Talk:Dutch Low Saxon/Archive 1

Unreferenced
While searching for sources of the subdivision of Plattdüütsch, neither of the two sources I've found (Metzler Lexikon Sprache (ISBN 3-476-01519-X) and the site of the Institut für niederdeutsche Sprache) mentions any Netherlands dialects. -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 12:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I find this article utter nonsense. Low Saxon is spoken on both sides of the Dutch/German border. Dividing it between Dutch and German Low Saxon is pretty useless an quite artificial. Suggest it is removed and the contents included in the Low Saxon article. --Lucius1976 20:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
It seems this article is basically about the same thing as the Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands article. Which one should be merged into which? --Khoikhoi 05:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest to transfer the information on Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands to the Dutch low Saxon article. Sander 12:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest the oppposite. This article falsely suggests that 'Dutch Low Saxon' is a separate (main) branch of Low Saxon, while it clearly isn't. Caesarion 13:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you even say that? Of course is Dutch low saxon is a seperate branch of the low saxon tree. Sander 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. There is very little linguistic unity within the Dutch LS dialects. Gronings is perfectly similar to Ostfriesisch and falls within the North Low Saxon group, the rest into the West Low Saxon group; there the disunity already starts. And evin within these dialects the differences are huge, while the similarities between Westphalian on the German side and Twents and Achterhoeks on the Dutch side of the border are highly similar. This division suggests that the Dutch-German border is a major defining isogloss, and in fact it defines no grammatical and/or phonological areas at all. As far as it does serve as an isogloss, it only does so for vocabulary (and, admittedly, especially for new words it is quite strong an isogloss), and that's not enough when you are defining main dialect divisions.
 * This view probably ensues from the fact that the Low Saxon language area is comparatively large and diverse, so dialectologists from either country chiefly occupied themselves with the dialects from their own homeland only (perfectly in line with the ancient view that the Enschede dialect would be Dutch and the Gronau dialect would be German). Caesarion 00:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Low saxon, or Platt dialects that exist today are not 'pure' they are (especially the German ones) very much influenced by the neigbouring standard languages; Dutch and German.There is a difference. Sander 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a difference, but the influence hardly goes beyond lexical matters, so the difference is not structural. Caesarion 20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That difference is also seen in pronounciation. Sander 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the differences never run along the national border. Caesarion 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to Dutch Low Saxon. I think that name (besides being more elegant and avoiding the qualificative dialects) is fully justified. The situation seems to be similar to Swiss German: It's a subdivision not based on linguistic features, but on language use. Dutch Low Saxon and German Low Saxon have different Dachsprachen. The differences seem to be so irreconcilable that the Low German wikipedia has split up exactly on that border. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 16:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, as long as we clarufy that it is not a linguistic unity, as does the present Low Saxon dialects in the NEtherlands article. Btw I was unaware of the existence of the Dutch Low Saxon article, and I created the former in order to fulfil the need for an article describing the content of nds-nl:. Caesarion 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

strongoly oppose merge, it has its own language edition that is reason enough for it to have its own articleQrc2006 12:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It certainly needs its own article, but there's no need for two different articles. -- j. 'mach' wust ☞ ☏ 13:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Attention Dutch Low Saxon speakers!
If you are fluent in Dutch Low Saxon, please go to the following page: Talk:Dutch_language and help complete a project concerning all Dutch dialects.  Rex  13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent false edits by User:Ulritz
Recently, despite of my warnings and explanation in edit summary, User:Ulritz has added a template in which the term Low Germanic is used. Now I was under the impression that not so long ago the we had a vote, rendering that term obsolete. Could User:Ulritz please explain why he used it again, but more importantly; why he ignored my warnings and instead hurls insults directed at me.

