Talk:Dutch language/Archive 1

Moved from Talk:Netherlandic language

old comments
It would be nice to have the phonemes in IPA (using Unicode entities); see Unicode_and_HTML

-- Kwaku

Wouldn't this page be more appropriate at Dutch language (now a redirect)? "Netherlandic" is maybe more correct, but certainly not the most common. "Netherlandic language" gets about 500 hits at Google, of which 20% comes from Wikipedia; "Dutch language" gets a lot more. Also ethnologue is using Dutch as the name for the language. Any objections against moving this to Dutch language? Jeronimo 07:48 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)


 * I have never heard the word Netherlandic used to refer to Dutch and certainly not Netherlandish - which refers to the language area prior to the foundation of the Dutch Republic and is widely used in (art) history texts. It strikes me that a definition of Netherlandish is sorely lacking (by which I also mean that I do not cvonsider myself qualified to provide it ;-) -mcleaver


 * I'd suggest leaving it where it is, I like the correct term. With Wikipedia's wonderful redirections the conflict between using the most common or the correct name isn't that big an issue. Besides, Ethnologue even mentions that "Dutch" is not seen by everybody as the proper term, even though I'm not overly impressed with the Dutch entry on that site anyway. Also think of the potential Dutch/Deutsch confusion. -Scipius

I know, but I've been told several times that giving an article its most commonly used name is Really Important. The United States of America is the formal name, but the article is now at United States, and Games of the I Olympiad is now at 1896 Summer Olympics. It appears to be "policy".... Jeronimo 14:14 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)


 * I see. Well, in the case of the Olympics a point could be made that people wouldn't immediately recognise "Olympiad" or something and I'll leave the political discussion on the proper US name to the USians ;) In this case confusion with Dutch isn't an issue ("Dutch" is mentioned at the start of and used throughout the article) and most references come from Dutch anyway, so people aren't seeing and using the whole language name at any rate until they arrive here. Might as well point out the proper name right in the title...


 * I'm more for proper names over common names (an encyclopedia should be as accurate as possible, even at the expense of some perceived extra usability IMHO), and I would think that redirections would solve most problems. Let's agree that for languages the most proper name be used as "policy"? ;) -Scipius

No, I really do think we should put pages at a place where people expect them. Naming the pages of persons with their full firstnames listed would be a bad thing. Making exceptions for languages would make things inconsistent. Jeronimo
 * I believe we put this page here because "Netherlandic" is the only single term in English that refers to both Dutch and Flemish. ---rmhermen

As discussed in Talk:Belgium, Flemish isn't a "real language", like "American" isn't a "real language". The Belgians have their own pronounciation and some of their own words, but it isn't a different language.Jeronimo
 * However we have a word for it in English, unlike the compound, American English. Flemish is a word used to describe the language of Belgian and serves to confuse the issue if we call the article "Dutch", not the acceptable and inclusive (in English) "Netherlandic". I call it Dutch myself but all my relatives came from north of the border. --rmhermen


 * To confuse the matter further, I have seen linguists call the language (i.o.w. that which is spoken in The Netherlands AND Belgium) Flemish, although I cannot remember why they did that.--user:Branko

I'm Dutch. I was born and raised here in the Netherlands, and I've lived in the UK long enough to be fluent in English. The language is called "Nederlands" in Dutch, and "Dutch" in English. Calling it the "Netherlandic language" is like calling what is spoken in the US "United Statian". Maybe not insulting, but certainly wrong and possibly disrespectful. The main entry should definitely be under "Dutch Language", and not here. Unless someone has a really good argument otherwise, I'll move it in a few days time. NTF


 * I'm Dutch. I was born and raised here in the Netherlands, and I realise that when Anglophones speak of the "Dutch language", they most often mean "the language spoken in the Netherlands", in accordance with "Dutch" describing something of the Netherlands. Similarly, then often use "Flemish" when talking of Belgium. As stated above, "Netherlandic" is the only term that describes both and makes it clear that "Dutch" and "Flemish", despite their differences, are in fact the same language. There's no need to move this page from what is a perfectly valid linguistic term. Scipius 17:44 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)

Well, let me quote from the web pages of the Flanders Authority at http://www.flanders.be/public/flanders/explore/language/index.asp. They say "The official language of Flanders is Dutch, although the region is rich in Flemish dialects. Over 20 million people in Europe speak Dutch as their native tongue...." In other words: the language is called Dutch, and Flemish is a group of dialects of the Dutch language. I'd say this is a fairly authoritative source, coming from the governmental of Flanders. The term "Dutch language" includes Flemish, just like it includes all the other Dutch dialects. I therefore see no reason to use the weird term "Netherlandic". NTF 13:00 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)


 * The Flemish government is an authority on many things, but not necessarily on the English language or linguistics in general. "Netherlandic" is an accurate and precise linguistic term, "Dutch", regrettably, is not (even disregarding its etymology). You may feel it's weird, but it isn't really so. As discussed above, this is hardly an issue. "Dutch" is most certainly more frequently used, even in Wikipedia and within the article itself, but it must be noted that "Netherlandic" is a more precise name and why not indicate that right in the title? Kindly leave the article where it is. Scipius 14:37 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)


 * If the article is going to stay here, should sentences such as "...Dutch has a rather complicated word order" be changed to "...Netherlandic has a rather complicated word order"? It is rather confusing at the moment. --Camembert


 * No, I don't think so. "Dutch" certainly is more common and the article now makes the distinction clear. The use of "Netherlandic" in the title serves primarily to point out that there is a more precise term, even if it isn't one that is commonly used. Scipius 14:49 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)


