Talk:Dutch language/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Problems with the Map of Dutch Language

The map incorrectly paints entire countries such as South africa and namibia as africaans speaking. Unless someone has statistics showing a substantial percentage (may be 10%, 25% or even 50%) speak africaans in these countries this map goes. In order to paint carelessly entire countries, the statistics with correct references must be shown.

For instance references must be shown as to how many africans speakers are there as of 2005-2006. Any statistics older than 2000-2001 should not be included.

Suggestion: The yellow paint on african countries should be removed and replaced with one or two dots on those african countries for which there are references, otherwise this blatantly wrong depiction should not be reverted.

I strongtly suspect that not more than 5-10% of population in any of these african countries speak africaans even though they have colonial experience with holland. Their education system etc is all in their own languages and english is second most spoken language.

Your suspicion is wrong. Approximately 14 % of the South African population speak Afrikaans as their first language. In the Western Cape, the percentage of Afrikaans speakers exceeds 50 % and, in the Northern Cape, it is close to 70 %. We can safely say then that the western half of South Africa is majoritarily Afrikaans-speaking. Moreover, Afrikaans is a common second language in South Africa and the percentage of South Africans who can speak it is actually much higher than the percentage of native speakers only (cf. French in Canada). 161.24.19.82 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

TOO many random dots: I also have problems with too many dots in indonesia and australia. For greater accuracy each dot should represent a number.

For example one square should represent : 1 million or something like that. Dots or squares should not be too big so as to overwhelm the map itself. This can give erroneous view so that it may seem like a large percentage of people in indonesia speak dutch, but inreality less than 1% speak dutch. I suspect less than 0.1% (230,000) speak any dutch in indonesia.

Again, references should be provided.

Some suggestions on dots: I tend to think that unless at least 1% of population speaks a particular language there is no need to provide a dot. Otherwise we would have to provide dots all over the world, since in almost every country there may be dutch consulates, dutch tourists and dutch speaking native guides, etc etc, dutch business offices. _{unsigned edit 27 Oct 2006 02.00 by user:Samstayton}

Sounds like a reasonable argument; I would say that we might want to make two bands. Use an unsaturated (gray-ish-yellow) colour for regions (with reference) wherer Dutch speaking is between 25%-75% and the bright yellow where Dutch speaking is over 75%. _{(ps please sign your edits using ~~~~ )} Arnoutf 07:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 'ui'

From an English perspective : every Dutch person I have ever heard pronounces 'ui' as the English 'ou' in 'hour'. Jess Cully 23:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The only resemblance between sound of 'ui' in Dutch writing, and the sound of English 'hour' is the typical diphthong slide: their initial sounds are nearly as far apart as any two vowels can be, or say as 'sour' from 'sire'. The initial Dutch sound of 'ui' does not occur in any English dialect I ever heard. In dialects of Dutch in some areas (and in the standard Dutch spoken by most people from those areas), the sound for 'ui' is simply and only the vowel that elsewhere leads the diphthong. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-13 02:52 (UTC)

Jess: Your comment is welcome, but it cannot be mentioned in the article because it constitutes original research. According to Wikipedia policy, "articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position". So we have to stick to what is found in the textbooks.  Andreas   ^(T) 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As a Dutch native speaker who listens to English television programming quite often, I can assure u that the "ou" in en:"hour" and the "ui" in nl:"huis" sound nothing alike (apart from both being diphtongs). Shinobu 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jess, that's probably because you have grown up without ever hearing a Dutch 'ui' sound (I think research has indicated that between 3 and 6 months is an important age in this regard; it's probably on Wikipedia somewhere :-)), and apparently your brain perceives it as 'ou'. The Dutch have the same problem with some nuances of English pronunciation. – gpvos (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Shinobu, it is the very fact that you are a native Dutch-speaker that disqualifies you from asserting that the "ou" in en:"hour" and the "ui" in nl:"huis" sound nothing alike ...to a native English speaker [my addition]. Jesse's point was that to many, if not most, English English-speakers , they do sound very alike. He was talking about perception. My own explanation for this is that there are certain English dialects (particularly in the south Midlands and adjoining south-western areas of England) where "house" is pronounced very like "huis". (SomeHuman – The initial Dutch sound of 'ui' does not occur in any English dialect I ever heard – you clearly have not travelled much in, say, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Dorset.) When an English-speaker hears another English-speaker say "uit o' the tuin" (with near-Dutch ui), he automatically interprets this as "out of the town", so it is not surprising that he when he hears a Dutchman talk about his "huis", he hears (something "as near as dammit" to) "house". Dutch-speakers always seem to get very irritated whenever English-speakers make this connection (which is, after all, almost always an etymological one too): "What do you call that little brown animal in Dutch? – We call it a muis – Oh, so do we!". The shoe is on the other foot when English-speakers sometimes get exasperated by Dutch- (and especially German-) speakers who call the Rolling Stones a "bend" and their organized followers a "fen clap" (gpvos makes an important point here about the perception of the sounds of foreign langauages and the "smoothing-out" of nuances). --Picapica 11:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like ou in hour at all, I can't think now of an English word wich you pronounce with ui. But believe me the ou is more like the au in German 'sauerkraut'. 81.69.203.77 11:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Mallerd (a Dutch boy)

In Dutch spelling there are actually two versions for the ou as in hour diphtong: ou and au. They are pronounced the same way as in English (with local variants, about as much as in English). The 'ui' sound is a very different sound for Dutch-speaking people and they would immediately recognize the difference; so the original poster's statement would not be useful as a pronunciation guide, or as an indication of what the sound sounds like. The difficulty probably lies in the fact that the diphtong glides from an [œ] or [ɛ] to an [y] (a sound that corresponds to the 'uu' in 'buur'), a vowel that is completely absent from English. Isk s

To be honest I think English have to be very careful in adressing the Dutch sound; but also the other way around (I hear Dutchmen talking about a 'Hoovercreft'). The Dutch 'ou' and 'au' are much closer to the sound in 'town' or 'mouse' (no diphtong shift)compared to that in 'hour'. 'To our Dutch ears the 'ui' is however also very different from the 'ou' in 'hour' as we learn at school (but then again what we learn and hear is mainly BBC English alternated with American tv series), and I think the point above about the northern dialects is well made. Arnoutf 08:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The original example of 'hour' is indeed unfortunate because of the diphtong shift introduced by the r. However, I do think one can be too careful in comparing sounds and just because to some English speakers the 'ou' in some Northern dialects sounds close to what they hear as 'ui', that does not make it so. I must say that I never heard anything approaching the [ɛy] diphtong in any language other than Dutch (though presumably it's there in the ancient greek ɛυ like in λɛυκοσ). The same goes for 'ei/ij' [ɛi], by the way. To imagine what they sound like, the IPA charts do a pretty good job, anyway, even though they're not perfect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isk s (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Good question. I'm German, and I can say 'ui' sounds very close to öü. The combination of ö and ü is NOT found in German, but in some Saxon dialects the word Frau (= woman) is EXACTLY pronounced "fröü" and yes - don't laugh! - this DOES resemble the 'ui' in Dutch "buiten". Yes I am serious. -andy 80.129.116.55 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The ui sound can be found in French as well: the ending of "trompe l'oeil" sounds about the same. --Nazdrovje 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

AN versus ABN

The statement "Algemeen Nederlands replaced the older name Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands ('Common Civilized Dutch', abbreviated to ABN) which was no longer considered politically correct because it implied that people who didn't speak ABN were not civilized." is historically misleading: during the third quarter of the 20th century, mankind was still considered make-able (Dutch maakbaar) and it was a governmental task to educate people towards higher standards as were then relatively little disputed. The early decades of the still strictly official broadcast TV stations reflected the sociological and psychological viewpoints of the time, just a did the term 'Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands': there was a clear intention and one wished to state that much. The possibility to uplift the human race has become questioned if not entirely abandoned; the language on television, once maintaining civilized standards, became notably more colloquial or vulgar at numerous occasions. This constituted a new situation: there no longer was a difference in degree of expressing a civilized education between standard language and dialect speech. Thus still maintaining the term 'ABN' implied that using the standard language would be more civilized than using a dialect – which might never have been considered 'politically correct' and, if interpreted as such, might even have turned speakers of dialects away from ABN and this was never the intention at all. The renaming as 'AN' was clearly forced by actual changes in daily life, not as if 'ABN' might have been a badly chosen term that one afterwards wanted to correct. '[N]o longer considered politically correct' is in fact a POV statement, hiding the fact that one abandoned the earlier efforts to reeducate the people, such abandoning was not to be mentioned with that many words. My addition of a practical change in conjunction with the 'official' version, puts things in a NPOV perspective. Since all this has little to do with the Dutch language itself (a similar change of perception about governmental tasks and practical use of language on TV was seen in countries speaking other languages), I do not wish to elaborate inside the article but this must not be an excuse to allow masking the evolution that basically caused ABN to become AN. — SomeHuman 2006-07-22 11:25 (UTC)

