, and you will never win your argument as long as you take such a tone. That's just a friendly tip from a neutral in this debate. --Doric Loon 19:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Presentation to prove point.

Indo-European Language Tree

These are the Indo-European languages, not all of course because there are currently 443 of them, but the most prominent/known/spoken of them.Of Which, according to my count, around 100 languages (not hypothetical subgroups) are represented on the map.Only 2 of these can claim the following:

To have produced another language while still being spoken

These languages are Dutch and German who produced Afrikaans and Yiddish respectively.

Because it would be an virtually impossible task to make a list of all human languages let alone a tree. (And get or create all the information needed for relating them to each other) I will use mathematics to prove my point.

2 of the 100 language have produced other languages (not pidgins or creoles) that's 2 %.

The suspected totall of all languages on earth is 6000, 2% of is 120 languages that have produced other languages while still being spoken today.

Now I don't know what all you 'opposers' think, but when 2% of the people survives a certain dissease, then they are part of the lucky 'few'.

Therefore, the remark:

" Dutch is one of the few languages to have produced another language while still being spoken itself. "

Stands proven.

--Sandertje 22:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As a mathematician, I will concede that 2% can be characterized as few; however, as a mathematician, I must point out that you cannot prove something based on untrue conjectures. Your chart is unreadable, sir, even when I magnify it, so I will point out that:

• German has produced Amish as another language.
• Portuguese has produced Brazilian as another language.
• English has produced Rhyming Cockney and Ebonics as other languages.

That's four offshoot languages, sir, right off the top of my head. Your proof is, therefore, dopplick.

But it doesn't really matter one way or the other. The Wikipedia does not exist to publish the truth. The Wikipedia exists as a compendium of that which others have published. If you aren't willing to accept that, you need to set up your own Wiki, sir. Click on the MediaWiki logo at the bottom right of this page. The software runs on economical standard LAMP webhosting, and if you are uncomfortable in installing it yourself, I'd be happy to recommend a host offering free installation. Or you can decide to stick around and contribute. I think everyone here would be happy if that happened. But you're trying to ignore a basic principle on which Wikipedia is built. I'd characterize your chances of success as "few". ClairSamoht 23:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm honoured by the sir bit, your proof is not worth anything.

The Amish speak a German dialect,not a language. Portueguese is the same language as "brazillian" which is called "Brazillian Portuguese" (Portuguese). And Rhyming Cockney is a form of slang and Ebonics is a dialect.

Even I as a non-mathematician can tell your arguments are worth 0.

As for the non readability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages#Satem_and_Centum_languages

--Sandertje 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try to be less hostile. Your presentation may indeed give support for your argument, but I have to concur with ClairSamoht, that it is unreadable even magnified. As you have been able to provide this professional looking graph, why can't you just provide the source where you got it from. Finally a point that may be more interesting than this bickering: At what moment do we call an isolated dialect a new language? This apparently has happened with Afrikaans, but not (yet) with Amish or Brasilian? I raise this question as I think it is not easy to make a strict line, but this seems to be important in this case as it excludes some offshoot languages asdialect. Arnoutf 09:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I said to Clairsamoth then use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages#Satem_and_Centum_languages that one is more clear.

It is hard to draw a line between dialect,pidgen,creole and language (some linguist say there are no lines at all) but in these modern times the changes for dialects like Amish (Deitsch) or Brazillian Portuguese becoiming lannguages are very small.My predictions for those particular languages are that Amish will probably disappear wether due to the pressure of English or the desolving of the sect, and Brazillian Portuguese and Portueguese will unite in a new standard form (due to internet,tv and other forms of interaction between the two)

This wasn't the case with Afrikaans, Afrikaans (or still Dutch at the time) was pretty much isolated for 200 years and had no contact with other Indo-European languages.Then when the English took over the cape (ie South Africa) the Afrikaners/Dutch were cutt of from the mother language (from which it had already been diverging for 150 years or so) allowing it to develop seperately from Dutch.

While they may look very alike Afrikaans has a very different grammar a different orthography as well as pronounciation and, which is usually the thing that seals the deal for most people, it's recognised as a national language.

--Sandertje 09:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

>> Your so-called proof discusses only the 430 Indo-European languages, which are a very small portion of the 6912 living languages on this globe. <<

Yes, which I explained in one of the first sentences.You're not blind are you?

>>The Amish aren't disappearing; their numbers are doubling every 20 years. And they aren't abandoning their language; they use it at home and in their worship.<=

Why should I believe that? Where is your proof?Your reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Language

>>But there are plenty of other examples. Ocracoke split off from English while English remained a living language. Cayuga and Seneca split off from Onondaga while Onondaga remained a living language. But what's the point in listing examples? Whether you are right or wrong is immaterial. Your assertion is not verifiable.<<

Again, where are your references? After a quick google/wikpedia search, only Seneca ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_language ) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onondaga_language) showed up and nowehere is mentioned that Onondage is the ancestor of Seneca. "Ocracoke" doesn't even show up. How am I supposed to know if your comments are verifiable?

>> That's a primary principle around here. Asking Wikipedia to ignore verifiability is like asking a Mother Superior to turn the convent into a whorehouse, with the nuns serving the clientele. It ain't gonna happen. ClairSamoht 10:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)<<

Oh please, where you trying to impress me? Lol, no but seriously where's your proof? In the so called arguments above that is ... because I can't see any of it.

--Sandertje 11:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The Seneca language article starts out Seneca (in Seneca, Onödowága or Onötowáka). Duh. If the Seneca and the Onondaga both call their languages Onondaga, I suppose that means that Seneca comes from Japanese, and Onondaga comes from Celtic?

And since you are having trouble using google, allow me to extend to you a link: Ocracoke language search

Your level of ignorance and your level of intellectual dishonesty is why original research is prohibited here on Wikipedia.

As far as proof, it's right here| in the first item. Please quit vandalizing this site! ClairSamoht 18:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just look at you... you lost the debate.A personal feud? Very adult of you.But I'm going to pass this time.Come back when you have arguments.

Sandertje 19:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please could you both return to civil behaviour and stop shouting at each other. Sandertje, "no orginal research" is a rather strong requirement in wikipedia. You will really have to show published sources agreeing with your ideas, before you can vent them in an article. −Woodstone 19:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you want? An article?I'm pretty much sure there is no article on "Dutch being one of the few language to have produced another language while still being spoken itself". Thing is that I have proven my point and no matter how hard Andries & Co squeel it remains on the page.

I can believe that nearly half of the space on this talk page is devoted to one little sentence, and even now, while the point has been proven the opposers (lead by a lost mathematician and a layman of all sorts) still continue their futile actions against the sentence in question. If there is one thing that (should) characterise civil behaviour on wikipedia it's that once proven wrong you admit you were wrong.If you're too proud for that, fine leave then but don't keep bugging people trying to make a good article.

How long will it take for them to find that out, and will it happen before or after interference by higher spheres on wikipedia?

Goodnight.

Sandertje 20:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sandertje, you are going too far. You have violated the official policy Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. So far you have not proven your point and seem to be the only one believing your assertion. You admit above that there is no source for your statement. You cannot go on behaving like this. Please come with substantiated support for your ideas before putting them in again. −Woodstone 21:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I had no knowledge of such a rule.

However, this has gone too far.I've requested a mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronline#Mediation_request3.

User:Sandertje 22:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Genders

A small but important point: the genders of Dutch are said in the article to be 'animate' (de) and 'neuter' (het). Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Dutch will know that this is misleading and untrue- a child is HET kind and yet a table is DE tafel!! I suggest the frequently used terms 'common gender' and 'neuter' to describe the genders of Dutch.

Also, I think the word 'collapse' to describe the transition from a 3-gender to a 2-gender system is rather imprecise- this word suggests that the change happened all of a sudden, whereas it is the combination of gradual sound changes and then a slow process of catch-up in the spelling system which removed unpronounced forms such as 'den', 'ener' etc.

It might also be worth noting that the Dutch do actually use 3 genders fairly consistently with some words (particularly with feminine abstract nouns such as 'vrijheid' and 'bewering'), using 'zij' and 'haar' when referring back to them. If you look in the Van Dale the 3 genders are all consistently indicated, and during my time in Belgium there was no sign of a 'collapse' amongst speakers of the standard language.