 * That's silly. You acknowledge that Dutch language is the most used term. The "rule" on Wikipedia is to put articles at their most common name. Yet we put Netherlandic language as the title and write Dutch throughout the text? I think having an article on Dutch language which says that is it more technically correct to say Netherlandic would be much, much better here. Jeronimo


 * But then we would be acknowledging a more correct term and ignoring it in our most basic expression of the subject, the title. That would not seem very professional. "Holland" is also frequently used to incorrectly refer to the country, yet we don't put the country under that heading. Putting an article under its most common name is fine, but has that debate considered what to do when the most common name is either incorrect or inaccurate? An encyclopedia should IMHO strive formost for accuracy; after all, what's the point otherwise? Scipius 18:04 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised by Scipius's claim that "Netherlandic" is more accurate than "Dutch". None of the dictionaries I've looked at excludes the Flemish dialects from the meaning of "Dutch". But several dictionaries have no entry for "Netherlandic" at all, and my spell checker doesn't like it either. The Flemish themselves call it "Dutch" when speaking English. Given this overwhelming evidence, what is the claim for the better accuracy for "Netherlandic" based on? NTF 18:46 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)

My goodness! What an interesting discussion! I would like to put in my two (euro)cents in this debate on "Netherlandic" and "Dutch". First, to answer NTF's question, it seems that the "better accuracy" claim popped up at the very beginning, when Jeronimo first wrote that " 'Netherlandic' is maybe more correct" and Scipius wrote that he preferred the "correct term," referring, it seems, to "Netherlandic." I beg to differ, but I will explain shortly. First I would like to reply to Scipius's later comment ("The Flemish government is an authority on many things, but not necessarily on the English language or linguistics in general"). Point well taken. But I would expect the Flemish (Belgian?) goverment to know what the official language of their country is, even in English. What authoratative source does Scipius, a "Netherlandic person," have for "Netherlandic"?


 * Well, how's about this Britannica article? Note that "Dutch language" links to the same article, as it does here. As far as the Flemish government is concerned, my comment was meant to illustrate that introductionary webpages are not necessarily the best place to be too precise. It's not prudent to confuse a visitor with information he may not want or expect. For much the same reason "Holland" is frequently used by the Dutch to advertise themselves abroad, but it doesn't mean that this is then the correct term. Scipius 15:05 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)


 * The quote from the Flemish government is an answer to the specific question what their language is called. This is not someone being imprecise; that is what they themselves call the language they speak (when speaking English). The refeerence to Britannica is interesting, the first real reference for the use of "Netherlandic". It still does not weigh up to anywhere near the other contradictory sources. Note, for example, that Britannica contradicts the OED, which I certainly rate higher. NTF Oct 1, 2002


 * Again, the site is far too general to be a good source for determining correct terminology. Note for instance how the History page refers to William I of the Netherlands as "William I of Holland". The issue isn't whether "Dutch" is a good name for the language (it is, to an extent) or whether it's more widely used (it certainly is), but whether a more precise term exists and whether we should use that as the title at the very least. As for the OED and the EB contradicting itself, they don't necessarily do so. See below. Scipius 13:06 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

Back to the "Netherlandic"/"Dutch" question. I am a student of Germanic languages (specifically English, German and Dutch), and am currently working on a doctorate in Modern Languages. In all my years (decades) of academic study, and in my many more years as a native speaker of English, I have never, ever, seen or heard the term "Netherlandic" until I came across this page. So I looked it up; one can always learn something. It is not in my trusty (new) Merriam-Webster's dictionary, so I lugged out the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). The OED entry for "Netherlandic" refers me to "Netherlandish." This leads me to conclude that this discussion should be about the merits of the term "Netherlandish" vs. "Dutch", but I digress. The OED defines "Netherlandish" as "of or pertaining to the Netherlands, Dutch". So the term is not INclusive, as rmhermen claims (" 'Netherlandic' is the only single term in English that refers to both Dutch and Flemish") but EXclusive, as the term itself suggests. "Netherlandic" excludes the language spoken in Flanders. The OED confirms my initial, gut reaction that "Netherlandic" is incorrect in this context.


 * Despite what the dictionary may imply, "Netherlands" (and thus "Netherlandic") can most certainly be used to include Belgium, though it should be avoided in a geographical context because of potential confusion with the present-day nation-state of the Netherlands. See Talk:Netherlands for more on that. One other reason that "Netherlandic" would be preferred in a linguistic context would, I suspect, perhaps be for conformity with the name of the language in Dutch and other nearby languages (Nederlands in Dutch, Niederländisch in German, Néerlandais in French). Scipius 15:05 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)


 * I think you are on very weak grounds here, contradicting both dictionaries, common usage, and an academic expert. Your last argument makes no sense at all. Although languages have common roots, there is no rule or pressure that the same concept has to be expressed using similar sounding words. NTF, 1 Oct 2002.