Hi SomeHuman I see part of your point. Yes I think it is true that the maakbare mens (makeable human) illusion may have been a reason for focusing on ABN. And yes I think (and am glad) that this is no longer prominent. However your phrase: the language on television, once maintaining civilized standards, became notably more colloquial or vulgar at numerous occasions. Does too much credit to the efforts of last century. I think it is highly uncivilized to try to make mankind something it is not (well perhaps pushing a bit). So although I agree with the meaning the prhasing is a POV in itself (ascivilized has a positive connotation'and vulgar a negative one). I would rather say something like: the language on television, once enforcing and trying to stimulate use of ABN, has become notably more down to earth, and closer to differences in the spoken Dutch (or something like that).Arnoutf 12:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume my now entirely revised phrase meets your concern, though it no longer allows smoothly mentioning the controversy between standard language and dialects to this respect that had been worded as excuse for the name change. This name change now being properly digested, my current matter-of-fact phrase will most probably not be POV. — SomeHuman 2006-07-22 13:22 (UTC)

As one had already removed the entire phrase (including the part that had been in the article for a while), I reverted. The argument in the edit comment stated that the term 'ABN' was still being used. I wonder by whom. I do not see the term in relatively recent texts. People no longer need to take special care of not out-of-habit saying 'ABN' to avoid sounding out-of-date: now rarely abbreviated in speech, 'Algemeen Nederlands' comes quite naturally these days. But the existence of older texts makes it absolutely necessary to mention the earlier term in the article. — SomeHuman 2006-07-22 13:33 (UTC)

The above is in my view just rationalising the shift to a more politicly correct term. The actual variant of the language meant by the term has not changed. I certainly still have to pay special attention to avoid the term ABN in favour of AN. −Woodstone 16:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The political correctness of the term is a result of the political incorrectness of striving to reeducate people. That incorrectness is in turn a result of a) the declining confidence in the makeability of humans [stressed in my original point], and b) the disappearing of a generally accepted direction to which one might change people, in itself caused by the absence of a recognition of one or another culture as inherently 'superior' [as I interpret Arnoutf's expressed concern]. Tip: try not to think about an abbreviation and concentrate on 'Algemeen Nederlands', that way I think I've been doing well the last couple of years. Like it :-) or not :-( our 'Algemeen Nederlands' is here to stay. This does not prevent one's personal vocabulary to favour some behaviour in communicating ;-) — SomeHuman 2006-07-22 18:05 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm some kind of old sock (34 years old, native speaker of Dutch!), but I have rarely encountered the term "Algemeen Nederlands" or its abbreviation "AN." Instead, everyone I know (family, friends, etc.) uses "ABN" (though rarely the full phrase "Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands"). This discussion about "makeable man" I find little helpful (and not really on topic). I will not insist on a reversion to "ABN"--go ahead and use the term "AN" (never really heard or read it). But I would urge that the description of how ABN got replaced by AN be deleted because I consider this comment not NPOV. I would suggest something like "Nowadays, many Dutch-speaking scholars use the term "Algemeen Nederlands" (Standard Dutch) to refer to the standard language, replacing the earlier "Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands." Lufiend 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To my idea the change from ABN to AN is relatively recent. I think this issue should be treated on Dutch wiki, but I am not sure whether the history of the term is relevant for English wiki (except for Dutch readers of course, but should we write Eng Wiki for us Dutchies?).Arnoutf 06:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Map

[1] Is this map accurate? From what I understand, in the eastern Netherlands, they speak Low Saxon which is basically a form of Low German (Dutch is Low Franconian), while in Friesland they speak Friese... Ameise -- chat 15:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be accurate? It's the area in which Dutch is spoken, not which dialect or other language they might speak.Rex 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Fries nor Low German are dialects of Dutch, meaning that Dutch is not spoken in those areas, unless Dutch also happens to be spoken there? Ameise -- chat 15:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Right ... (IQ 128?!) let's do this one step at the time. Do you know what a standard and a national language are? Rex 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes I do. I fail to see the relevance, thoug. Ameise -- chat 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, this will save us a lot of time. Now, do you think you understand the concept of "bilingualism"? Rex 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

... the map emphasizes that Dutch is their -mother- language. Is it their mother language, or a second language to them? I could go and change the map of where English is spoken to every place where someone speaks it as a second language fluently, and make the whole globe whatever color. Ameise -- chat 00:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is how the map SHOULD be, IMO, if Friese and the Low Saxon dialects should even be painted: File:Smap.png

Frisian and Low Saxon are the mother tongue to a minority even in Frisia and the Eastern Netherlands; but even there children are raised bilingual (i.e. everyone learns to speak Dutch at a very young age). A larger proportion of the inhabants of these areas speak native Dutch; and have some command of the local language. Therefore your English suggestion does not go. Arnoutf 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to bother even answering that question, besides the fact that you just answered the very question I asked him in the first place. Ameise -- chat 12:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, according to the wikipedia Friese page, Friesian is the majority (albeit not by much) spoken language in Friesland. Ameise -- chat 13:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the image is nice, but that's how a dialectal map of the Netherlands ought to look like. The map in question simply gives the area in which Dutch is spoken natively. Rex 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The borders in the map on the main page aren't even accurate, though... as you can see with the borders on mine where I fixed them. Also, neither Friese

nor Low German are dialects of Dutch. Ameise -- chat 17:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you even read other peoples comments? Let me spell it out for you: T-h-e m-a-p i-s n-o-t a-b-o-u-t d-i-a-l-e-c-t-s. It's simply about where Dutch is spoken. Furthermore, your map is highly inaccurate towards Frisian. Rex 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, you are a very hostile person. Your map (the one you used in the first place) is highly inaccurate to land area and structure, so of course it is going to be inaccurate as per placement! Regardless, I disagree that Dutch is spoken where you colored; in some places it is not, and in others you simply didn't color. It -looks- like you just colored all of the Netherlands (because, you know, the borders of the Netherlands are perfect boundaries linguistically) and then Flanders. Ameise -- chat 21:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is the official language and tuaght to all junior high school kids in the Netherlands (even Frisia) and Flanders (and parts of Belgian brabant etc). The Low Saxon group is only acknowledged as a regional language recently and is really pretty minor even in its native areas compared to Dutch. So, some discussion about Frisian may be justified (although only about 50% speaks it natively in Frisia; and these are in vast majroity raised bilingual), but not for Low Saxon. There is some Dutch speaking across the border in Germany and Northern France, but you could argue whether that is truly the first language there (I think comparable to the Dutch Frisia relation there is a large minority speakng Dutch in these regions). So I think I would go with Rex' map. Arnoutf 07:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Sixtus 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not hostile. I'm just flabbergasted that a person with a supposably 128 IQ can't figure out what the map is about. The map is about where Dutch is spoken, and no matter what language or dialects they speak in the North or East of the country, they still all speak Dutch, which is more than can be said for Frisian and Low Saxon.Rex 07:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Since watching this map, why is only Europe shown? On the isles of St. Maarten, Aruba and more Dutch Antills is Dutch spoken, as well as in Surinam and South-Africa. Should these countries not also be added to the map? Amelie poulain 17:09, 1st January 2007 (UTC)

That map's a joke. "Light blue: secondary, non-official language"...since when's Dutch a secondary language in places like Greece, Romania etc? Just because it's an EU country? 172.158.182.49 18:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is one of the official EU languages, so yes that is the reason. Arnoutf 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Popular misconseptions

I really think that this section needs a cleanup, particularly the section which states that Dutch is not a dialect of German, an obvious fact wich doesn't need to be stated.CharlesMartel 23:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)CharlesMartel

Sadly, if you see the many revertions on especially that account it does not seem to be as obvious a fact as it is to you and me. The similarity between German and Germanic has a lot to answer for. Arnoutf 08:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, many laymen think of Germanic as the adjective form of German. Of course it's a fact Dutch isn't a German dialect but it's not that clear to everyone.Rex 14:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I just must say that I am proud German and coming from Germany. But when I just hearing the Hollandisch-Deutsch (ofa DUTCH) I know German when Im hearing it (even though Hollandish-Deutsch is not nearly as smartly spoken as regular German). C'mon Rex should you not stop worring about your little dialect of high German? Also Rex, I just must say you should just work on your English some, with just a little practice you will be speaking and transcribing English as well as me! Good Night good friend Rex!