This is obviously only a minor issue and a small part of the text but it demonstrates the scope for improvement and extra precision in the article.

--Anonymus

Everything is explained in:

Dutch grammar Gender in Dutch grammar

--Sandertje 10:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but then, why don't you think the edit by Anonymus, which you reverted, is correct? "Animate" gender is incorrect (Dutch is not, e.g., an American-Indian language), and everything Anonymus states above seems more correct to me than the current explanation in the article. Sixtus 13:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, we agreed in a previous discussion on this topic so I don't understand why you reverted the edit by Anonymus. Sixtus 13:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sorry my fault.

--Sandertje 17:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Babel

The Wikipedia Babel entry for Dutch native speakers says this: Deze gebruiker heeft het Nederlands als moedertaal. Wouldn't it be a little nicer if it were to say something like "Deze gebruiker spreekt Nederlands als moedertaal"? Or "Deze gebruiker draagt bij met Nederlands als moedertaal"? The links to the templates here: Template:User_nl, Template:User_nl-1, Template:User_nl-2, Template:User_nl-3, Template:User_nl-4.

Does anybody have any further suggestions? Do you think that it should be changed at all? Let's hear what you have to say. --Michiel Sikma 19:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the heeft het entry is better, sounds as good Dutch so why change it. Moreover the others can be ambiguous spreekt Nederlands als moedertaal can also mean speaks Dutch as if it is native, The last option sounds very strange Contribute with Dutch as native language, so on Wikipedia Dutch is my native language, but out in the streets it may also be Chinese? In other words I think it just fine as it is. Arnoutf 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is, how can you "have" Dutch? You can speak it, you can be proficient in it, et cetera, but I doubt it's really correct to "have" it. Have you ever heard someone say that they own their native language when you talk to them about it? It's not a physical object. That's my objection. --Michiel Sikma 20:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd leave out the "het" for the flow but otherwise it's good as it is now...

Sandertje 22:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Sander has requested a mediation on this article. I have taken this case. From what I see here, there seems to be a dispute between various versions of this article, to do with the "Classification and related languages". It would be great if each of the editors involved in the dispute would give their own opinion on the matter, so that we can come to a resolution as soon as possible. Simply perpetuating the revert war, and name-calling other users, won't do much to solve the dispute. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 05:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________________

I assume the mediation will take place here? Good.

In a nutshell; There was a line: << Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself. >> which User:Andries questioned, although he is a layman concerning languages, and asked for a reference. I explained a reference would be impossible to get because nobody is to write or has written an article called "Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself.". After continuous reverts and edits, I provided my proof, namely a mathematical assumption.Which can be seen below:

This a map of the Indo-European languages; a linguistic group numbering 443 languages (and dialects). The total estimate of languages spoken on earth lies around 6000.The most known/spoken are listed here.

Indo-European Language Tree

This is a List of Indo-European languages (443)

Now, only 3 languages can say that they have produced a language (not a pidgin or dialect)while still being spoken itself and those are Dutch, German and Latin (which is considered dead by most) according to me, that make dutch one of the few.

Now after I suplied the proof/reference they still revert the sentence. Sandertje 18:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this is home-made proof to support the disputed sentence and hence original research. Second the diagram only includes Indo-European languages. Third, I was not exactly the only one who disagreed with Sandertje and agreed with me. Sandertje has no supporters in this dispute and even broke the three revert rule. I think this mediation is a waste of time, because it is clear-cut case that Sandertje repeatedly broke the Wikipedia policy of no original research. Andries 19:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (amended)

When do you start to understand it Andries? You can't make a report on all languages on earth, most of them haven't even been recorded,let alone named.

IE languages make out 1/15 of the total languages spoken on earth, they also are the most widespread,most documented and 2nd most spoken on earth.If 3 language of the 443 IE languages have produced other languages (under ideal circumstances: Fall of Roman empire, NL > SA and German + Hebrew) while still being spoken today then how logical would it be if other groups would have similar numbers? Dutch is clearly part of the few.

It's just your personal war against me that slowing down the process.

PS: I did not know about the 3revert rule, which I've said before on this talk page. (Somehow it's typical for a person like Andries to "miss" or " overlook" such a comment)

Sandertje 20:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you cannot make a report on all the languages of the earth, but if you want the disputed sentence to stay then you should refer to a researcher who has done so. There is probably no researcher who has done this, so the disputed sentence has no place in this article. Andries 20:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sandertje, you wrote "It's just your personal war against me that slowing down the process." Can you please assume good faith? Andries 21:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In this debate, the only editor (so far) supporting the disputed sentence is Sandertje, who included it. He writes himself that he is convinced there is no publication stating this as a conclusion of professional research. He only presents a home made reasoning based on a single diagram of one language group.

The other editors find this statement very unlikely to be true and do not want it included, since no supporting sources are given and it should hence be seen as original research (at best), or as patent nonsense (at worst). It is a normal process of language development that when groups of people become separated, their languages drift apart to a point where they are considered separate languages. It is hardly meaningful to say that one of them stays itself and the other is being ";produced".

−Woodstone 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think the issues we need to tackle here are 1) the truth of the statement and 2) the relevance of the statement. So, for the first point, does anyone dispute that it's true? That is, does anyone believe that Dutch is not one of the few languages which produced another living language while still remaining a living language? If yes, could you give some examples of this? Original research is only when people go out and provide their own interpretations of things based on no sources at all. It isn't really original research when a source is analysed, such as the language tree above.

Secondly, and IMO this is the more important point, is Sandertje's statement relevant? Is it a statement that really sets Dutch apart from other languages, and does it help inform the user about something relevant pertaining to this article? In my opinion, and this is only my view, I think the statement is not particularly relevant, since lingustics is a very complex field, and languages constantly evolve. For example, Romanian and Aromanian, now two separate languages, broke off from a common language. One can argue that that language was "Romanian" (it's now called proto-Romanian). Today, both of them exist as languages. Would that be the same as the Dutch case? Or is Dutch unique because it hasn't really evolved at all since the time when Afrikaans split off, and it hence gave rise to a new, isolated language while still maintaining its form? Ronline ✉ 07:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As a linguist, I find the statement Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself to be rather odd. First of all, the definition of one language separate from another is difficult. I wonder whether we should count mixed languages, creole languages and pidgins. That two branches of a language separated culturally or geographically undergo different changes over time and are then considered to be different languages is the entire history of genetic language development. I think that if we allow for all historically documented occurences like this, and allow for other variations of language change, particularly those produced on contact with others, we shall find that this category is not so special. --Gareth Hughes 12:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As another linguist, I do not find the statement that hard to understand; of course the definition has to be relevated. In essence a "language" is pretty much everything used to communicate, wether verbally or non-verbally.I want to make clear that I'm not taking creoles,'mixed languages' or pidgins into account here.

Ronline,

To answer your questions,

<<<<<Romanian and Aromanian, now two separate languages, broke off from a common language. One can argue that that language was "Romanian" (it's now called proto-Romanian). Today, both of them exist as languages. Would that be the same as the Dutch case? Or is Dutch unique because it hasn't really evolved at all since the time when Afrikaans split off, and it hence gave rise to a new, isolated language while still maintaining its form?<<<<<<<<

The language there started out like Dutch, but then it started to diverge from Dutch.Untill 1814 when the "life-line" with the "mother language" was cutt because the British took over South Africa.(Nieuwnederlands (New/Modern Dutch) is the language spoken from around 1500 to the present day and has changed little) with the life-line cutt the already diverging dialect was allowed to develop into a seperate language.

--Sander 16:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ronline, according to Wikipedia, the matter is not the truth of the statement as you wrote, but Wikipedia:verifiability and Wikipedia: No Original Research instead. Of course, if I found the statement very plausible then I would not have asked for references, because I personally do care about the truth, but the truth of the disputed statement is a side-issue. Andries 20:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement is true and it's verifiable.Of course, when you don't want to see that....