 * There's not a contradiction per se. The OED apparently has no real entry for "Netherlandic" (and Webster doesn't have anything at all), but the EB and various websites obviously indicate that there is a meaning and use to the word. This means the current revisions of the dictionaries could simply be a little negligent. As for the conformity of the name, this has not so much to do with how it sounds, but rather with how it looks. Note that "néerlandais" seems very much constructed, it has no meaning in French AFAIK, apart from being a direct derivation of Nederlands. "Netherlandic" could be somewhat similar when used to refer to the language. Scipius 13:06 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of attention and care paid on this site in general to the use of the "correct term" and I applaud that. But it seems that there is, as of yet, no agreement on the criteria for a "correct term." People seem to favor the use of the most commonly used term, the most historically correct term, the most accurate or inclusive term, or the term that has the strongest etymology. If we apply these criteria to the two terms under discussion, I have to say that "Dutch" is the stronger under any of them. "Dutch" can also refer to other things, but I do not see this as a great hindrance to any English speaker. We usually add adjectives to limit the term (Pennsylvania Dutch, etc.). Dutch also has the "older" and therefore more extensive etymology, as someone already pointed out. The OED dates "Netherlandic" to the early 20th century, and "Netherlandish" to the mid-19th century. "Dutch" as someone already wrote, dates back to Old English (which is one reason why the term has taken on multiple meanings). I hope this helps. GreenPen 13:13 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with you there. Even under all four criteria, I think "Netherlandic" would still be a good choice. "Dutch" indeed has a longer etymology, but it is this very etymology that has led to most confusion surrounding that term, i.e. the Pennsylvania Dutch have nothing whatsoever to do with the Dutch, because in their case "Dutch" is used in the original context, not the modern one. Historically I would say that "Netherlandic" certainly is more precise, since it at least refers to the correct corner of the HRE. "Dutch" may go back to Old English, but I don't think it refered specifically to the Netherlands in any way back then. Scipius 15:05 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)


 * Wikkipedia is not out to fix illogical aspects of the English language. If you want a logical language, I suggest you drop English and work on the Esperanto version. Pennsylvania Dutch has nothing to do with Dutch, but that is how the language is. And the reason why "Dutch" did not originally refer to the Netherlands is because in those days there was no such country. Dutch is certainly the most commonly used term, the term "Dutch language" gets over 50000 hits in Google, "netherlandic language" gets only 209, some of which are Wikkipedia. Even on Wikkipedia itself there are more references to "Dutch language" than to "Netherlandic language" even though there is a re-direct page up and you'd expect people to link directly here. You also seem to be the only person argueing that "Netherlandic" is better. The word "Dutch" has been applied to the language I speak for centuries, so it is certainly the historically correct one. I've seen no evidence that "Dutch" excludes what the Belgians speak. In fact, they themselves claim that "Dutch" is inclusive. And we both seem to agree that Dutch has a stronger etymology. Now how exactly is "Netherlandic" a good choice under these four criteria? NTF Oct 1, 2002


 * I'm not sure what you mean with the illogical aspects of English, but I would say it's clear that no matter what we pick, it's not going to be a perfect solution. So, as for the title (note: not overall usage), do we then bow to whatever most people would think it is, or do we use what we think is a more precise name?


 * You seem to be under the impression we're forcing "Netherlandic" down people's throats or that we're trying to claim "Dutch" is a wrong term, but this is far from the case. As you can see, even I have used "Dutch" when referring to the language (if only because it saves typing ;)), and it should remain so as in most contexts "Netherlandic" is too detailed and unexpected. However, in a strict defining context (such as the title), we'll have to use it IMO, if we agree that it is a more precise term (with an explanation as to why). You can perhaps compare it with how we refer to some persons, e.g. take a look at how the article on Montesquieu is titled.


 * You claim that "Dutch" is no way excludes Belgians, but it obviously does. "Dutch" (without knowing whether someone means the language or not) is in most contexts a reference to the Netherlands, just like Dutch says. This is the primary reason for using "Netherlandic", to indicate that "Dutch" and, similarly, "Flemish" are in fact the same language. "Netherlandic" or rather "Netherlandish" can also have the problem of belonging just to the Netherlands, but to a far lesser extent, because a) it is not widely used and b) "Netherlands" can also be considered as including Belgium if we remember the original mediaeval meaning (again see Talk:Netherlands), whereas "Dutch" (outside of the language) never includes Belgium.


 * I would disgree that "Dutch" has a stronger etymology as far as it pertains to the Netherlands. I only agree it has a longer one. "Dutch" is a cognate of German Deutsch and Dutch Duits/Diets. As such, it did not refer specifically to the Netherlands in any way, but rather to the whole of the West Germanic continental area or perhaps better, the Holy Roman Empire. "Netherlands", at least, has always refered to this corner of the HRE and note that though "Netherlandic/ish" may be 19th century, "Netherlands" is likely much older. For some reason (likely because the Netherlands were closest to England and a major trade rival) "Dutch" began to shift in English to refer to only the Netherlands, but the archaic meaning is still a source for some confusion, as witnessed in the Pennsylavania Dutch or e.g. people confusing the Deutschmark for a Dutch coinage or thinking people in the Netherlands speak German. So, "Dutch" too can be thought of as having problems, but the fact that the majority use is now in reference to the Netherlands still makes it a good enough term for general use.


 * In conclusion, I don't see a great problem in using "Netherlandic language" only as the strict definition and "Dutch (language)" as the general usage. It would seem to me a good compromise between accuracy and common usage, which is frequently the best we can hope for on Wikipedia. Scipius 13:06 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)


 * "You claim that "Dutch" is no way excludes Belgians, but it obviously does. "Dutch" (without knowing whether someone means the language or not) is in most contexts a reference to the Netherlands, just like Dutch says."
 * That would only be true if the country Amsterdam's in was called Dutchland, instead of the Netherlands. I think it's patent silliness to claim that "Dutch" is too focused on the Netherlands, and "Netherlandic" is not. While we're at it, why don't we say that the term "French" excludes the Quebecois and the Walloons, and call the language "Francian"? - user:Montrealais


 * Because apparently such a term does not exist in English, and if it did perhaps the Quebecois and Walloons would welcome it. "Netherlandic" does exist. So why not use it? Scipius 16:23 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)


 * I, for sure, would not welcome it. I've always called the language "dutch" and that's how it was called at school. It's shorter, and as accurate as "french" is to describe my own native language. --FvdP born, raised & living in Belgium.