Oh Ulritz, you're such a laugh.Rex 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the popular misconception that Dutch is really just a strange little mixture between German and English? Or perhaps that's the correct conception! Anyone that speaks German and English could read a Dutch newspaper. The only reason we can't speak it, is we can't quite manage that talking-whilst-gargling sound that typifies the pronunciation! As the Dutch seem to like the Brits more than the Germans (going as far as embracing darts...), don't you think Dutch will eventually become so Anglicised that it will properly be regarded as an English dialect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmcmurdo (talk • contribs)

Haha very funny - Of course everybody knows that German is just a Dutch dialect; and English just Dutch with a lot of Latin words. But no kidding; Spanish can Understand Portugese (and v.v.). French and Italians may also get the general gist. That is because these are Romance languages. In a similar way Dutch, Frisian, German, Danish, Swedish, Norse and Icelandic people may get the general meaning from each others text because they are all Germanic languages (I was in Norway recently and could actually understand most of the headlines in the local newspaper). (English although a Germanic language is a bit more complex due to Celtic, French (Normandy - william the conq.) influences.) That does not mean there are only two languages in Western Europe, it only menas there are two language families. Arnoutf 08:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

N not pronounced in Dutch '-en' plural ending

In the Dutch language article I read that the N in the plural ending '-en' is often not pronounced except in a few areas of the Netherlands, whereas this seems to be wrong. I am not a native Dutch, but I have been corrected by a Dutch speaker when I tried that. Besides, this Dutch speaker was not from either of the areas mentioned so I would assume you always have to pronounce '-en' fully. Luca 11:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am from one of the areas mentioned (west-flanders) and it is true that we pronounce the final "n" but not the "e" so we pronounce "werken" not as "werke" but rather as "werkn". So at least that part of the article is true. And as far as I know, in standard-dutch in the Netherlands the final "n" is indeed dropped in pronunciation. However in standard-dutch in Belgium (for example what you would hear on VRT news broadcasts) the final "n" is often pronounced. I think either way of pronouncing is allowed.--80.201.214.141 00:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am from The Hague/Leiden and speak a fairly neutral form of "Algemeen Nederlands", in which final <n> is NEVER pronounced after shwa, maybe with the exception of short words like <regen> and <toren>, and sometimes the first <n> in the name of our PM <balkenende>, which is omitted by many speakers. Advice to foreign learners of Dutch: always drop your final <n>! Homun 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Another native Dutch here, and this is what I learned/read/heared: the behaviour of the final n after a schwa is much like the r after any vowel in British English. It is usually dropped, except when the next word or syllable starts with a vowel (to make a more fluid connection between words - like Balkenende, Balke-ende would sound like an interruption of speech). As the article states, in the northeast and southwest the n is indeed pronounced, which is also allowed and correct (or at least, not incorrect). Moreover, in norteastern Netherlands the schwa is dropped and in case there is a plosive before the schwa, that will be pronounced as a stop. For example: in "lopen", the p will be a bilabial stop, followed by an m (yes, an m, because the lips are already sealed). 82.217.206.98 23:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think all of this is bullshit. The dialects of some areas - including Leiden - are immaterial. Some dialects (especially in the urbanized regions to the west) drop the "n" consistently and turn -en into -e, and other dialects (especially associated to rural areas) drop the "e" and say -n. Most of the times dropping "n", however, is just bad pronounciation and confined to low social levels. Responsable parents tend to correct their children and make them pronounce -en, like it should be. Agreed, sometimes you'll hardly hear the "n", even so this is very different from dropping "n" altogether. Rokus01 20:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Etymology Dutch and German

Recently there has been some reversion about Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry where in the early twenthieth century one of the students states he is studying Dutch (apparently meaning German, although I am not sure whether it is not actually Dutch as I don't know the novel, but assuming good faith the mix up may be genuine). however the claim made in the article that the etymological confusion remains untill that time seems a bit far fetched. It looks more to me that the confusion stems from the Deutsch(=German)-Dutch similarity rather then historically; so it has no place there. If this is not the case, the section attributing that to etymology is original research (or alternatively a reference has to be provided). Summarised: Without referenced evidence the confusion was etymological rather then based on similar sound the section should not be here. Therefore I took it out. Arnoutf 19:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen.Rex 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Rex this kind of gloating is not productive, the original addition was (most likely) honest, therefore you taking it out before without a good summary/argument here was not warranted. Writing a good rationale why you do something has multiple benefits first of all, it prevents edit wars. Second and also very important, it explains to an editor who did something in good faith why his/her edit was changed (ie, it does not unnecessarily disappoint a potentially valuable contributor); and of course it is just the decent thing to do if you throw out someone else's stuff to say why. Arnoutf 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't gloating, you simply said exactly what I was thinking (but forgot to write down) when I removed the line ... It's very probable that User:Ulritz tried to irritate me by reverting (m) but that wasn't the reason for the amen remark. Rex 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ok fair enough, but if I misread you, others may also do that and form an incorrect opinion of your motivations. Arnoutf 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Next time I won't forget a summary or talkpage note.Rex 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Frisian Middle English

Hello, could someone maybe put in the article that Frisian is close to Middle English (...) mainly because they were one of the tribes that along with the Saxons and Angles invaded England? Don't know the years right now but still. 81.69.203.77 11:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Mallerd

Why would one add that to the article concerning the Dutch language?Rex 16:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaker figures

When checking Ethnologue and the info at Nederlandse Taalunie the number of speakers seems to be at most 22 million. Where did we get the extra 4 million from?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Expanded lead

I've made an attempt to provide a summary appropriate to an article of this size as WP:LEAD. I know there was a lot controversy about the description of Flemish in a previous version of the lead, which was then reduced to just a single sentence, and I hope we'll try to avoid the pushy proscriptions ("incorrect" usage) and completely redundant fact statements ("All dialects of Dutch are considered to be the same language").

Peter ^Isotalo 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek

Does the grammer section really need the overly detailed Star Trek reference? I know some people try to work Star Trek, Star Wars or anime into everything, but I don't really think it's needed here. 85.210.18.247 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a good pointer. In fact, we shouldn't have an example taken from any sci-fi show. It should be replaced with something that is more familiar to most audiences.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Relation

It is closely related to German and also the North Germanic languages, and has some linguistic connections with English.

Since English is also a West-Germanic language I'd say that Dutch has more linguistic connections with English than with the North Germanic languages... Can someone clearify this? --Dionysos1 08:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know (mind you I am not a linguist so correct me if I am wrong), English is a bit of an odd-one out as it has more extensive influences from Gaelic, from Nordic (Vikings), from French and Latin compared to Dutch or German. So although English can be classified as a W. Germanic language it contains many other influences. Hence the relation between English and other Germanic languages maybe less clear than one may expect. Arnoutf 09:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What Arnnoutf says is mostly true, except English wasn't influenced much at all by Gaelic.Cameron Nedland 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Map

Why is the whole EU highlighted? Yes, Dutch is an official language of the EU, that doesn't mean it is official in all the individual countries of the EU, from Ireland to Bulgaria!--Methodius 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we also color the whole EU then in the English, Spanish, French, German, and Portuguese maps ? Aren't those languages also official EU languages ? That is obviously ridiculous! Furthermore, Dutch is not a significant "secondary language" in Indonesia and South Africa. South Africans speak Afrikaans, which, although tracing its origins to the Cape Dutch dialect, is nowadays a separate language, with a different grammar, spelling, and vocabulary. As for Indonesia, the Dutch language is practically extinct there. Please fix the map colors before they cause further damage to the Wikipedia's reputation.