Sandertje 21:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the most controversial issue in this debate is that some editors have doubted the explicitly phrased section 'a few' (referring to Dutch being one of a few still living languages that have created new langauges). They have tried to solve this (in my opinion) by asking Sandertje fairly politely to provide references for this statement. These have not been forhtcoming, which resulted in evermore hostile debates on this discussion page, ultimatley leading to the mediation request. The only evidence provided has been the abovementioned unreferenced language tree. In my opinion three major problems remain:

1) There is no reference, therefore no way to check the validity of the provided language tree (see the references to original research, although I do think a reference of this tree probably exists - but please provide it)

2) The language tree only covers the Eurasian languages, leaving out many languages who could have spawned new languages while remaining alive (which is related to the argument by Sandertje that he can hardly count up all 6000 languages)

3) There is no clear cut definition when a dialect becomes an official language, which makes any statements confuse (which is discussed above).

In my opinion all these issues need to be solved in order to put in the debated sentence. Especaiily issue 2 maybe a difficult problem as I can see a reasonable point in both sides (i.e. how can you make a statement about all languages without checking them -versus- it is practically impossible to do just that).

This said, I agree with Ronline that the relevance of the statement seems fairly low. It seems more a question of coincidence that Dutch created Afrikaans happened rather than a special case. And I think most would agree Dutch has changed since the separation (I recall my struggle with 18th century literature in high school.....). In my opinion these reasons about relevance alone would be enough to strike the phrase even if evidence is provided Arnoutf 21:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>And I think most would agree Dutch has changed since the separation (I recall my struggle with 18th century literature in high school.....). In my opinion these reasons about relevance alone would be enough to strike the phrase even if evidence is provided<<<<<<<<<<<

I can read Jacob Cats' poems without any problem those almost 350 years old.besidedes wether you can read it or not, it's still modern Dutch.

Sandertje 21:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Outside comment: Since it proves difficult or impossible to cite a reputable source, it seemed worthwhile to check out a more prominent corollary of the statement, namely that Afrikaans is thought to be one of the few languages that derive from a root language that is not dead and largely unchanged (i.e. the same language) since the branch occurred. Under the hypothesis that such a development has become next to impossible where a cultural language is used extensively and reinforced by modern communications and media, I ran a Google search for "youngest language." This does indeed yield some results that may lend some support to the disputed statement. Afrikaans is claimed by some to be the youngest (official) language here: [1], [2], [3] (just some examples, there's lots more). When the scope of the statement is not limited to the restraints mentioned above, the statement is at best questionable (there are many areas in the world where the circumstances are conducive to the development of new languages). On the other hand the same Google search does not yield a list of other "new" languages. Bottom line, I would have no problem with something like "The Dutch language has produced Afrikaans, which is claimed by many, especially native speakers of Afrikaans, to be the world's youngest (official/written) language". Just a thought. Although I must say this does not make Dutch special, it makes Afrikaans special. AvB ÷ talk 13:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not about which is more special it's about a link to Afrikaans and an explanation to it's history. Afrikaans derives from Dutch, then why does the opposition here write "a close relative"? If you want a close relative pick German, if you want a derived language pick Afrikaans.

Referencing a matter as this is impossible, nevertheless anyone with a sound mind should be able to grasp that this is the truth and nothing but the truth.

What if I asked Andries to prove he is really Andries, by using articles about himself? Nonsense.

Sandertje 13:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sandertje, I was trying to help you find some middle ground supported by external sources. As it stands now, you seem to accept only one outcome, and that outcome will not be possible as long as you do not provide reputable sources. As to your question regarding Andries: Please read or reread WP:NOR. If Andries is not mentioned anywhere outside Wikipedia you cannot mention Andries in a WP article. The English Language Wikipedia is not based on the truth, but on the truth as reported outside Wikipedia. Good luck with your mediation; without a full understanding of WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, you will need it. (I'm going back to my wikibreak). AvB ÷ talk 15:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No no no, I understand and apriciate what you're doing/did (really), I'm not going for "total victory" here but what I do want is the paragraph on is changed.It will not remain how it is now, since it's missing it's potential.Your 'interference' has been very helpful.

Sandertje 15:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

At an earlier comment. You really can't mean that 350 years old Dutch is modern, there are too many new words, spelling changes, etc to state that the language has not changed. Your comment that you can easily read 350 years old Dutch does not say anything about this as you have repeatedly mentioned that you are an expert in Dutch linguistics, which undoubtedly means you have much more training in reading 'old' dutch than about everyone of us. Arnoutf 17:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point, the dutch written after the publication of the Statenbijbel is modern Dutch. "Hebban olla vogela" or what was it again is old dutch.350 was modern dutch as is modern Dutch. Changes in spelling or insignificant.

Sandertje 21:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The only (week) support for Sandertje so far is in the form of a modified wording proposed by AvB. Him being still the only proponent of his theory, it is rather impudent to insert the disputed sentence during this mediation. I have reverted it pending mediation conclusions here in talk. −Woodstone 17:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Science didn't get were it is now because of agreeing with the majority.If it was the earth would still be flatt.I doesn't matter how many people oppose another one, it's about who's right. And when nobody is willing to discuss the matter (-because of a lack of arguments?-) but instead reverting time and again with no argumentation ...

Sandertje 17:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about new coined theories, but established fact. Why don't you try to publish your theory in a scientific journal. Then you can cite yourself. So far your arguments convince no one. I still maintain that it is the normal formation of languages that one splits off from another. By no means is this exceptional. Whether one of the formed languages keeps the same name as the common ancestor is more a political than a linguistic issue. is−Woodstone 19:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Since when did this became a theory? It's a statement, and more important, a true one. Of course it is normal that languages originate from another language.It is however special that the ancestral language continues to be spoken.Without the language in question being a creol or pidgin. Sandertje 22:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This has now become silly. When you try more than three times to convince people and NOBODY believes you then you're probably flogging a dead horse. But the thing that strikes me is that even if Sandertje COULD prove his case, I don't think I would want the sentence in the article, because it is so trivial. This is not an issue worth wasting time on. BTW Sandertje, before you go spreading any more misinformation, perhaps you should read the article Flat earth. --Doric Loon 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's so trivial... then I wonder where all these messages are good for. If you payed attencion (which you purposely didn't) you would have seen I already 'proved' my point.

Sandertje 21:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivial sentences should be deleted (as being irrelevant), so if the majority finds this issue trivial you should accept deletion of the debated sentence. So yes, it IS important to note this as trivial as it is an important argument for deletion of the debated sentence Arnoutf 22:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It IS relevant.And I'll tell you why:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Derived languages

A close relative of the Dutch language is Afrikaans, a language spoken in South Africa and Namibia, originating primarily from 17th century Dutch dialects, and a great deal of mutual intelligibility still exists. One who can speak Dutch is usually able to read and understand Afrikaans. There are also Dutch-based creole languages.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.Why is the language called a (close) relative, when the language originates from Dutch itself?In that case 'relative' is kind of an understatement.One related by kinship, common origin, or marriage is what the dictionary says.

• Kinship? or Connection by blood, marriage, or adoption; family relationship?

- By blood? Maybe, if one sees Afrikaans as a 'son/daughter' of Dutch, but we're dealing with linguistics here, not genealogy.

- Marriage? 3x See below.

- Family relationship, See 2x above

• Common origin? No, the origin of Afrikaans begins with Dutch.And Dutch didn't come out of Dutch.
• Marriage? I've never seen languages before the altar.

2. The linguistic tree of Afrikaans is the following:

• Indo-European
  • Germanic
    • West Germanic
      • Low Germanic
        • Low Franconian
          • Dutch <—
            • Afrikaans

Source:Wikipedia, Afrikaans

Dutch is clearly mentioned in the tree as the ancestor of Afrikaans.Therefore, derived is so much better than close relative.Not just because of the accuracy, but because relative suggests related(which is correct of course), but German and English are also related.Hell, even Russian,Spanish and Greek are related.