- You seem to be under the impression we're forcing "Netherlandic" down people's throats or that we're trying to claim "Dutch" is a wrong'' term, but this is far from the case. As you can see, even I have used "Dutch" when referring to the language (if only because it saves typing ;)), and it should remain so as in most contexts "Netherlandic" is too detailed and unexpected. However, in a strict defining context (such as the title), we'll have to use it IMO, if we agree that it is a more precise term (with an explanation as to why). You can perhaps compare it with how we refer to some persons, e.g. take a look at how the article on Montesquieu is titled.''


 * However, from the discussion it seems clear that we don't agree that it is a more precise term. You claim that Netherlandic is more precise. Everyone else claims that the two words mean exactly the same.

''You claim that "Dutch" is no way excludes Belgians, but it obviously does. "Dutch" (without knowing whether someone means the language or not) is in most contexts a reference to the Netherlands, just like Dutch says. This is the primary reason for using "Netherlandic", to indicate that "Dutch" and, similarly, "Flemish" are in fact the same language.''


 * I think montrelais's reaction hits the nail on the head here: We use 'English' for the language whether it's spoken in England, Ireland, the US or Australia, 'French' whether it is in France, Canada or Africa, 'German' whether it is in Germany, Austria or the Balkans, 'Spanish' whether it is in Spain, Latin America or the United States, etc. 'Dutch' is no different.

''In conclusion, I don't see a great problem in using "Netherlandic language" only as the strict definition and "Dutch (language)" as the general usage. It would seem to me a good compromise between accuracy and common usage, which is frequently the best we can hope for on Wikipedia.''

Since you are the only one who seems to claim that Netherlandic is more accurate, and everyone agrees that Dutch is the common usage, I think the compromise is the wrong one. My proposal would be to move the page to Dutch language, and handle your objection by mentioning (as well as the alternative name 'Netherlandic') that Flemish is Dutch as well in the first paragraph rather than the third. Andre Engels 08:50 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with this. Jeronimo


 * Implemented. - user:Montrealais

Well, I don't much appreciate the change being made without at least waiting for my response, but oh well. Note that the text at present does not explain why the language is also called "Netherlandic". I'm in fact not the only one making this argument, rmhermen appeared to think along the same lines earlier in the debate, but more importantly, the EB apparently agrees with me. Would any of you care to explain why the EB calls it "Netherlandic"? I'm awaiting your answer. Scipius 16:23 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)


 * Agree with the move. Scipius, I think you ought to explain why it's called Netherlandish. FvdP


 * Sadly, there is nothing to agree to, the move has already been made. As for explaining myself, surely the above text should be sufficient? Scipius 16:38 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)


 * Sure it is sufficient, sorry. About nothing to agree to, I see sense in agreeing to the move even after it's done. Perhaps it's not worth argueing much further though. FvdP


 * Well, you'll need to talk to 132.216.80.80, who moved the page. He didn't think it necessary to wait for my approval, so I see no reason to give it now. My reluctant acquiescence is all you'll get ;) Scipius 17:09 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)


 * From the EB: Although speakers of English usually call the Netherlandic of The Netherlands “Dutch” and the Netherlandic of Belgium “Flemish,” they are actually the same language. If they are the same, why not use the official name of the language which appears to be "dutch" ("nederlands") both in the Netherlands and in Belgium. Netherlandic seems to be used by EB mainly as a means to avoid the wrong equation "dutch language" = "spoken by dutch people"; or maybe to preserve what they perceive as the "usual" meaning of "dutch". FvdP


 * Firstly, I don't think there actually is an official English name for the language, the only true official name being Nederlands (which is more similar to "Netherlandic" than "Dutch"). As for the EB, you're quoting the same argument I've made here. Now should Wikipedia deviate from this or not? Is the EB usually talking bollocks or do they have some authority? We don't need to emulate the EB in everything, but EB and Wikipedia seem to have arrived at the same conclusion. Remember, I'm not the one who put the page at "Netherlandic language", just like I'm also not the one who started this debate. Scipius 17:09 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)


 * Well, EB were the ones who stated that "drawing" in drawing and quartering meant disembowelment. They're not the infallible gods of the universe.
 * "Firstly, I don't think there actually is an official English name for the language, the only true official name being Nederlands (which is more similar to "Netherlandic" than "Dutch")."
 * Well, if we're going to use that argument, looks like we're going to have to move German language to Dutch language. After all, www.m-w.com gives "German" as an alternate meaning of the word Dutch (see Pennsylvania Dutch), and Dutch is a cognate of the "real" word Deutsch, which German is not. I think it's a silly argument. Face it: this is the English 'pedia, and the name of the language in English is Dutch. - user:Montrealais


 * Your example is not applicable because in general English usage "German" and "Dutch" have taken on entirely different meanings, with only one archaic meaning of "Dutch" being ambiguous (note that this meaning is larger than just "German"), and so "Dutch" is no longer available for use as a viable alternative for "German" and vice versa. This is not the case with "Dutch and "Netherlandic", both of which may have imperfections, but which can still both be used interchangeably to an extent, with "Netherlandic" being a more obscure, scientific name. My comment was meant to again illustrate that one motivation for using "Netherlandic" may be the similarity in the various names of the languages, including its indigenous name. As a Francophone, could you perhaps explain where "Néerlandais" comes from, which I suspect may be similarly motivated?


 * As for the EB, I'm not sure what your point is. The current EB article certainly seems to have the correct interpretation of "drawn". I assume you were perhaps refering to the 1911 EB, but I don't see the point in trying to fault a nearly 100 year old encyclopedia. No, the EB is not 100% perfect, but neither is Wikipedia and at this point EB certainly has the authority Wikipedia lacks. My fear is that this is a point where Wikipedia could be considered to be less accurate than the EB, especially given the fact that we previously were using "Netherlandic language".