PS: Just to illustrate, the two paragraphs below (about the Dutch occupation of Brazil in the 17th century) have been copied respectively from the Dutch and the Afrikaans Wikipedia. The Afrikaans version is a close one-to-one translation of the original Dutch text. Although there is mutual intelligibility, the differences between the two languages, especially in grammar, are quite obvious even to an untrained observer.

Standard Dutch: De Nederlanders bleven tijdens hun krappe 24 jaar van heerschappij over de Braziliaanse noordkust een minderheid. Hierdoor ontstond een klein evenwicht tussen de Hollandse protestantse bestuurselite en de Portugese katholieke landadel. Uiteraard waren de Hollandse calvinisten niet populair onder de Portugese katholieken. Dit leidde tot verschillende zeer bloedige opstanden die vanuit Zuid-Brazilië ondersteund werden. Tot 1640 was Portugal verenigd met Spanje. Dat jaar ondersteunde de Republiek Portugals onafhankelijkheidstrijd en men poogde met de nieuwe bondgenoten in Brazilië tot een modus vivendi te komen. Toen Johan Maurits echter verdwenen was, liepen de spanningen hoog op. In 1645 kwam het tot een algemene opstand die het begin vormde van een moorddadige jungleoorlog. In 1647 werd na de dood van Joost van Trappen Banckert viceadmiraal Witte de With met een vloot naar de kolonie gezonden maar hij verzette zich tegen het plan van de Raad van Brazilië zijn matrozen als landsoldaten in te zetten. In 1649 leden de Nederlanders verschillende zware nederlagen en met moeite werd voorkomen dat de hele kolonie verloren ging.

Afrikaans:Die Nederlanders het tydens hulle 24 jaar van heerskappy oor die Brasiliaanse noordkus ‘n minderheid gebly. As gevolg hiervan het ‘n ongemaklike ewewig ontstaan tussen die Hollandse protestantse bestuurselite en die Portugese katolieke landadel. Uiteraard was die Hollandse calviniste nie populêr onder die Portugese katolieke nie. Dit lei tot verskeie bloedige opstande wat vanuit Suid-Brasilië ondersteun is. Tot 1640 was Portugal verenig met Spanje. Die Republiek van die Sewe Verenigde Nederlande het Portugal se onafhanklikheidstryd met Spanje gesteun en hulle het gepoog om met die nuwe bondgenote in Brasilië tot ‘n verstandhouding te kom. Nadat die gewilde Johan Maurits egter vertrek het, het die spanning begin oplaai. In 1645 lei dit tot ‘n algemene opstand wat begin oorgaan het in ‘n moorddadige bosoorlog. In 1647, na die dood van admiraal Joost van Trappen Banckert, word vise-admiraal Witte de With met ‘n vloot na die kolonie gestuur, maar hy het hom verset teen die plan van die Raad van Brasilië om sy matrose as landsoldate aan te wend. In 1649 ly die Nederlanders verie dood vaskeie swaar nederlae en met moeite word voorkom dat die hele kolonie verlore gaan.

200.177.193.47 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Most Common dutch people language mistakes

i have found a common mistake made by a high majority of dutch people, the error is u hebt instead of u heeft. (i am dutch) and think this mistake should end, as i find it highly disturbing as almost everyone with high and low education does it these days which is scary -- Markthemac13:52, 26 may 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss use of the Dutch language (IMHO a language is a living evolving thing). Arnoutf 13:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Consult Renkema's Schrijfwijzer, the ANS and other language guides. If I recall correctly, they state that both forms are allowed nowadays, even though historically the third person 'should' be used. The Taalunie apparently permits both, as in this example. Iblardi 16:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

'Sjawl'

Is this really an English word, or just a misspelling of "shawl"? FilipeS 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that it is the Dutch respelling of the English word "shawl".Cameron Nedland 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 'a'

[ɐ] (a near-open central vowel) is an allophone of unstressed /a/ and /ɑ/.

I suspect that what the writer meant was that [ɐ] is an unstressed allophone of /a/ and /ɑ/. FilipeS 22:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A chart

English	Frisian	Low Saxon	Dutch	High-German	Remark
eat cat town	ite kat tún (1)	eten Katt Tuun (3)	eet (singular 1st person ('ik eet', 'I eat'/'I'm eating'), 'eten' is 'to eat') kat tuin (1)	essen Katze Zaun (2)	English, Frisian, Low Saxon and Dutch have kept Germanic t; German has shifted t to [s] or [ts]
apple pipe thorpe	appel piip terp (4)	Appel Piep Dörp	appel pijp dorp (5)	Apfel Pfeife Dorf (5)	English, Frisian, Low Saxon and Dutch have kept Germanic p; German has shifted p to [f] or [pf]
think through thorn	tinke troch toarne	denken ~ denken dör(ch) Doorn	denken door doorn	denken durch Dorn	English has kept Germanic þ; Frisian has shifted þ to [t], Low Saxon, Dutch and German have shifted þ to [d]
there brother	dêr broer	daar Breuder ~ Breur	daar broeder ~ broer	da Bruder	English has kept Germanic ð; Frisian, Low Saxon and Dutch shifted to ð to [d] or deleted it between vowels; German shifted ð to [d]
yesterday yarn day	juster jern dei	gistern ~ gestern Garn Dag	gisteren garen dag	gestern Garn Tag	Dutch has shifted Germanic g to the velar fricatives [ɣ] and [x], but retained the spelling with <g> and thus at least a visual similarity to German; English and Frisian have shifted g to [j] before palatal vowels
church make	tsjerke meitsje	Karke mehken	kerk maken	Kirche machen	English and Frisian shifted k to [tʃ] before palatal vowels, Low Saxon, Dutch retained Germanic k, German shifted k to [x] or [ç] when it was not in initial position

See also High German consonant shift. Note semantic shifts: 1. 'garden'; 2. 'fence'; 3. 'garden' in northwestern dialects, 'fence' elsewhere; 4 .'hill' 5. 'village'

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex Germanus (talk • contribs) 12:36, 30 December 2006‎ (UTC)

<l>

Is <l> velarized in final position like in English?Cameron Nedland 22:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is. Iblardi 22:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Cameron Nedland 06:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Except in Belgian Dutch. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

IJssel etc

• Could someone say something here, and in the article, about the practice of spelling words like IJssel with a double capital? This strikes many English-speakers as peculiar and needs an explanation. Why not just write Yssel which I gather is the old spelling and seems more logical.

       Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IJ_%28digraph%29

• Also I am currently reading Jonathan Israel's The Dutch Republic, and I notice he consistently puts a stop after the letters -sz at the end of personal names. I have never seen this before. Can someone explain it?
• Something might also be said about what seems to be a long tradition of latinising Dutch names, eg de Groot = Grotius. Intelligent Mr Toad 18:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

sz- is a short version of "son of", if your name was Janszoon(Jan's son) it became Jansz after a couple of years.

I can answer your second question: the period is there to indicate that the surname is an abridged form (for instance Gerritsz. voor Gerritszoon). I am not sure what the official guidelines are, and whether or not this spelling is optional. As for the Latinised names, that was common international practice for centuries with authors who wrote in Latin (see names like Albertus Magnus, Nicolaus Copernicus etc.). It is not restricted to the Netherlands. Iblardi 18:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes it was a practice everywhere, but it seems to have been more common in the Netherlands, and I get the impression that it is still done. Intelligent Mr Toad 18:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your observation may be partly right. The "active" Latinising isn't done anymore, but there is indeed still a group of fixed names which were Latinised at some point in the past, such as Winsemius, Nauta ("sailor"), Nolthenius, Couperus and the like. Iblardi 18:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To you first question. The double capital IJ is not a double capital at all but a Dutch specific digraph. It is not the same as the Y, hence you cannot replace the IJ in IJssel with an Y. In older Dutch typewriters the IJ/ij was a single character. It may look particular (try to get it through a spelling checker) but it is just as it is; there is no alternative spelling. Arnoutf 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The article should explain that. Intelligent Mr Toad 08:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Y is only used in loanwords. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that at one time Dutch used both ij and y but that today's Dutch has settled for ij, while Afrikaans has settled for y. Booshank 20:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Error on map?