3. Then the one of the few part, I have already proven that Dutch (and German) are the only Indo-European languages to have produced another language (so I'm not including mixed languages, creoles, or pidgins) Based on information found on wikipedia.So, by the logic of chance, it would characterise as one of the few when compared to the other languages.And if that's too hard to grasp for you (plural) then it still stands that Dutch is one of the few Indo-European languages to have produced another language while still being spoken itself.

4. It not only gives extra information, it also makes both language extra special. Afrikaans for being a language with a living ancestor, and Dutch as a living language with a decendant.

In my opinion, wikipedia should provide as much information as possible,so leaving out this particular piece of info because you (plural) don't like me (because that's what it all comes down to) is just not going to happen.

User:Sandertje 18:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As much information as possible should be limited to relevant information as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific library. Not liking is not an argument, but if any of us do not like you, I think you caused this by your own hostile response on critisism. You asked for mediation yourself so please have the manners to leave the conclusion open. If the mediation results in the conclusion that leaving out the information is the best course, then it will be left out. Arnoutf 20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The mediation would result in a conclusion if the opposition would provide arguments like I've been doing the past weeks. Maybe you'd like to be the first Arnoutf? User:Sandertje 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Small sample of language trees

I did a Google search for "language tree" and found on the fist page of results the following sites and partial trees:

georgetown.edu

• low german
  • afrikaans
  • dutch
  • english

danshort.com

• old dutch
  • dutch
  • afrikaans
  • flemish

mindspring.com

• middle dutch
  • dutch/flemish
  • afrikaans

rutgers.edu

• middle dutch
  • dutch
  • flemish
  • afrikaans

wikpedia!

• low franconian
  • dutch
  • afrikaans
  • limburgish

There was no site among the first ten that had Afrikaans as a direct descendent of Dutch. Of course this is far from a scientific investigation, but it looks like the disputed statement is surely not generally accepted wisdom and should be discarded. The stronger idea that Dutch is one of the few living languages with offspring has become a moot point. −Woodstone 21:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of those trees are far from accurate,

georgetown.edu

• low german
  • afrikaans
  • dutch
  • english

Dutch and afrikaans originate from Low Franconian. (As for English, I don't know which meaning of 'low german' they're using here

danshort.com

• old dutch
  • dutch
  • afrikaans
  • flemish

Flemish isn't a language, not even the western dialects + Old Dutch for Afrikaans is impossible

mindspring.com

• middle dutch
  • dutch/flemish
  • afrikaans

Apart from the Flemish/Dutch mix, middle Dutch is also impossible considering the time

rutgers.edu

• middle dutch
  • dutch
  • flemish
  • afrikaans

Again, timing and the Flemish part.

wikpedia!

• low franconian
  • dutch
  • afrikaans
  • limburgish

Limburgish is not a language (speacial reason) again timing Low Franconian -> Afrikaans is imposible furthermore, this wasn't a tree but classification.

Sandertje 23:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sandertje, why do you keep saying "this is so" when obviously opinions differ on this. Again you seem to be seomwhat alone in your opinions. −Woodstone 08:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Woodstone, why do you keep focussing on the 'me-being-alone-in-my-opinions'part instead of providing ARGUMENTS?

14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Sandertje has a point. This is indeed interesting, the Dutch language still exists besides Afrikaans although the Dutch language of modern day Netherlands (,Belgium and Suriname) has evolved too, but not as drastic as the Afrikaans language.

But I also have an advise to you Sandertje. Why make you a big deal out of this? Is this a matter of pride or something? BTW in what year or semester are you? Have you just begun your study? I do not want to be unfriendly, but science is also a matter of consensus. Meursault2004 15:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not shout at me. You are being unreasonable here. You supply one anonymous chart that might be interpreted as supporting your view (did you draw it yourself?). I give you 5 charts from public sources that contradict your view. Who is providing arguments here? The whole point is not what you personally think is true, but what can be shown to be accepted truth. −Woodstone 18:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, I'm shouting through messages? I was accentuating the word "arguments" because you're not suplying them.

You say you provided 5 charts from public (internet) sources, do you happen to see that all of them contradict eachother too?

Sander 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who started this whole mess, and my take on it at this point is this: Afrikaans is derived from Dutch, and it's perfectly reasonable to say so. I don't even have diffuiculty accepting that it's one of the few non-creole languages to have a living parent. What I object to is not counting creole languages without saying so in the text. That's what caused me to see the statement as blatantly false: without any other specification, my natural inclination would be to include creole languages in the count. Arturus 18:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you'd have not problem with the statement if it was mentioned creoles, mixed languages and pidgins weren't taken into account?

Sander 21:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really, no. Creoles are created all the time, non-creole languages are considerably more rare. Pidgins aren't really full languages, so I'm not concerned by whether or not they get mentioned. Some of the other people here might want to keep attacking it on the grounds they've been going with, but that's their issue, not mine. Arturus 04:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've pretty much had it about now. I have time and again proven and defended my point, now even the person who questioned it in the first place agrees... You have done really nothing.The only thing you've said is that "I'm outnumbered in my opinion" that's all you've said in this incredibily foolish, stupid and long discussion about nothing realy.I'm changing the article now, and you better not change it back before you post something SENSIBLE here.If this discussion stays the way it is now I will take this to the Arbitration Committee.

Sander 11:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You have still not submitted any references whatsoever. Not even the source of the chart you build your case on (although that chart does not prove anything either). So as before, there is no basis to include the disputed sentence in the artcicle. You will really have to do better to gather support for your ideosyncratic view. −Woodstone 11:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sandertje you can take the case to the arbitration committee if you wish because further discussion does not bring us closer, but I strongly request you instead to follow basic Wikipedia policy and to stop reverting and to stop wasting the time of people here and the time of the Wikipedia:arbitration committee. On the other hand, I do not think that the arbitration committee will need much time to see that you are wrong in this case. Andries 11:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that going to the arbitration committee while a mediation is not yet resovled is a good idea. Therefore I suggest to await outcome of the mediation.

As no new arguments seem to be forthcoming (from all sides in the debate), this may be the time to ask RonLine for his final opinion as mediator. Arnoutf 12:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

From all sides in this debate? a debate means you respond to eatchothers arguments.What do you expect?Me debating myself? Please, don't create lies. Anyway, the final opinion from the mediator would be a good idea, the only problem being that the mediator needs to compare arguments to reach a good conclusion. I've provided mine, where are yours? Sander 14:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC) edit: one should the above comment with a tone of despair, not agression.

User:Andries has reverted the comment today (5-3-2006) while providing no arguments on the talk page. Sander 14:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have given my reasoning, with which you disagree; I can again list my problems with the line, but I guess you will agree with me that this will not add any new content. Both sides have given arguments; while the quality of arguments may differ in quality, with some probably very weak. I think it is for the mediation team to weigh the quality of the arguments. Any decision from them I will accept without any problem.

With regard to the revert by Andries, I think that the common standard is to err on the safe side (i.e. not putting in a sentence under debate/mediation) untill consensus has been achieved. Therefore I would support Andries in taking it out for now, untill this has been resolved. I hope you respect that approach. Arnoutf 15:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would/could respect that if Andries would provide arguments for his cause. You ( Arnoutf) might be one one of the few that have provided them, others have not.