 * I presume you were the one who moved the page, Montrealais. Could I ask you why you felt the need to force the issue? Scipius 21:37 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)


 * Quick points: Who cares what other languages use - this is the English wiki, and what other languages say has no bearing on what English speakers say. (As any Deutscher/allemand/tedesco/niemetz/etc. will tell you.) The EB apparently had the incorrect interpretation of drawing and quartering until Cecil Adams corrected them, not just 100 years ago. As for why I "forced the issue": Be bold in updating pages. - Montr&eacute;alais


 * This can hardly be compared to the conventional meaning of "being bold". You must have known there was an extensive debate going on, yet despite contributing nothing so far, you forced the issue. NTF and Jeronimo also wanted to move the page, but they didn't make the change, so long as there was no consensus. Apparently this was not important to you and I find the whole turn of events most regrettable, especically since NTF (a newbie) then proceeded to change all the links to present my argument with a bit of a fait-accompli. If this is the level of discussion one can expect from fellow Wikipedians, then I'm a little disappointed. Scipius 15:28 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

Let's not have a big fight over this. I hope we can keep the articles Dutch and Flemish, at least.

Dale Carnegie often said that the most important word in any language is the name of the person you are talking to. If you guys starting calling me Eddie, you would quickly sense my displeasure!

I only speak English, although if you want to say that I speak "American" that's fine with me. My friends from England and I, we often joke about being "one people separated by a common language".

I daresay the real name of the language spoken in Netherlands is called something other than "Dutch", because Dutch is an English word. Much as the real word for the language spoken in Japan isn't "Japanese" -- surprise! they speak Nihongo (&#26085;&#26412;&#35486;) over there...

Hope this helps. --Ed Poor


 * Thanks Ed. I have no idea why some people get so irritated about using "Netherlandic" or why it would be such a problem to have it just in the title. "Common usage" is fine and dandy as a rule of thumb, but it is not sanctifying. A certain measure of accuracy needs to be adhered to and I certainly don't want to see Wikipedia "dumb down" its content solely on the grounds of "that's how everybody calls it". I am still planning extensive edits to the article (especially on the development), so I'm afraid the issue may be brought up again in the future. Scipius 21:37 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

This is an English language Encyclopedia. There is no more reason to label this Netherlandic than there would be to label the Spanish language article Espa&ntilde;ol or the Italian language article Italiano. It is not "dumbing down", it's making a useable encyclopedia. "Netherlandic" isn't even an English word. -- Zoe


 * That's not what I'm saying, far from it. I'm not arguing we should call this article Nederlands. "Netherlandic" most certainly is an English word. I didn't invent the term and I'll give the EB link again for a reasonably authoritive English source demonstrating this. Scipius 22:03 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)


 * It's not a word I've ever heard, and it's not found in dictionary.com. A google search of "dutch language" brings up 50,600 hits.  A search of "netherlandic language" brings up 208, of which the first is the wikipedia and the second is Brittanica.  A search of "netherlandic" brings up 3260 hits.  -- Zoe


 * All of which demonstrates "Netherlandic" is indeed a word and it also shows the core issue, the more often used "Dutch" versus the supposedly more accurate "Netherlandic". To all those who argue that "Netherlandic" is non-existent, weird or silly: why do other people use it? Scipius 22:28 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)


 * The meager usage seems to make its use as an article title rather nonsensical. -- Zoe


 * But why then do they use it? What made them pick it over "Dutch language", which is a term they must have been familiar with? Scipius 22:55 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)


 * The reason for same has been more than adequately explored - we are arguing that it is not a good enough reason to use an obscure word instead of a regular one. - Montr&eacute;alais


 * One issue that you're leaving out here is whether or not you agree the word is more accurate, as that is the whole point in using "Netherlandic". Just because a word is (somewhat) obscure doesn't it can't be the correct terminology. What puzzles me is that people seem to think that there must a rigid link between what the title is and what the general usage is, but I would imagine that is likely why redirects where implemented on Wikipedia, for flexibility. Scipius 15:28 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)


 * No, actually, I do not think it's more accurate, since "Netherlandic" seems to refer much more strongly to the Netherlands than Dutch does. And I don't think it's somehow more proper, since it is much more obscure. Cor may be some kind of official medical terminology, as sanctioned by Dorland's, but our article is still at heart. (In both of these cases, the primary meaning of "official" seems to be "more obscure and snottier".) What puzzles me is that you think that Netherlandic is somehow more proper or useful than Dutch, when we've given you scads of reasons why this isn't so. - Montr&eacute;alais


 * I'm with Montrealais. I don't CARE if it's more accurate or not (and I'd debate that it is), it is NOT the word most people would use.  And therefore it is NOT the word we should be using as the label of an article.  -- Zoe

32 million speakers?
As far as I can tell, if you put together all inhabitants of Flanders, the Netherlands, Suriname, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, the number of Dutch speakers barely exceeds 23 million. Also, Afrikaans is not a "dialect of Dutch", nor is it widely considered such -- at any rate not by the academic world. Afrikaans speakers may find that comment offensive. Let's not overestimate the role and presence of our mother tongue here. Captain Q


 * It is certainly defensible to call Afrikaans a dialect of Dutch. See for example www.afrikaans.nu and especially www.afrikaans.nu/pag5.htm. Mutual understanding is quite easy (after getting used to it). --Woodstone 23:34, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)


 * Certainly, it is. But I'll use the classic example of Norwegian and Swedish, which are also mutually intelligible to a large degree, yet are considered seperate languages. On academic grounds, your claim is defensible, but politically, Afrikaans is considered a different language. Captain Q 11:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * On academic grounds, one standard language - e.g. Afrikaans as such - cannot be the dialect of another standard language :o)

MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You are all correct to a certain extent. Strictly speaking, I don't think the differences between Afrikaans and Dutch are bigger than, let's say, the differences between Swiss German and standard written German. Nevertheless, Swiss German speakers are usually included in the total number of speakers of the German language worldwide. The main difference is though that Swiss German is used only as a vernacular, whereas Afrikaans, for nationalistic reasons, has been historically upgraded to a standard written language. In reality, linguistically speaking, both Afrikaans and Swiss German could be considered languages in their own right, but the former has achieved a political status the latter has not. —This unsigned comment was added by 161.24.19.82 (talk • contribs).