On the map that shows where Dutch is spoken in significant numbers There is a green marker that looks to be on South Central Pennsylvania. This would be incorrect because it is a dialect of German that is spoken in South Central PA not Dutch, although the misnomer "Pennsylvania Dutch" would say else wise. The Dutch vs Deutsch really is a common misconception, which is what lead to the misplacement of the marker on the map. So in short this map should not be used and should be replaced with a better one.4.238.155.113 01:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this marker is not that inaccurate, because it might refer not to Pennsylvania, but to Upstate New York (Albany, a.o.) and New Jersey, where remains a of a Dutch pidgin had existed at least up to 1945. Today, however, this variety could be completely extinct overthere. See Jersey Dutch for more on this dialect. Ad43 12:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Belgium Section

This section seems very POV and I feel like it reads like an argument for Flemish politics/ language. I think it can be cleaned up some, but wanted to discuss it here first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.140.93 (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it is not about the language but about the problem in Belgium. Arnoutf 19:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree also, it's no more about linguistics but about politics of Belgium and the languages dispute there, this section should include things related only to Flemish as a variant of dutch in Belgium and not as a national identity. Ok to change. Bestofmed 01:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the section some. If some one could review it and make any other needed changes, that would be great. Tnxman307 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And I've just added a very trustworthy reference in the blamed editor's case. Ad43 06:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Map

The map on this page is ridiculously exaggerated. Saying that Dutch is a 'less important' language in Japan and the DRC is almost hilarious. Also people in the Rhineland do not speak Dutch and the language is only of minor importance in Indonesia. No one speaks it there, only some history and law students need to learn it. In my humble opinion this map was based on very, very, very, very wishful thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.175.70 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes the map is woeful. The inclusion of Japan in the map must be inspired by the fact that Dutch merchants were allowed to establish a small colony in Nagasaki several centuries ago. I believe that a small Japanese/Dutch dictionary was compiled (but I have no sources to confirm this information). Augusta2 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems as if the designer of this map had in mind not so much the Total situation of Dutch (Low Franconian), including native speakers, users as colonial language and school language, but rather All countries where Dutch is used, has ever been used or played a certain role whatsoever. And if this is were his real objective, he could even have included the Dutch colonies in the 17th century, as there were New Amsterdam (aka New York) and in Bresil (Recife, Olinda). Ad43 (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, the map is ridiculous and only serves to lower the quality of an otherwise good article. "Less important colonial language" has to be some sad new record in original research, and marking Afrikaans as Dutch on the main map is alsp a bit strange. As no-one has spoken for the map, I'm removing it. JdeJ (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Immigrant language

Dutch is an immigrant language in U.S.A, Brazil, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

How about South Africa? Mallerd 14:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely different issue. While during the colonial age the Dutch had colonies in (current) US and Australia, the main immigration in all these countries is 20th century. Afrikaans is an official language of South Africa; descending from the Dutch colonial settlers in the region pre 1800.Arnoutf 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong here, but I know that is the case. I was unclear, sorry for that, but I was referring to the migration of Dutch people to South Africa. I hear many stories of people and their families moving to South Africa. So I was wondering how much Dutch is actually spoken in South Africa. Mallerd 21:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are still quite a lot people in South Africa who still speak Dutch, I know a few who never became fluent in Afrikaans(nor English) but they had a lot Afrikaans friends and they talked some mixed language. But at home they all still spoke Dutch(in Canada and New Zealand they talked more English at home).

This is not really a non-issue. In the 50's the numbers of Dutch immigrants were so high, that the possibility existed of a new, more modern Dutch variety of Afrikaans. Yet, such a mixed language didn't come out. At last all Dutch immigrants got absorbed into and assimilated to Afrikaans, as it should be. Ad43 07:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay :-)

P.S. as it should be? Mallerd 07:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean, this proved that Afrikaans could sufficiently stand on its own feet and that it really deserved to be recognised as a language of its own, in stead of some kind of corrupted Dutch or kitchen Dutch. Ad43 07:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I see, but I don't believe that Dutch speakers were planning to make Dutch the official language of South Africa. I was just pointing out that there were/are many Dutch immigrants in South Africa and I was wondering if that was notable for this article ;) Mallerd 09:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I never meant it was a non-issue (although my wording may have implied different). The argument above about Afrikaans being a stable stand-alone language - and the new wave of Dutch immigrants assimilating, was basically what I meant. In that regard it is a completely different issue from the other mentioned territories. In any case I think, the South African situation is unique, and deserves more/different attention from the more "common" immigration destinations. Arnoutf 10:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting here is also, that many Dutch speaking immigrants now at first use English to get understood. Only after a long presence there one is able to communicate using Dutch to people speaking Afrikaans and vice versa. Mutually using English is usually far more convenient. Ad43 11:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone provide actual evidence for the claim that in the 1950s high levels of Dutch immigration to South Africa briefly endangered the distinction between Afrikaans and Dutch? Lex3000

I think this has never been more than a very theoretic possibility. For comparable reasons a lot of people in the Netherlands fear that their language will be subordinated to English on the long run, while most experts foresee 'at worst' a form of switch-on/off bilingualism in the future, as we can observe already in some Scandinavian countries. Ad43 (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there reasons for keeping this then? It's little more than historical speculation and the hybrid Afrikaans-Dutch language which theoretically could have evolved had this happened would still have been recognisable as a language of Dutch descent, which we know Afrikaans is anyway. Lex3000 —Preceding comment was added at 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly it could be rephrased a little. At least, three interesting points are:

• 1. Emigration numbers from the Netherlands were that high partly because of the close relationship between the two languages.
• 2. In no other immigration country a comparable chance of any more lasting influence from Dutch could have been that high.
• 3. This influx came too late to really influence Afrikaans. E.g. a century of half a century a earlier, its impact could have been more substantial. Ad43 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands and Belgian Sections

What's with the Netherlands section? it's full of errors, and i don't even know what the editor was trying to say so i can't fix it. --Nodoubt9203 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Same with the Belgian section. Looks like a learner of English has decided to rewrite large parts. As well as the grammar, the info in the Belgian section is also incorrect. Maybe it would be easiest to revert all the recent edits and go back to the last decent version. (To the person learning English, if you read this, I don't mean to offend, but we do have to maintain the writing standards of Wikipedia.) --Gronky 16:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not the editor of those parts, but I regard these criticisms as both too harsh and too cheap. To simply cancel these additions would be less fair. You better demonstrate your objections by carefully and prudently correcting the additions concerned. Ad43 08:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the Belgium section. Aside from the language, I doubt a lot of the content. The Flemish being famous among the French for their language pride? 25% of Brussels population speaks Dutch? I agree with the "most of the inhabitants are bilingual", but it forgets to mention that their second language is English or Arabic at least as often as it's Dutch (to the extent that we're talking about second languages that people speak well).

Flemish people have told me that even the police and the train station staff often don't speak good Dutch in Brussels. Keep in mind that many in Brussels are neither native French nor Dutch speakers - up to 30% according to author Alain Maskens. As for the Wallonia section, half of that info seems off-topic in an article about the Dutch language, but maybe that's just me.

If someone wrote a stunningly insightful, well-reference section with grammatical faults, I'd jump in to help, but that's not the case here. --Gronky 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I've just given my humble help to get these poor sections somewhat repaired and improved, but still rather superficially. Might this be a first step trying to meet your high standards? You're welcome. Ad43 22:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you want to avoid discouraging this new contributor. I can understand that, but I think you may be going too far and your approach may backfire. By tolerating a significant drop in the standards of the article, you might avoid offending this one new contributor, but when others see an article with incomprehensible sections, they will be less likely to bother contributing.