Sander 17:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Arnoutf, I do not think that the function of mediation in Wikipedia is to make decisions about contents as you seem to suggest. Mediation tries to bring two factions together. Andries 18:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Hopefully the case regarding Afrikaans and its derivation from Dutch has reached an agreement. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, not really it's a stalemate.After reading the mediation disccusion, and noting that the opposers have provided no arguments whatoever and the person who questioned it in the first place agrees now... Do you, as a mediator, think the sentence " Dutch is one of the few language to have produced another language while still being spoken itself", which provides more information than the current line and also shows a unique side of both language, is acceptable? Sander 16:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sandertje just ignores or denies arguments brought forward by others, that may be why he seems to think there weren't any given. On the other hand Sandertje has not supplied any sources whatsoever, just his opinion. The opposition has given arguments and resource links (see above). −Woodstone 21:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the mediation has succeeded insofar as all parties have made their viewpoints quite clear above. Arturus has shifted towards allowing a modified version of the disputed statement. However, others have joined the discussion, most of them opposing inclusion of the statement. Since the statement is is not supported by citations, it can only be included in the article if supported by a consensus on the talk page (and even so, any future editor can remove it due to the total lack of reputable sources). Perhaps it's time to put this to a vote. I've tallied the various opinions above and predict a 7:4 majority againbst inclusion of the disputed statement. Other methods include putting up a Request for Comments or recruiting a neutral admin to help end the impasse. In this case I would suggest asking User:Ανδρέας (don't know if he's available though). AvB ÷ talk 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

NB I think I was wrong about User:Ανδρέας being an admin. But that doesn't change my advice. I saw him at work in another language-related dispute. Wow. I think it's a pity Sandertje does not seem interested in getting such a third opinion. AvB ÷ talk 12:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A fourth option is that the mediator (Ronline) requests the arbitration commitee to intervene. In contrast to what I suggested earlier, the mediator, not one of members of the factions, is supposed to request the arbcom to intervene as a last resort. The arbcom only accepts cases that have been unsuccessfully mediated. I do not recommend that the mediator refers this case to the overworked arbcom, because I consider this dispute quite silly (Wikipedia policies are clear enough) and other options are still open. Andries 11:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ArbCom is an option as well, as a last resort. AFAIK anyone can file a case, but doing so involves a lot of work which I imagine can be spent so much better editing Wikipedia. But I think I failed to make one thing clear: The mediation process has left the ball in the court of the proponents of Sandertje's statement. They may want to consider using one of the available options. If they don't, the outcome of the mediation process is that the statement can't be included due to an unaddressed WP:NOR issue (source of the chart) and a 7:4 majority (my count, feel free to check it out yourself). Without further action from the proponents, any admin can be asked to ensure that the statement is not re-inserted. AvB ÷ talk 13:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support the idea of the ArbCom.For the millions of people who edit Wikipedia everyday are not represented in a 7vs4 vote. Sander 20:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's your call, but I would advise against bothering ArbCom with such a clear-cut case of original research that is only accepted by a minority of the article's current editors. You may want to read through a couple of closed ArbCom cases before jumping the gun. As to voting/consensus/etc. by a tiny subset of editors - not really a problem since such outcomes are seen as ephemeral. Editors come and go. Things may look different half a year from now. Especially if you come up with a sourced language tree that supports the statement. AvB ÷ talk 02:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaans

I've noticed that User:Big Adamsky has edited the article and stated the Afrikaans was an official language of RSA until 1925 - edit. AFAIK, Afrikaans is still an official language of the RSA, along with English and a number of African languages. Additionally, I do not see the relevance of writing about the official status of Afrikaans in an article about the Dutch language. If anything it could be written that "Afrikaans, a language derived from Dutch, is an official language in South Africa". Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. While the edit was not quite accurate, User:Big Adamsky had a point, which is hopefully reflected in my edit. AvB ÷ talk 11:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for any inaccuracies. As for the "relevance of writing about the official status of Afrikaans [etc]", my intension was merely to write about the official status of Dutch, not the official status of Afrikaans. Thanks again. //Big Adamsky 13:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was quite welcome. It led to an improvement. Keep up the good work. AvB ÷ talk 21:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the information about Dutch being official until 1961 is very useful. I didn't know that both Afrikaans and Dutch were official at one time. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 06:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee

I would like to inform you that I have/are going to put up a request for a Arbitration.

Mainly because I feel, we've reached a stalemate and the mediation (to me at least) was merely an extension of the discussion rather than a solution.

I have left the "" Statement by party 2 "" open as I don't want to put false words in your mouths, but please make sure that someone fills that piece of text explaining your views. (500 words)

[Because I need to inform all of you before posting my request, this piece of text will soon be replaced by the link to the ArbCom request. All involved users will recieve a message on their talkpage as wel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Sander_on_Talk:Dutch_language

Sander 10:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Sander 11:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by Sandertje

Sandertje, you are changing chunks of the article without citing any sources whatsoever. One of these changes affects the disputed text for which you have put up an Arbcom request. Please cite your sources for all of these edits. Please note that your edits may be reverted if you do not provide citations referring to verifiable, notable information provided by reputable sources. AvB ÷ talk 00:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am merely expanding the article, if you'd read the added pieces, you would have seen that they expand and do not change original content.

The matter at Arbcom is resolved in theory, it is rejected. Not because one side has been proved wrong.But the because the Arbcom, like myself, thinks this matter was too trivial. (maybe I should reenter the request but then as a "personal feud" of you & co against me?)

Please name the articles in question Avb, this is too vague. Sander 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"If you'd read the added pieces" - please do not make assumptions about me Sandertje. You are on my Watch list and I have read all recent edits you made to the article. How can I demand that you provide sources without reading your edits? I just don't have the time to go over them one by one. (I take it you mean edits not articles - this is about Dutch language). Please source ALL of your edits. Otherwise they may be deleted without further warning. I also object to your "personal feud" of you & co against me - you surely must have understood I was trying to help you.

I gave my warning (see below) without having read the above. I will add it to the warning. AvB ÷ talk 21:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear AvB,

You are also on my watchlist, and to be honest, you don't provide sources to all your edits as well.A crude translation of a Dutch proverb springs to my mind: "Enhance the world but start with yourself" I think it's in place here. Your objection to my question comes as a surprise, as your recent behaviour can hardly falls within the 'lending a hand' catagory.No offence.

Sander 12:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA warning for Sandertje

I have posted a warning on Sandertje's Talk page here. Unsigned comment by User:AvB ^

Sander has taken notice of the 'warning' above and thinks that Avb could better devote his time to expanding Wikipedia rather than provoking conflicts between users. Sander 12:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of "falsely" edit

Since Sandertje has not accepted the compromise offered here I am reverting to the original version before his disputed edit. Sandertje, do not re-insert your disputed edit without convincing other editors that it does not violate WP:NPOV. At the very least you need to attribute the "falsely" qualification to a person or persons in order to make it factual; you also need to provide sources to document that this is not only Sandertje's opinion but a notable POV somewhere out there in the real world. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. AvB ÷ talk 00:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AvB except that I'd say that there is no source that can actually render either alternative to be labeled as false. The issue here is not whether Flemings or Sandertje consider it wrong. It's a very well-known fact that the form of Dutch spoken in Belgium is very often refered to as Flemish, whether it's considered a separate language or just a dialect, regardless of the motivation behind this usage of the term. Calling the practice false is like claiming that the common tendency of refering to the Netherlands as "Holland" is false. It's just not a matter of truth vs untruth, but rather differing terminology where one alternative is official and more correct while the other one is non-standard and is somewhat ambiguous.

And I must say I liked AvB's informative compromise a lot better. I think you should revert to it, Sandertje. It's a very fair and neutral description of the situation.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Peter. Your explanation is spot-on. It would be a pity to see this escalate so I hope Sandertje will return to WP:CIVIL behavior and, probably more importantly, take another look at WP:NPOV.

A note to explain what I meant with "attribution": as per WP:NPOV, if such a sentence has been stated in a notable publication by e.g. the Nederlandse Taalunie, it can go into the intro or the article body. An example: Dutch spoken in Belgium is often, incorrectly, called "Flemish", according to the Nederlandse Taalunie[citation]. Or even (if found to be largely undisputed in academia and media) almost exactly like Sandertje's edit: Dutch spoken in Belgium is often incorrectly called "Flemish"[citation]. It is quite possible that such a source exists. AvB ÷ talk 12:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

<<Ignoring insinuations made by AvB >>

Point here is that I wat to create clarity, for a good and easy to understand wikipedia.I don't think making euphemisms is wikipedia policy. If you can please explain to me, the difference between "not formally correct." and "false"? Sander 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe tact has something to do with it? --Van helsing 13:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Peter phrased the issue pretty good. I know there’s a slight history developing here, but AvB, if you want to gain Sandertje his cooperation, chances are you’re not going to reach it very quickly by rubbing policies in his face (even if you’re right about it). --Van helsing 13:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Van Helsing. AvB, be careful about being too confrontational. It's possible to be a dick even if you're not actually violating policy. (We've probably all done it at one point or another.) Let's try to reduce the amount of personal prestige in this discussion, ok?