Actually Afrikaans is a totally different language. (I speak it) Verb structure other grammer is totally different from Dutch. --Sandertje 14 Nov.

As a non native Dutch speaker I have always found that I can read Afrikaans without a problem but find it more difficult to understand it when spoken. That said I spoke Dutch on an Afrikaaner farm this year and was understood. Happy to leave it to the language experts, 'though! PaddyBriggs 08:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think 23 million is so far from the truth. The EU data of 2005 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_237.en.pdf) states 23 million native speakers and ~4 million second language speaker in the EU. --Lucius1976 21:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dutch closest to English
Can someone help me with this? I'm editing a few things for clarity, but I can't make heads or tails of this: "Of all the major modern languages, Dutch is the one that is closest to English. The lesser-known Frisian language, very closely related to Dutch, is even closer to English." How can Dutch be closest to English if Frisian is even closer to English? Perhaps someone else should tackle this first, since I'm out of my depth with Frisian, and I'll sweep up behind you if need be. Thanks!GreenPen


 * I think what is meant, but poorly expressed is that of all MAJOR MODERN languages, Dutch is closest to English. Frisian is even closer to English, but it is not a MAJOR language; it's only spoken by a small group of people. Jeronimo

Hmm. That helps a bit. I've puzzled over this for a couple of days, and still haven't come up with anything better. Perhaps if I come with problems, someone else can bring solutions, or at least better suggestions. The paragraph in question: ''Of all the modern Germanic languages, Dutch is closest to English. The lesser-known Frisian language, very closely related to Dutch, is even closer to English. Another language that is very closely related to Dutch is Low German, while Afrikaans derives from Dutch.'' The first line is my revision, and it's wrong. The second sentence makes no sense. The third sentence...well, Low German is not a language but a group of dialects. I'll take out the first sentence and the reference out to Afrikaans, as that is covered more thoroughly in a previous paragraph.

I also question the wisdom of comparing languages like this. Dutch (just to have a specific example) is closer to another language in what sense? Geographically closer, closer in grammar, syntax, semantics, pronunciation? GreenPen

Of course, German is the closest relative to English. The article is as such written as to avoid any reference to the closeness of German to Dutch. Maybe a Dutch speaking writer who hates Germany and the Germans? Who knows? Striking the denying any identity of the word "Dutch" with "Deutsch". A falsification I dare say!

Fact is Dutch is closer to German than an English speaking person might imagine.

Anyone a mind to correct this? Spazzo, 5th January 2005


 * The proximity is almost certainly meant in terms of language geneology. The Anglo-Saxons immigrated from the low countries and took with them their Germanic dialect.  The speakers of said dialect had recently split off from the speakers of the dialect that was on its way to becoming Dutch and had much earlier split off from the the speakers of what would become Platt and still earlier split from the speakers of what ultimately became standard German.  The speakers of this pre-emigration Germanic dialect who stayed on the continent became Frisian speakers; the ones who had moved to Britian came to speak English, Scots and the other Anglo-Saxon dialects of the British Isles.  Ergo, Dutch is far closer to German than to English, but English is closer to Dutch than German.


 * Arguably, Scots is a separate language and is far closer to English (while retaining a number of contiental Germanic words and features like kirk for church (compare to the Dutch kerk).


 * This "genetic" approach to language classification is linguistic orthodoxy but has in recent years had some detractors. Nonetheless, it is still the mainstream method of evaluating language similarity.  It is in that light this should be interpreted.


 * Diderot 10:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, Diderot, bare with me but the above is not at all correct...!

The Anglo-Saxon language never "split off" from what was on its way to becoming Dutch so as if Angles and Saxons left North Germany for the British Isles and on their way losing speakers who had then to become today's speakers of Dutch. Whatever the language in Germany was like in the 5th century when Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded Britain, it is simply unknown and only hypothetical. At that time there were no such languages as Dutch, Low German or High German but just Germanic languages on the continent that must have been more or less similar. What was to become Dutch had already been there but it was certainly not a brother of some Anglo-Saxon dialect that split from a dutch ancestor. The alleged similarity between Dutch and English does not mean that the two languages derive from the very same source dialect as your description implies.

Dutch and English are similar but not at all to the extent as some people claim them to be. A good example is the verb system: what is similar between Dutch and English on that subject? Nothing at all except that the two languages show similarities as all other West Germanic languages do. That is all. But, the German and the Dutch system are almost the same. If you explain the Dutch verb system to a German student, he would feel at home from the start. Just food for thought: As a German Speaker grown up in the west of Germany with a low franconian dialect I was capable of inventing Dutch words that were in reality Dutch words even before I knew Dutch. Difficult to understand for a foreigner and not in the least possible neither for a Dutchman in relation to English or an English speaking person in relation to Dutch.