Also the comment; "please keep Dutch conventions to the Dutch Wikipedia" is kind of strange. I have no idea what User:Ulritz means with this. If he could explain this, that would be great. Rex 10:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge done, please check
I merged "Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands" here. The description of the dialects was slightly different in the two articles so please check and make sure they're accurate. Tocharianne 19:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Map
I had added a map of the Netherlands to this article to make clear that the Low Saxon dialects were physically close to Germany and because the order of dialects matched the north->south order of the provinces. Someone else removed it so I just want to know how others feel about the map. Tocharianne 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It added nothing, if it had been a dialectal map it might have improved the article, but now it was a topographical map of the Dutch provinces.Rex 22:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, I couldn't find a dialect map. I thought this might help because the province names matched the dialects in most cases. Do you know where we could find a map showing the dialects? Tocharianne 16:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about this? It's based on this. Tocharianne 14:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's better, but I don't really like the sharp edges, it's not natural if you know what I mean. I'll try to draw something myself this week. Rex 16:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What does "this word" refer to?
"in the entire province this word is known" - does "this word" refer to "jij" or "doe"? Shinobu 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
There is absolutely no reason, in my mind, that Dutch Low Saxon deseres an article separate from Low German... the article itself even states that the distinction between Dutch Low Saxon and Low German is merely political... they are the same dialect/language, and I see no reason that this article necessitates itself having it's own... well, article. It is small enough that it can be comfortably merged with Low German, and not much even needs be said about it in the article. Antman -- chat 08:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Merger Proposal - Guess What?
If there is a political difference, GUESS WHAT?, there is a difference? Is it that hard to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.187.165 (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A minor political difference is not a linguistic difference; this article has no need to have it's own article as it is the SAME language as referenced in the other article, but with political bias added. Antman -- chat 08:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlands it is a part of Dutch. Hence it is different enough from German dialects. Sarcelles (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot use Wikipedia to cite for Wikipedia. Antman -- chat 05:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that any research at all has been done on this, but the immense impact of Dutch on Low Saxon as used in the Netherlands and of German on Low Saxon as used in Germany has to be factored in when deciding on the merit of a separate article on 'Dutch Low Saxon'. While it's true that dialects on either side of the border still share many features, it's equally true that all varieties in either country now share many features derived from the standard language that they don't share with the varieties in the other country.
 * This becomes instantly clear when you either hear or read, and compare, a Low Saxon dialect from the Netherlands with one from Germany. Ni&#39;jluuseger (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Names of the Low Saxon varieties
Why are the names of the Low Saxon varieties written in Dutch, both in this article and in the separate articles on the English-language Wikipedia about those varieties? I would suggest using the common English translation if there is one (nope), or else the forms used in the varieties themselves.

I suppose this is a result of the information coming from the Dutch Wikipedia. For the English Wikipedia, the content requires fine-tuning. Ni&#39;jluuseger (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: since my suggestion has not been challenged, I will amend the articles involved in the way indicated above. Should you disagree, please discuss it here rather than reverting the work I so carefully announced far in advance. Ni&#39;jluuseger (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The names of the articles were perhaps written in Dutch as the Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands do not have clear orthographies? Even within one dialect the orthography changes from town to town, where no official institution approved of one of the proposed orthographies. Tubantia (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That can be qualified. To take Drèents as an example, there has been an official Drèents spelling, authorized by the Provincial States of Drenthe, since 1983. Dr. Geert Kocks's authoritative Woordenboek van de Drentse dialecten offers three common spellings for the Drèents dialect group: Drèents, Dreins and Drents. Admittedly, I have chosen one, but I think Drèents is an obvious choice since it is the word the Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia abides by. Nonetheless, the article mentions the other two variations.


 * Stellingwarfs is the only name and spelling used in the Stellingwarfs dialect itself. Stellingwarfs has had a broadly recognised and followed spelling system for a long time, as attested in Handboek Nedersaksische Taal- en Letterkunde. Here is a word list based on it.


 * Tweants has a few spelling systems; one of the best recognised systems is the Standaard Schriefwieze, which the Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia goes by (in accordance with your wishes, if I recall correctly). The Schriefwieze prescribes ea for the vowel sound in Tweants, and lists the spelling Tweante.


 * Grunnegs and Grönnegs, both mentioned in the article, are the two spellings used in the dialect itself. Achterhooks is the single form used in the Achterhooks dialect group to describe itself ('Achterhoeks' would be a Dutchification). For Sallaans, it's harder to determine which spelling is best used, since the manual West-Overijsselse spelling of the IJsselacademie unfortunately does not mention the name. This dialect group is also less established as a written language than the aforementioned groups.


 * West-Veluws and Oost-Veluws are identically spelled in Dutch and in those dialects, so that's a non-issue. Urkers has no article yet, but that's the native form that I think ought to be used in English.


 * So there is reasonable agreement about the authority of certain spellings for most of the dialects involved. In any case, the existence of several different native pronunciations or spellings does not warrant the use of a third language (Standard Dutch) on the English Wikipedia, even if, due to the relatively weak social position of Dutch Low Saxon, these dialects are often discussed and presented in a Dutch-language environment.