I have been more patient with Sandertje than you may realize. It really takes time and effort to get me to the point where I lose patience. Read my points below. That type of accusation is quite disruptive. But you make a good point nevertheless, and I'll back off for a while and see how others fare with Sandertje. I appreciate your help. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 14:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sandertje, "false" means that it's a non-fact; an outright lie or something believed by an isnignificant minority, preferably by crackpots. Claiming that the planet Mars isn't located X million km from Earth, but is in fact residing in my back pocket is, for example, clearly false. In this case we all know that people do refer to Dutch spoken in Belgium (and parts of the Netherlands) as "Flemish", and quite often too. It's simply a way to describe the variant, which is no stranger than having name for any number of variant of any language. It's still Dutch, just as Scanian still means "Swedish" to most people.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Van Helsing - that's where I was some time ago. Looks like a past bridge now. Gaining Sandertje's co-operation has proven impossible. Reaching him with policies seems also out of the question. Wikilove seems lost on him. He can't be stopped by being reasonable. And I am not the first, just the nth editor in a list that's getting longer every month or so.

That leaves us with attracting some admin attention. I did not do so straight away since I wanted to give Sandertje a chance to reconsider. It doesn't look like he will though.

Finally, I don't know about you, but being called part of a cabal with a personal feud against Sandertje, or being threatened with an ArbCom case, or being considered someone who cannot grasp Sandertje's concepts, sort of automatically triggers my policy-quoting reflexes. But you are welcome to reason with him. In the meantime he's now posting warnings on my talk page. Let's see if he understands that's supposed to be the prelude to HIM calling in one or two admins. AvB ÷ talk 14:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Recognize it (especially the policy-quoting reflex trigger), and the ...I’ll-get-you-back-for-that-warning from Sandertje on your talk page doesn’t really help to stay cool. Still, with your remark "...I'll back off for a while..." above, I think you actually are. Hope Sandertje will to. --Van helsing 15:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear AvB,

My cooperation isn't hard to get at all, problem is you've never tried and by spewing filth (I threatened you with the Arbcom? I believe it was you who brought it up in the first place) about me on this talkpage you're not getting any closer too.

Your philosophy is "once an argument always an argument".If that's what you want, fine.Not that I'll sleep even a second less because of it.

Van Helsing,

I know that Dutch spoken in Northern Belgium is often called Flemish of course you're right about that, point is that that isn't the case.They don't speak Flemish, but Dutch.What word makes it more clear than 'falsely' ? Sander 15:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the "often called" that truly spoils your argument, Sander. We go by general consensus among folks in general and the consensus is that "Flemish" is an alternative, if not official and standard, name for Dutch spoken by people in Belgium. Your opinion about what Dutch in Belgium should be called is no more relevant than my personal opinion on whether evolution or creationism is the best theory to explain how life on Earth evolved.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No Peter, it's much simpler.

Even if Dutch spoken in Belgium is often called Flemish (Which I don't deny). It is still Dutch, Flemish is not a language and in the linguistic sense (Which I hope we're using in this language article) it refers only to the West-Flemish dialect of Dutch.Thus calling Dutch spoken in Belgium Flemish is just plain wrong,even if it's often called that.Just like the Netherlands are often called Holland, but it's still wrong as Holland was a province that doesn't exist anymore. Sander 18:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sandertje on this; otherwise we can start subdividing our Dutch language into numerous (Rottuhdoms, Hagenees, Grunigs, Tuks, Ajndhovens) languages. Flemish is a Dutch dialect; and I think most people call their language by their dialect name; but if asked what is the official language will mention the official one. Some kind of mention of the difference between ABN (official Dutch in the Netherlands) and Flemish would be warranted though, as these version of the language have been separated for a while.

Also a consideration for Sandertje, I think you can achieve much more by not being too defensive/aggresive in your talk page edits. People may not agree, but making it hostile will probably increase opposition even against valid point, so aggression may actually be counterproductive. Just assume that others are trying their best as well and are in no way out there to annoy any of the other editors. Arnoutf 20:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Don’t get me wrong Sandertje, I do think you’re, no... you plainly are right in linguistic sense. If someone asked me what language do they speak in "Vlaanderen"? I’d answer they speak Dutch. Immediately followed by a feeling that I have to answer more questions about history, pronunciation and making comparisons between US and UK English or Swiss and German. However, what I fear readers will read when reading: "...falsely referred to as Flemish..." is:

• Flemish doesn’t exist
• It’s not different from Dutch
• We’ve made a mistake calling it like that all along

Or worse, stirring up emotional Flemish feelings like:

• What? Some Dutch editor deny us our language variation (and you’ll probably know how strongly they can feel about languages)
• Belgium doesn’t have a language of its own, damn

So though something can be correct, there are ways to say it potentially too confrontational. So I would like to propose something in the sense of: Language spoken in Northern part of Belgium is Dutch, which it already states by "...Dutch spoken in..." continued by "...referred to as Flemish which is a variation/dialect of..." Simply avoiding the whole "falsely" thing, and still give correct information, lets call it courtesy.

If it all seems too trivial, just look at what the biggest disputes on wiki are about. Happy editing. --Van helsing 20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, if you want trivial look at the afrikaans part in the middle of Dutch talk.Pfff.

Anyway, although I get your point, I have some remarks.

• Flemish doesn’t exist

Well, it doesn't, in the sense of the language of the Flemish people.

• It’s not different from Dutch

When compared to UK and USA English the differences are even smaller.

• We’ve made a mistake calling it like that all along

Well, they did, if they refered to the language of the Flemish, instead of the dialect

Or worse, stirring up emotional Flemish feelings like:

• What? Some Dutch editor deny us our language variation (and you’ll probably know how strongly they can feel about languages)

Believe me, if it were up to me, most of the references to the Flemish dialect on Dutch language would be deleted.Flemish has received far more attencion than all other Dutch dialects putt together.

• Belgium doesn’t have a language of its own, damn

Hmm, in a way they do.They lack one national language but on the otherhand and there is no Belgian languageOn the other hand German, Dutch and French were spoken there for centuries,so they have 3 national languages.

But I challenge you,

Could you create a mix between tact, while making it absolutly clear that it is totally wrong? Sander 20:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sander has added more personal attacks

Sandertje, I see that you have not returned the courtesy but instead have added more personal attacks. I am absolutely livid. This is totally unacceptable.

AvB ÷ talk 16:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear AvB,

How can I return something I did not receive in the first place?You haven't treated me with courtesy, you've only made semi-sarcastic remarks (one even triggered the personal attack warning on your talk page) and talked to others about me. Please refrain from these kind of remarks, unless you're really trying to provoke me into a fight.In that case, please warn me so that I can ignore you, I've chosen to avoid senseless fights,arguments or discussions from now on, I am/was hoping you'd do the same thing.

Sincerely Sander 17:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Return the courtesy referred to the fact that I walked away from the conflict. Instead of doing the same, you went in for the kill and added three or four additional attacks.
• Do you want me to document the five or six occasions where I tried to help you? One example: you did not even acknowledge my final advice before your rejected RfAr, let alone follw up on it. Among other things, I advised and urged you to recruit a tiebraker such as user:Ανδρέας. Believe me, he was the one you wanted. I was not even a party to that conflict, all I did was help things along when the Cabal mediator you had unilaterally called in had left you to fend for yourself. Did you ever ask yourself why that was? I regret stepping in and closing the mediation process for you. I now realize you did not appreciate it but took it personally, interpreting help as criticism.
• Don't be surprised to see people discuss with others what they see as personal attacks. It's what people do. It's how they get third opinions. I expect others whom I trust to chime in and correct me when they think they should.
• This is not about you or me, this is about an encyclopedia. You shouldn't take reversions personally. It's how this thing works. Your edits are bold and lack sources. That is not a problem when the editor expects to be reverted in a bold-revert-discuss cycle. It IS a problem when the editor does NOT accept reversions, does NOT initiate or accept the consensus process, and does NOT accept rules such as WP:NOR. You can make up your mind which type of edits you want to make. But right now you seem to prefer the latter type, which means you need to provide citations otherwise the edits will be removed over time. This is not a criticism, it is the best advice I have for you. In short: I urge you to abide by Wikipedia's WP:NOR rule.