Uwe


 * "Closeness" can mean two things: close genetic relationship and close morphology. Standard Dutch has only been slightly influenced by Saxon dialects. It's mainly Franconian. Standard German has a much stronger Saxon component. As the West Germanic roots of English are mainly Saxon too, in this genetic respect English and Standard German are closest. However, standard German is High German and as such more derived than the more primitive, "plesiomorphic", Dutch and English. In this respect Dutch and English are closest. Nevertheless in many other ways English is much more derived (what with its strong Danish component and all). So in this third respect Dutch and German are closest. But of course there's also Frisian, which is closest to English in some plesiomorphic respects. And in some derived respects. And closest to Dutch the same way! Language is fun.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ABN
The expression 'Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands' is not used anymore; it's called 'Algemeen Nederlands' nowadays.


 * Then someone needs to correct the page it links to, as well as the wording on this page. GreenPen

There is no mention of Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands on the entire Taalunie web site, which suggests to me that that is not the term they are using to describe standard Netherlandic.

Does anyone know where the name ABN comes from?--branko


 * ABN or Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands is considered obsolete. In the Dutch version of the Wikipedia we decided to use the current name Standaardnederlands (standard Dutch). See http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algemeen_Beschaafd_Nederlands and http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standaardnederlands (both are in Dutch of course). Also note that the Taalunie, unlike some authoritative Dutch dictionaries, uses Standaard Nederlands (with a space). Perhaps a native English speaker can adjust the English Wikipedia accordingly. Thanks, Ren&eacute;. 194.109.127.162 19:35 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * In Belgium we use AN, which stands for Algemeen Nederlands. We just droped the B from ABN. Do they say it otherwise in the Netherlands? I should contact some people who live there perhaps...


 * Currently I mostly see Standaardnederlands or AAN: Algemeen Aanvaardbaar Nederlands. &#8212; Jor 14:38, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is first time I see the term Algemeen Aanvaardbaar Nederlands. I suspect it more something for the Netherlands. And ABN is maybe not political correct but still the most know term for it in my surroundings (Brussel). Walter 21:37, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I also never heard of AAN, and I'm from the Netherlands. A google search reveals that the only pages mentioning AAN are Wikipedia and an article (Dutch) by linguist Jan Stroop from 1992 in which he coins the term AAN. I propose the remove AAN from the article. Mtcv 11:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--

Pronunciation of final 'n'
The final 'n' of the plural ending -en is often not pronounced (as in Afrikaans).

This is ambiguous: is it pronounced, or not pronounced, in Afrikaans?

Sebastjan


 * Depends on the word and the dialect. &#8212; Jor 14:38, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Depends on where you are in NL; in the randstad dialects the -n is dropped; as in koe - koeie'. In the northern and eastern dialects the e preceding the n is dropped; koe - koei'n. This not only true for nouns, similar for verbs; lopen - lope' - loop'n, where the final n sounds like an m; loop'm.


 * "Northern" and "eastern" dialects being the Low Saxon ones.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dutch close to English, 2
Moved from article by sannse 09:27 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC):

Of all the major modern Germanic languages, Dutch is closest to English (is this correct? I'm not a linguist, but am Dutch, and would say that Dutch is closer to German than to English. A reader).


 * The issue here is not about the Germanic language closest to Dutch, but the closest major Germanic language to English. As such, the claim is correct, as mentioned above. I've clarified the text. -Scipius 16:45 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Of course Dutch and (High) German are simply the two most politically influential variants of a very diverse set of dialects, including Low German, Swiss German, Limburgish, what-have-you. Even today, the dialects show pretty smooth and continous variation all the way from Rotterdam to Vienna. While some of the dialects on the Germanic/Romance border may have considerable French or Italian influence, none of those hybrids seem to have acquired a strong literary and political tradition. Among the West Germanic dialects, English is distinguished by having had the privilege of clashing with French pretty hard. The clash was not limited to low-prestige border areas either. This, in combination with an earlier clash with Norse, is the most common explanation for why English appears, in its modern form, so different from the other West Germanic dialects. Indeed, when you look at Old English, it is a much more typical West Germanic language than modern English is, in both grammar and vocabulary. But now comes the catch. There has been a tendency among linguists to conceptualize language history as a tree in which branches only ever diverge, and never merge or interact. It is clear that if you want your observations to fit that theory, English must be a West Germanic language. When someone says that English is closer to Dutch than it is to German, they might more modestly (and clearly) want to state that early medieval dialects spoken in Britain were more similar to early medieval dialects spoken in the Rhine/Meuse delta than the latter were to early medieval dialects spoken further upstream. And they may well be right. When you, on the other hand, notice that 21st century British English is pretty distinct from the whole West Germanic continuum at least in vocabulary, but to a large extent also in grammar, you may well be just as right. (It may interest you, by the way, that some people have attributed the relative lack of inflection and complicated word order rules in English to a creolization process. Creole languages are commonly understood languages that emerge when children grow up in a language clash environment, maybe with a "pidgin" proto-language being spoken by the adults, and apply their language instinct. Of course this theory is not shared fully by those who don't believe in the language instinct ;-) )

Commodore and fuck
Removed commodore (originally from French commandeur) and fuck (origin unclear). --Wik 11:46, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC) -

Lighter colour on table
Could we use a lighter color on the table. The current choice is hard to read because of low contrast. Rmhermen 16:16, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC) -

Number of genders in Dutch
Does Dutch currently have 3 genders (masculine, feminine, neuter) or 2 (common, neuter)? It is clear that it used to have 3 but from what I read on the internet it's roughly as common to say it has 3 now as that it has 2 but the whole topic is a lot less discussed than for the Scandinavian languages. If Dutch still has 3 genders, what are the differences between masculine and feminine genders these days? Hippietrail 17:06, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Spoken and written Dutch from the Netherlands has only 2 genders (common, neuter) &#8212; this is in nearly all cases the masculine gender. Flanders Dutch still uses 3 genders, as do some Dutch people: 'De deur klemt, ze moet gemaakt worden' (the door jams, SHE must be fixed). Masculine/Feminine is rapidly disappearing though, and Dutch is rapidly moving to two genders. &#8212; Jor 14:14, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * To add, I believe the only point where it still really matters is in the gentive: 'De man wiens zoon&#8230;' (The man whose son&#8230;) vs 'De vrouw wier dochter&#8230;' (The woman whose daughter&#8230;) are the only real masc/fem terms I still see in the language. &#8212; Jor 14:14, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Again people forget that in The Netherlands a third of the population lives in dialect areas where three genders are still used.