So, how many other potential contributors is it worth sacrificing for this one? I see another person has now complained about the factuality of that editor's contributions too now. --Gronky 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two things. One is helping a new editors becoming a better editor; and exerienced editors are in general causing less troubles once they learn norms and values of the Wiki project. I hope Ad43 will succeed here. It is another thing if this editor is not accepting any changes to his/her edits and becomes a stubborn POV pusher. Assumig good faith I think the first is more likely ;-) Arnoutf 19:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are also some expressions which are not scientific or informative in nature such as saying: "In comparison with the Dutch, the Flemish people are remarkably proud of their language"; this is not rational at all. Also I do not see any usefulness in telling the readers about the BHV political problem (it has its own article on Wikipedia). The same thing applies to the municipalities problems!! I think the section needs a new rewrite here and the editor who added the information can add all these language disputes (Flemish being remarkably proud of their language than the Dutch people + Belgium politically linguistic divisions) to another article and put it in the see also section. If I am not wrong, there's an article about Flemish identity where we can talk about it. Bestofmed 02:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think for the context there may be something of interest in the pride, especially as the Flemish tend to use much fewer loanwords compared to the Dutch; if this is indeed the consequence of being proud of the language this has an effect on the language itself, and is hence relevant. Of course references should be provided. Arnoutf 09:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Spot on, Arnoutf, the Flemings are much more puristic in their usage of the language. They still are in the defense, whereas the Dutch paradoxically show more self esteem in this respect. (This is a deep one!) Ad43 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Flemish use fewer loan words? That's backwards. Flemish is peppered with "tja" (fr:tien), "ça va", "salut", "ik ben content", "fa" (fr:fin or enfin), and plenty of others that I just can't remember right now. They do reject some French words in written contexts, such as "entrée" (used in the Netherlands) where they say "ingang". That may be because they don't want to lose out on having their language written above the door, but in general usage of the language, my experience has been that they use more French load words than the Dutch do. --Gronky (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Update: and "allez". Every conversation includes an "allez" or two. --Gronky (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Other striking examples in spoken Flemish are dégoûtant and embêtant, but I don't know if this is quantifiable. More interesting perhaps is the influence of French on grammar, as exemplified by the well-known cases where the preposition aan is used as a direct translation of French à (whereas the standard language would use voor or met, depending on the situation). Iblardi (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether this cosy little chat is going somewhere, though. Iblardi (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what you might find off-topic. We're discussing Wikipedia's info about the Dutch language. Specifically, we have one or two people claiming that in Flanders, the Dutch language is "purer" than in the Netherlands, and we have one or two people arguing the opposite. --Gronky (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would probably be correct to say that on the one hand spoken Flemish is more heavily influenced by French than the version of the language spoken in the Netherlands, while on the other hand there appears to be some puritanism (if it should indeed be interpreted as such) in Belgian Dutch regarding the pronunciation of certain French loanwords, such as dossier (pronounced as ìf it were a Dutch word), bureel (for bureau) and probably many other words of that kind. Iblardi (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Deutsch

"It would be a mistake for an English speaker to assume a direct similarity for the words Dutch and 'Deutsch'". I've no idea what the term "direct similarity" means, but the terms "Dutch" and "Deutsch" DO have a common origin. Moreover, in the past, the term "Dutch" used to be used with reference to Germany. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology says that "Dutch" was first used to mean "German" in the 14th century, and was only later restricted to the sense "pert. to the people of Holland" (16th century). The Middle Dutch word "dutsch", from which our word "Dutch" is taken, could mean "Dutch" OR "German". 86.134.10.71 (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

All fine and true, but the historic and etymologic roots are less relevant than the sharp distinction in usage that exists since centuries. Dutch and German are sister languages. This fact is well reflected in the very existence of both terms. Ad43 (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the statement it would be a mistake for an English speaker to assume a direct similarity for the words Dutch and 'Deutsch' is wooden and unclear English (the writer does not appear to know what the English word "similarity" means -- it does not mean "equivalence" but "appearing or being almost, but not exactly, the same"). I am totally aware that "Dutch" and "Deutsch" do not mean the same thing: I am also perfetly entitled, as an English-speaker, to observe that the words are indeed very similar in both sound and appearance. The whole paragraph needs re-writing. -- Picapica (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the style maybe improved (but not the concepts). I had a go at it, feel free to amend. Arnoutf (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section, retaining the "concepts" (I hope you will agree, Arnoutf) while adding some further information and attempting to lose the rather haughty tone of "it would be a mistake for an English speaker to assume..." etc. -- Picapica (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of AN

http://taalschrift.org/reportage/000659.html Here you can read that AN was based on Southern Dialect to a very small degree. This is why I have added as "citation needed"-thingy in the section about Flanders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.220.208 (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Contemporary" map

I would suggest that the map currently displayed in the article is somewhat ridiculous, not least in suggesting that Dutch is NOT the chief language of such towns as Zwolle, Deventer, and Zutphen (as opposed to, say, Düsseldorf and Duisburg). The map (which claims to show the "Contemporary continental [...] Dutch language area") is in fact a depiction not of the distribution of modern Nederlands but of the Niederfränkisches Sprachgebiet (Low Franconian language area): not the same thing at all... -- Picapica (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is a historical map of Low Franconian. Arnoutf (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Dutch vocabulary is predominantly Germanic in origin, considerably more so than English. "

How was that arrived at? Sounds made up. Was the corpus the entire Oxford English dictionary??? Needs citation otherwise POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.123.170 (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

number of speakers

For the moment the article claims that there are 30.000.000 native Dutch speakers, counting the 23 million native Dutch speakers together with the 7 million native Afrikaans speakers. This is wrong, Afrikaans is not Dutch, it's similar to Dutch, you will understand it if you speak Dutch but it IS not Dutch, it's a separate language. I'm going to change the figures, if you disagree please say so here. --Lamadude (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really going to argue but its easier to understand than some dialects. (Red4tribe (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

That doesn't really matter... those speakers of dialects can still speak Dutch if they want to, and can write sentences in perfectly good standard Dutch, Afrikaans speakers won't be able to do that. Norwegians and Swedes can talk with each other as well, but they're still different standard languages. --Lamadude (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Afrikaans, while being very similar to Dutch especially in the written form is very different when spoken and myself and many others cannot easily converse with Dutch people without eventually resorting to English as a medium of communication. So Afrikaans should not be added to the tally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.102 (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in my experience (as a flemish-dutch speaker) it's not necessary to switch to English to converse with Afrikaans speaking people, but I definately agree that it's a different language and Afrikaans speakers shouldn't be counted together with Dutch speakers. --81.164.90.41 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Netherlandic

Netherlandic is not a term for the Dutch language. Netherlandic is an adjective for of the "Netherlands", a country. It has seen limited use by some English scolars, but in that field it is a term that encompasses Dutch and Afrikaans. Britannica oddly does have an article called Netherlandic, but at the same time does not use Netherlandic in any of its other articles. The language of Belgium and the Netherlands is noted as Dutch. Furthermore a google search results into the following: 1.140.000 for Dutch language, 1.500 for Netherlandic language (most are links to Brittanica) thus for every page that uses "Netherlandic" there are 7427 pages that use "Dutch". A minor mentioning that some scolars use Netherlandic is possible but posing it as a well accepted all used synonym is not.HP1740-B (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree Netherlandic is not in colloquial use, it is indeed a term for the Dutch language as Encyclopedia Britannica] reports. So to be honest there is a problem with above arguments. Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No there isn't.HP1740-B (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me..... I have provided a reliable source that EXPLICITLY states that Netherlandic IS a term for the Dutch language, and an argument by HP1740-B who EXPLICITLY states that Netherlandic IS NOT a term for the Dutch language. How can you say that there is not a problem in the arguments? Arnoutf (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well. You having one source doesn't that mean there is a problem with my arguments. Which I also base on sources, among them Britannica. It's a matter of assessing the most reliable, accurate source. Britannic can, and has been proven to, be wrong too. Britannica has only one article that uses Netherlandic, not just as a title but as a word. At the same time I bring forward the overwhelming use of Dutch, scientific use of Netherlandic and provided a possible solution. Also, the oxford dictionary uses Dutch, and doesn't have an entry called Netherlandic, hence it's not even acknowledged as a word. Furthermore I have the support/agreement of other users on this page. Given this, you having a (singule) source that happens to be the only one that claims it's thé word for Dutch ... doesn't look like a problem to me.HP1740-B (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A search on Google Books turns up several instances which suggest that "Netherlandic language" is used as a synonym of "Dutch language". Here we have a NEB article mentioning the word otherwise than as a title: [2]. Your own suggestion needs to be corroborated with sources. I reverted your edit because it directly contradicted what was explicitly stated in the EB article, which is normally fine to use as a source. The expression may not be widely used, and maybe it should rather be put between parentheses or even made into a footnote, but as it is now it looks as if you're discarding an often-used source only on the base of your opinion. You keep talking about sources you have; fine, but if you want your proposals to be accepted you should show those sources yourself instead of laying the burden of proof on other people and expect them to go and look for them. Iblardi (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You should have made your reasons for reinstalling "Netherlandic" clear in the edit summary, instead of being rude and letting others guess your motives. My sources:

• Google search, proving the <0,01% use of Netherlandic as a term used on the internet for Dutch.
• Google library catalog: 4 books on the Dutch language use "Netherlandic language", all followed by Dutch in their subscripting and all are written by native Dutch speakers. 7140 books on the Dutch language use Dutch.
• Google Scholar: 93 hits for "Netherlandic language", nearly all orginate with 2 books, both written by native Dutch speakers. 12,900 for "Dutch language".
• Dictionary entry: Merriam-Webster:found; adj. of "the Netherlands". ODE: no entry found.
• Use: Britannica uses "Netherlandic languages".[3] Indicating that Netherlandic here refers to the various languages of the Low Countries, not Dutch.
• Use: Nearly all pages speak of "Netherlandic Dutch", in reference to Dutch spoken in the Netherlands. Again, a country is meant, not a language.