I'll make another edit with another compromise re Flemish. I would advise you not to revert it under any circumstances, in order to avoid the appearance of WP:POINT. If my edit does not get consensus while I'm gone, let other editors revert it. Yep, I'm walking away from this article (again) and won't return for a week or so, if at all. And do not forget: all this nonsense started with ONE SINGLE WORD you were editwarring about while others were doing their very best to help you understand why that word is not allowed.

Apparently you don't consider such interventions help, you consider them criticisms, but you should realize what it is: help. You should thank others for their help, not attack them because you feel criticised. That is another considered opinion of mine about your contributions or lack thereof <wow, an English pronominal adverb!>. An opinion I will underpin with diffs and defend everywhere on Wikipedia should the need arise. You should take it seriously.

I am available to talk this over with you on IRC. I'm even available on the phone. Just let me know. AvB ÷ talk 23:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I completly fail to see the difference beween 'false' and 'not correct', as does the cambridge dictionary: [4] I will accept this compromise, which according to AvB is based on the Flemish (linguistics) article; ironicly an article which I myself wrote, in order to escape from this utterly futile discussion. Sander 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've listed the conflict here at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Delinking IPA

User Aeusoes1 has started systematically delinking IPA symbols from their formal description article. This destroys a lot of work done by other people. Before continuing, please discuss first at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(pronunciation)#Linking_single_IPA_symbols. −Woodstone 16:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to RfC

What we have here is a case of polysemy that can lead to the logical fallacy of equivocation, like Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks? This is a common problem in rhetorics that can be avoided by careful wording. The word Flemish as a synonym for Dutch is a colloquialism that is used in certain contexts in Belgium or by Belgians. This is not wrong, because it is actuall used in this way, so declaring this usage wrong would be prescriptive. When used in scientific nomenclature, the same word has usually a different meaning, namely a group of Dutch dialects. So I would propose the following:

Dutch spoken in Belgium is colloquially also referred to as Flemish (Vlaams), although this usage is not consistent with its definition in lingustics. For details, see Flemish (linguistics). Andreas 19:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree, the area where the colloquialsm in which "Dutch" and "Flemish" are synonyms is extremely limited.

Sander 20:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the proposal hereabove by Andreas. Andries 10:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Extremely limited"? The term exists not just in Dutch, but also in French, German, Danish, Norwegian, Russian, Spanish and Swedish. And, most importantly, in English. I assume that the distinction, which is hardly a recent invention, exists in most other European languages as well.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting quite irritated by your tone when adressing me Peter, I'm talking about synonymity.And that's when you went wrong.The languages/regions where "Flemish" and "Dutch" can be used interchangeably, ie "The people in Urecht speak Flemish", are extremely limited. Sander 14:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sandertje, you are distorting the discussion. The proposal is to state (quote from above) "Dutch spoken in Belgium is colloquially also referred to as Flemish". You cannot deny that that is very commonly done, even if you think it's incorrect. The preceding statement by Andreas "The word Flemish as a synonym for Dutch is a colloquialism that is used in certain contexts in Belgium or by Belgians", although not as clear, means essentially the same. It is not a straight synonym, but it is so in certain contexts. So please make clear why you object against the proposed phrasing, that continues to say: "although this usage is not consistent with its definition in lingustics". −Woodstone 17:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not denied that at all woodstone.I advise you to reread my comments. Sander 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be refusing all suggestions we make that don't contain the word "incorrect" (or the likes), Sander. Are you prepared to make any compromise on this particular issue?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am always prepared to make concessions, but there are limits.And the more convinced I get about being correct, the chance on concessions gets smaller. Sander 08:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sander, you have no concrete suggestions, no tenible arguments, no references and you still insist that your personal opinion has to be taken into consideration. I've changed the text to Andreas' suggestion (more or less) for now until you show any kind of support or consensus for your "incorrect"-wording. Please refrain from reverting.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? References?! I should have references for the word falsely?! I don't think so, I will continue to edit, revert and expand wikipedia and I don't care what or how you, or people like you, think about that.Thank you. adding: Your edit was reverted, because it makes it seem as if it's true, but not official. I support clarity on wikipedia. Sander 11:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That attitude won't get you very far. Flemish (linguistics) is pretty clear, as is the discussion above; I've tried to import some detail from the former in the hope of finding something that pleases everyone. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

English/Dutch/German examples

Hi all,

A close friend of mine who grew up in the netherlands and is a native speaker of dutch claims that one of the examples used in the "similarities" table for english/dutch/german is incorrect. She says that "tuin" is not a "town", but rather a garden and is neither correct nor a good example for similarity amongst these languages.

I propose removing this entry in the table. Because, although it is convenient to imagine that the Zaun/Tuin correspondence is legitimate, it is actually incorrect.

Lesotho 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lesotho,

I'm not sure what you mean, as in the current version of the table, it is clearly indicated that there has been a semantic shift between town/tuin/Zaun, with the proper meanings of today's languages mentioned.

So as we're not talking about similar words meaning the same thing in these three languages but only about "superficial" (better say phonological and/or phonetical) similarity, I do think that also this example is correct and illustrative for similarity amongst these languages.

(A different question would be if this table isn't misleading in that by putting English first, it looks like there was a semantic shift e.g. from the meaning of "scunthorpe" to that of "dorp"/"Dorf", whereas I would reckon that the German/Dutch meaning of these being "village" is the older, "less shifted" one. But as this table is not about explaining the topic of semantical shift but up to something else, I guess it's okay to leave it like that.)

Greetings, Edwing

Hi Edwing,

It seems I didn't read the section carefully enough. I now agree that the "point" of the table is to demonstrate the phonetical similarities. However, i certainly agree with your musings about how placing the english word in the first column of the chart might create a misleading scenario (clearly i was mislead...). Since this is the "english" wikipedia, many wikipedians might assume that the meanings of both the dutch and the german words are centered around the english meaning, which is neither true nor the point of the chart.

thanks for the clarification

cheers

Lesotho 17:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Consonant Clusters

Hi all, edited the section on "Dutch as a Foreign Language" to reflect the difference between orthography and phonology. Okay, e.g. phonetics and morphology would also be issues when counting the number of sounds (and thus consecutive consonants) in word of a certain language, but I guess it's allright like that, or would somebody disagree?

Edwing 13:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotes about the Dutch language

What does "transvesting" mean? Should this be "transversing", or is there some meaning in the word "transvesting"? If so, can this be noted with the citation.(83.118.38.37 17:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

Transvesting is apparently what transvestites do; that is, they cross a boundary line between identities that are culturally conceived as opposites. I have no objection to using grown-up words where they are appropriate, but in this case,

• The "quotation" isn't a quotation.
• Evem if you can suss out the definition of a word that's not in any dictionary, it isn't clear what is being said. What is the opposite of a Homer, anyway?
• Without the actual quotation, it's hard to tell it is being attributed to the right person and/or whether the characterization of the statement is reasonable. It's sorta like the punchline to the joke, "Well, it wasn't gold, it was sow bellies, and we didn't buy, we went short, and we didn't make $20,000,000, we lost $20,000, and it wasn't 1994, it was 1988, and it wasn't me, it was my brother - but other than that, I'd say you have it spot-on".

It's quite possible the gist of the jibe may be correct, and it's possible that with a little explanation, it would make a marvelous commentary on the language, but as it stands, it appears to be of questionable value to users as well as patently unverifiable. ClairSamoht 18:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether these quotes are notable at all. AvB ÷ talk 08:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty obvious they don't belong here. I think that on Wikipedia quotes sections are generally seen as a bad idea, better suited for Wikiquote. Would anyone object to moving this to Wikiquote? Junes 19:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest removing them. They are all pretty negative anyway, so the balance is off. The language is not that bad (sais the Dutchy) Arnoutf 20:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dutch is not a German dialect

While I agree with such statement, I think it might be debatable. Any thoughts? --Andrelvis

I begg you're pardon? debatable?! What is there to debate ? In fact, I dare to say that German has more chance of being a dialect of Dutch than the other way around.