 * Ni&#39;jluuseger (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just found that Kocks's dictionary gives Drèents, Dreins and Drents, whereas the spelling manual authorized by the Provincial States (Drentse spelling: Een handleiding voor de schrijfwijze van de streektaal - a Dutch title, by the way; Drentse Taol, 2005) mentions Drèents, Dreints, Drents and Drints. The manual only elucidates the spelling by explaining it and giving examples, so one should not expect to find all possible varieties of a word in it as though it were a dictionary. But it's irksome to find spellings of the dialect group's name that are not in Kocks, and vice versa. Anyway, I included all these variations in the article Drèents. The variations could be created as redirects, but I think the few interested parties will find their way to the article as it is now, with Drents being a redirect. Ni&#39;jluuseger (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Unmotivated tag
As far as I can see, there is no contradiction whatsoever between the content of this article and that of nl:Nederlandse dialecten, let alone a serious one. Who is responsible for this tag and on what grounds could it have been assigned? I am very curious to hear which reservations on whose side there possibly could be here. It looks like some unexplicable mystery. -- Ad43 (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Language groups
I have been browsing through many Wikipedia pages on the Dutch Low Saxon dialects, including the entries in Dutch Low Saxon itself, trying to get a grasp on just what division of Low Saxon these dialects belong to. The only thing that is clear is that the Frisian-tinted Grunnegs and Noord-Drèents belong to the Northern Low Saxon dialect group, even though that particular article doesn't mention those two dialects.

This article claims:

"Most varieties belong to the West Low Saxon group. Grunnegs is so different from the rest of the Dutch Low Saxon varieties that it may be treated separately. Tweants and Achterhooks belong to the Westphalian group of dialects. The remainder, Drèents, Stellingwarfs, Sallaans, Urkers and Veluws, could be classified in their own subdivision, since they form the westernmost group of Low Saxon dialects, considerably affected by Dutch. Urkers and West-Veluws are even so heavily Hollandified that some people classify these dialects as Low Franconian rather than Low Saxon."

There is no "West Low Saxon" English-language article, but searching for the term redirects to the West Low German article in which the first line says: "West Low German, also known as Low Saxon..." with a map of the entire Low Saxon/West Low German language area. In other words, that would mean that all of the Dutch Low Saxon dialects would belong to this "West Low Saxon" group - not "most", all.

The Dutch Low Saxon language article equivalent of this one, Nederlaands Leegsaksisch, also makes the claim that all but Grunnegs (and one assumes Noord-Drèents) are "West Low Saxon", linking to an article of that name: West-Leegsaksisch, an article which indicates that "West Low Saxon" is a higher level grouping but I can't understand the article enough to be sure as to exactly what it is saying. The German article, Westniedersächsisch, is more to the point, claiming that the entire term is confused and might refer to one of the two major divisions of Low Saxon or to the Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands or to a group of "West Low German" dialects with minimal low-Franconian and Westphalian characteristics.

But that's not the end of the confusion. I went to the Dutch Low Saxon language article on the Westphalian language, Westfaals, where it makes the somewhat incredible claim that all of the Dutch Low Saxon dialects (save Grunnegs) belong to the Westphalian language along with a number of German dialects.

The section I quoted above from this article seems to make the most sense, but for that we're going to need something like an actual "West Low Saxon" article but probably not with that name for all the Dutch Low Saxon dialects save Grunnegs/Noord-Drèents, Tweants and Achterhooks along with the caveats on Urkers and West-Veluws. Either that or remove those dialects from direct mention in this article as constituting "Dutch Low Saxon", and reopen the article on Dutch Low Saxon dialects to include the full superset of Dutch Low Saxon dialects. I'm not an expert on this but I can also figure out an inconsistency when I see one and between the articles in the various languages we've definitely got some.

FWIW, the Nedersaksisch article has a rather exhaustive comparison of all the Dutch Low Saxon dialects but without any German Low Saxon dialects other than East Frisian Low Saxon. D P J (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Diachronic vs synchronic
Can someone elaborate on those terms? Why would anyone treat language at one point in time for example? 77.175.45.61 (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the difference between Low Saxon and Frisian?
Both Frisians and Low Saxons have Saxon origins. So why is there is a difference between Frisian and Low Saxon? This point is not addressed in the article, or elsewhere on the Dutch or English Wikipedia, from what I can see. Schildewaert (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)