Conclusion; use is extremely limited, scholary/academic use is used only in books written by Dutch speakers, no dictionary acknowledges the word, and most use of Netherlandic online is as an adjective of "the Netherlands" or used to indicate the Dutch spoken in the Netherlands.HP1740-B (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you use the Britannica page out of context; you refer to use in the English language page and you omit reference to the Netherlandic language article in Britannica. Furthermore the use on the Eng Lang page states it is the language of the Flemish and the Dutch, not a combination language of Flemish and Dutch (which does not exist as it is Dutch).

Furhtermore, limited use is still evidence of use. I would accept if you added something like "rarely named Netherlandic" or similar but outright removal goes against basic Popperian science (you need only to provide a single black swan to prove not all swans are white). In my opinion your argument above is logically flawed; so I cannot take up your conclusions. Arnoutf (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Britannica article does just that. You said: "the use on the Eng Lang page states it is the language of the Flemish and the Dutch, not a combination language of Flemish and Dutch". The Britannica article in question says this "and West (German, Netherlandic [Dutch and Flemish], Frisian, English)." I don't see me removing any context there. Neither did I 'omit' the "Netherlandic language" article. I used it to prove the multiple inconsistant terms Britannica uses, and hence it unreliabity. Your swann allegory can easily be reversed. If all the swanns on earth were white but one, would that mean that one could not say "Swanns are white", but that you would be forced to say "Swanns are white, except for 1 swann who is/was black". Its existance does not automatically justify its mentioning. I have proven the negliable use and have provided sources on the various interpretations of "Netherlandic" which show it's not a term used officially nor for a single theme.HP1740-B (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Read Karl Popper before you make that inference. To prove that not ALL swans are white you really need only non-white one. Based on finding a single black swan you cannot say anything about the number of black swans. Arnoutf (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not hide behind rhethoric. My comparison was valid as the numbers are there. Why don't you say anything to rebut my remarks on your other arguments? The ones that did not involve poultry.HP1740-B (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant, because you removed a sourced mentioning of the occurence of a synonym and then adduced a multitude of other sources which did not mention it to prove that it didn't really exist. The dispute is about whether the word is used in English as a synonym for Dutch and hence its inclusion in the article is justified, not if it is the more common term. Other examples where the term "Netherlandic" is used in this way are the census lists of the Australian government ([4]) (as inferred from the fact that "Dutch" isn't listed separately and "Afrikaans" is) and at least one English dictionary entry. [5] Iblardi (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No Iblardi, that is not the point. The point here is not wether the word does or doesn't exist, but wether inclusion is justified and helpfull given its extremely limited, contradictory, double and generally vague use. Also, not that it matters for the overall discussion, but I do not consider a dictionary without profesional writers and/or a bound edition to be truly reliable.HP1740-B (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you read the entry again (and see [6]). But you know what, this whole point isn't really worth the drama. As far as I'm concerned, the article is fine as it is now. Iblardi (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Iblardi, also the word "infrequently" adresses your valid point it is not common; while inclusion is validated as the provided reference provides irrefutable evidence that the use does exist. So I think this should be a solution acceptable to both points of view, and hence neutral. (Also note that I started out believing in your claim it should not be mentioned (null hypothesis), but after a quick google search provided evidence of the contrary (my search for the "black swann" yielded one in the form of Britannica) I had no alternative then to change my opinion.) Arnoutf (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Translation of Nederlands

I provided a literal translation of Nederlands as Netherlandic; which was changed to Lowlands with reference to the fact that "Nether" is archaic. While I agree it is indeed archaic, I think in this specific that is actually a very good thing, as the partial "Neder" is archaic in Dutch as well. So by translation Neder as Nether I think you keep both meaning and spirit. Arnoutf (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Second issue; I completely fail to see the reference to Lallans which is a Scottish dialect version of Lowlands. We are not referring to Frisian, or Limburgian names in the naming section, so why would we refer to a Scottish dialect. I just don't see the relevance, can you please explain? Arnoutf (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"-Neder", and its variations "-neer", "-neden", are not at all archaic in Dutch. "-nether" in English is however. "Low", isn't. The meaning is identical. If there is one thing that is typical for archaic words, it's a lost of recognition and spirit. Second issue: Lallans is a term with exactly the same meaning and origin but of English origin. To an English speaker 'lallans' sounds more natural than 'netherlands' hence its inclusion.HP1740-B (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker. I use the word "Nether" all the time, mostly because there are several towns in my area that use it in their name. I have never heard the word 'lallans' used ever, except in reference to the dialect of Scots which I've read about here on wikipedia. I am a language geek, though; most English speakers have never heard of Lallans, and we all know the word "nether". There is even a common expression that uses it as a euphemism for genitalia. It's a good word and especially appropriate for geographical place names and their derivatives. Dave (talk)

If "neder" is not archaic can you give me examples (names excluded) where it is in common use today (I can only come up with neerwaarts which seems pretty archaic to me). But I agree that either Lowlands or Netherlands covers the meaning (with the latter being archaic). So in my opinion there is a choice to be made there that will be slightly subjective (either use the modern lowlands or the archaic but similar in form word netherlands).

I really don't see that Lallans is relevant though. First of all, it is not English but Scottish (which is as English as Frisian is Dutch). Secondly I seriously doubt that "lallans" sounds natural to an English speaker (Scots excluded). Thirdly, even if it were natural to English speakers I think the analogy is not sufficiently developed/clear to add to the text. Arnoutf (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nederig. Nederlaag. Neerkijken op, neerleggen, neerslachtig, neerslag, neerstorten, beneden, etc etc.HP1740-B (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok Nederlaag I go with (neder; beneden are not truly combination words); but all the rest use the "neer" form which seems the more modern form evolved from neder. But fair enough, I'll go with lowlands. Arnoutf (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But are we really certain that 'Nederlanden' should be translated as 'low lands', as it seems on first sight? It might also specifically refer to the area as being located 'further downstream' as viewed from a more inland, 'higher' position. This distinction is not uncommon in other languages (e.g. Greek 'anabasis', 'march into the interior', literally 'upward'). In that case 'low' would not have the connotation that it has on first sight, i.e. 'low-lying'. Iblardi (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a new argument. But would translating as "Nether" account for that potential meaning? (my control of the implicit subtleties of that word in English is not sufficient to be sure) If it does not, the new argument is not very relevant. Arnoutf (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure, I am just doubting the value of using 'Lowlands' as a one-on-one translation for 'Nederlanden'. I posted it more as a thought than as an argument in favour of either form, but I think it is not irrelevant to the discussion. The Scottish form would probably loose its relevancy if this were indeed the case. Iblardi (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the argument against Scottish form, but there are in my opinion (see above) more arguments against including that. Arnoutf (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that form was already far-fetched to begin with i.m.o.