No offence Andrelvis, but if you think this matter is debatable do you also think the statement "Latin is a French dialect" is debatable. Sander 20:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Although my experience of Wikipedia so far has been that it is essentially a surging, seething mass of parochial nationalism and racism, I have not so far encountered a Dutch nationalist. So, congratulations! I have removed the sentence claiming that Dutch can be considered to 'predate' German, as this is a thoroughly meaningless assertion. Dutch and German are members of the West Germanic branch of the Germanic language family - punkt/punt/full stop.

Why thank you.It's always a good thing to start unprejudiced don't you think? Dutch can be considered to predate High German, Dutch left the prehistoric fase in 476-496 High German,in the form of Allemanic didn't do so untill the early 6th century.

Then of course there is the fact that High German, as the name indicates, experienced the High German(ic) consonant shift and Dutch didn't, it remained.

So instead of basing thing arguments for your revert on nationalism try basing it on facts next time.Therefore it will be reverted again. Sander 09:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hee hee, being born and bred in Australia (see: Southern Hemisphere) I don't know exactly what form of 'nationalism' you're accusing me of here. I just get sick of reading biased, parochial (look it up, esp. see etymology), narrow-minded material on Wikipedia. However, you've vastly improved that section with your recent edit, addressing all of my concerns.

Dutch left the prehistoric fase in 476-496 High German,in the form of Allemanic didn't do so untill the early 6th century. Then of course there is the fact that High German, as the name indicates, experienced the High German(ic) consonant shift and Dutch didn't, it remained.

These arguments, however, are spurious and arbitrary. You're implying that Standard Dutch has a more ancient and noble history than Standard German, which is just silly. Every language has a history, no language has 'evolved' more than any other language in the last few thousand years. You're making irredentist claims to cultural capital. Colonel Mustard 09:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anything about standard dutch.But if you're going to deny the excistence of the high german consonant shift ... Sander 09:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would I do that? Anyway, I've removed the following passage to talk to discuss it further, because I'm not currently convinced by the labelling of a language as 'pre-historic'. Please explain what you mean by the 'prehistoric' phase of a language - were the morphemes fashioned out of the tusks of woolly mammoths, or what? Or do you mean this is when the language was first written down?

Dutch left the prehistoric phase in 476-496 when the Sallic law was written, containing a great number of Low Franconian words, and even a few sentences.

Colonel Mustard 04:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course do I mean the time when the language was first written down. Sander 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That would seem to be at odds with the paragraph following that one in the article, which states that Dutch was first recorded around 900 c.e., perhaps as late as 1100 c.e. - would you mind clarifying that? It doesn't read very well. It kind of implies that "Dutch" is the same language as Low Franconian. Colonel Mustard 12:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Classification and related languages

I have problems with the examples given to show that "Dutch is grammatically similar to German":

- The 'chameleon' example is very farfetched, the meaning of the sentence distracts too much from the subject in hand i.e. the similarity between Dutch and German word order and their difference from English word order.

- 'Op de berg staat een klein huisje' is a phrase you could possibly find in a fairy tale: Far, far away there is a mountain, shrouded in mist... On the mountain there is etc. The correct non-poetic Dutch phrase is 'Er staat een klein huisje op de berg', the word order of which, I'm afraid, is quite similar to English - the most interesting feature here being the staan/liggen/zitten verbs of position in Dutch (the book stands in the bookcase/lies on the table/sits in my pocket) which are less prominent in German and virtually absent in English - but that's another story and probably not fit for this Wikipedia article.

- 'In de stad leven veel mensen': there is a so-called anglicism in there: this example should at least be changed to 'In de stad wonen veel mensen' (and likewise 'wohnen', or even better 'gibt es', in the German sentence). This phrase may be tolerable purely as an example of Dutch/German word order, but in practice it does not exist, just like the little house on the mountain doesn't. 'In een stad wonen veel mensen' would be slightly more logical; it could be the childish answer to a child's question 'What is the difference between a village and a city?' But, more to the point, the real Dutch phrase would be 'Er wonen veel mensen in de/een stad'; which, at 'best', translates into German as 'Es gibt viele Menschen in der Stadt'. All of this rather undermines the point the example is trying to make.

It is true: there is a big difference between Dutch and German versus English word order within a sentence. (There are also significant, but smaller, differences in Dutch versus German word order.) But the Dutch example phrases given in the article are virtually non-existent in the real live language. I'd like to see that changed.

Rather than slashing into someone else's text I'd like to invite the original contributor to amend it; but I'd be happy to provide some examples myself.

What's the point of giving two German translations of the sentence about the chameleon? And the second one is even false: Chamäleon is of the neutral gender not the male. I will edit it out. Azzurro 03:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would opt to scrap this example. All your points are valid. I'll try to come up with an example of a sentence where the word order is radically different from English, although I can give you no guarantees since English and Dutch are also quite alike. Shinobu 03:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

PS When I said "all", I would like to put a conditional on your point about "Op de berg staat een klein huisje". While this particular example looks like it comes from a fairy tale, that's only due to it's content - constructions like that are perfectly normal. Consider this bit of some fictitious travel documentary show:

We staan nu aan de voet van de Klif van Rocamadour. Bovenop deze imposante klif staat een middeleeuws kasteel en diverse gebouwen lijken tegen de klif aan te leunen.

Perfectly normal, isn't it? Shinobu 04:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Names for Dutch

The Spanish version of Wikipedia calls the Dutch language "Idioma neerlandés", not holandés. Does somebody know what the official correct term is for "Dutch" in Spanish?

I believe neerlandés is the official form, but if (like in many other countries) holandes or similar is also used ... I think both should be in included. Sander 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Before the Dutch Revolt the synecdoche had a different form: the language was called (idioma) flamenco just as holandés nowdays. ---moyogo 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Scots language controversy

The Scots article acknowledges that there is debate about whether Scots should be considered a language or an English dialect. I believe that we should mention that here when we talk about the closest language to English. What do others think? A discussion here would be a lot more productive than an rv war in the article. David 16:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See my talkpage [5] Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

External Link Spamming

A few weeks ago, someone removed most of the links to dictionaries from the page and added the Cleanup-spam template. I had found the links quite useful, actually, even though I suspect some of it was spam. I am puzzled by the ones that remain. They are not particularly major dictionaries, and while the names imply they have a list of all dutch dictionaries, they don't. Unless there are objections, I will either create a list of the major useful Dutch and Dutch-English dictionaries or look for a comprehensive neutral list to link to on an external site and delete all but Wiktionary. Tono-bungay 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree the site woorden-boek.nl has more then 9000 Dutch words, and could be usefull for readers of this article. Also the vandale link should stay since it is the major dutch dictionary besides kramer.

Small remarks

Hi all, I have a few small remarks I wish to share:

1) Dialects: In Flanders, Antwerps is considered to be an important dialect as well. There used to be sitcoms in this dialect (Den Bompa), and there's still the Echt Antwaarps Theater, a well known theater group who performs in this dialect. Also, the last few years the city of Antwerp has used a pun on the dialect in it's public campaigns: the use of an A as it's symbol, which is also the local dialect for jij (you). So slogans like 'Zot van A' (Crazy about A) can be interpreted as Crazy about Antwerp / Crazy about you. Most recent example of a slogan is 'Het verdriet is van A' (The sorrow is yours / The sorrow is of Antwerp) after a tragic shooting.

I hope I won't get bashed for bringing up a Flemish dialect in a Dutch article, but since the other 4 were there, I thought Antwerps (or Antwaarps) was worth mentioning too.


2) Dutch as a foreign language: In Belgium, German is less widely spoken, and not always required, but it still spoken by a considerable number of people.
Well, German is an official Belgian language, and a part of Belgium (de oostkantons) which we got after one of the World Wars (... lack of history knowledge here, sorry) speaks German. Might want to mention it here. But maybe the title is wrong alltogether: Foreign languages for those who speak Dutch seems better fit for this section.


All thoughts on this are welcome :)
Ninja neko 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)