My guess would be that 'nether' is more archaic than Dutch 'neder'. But instead of providing a literal translation, which might be problematic, we could give examples of words in English containing the element 'nether-' and introduce them with a clarifying 'compare'. Iblardi (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

'Nederlands' does not mean 'Of the low countries'

I am a native of Dutch, and indeed, while 'Nederland', the name of our country which means 'Low Country' is a neuter noun and most likely has its (nowadays archaic) genitive on 'Nederlands', most likely. The term 'Het Nederlands' as a use for our language is an adjectivial noun. That it is 'Het Nederlands' as opposed to 'Des Nederlands' shows this, as 'des' is the (again, archaic) neuter genitive article versus nominative 'het', as Dutch often puts neuter definite articles before adjectives transforming its meaning into the name of a language cf 'een Engels huis' (an English house) 'Het Engels' (The English Language). Also the most potent indication that most surely it is not a genitive is that the -s suffix on a lot of adjectives which descents from archaic Dutch -sch cf En '-sh', M.En, '-sch', Ger '-sch', Engels, archaic: Engelsch (English). A better translation would quite simply be 'Low-Countrish', or less awkward an English phrase: 'Low-Landish'213.84.222.243 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Spot on, comrade! Ad43 (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Afrikaans-speaking Cape Coloureds

In the section on Afrikaans, someone neglected to mention the fact that the roughly 4 million so-called Cape Coloureds are mother tongue Afrikaans speakers.

MiguelJoseErnst 68.44.13.206 (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Invalid Reference

I removed [7] a reference and replaced it with a fact tag because it does not support the text of the article to which it is attached. In fact, it flat out contradicts it. The cited web page states "15 miljoen Nederlanders en 6 miljoen Vlamingen en 400.000 Surinamers". This doth not 23 million make. Furthermore, the cited web page does not state for how many Dutch is a second language, nor how many speakers there are of Afrikaans. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think flat out contradiction is a bit over the top, although the sum does not equal which is a problem. Nevertheless 6+15+0.4 may add up to 21 or 22 (rounding) which deviates less than 10% of 23.

For Dutch, Flemings and Surinams we are talking Dutch as native language, so for that information the source seems valid. We need to add other sources for native speakers of Dutch in e.g. the Antilles and Afrikaans indeed; but I think flat out removal is a bit over the top. Arnoutf (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If the numbers do not match, then it is a flat out contradiction. 1 does not equal 2, and if your bank said that you had E10000 in your account and you believed you had E10500, would you accept that? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Flat out contradiction is something else entirely. If the article would have said "There are not 23 million people speaking Dutch as a native language" or if it had said "Dutch is not the native language of the people from the Netherlands"; that would be flat out contradiction.

As it stand the article stated that 23 Million people speak Dutch. The reference accounts for at least (14.6+5.6+0.5) 20.7 and at most already over (15.4+6.4+0.4) 22.2 Million of these (Dutch, Belgium, Surinam) however the Wiki article also stated (unsourced, I agree) that Aruba and the Antilles (pop about 300.000); as well as some minority groups elsewhere speak native Dutch; which may easily make up for the half a Million or so we are missing.

To reflect to your example. If I believe I own E10,500 and my bank sa~ys my account only holds E10,000; it may well be I find that I have a small secondary account at another bank holding the missing E500. I am right, my bank account holds 10,500; but so is the bank; their account has only 10,000 (the rest is at another bank). No "flat out contradiction" at all just fuzzy frasing of meaning, thus creating miscommunication. Arnoutf (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The article said over 23 million, the reference said 6+15+0.4. The reference does not support the text, and if you add in extra numbers yourself, you are engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we basically agree here, although the retoric above may imply otherwise

As I said, the article includes Antil and others, which I acknowledge is unsourced. So yes, the article requires further sources. The article says Belgian(6)+Dutch(15)+Surinam(0.4)+ Aruba(?) + Antillian(?)+Northern France(?)+Others(?)=>23. We have to find sources for the unknown question marks otherwise we do indeed engage in original research; the given reference merely provides the numbers for the first three, and is for that useful but not for the rest. (You may have noticed my chance where I siad something like "up to 22 million accounted for by B+D+S (source)" which I did to separate the numbers as to avoid synthesis; and allow separate sources for separate groups to be added separately). Arnoutf (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Also note the stats in the info bar. This still says 23mm and also makes the even bolder claim of 4mm for whom Dutch is a second language. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it should be consistent internally (24 and 23 cannot coexist in a single article; with sources so far only accounting for between 21and22) and second language should indeed also be sourced. I never said it was competely and/or well-sourced, only that I did not see the flat out-contradiction. Arnoutf (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Genders

The article mentions in two locations that the masculine and feminine genders have merged into one common gender. I believe this is not quite accurate, as the distinct genders still exist, only using the same article (de). The specific article on the subject (Gender in Dutch grammar) presents a more nuanced point of view: that awareness of the distinction is disappearing in certain areas. I think the article should be changed to reflect this point of view or else cite sources for the "interpretations" mentioned. Mangarah (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Although Dutch tends to be ambiguous on gender articles. For example as ships (de boot, or het (neutral) schip) can be adressed bij het (it), hij (he) or zij (she) without any discussion.

My personal opinion is that part of this confusion lies in the Germanic language issue that dimunitives (of which the Dutch are particularly fond) become neutral. This include words that have become (almost) exclusively used in the dimunitive, most notable "Het meisje" (the girl) - which is a neutral word in Dutch, regardless of the obvious femininity of the "object". Basically gender tends to be very messy in Dutch. Arnoutf (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

While there may be some strange cases, I think saying that the two have merged is still far too strong a statement as long as every dictionary indicates whether a 'de-woord' is masculine or feminine. If the two had merged, sentences like "Ik vind deze stoel niet mooi, ze is te hoog." would be correct, which they are not.Mangarah (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree they have not merged.

Indeed sometimes it is easy sometimes hard. Another example "De idee" (the idea) and "Het idee" are both correct (I use the latter and have no idea about the gender related to the first). Another issue that may have raised confusion among English speakers is that the politically correct "person" has not really gained ground in the Netherlands, where it is not strange to use e.g. Brandweerman (Fireman) to talk about a female putting out fires. That does indeed not say the articles have merged.

I think we largely agree if we agree that the distinction does exist. But the Dutch are fairly ambiguous in the use of genders in spoken language. Arnoutf (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Danish

Could somebody please permanently add the danish-dutch misconception ? For example, if I'm not mistaken, US states officials have publicly mistaken the Dutch army for the Danish army in the Iraq conflict.

That does not belong in this article, if at all, but in the terminology on the Netherlands or in the article on the names of the Dutch language.--Hooiwind (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Or in the article on lack of awareness/knowledge of global geography by senior US state officials entrusted with foreign affairs, as it had nothing the do with the word Dutch but all with the evidently limited knowledge of the involved officials. Arnoutf (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why is the deutsch-dutch misconception mentioned ?, you could use exactly the same argument for that.193.173.151.218 (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No you could not, because Dutch, Diets and Deutsch are derived from the same word, Danish is not.--Hooiwind (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

te na

"Hij zal mijn ziel in vrede verlossen van degenen die mij te na komen, want onder velen was hij met mij" (Modern Dutch) (see Psalm 55:19)

"He shall my soul in peace free from those who me to after come, because amongst many was he with me" (English literal translation in the same word order)

I feel a better literal translation of "te na" would be "too close/nearby" not "to after". I'm aware that "they'll come after you" is close to "they'll be trying to get you" and in this sense is very close to the meaning of "te na komen", but in a word for word translation "too close come" would imho be better. Nazdrovje (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

De Engelse Ziekte

In the Section "Grammar" there is a sentence about the English Disease. If you read the entire sentence, it is about how dutch speakers tend to split long nouns into multiple parts. It has nothing to do with an actual disease. It has however everything to do with a trend in the dutch language to emulate English grammar where longer nouns are split up into multiple words. User:Arnoutf has performed multiple good faith edits where a link to an actual disease is put in. This has nothing to do with Rickets (Dutch: Rachitis of idd ook de engelse ziekte genoemd. Echter niet in deze context). Check the refs after the sentence. Check This Link for the correct dutch page. Also, yes, I am a native Dutch speaker but from Belgium. --Boris Barowski (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, as a Dutch speaker I did not know this new meaning of Engelse ziekte at all; I assumed (when the disambig link was removed today) it referred to Rickets, the only meaning I knew. Sorry for the confusion and the revert. Arnoutf (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As a native speaker, I always thought the expression "Engelse ziekte" was a deliberate pun on the actual disease. As far as I know of, no similar terms are used for Gallicisms, Germanisms etc. Iblardi (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)