 * Actually the genders were still taught in high school, when I attended (10 years ago). There are technically still three genders in the Dutch language. Neuter ("het") and Male/Female ("de") where all words with a physical nature ("hamer" or hammer, "boom" or tree, etc) are male and all words with a non-physical nature ("liefde" or love, "genootschap" or society, etc) are female. This also means that to say "De deur, ze klemt" is technically false, it should be "de deur, hij klemt" "the door HE jams" and "de liefde, ze doet pijn" "love, she hurts". This is however a rule of low relevance in daily use for most people and exceptions exist, for instance a ship is still commonly refered to as being female, even though the ship is "het schip" in Dutch and therefore technically neuter. --Michaelmarinus 20:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That may be a useful rule of thumb, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule. "raad" (council), for example, is masculine, whereas "bank" is feminine. "genootschap" is neuter, by the way. Sixtus 19:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm from Flanders and the three gender system is far from dead here, I don't agree with the statement that it is "rapidly dissappearing" at all. The difference between masculine and femine words is pretty appararent as (in the spoken language only) they have different articles: masculine words use "de(n)" and "ne(n)" (e.g. den aap, ne stoel), whereas feminine words use "de" and "een" (e.g. een kast, een deur). Another example is that possessive pronouns inflect. For example, we would say "The regering komt terug op haar beslissing", because both "regering" and "beslissing" are feminine, on the other hand, it is "Zet de tafel maar op hare kop", because "tafel" is feminine, but "kop" is masculine and therefore you should use hare and not haar. Or "De stoel zijne poot is afgebroken", because both "stoel" and "poot" are masculine you should use zijne and not zijn. We've never been thought rules about which word has which gender, because it is used consistently. I don't know why they teach that words with a physical nature are supposed to be masculine, but in Flanders we say "De deur, ze klemt". (For the record: take any Dutch dictionary and it will say that "deur" is ... feminine! So technically, it is a 100% correct!).


 * The example of wiens and wier as the only remnant of the three gender system is funny to me, because where I come, we always use wiens, whatever the gender. I think the point I'm making is that Dutch spoken in one part of the world is not the same as Dutch spoken in another and that although the three gender system might be disappearing in the Netherlands, it is still very much alive and kicking in Belgium. -- Luc 18:45, Dec 8, 2005

--84.27.81.59 09:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)MWAK

For some reason I see no references to the "ij", which is pronounced similar to the "ei".


 * That's because the page talks only about Dutch pronounciation, not its spelling. In pronounciation "ei" and "ij" are the same. - Andre Engels 12:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I've added a link to Dutch alphabet, which discusses and links to Dutch Y. Jor 14:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dutch as a German dialect
Dear Jor, do you not agree that it is a simple historical truth that the situation of the German dialects is such that they are spoken in both the areas in which today "Dutch" and "German" are used as standard languages; and that there are thus two competing standard languages (for the same dialect group) the use range of which is a political contingency that has nothing whatsoever to do with the original qualities or divisions of those dialects; that on the level of dialects the state border between The Netherlands and the German Federal Republic would thus in no way have been a language border, were it not for the fact that present dialects are influenced by the standard languages?

Do you not agree that it is deceptive to obscure this simple historical truth by not speaking of "German" but of "West Germanic"; that this usage is often not caused by a honest valuefree scientific desire to avoid confusion between the usage of German as "The whole of Continental West Germanic dialects" and as "The standard language used by most speakers of Continental West Germanic dialects", but by a petty nationalism very common among us Dutch, expressing itself in an irrational denial of that taboo: that we Dutch are in a very real sense Deutsch too?

MWAK (een Bezorgde Brabander)


 * I disagree actually. Dutch is undoubtedly closely related to Low German, and is certainly a Germanic language &mdash; but Dutch has little in common with the German language, or High German. The dialects on the borders are partially Dutch nor German, but accents of Low Saxon (Nedersaksisch/Niedersaksich/Nedersässisch), which is another Low Germanic language. Fact is that Dutch as a seperate language from the high German is known since at least the 1600s, a time in which there was still no single "German", so to speak about Dutch as a German accent is factually incorrect. &mdash; Jor (Talk) 16:18, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jor, let me first express my joy at discovering that you recognize the presence of Saxon dialects in The Netherlands. So often in our society the very existence of the Saxons themselves is not acknowledged - another taboo subject.

I must say that I agree with most of your remarks. But do they really adress the point that I made? That point is not that Dutch would be a dialect of German. How could one standard language possibly be the dialect of another standard language? Nor is it that Dutch dialects would be dialects of the German standard language. Dialects are never "of" any standard language. The point is a simple historical fact that I believe to be undisputed: in the time standard languages had not yet developed, there were five tribes: the Franks, the Saxons, the Frisians, the Suebians and the Bavarians. These tribes were divided in their language, in that they each had their own group of dialects. These tribes were also united in their language, in that there was a unity of the whole of their dialect groups. We can apply to that unity the very cumbersome name of Continental West Germanic. Few do, if only for reasons of convenience. There is a common word for all that regards the unity of these tribes. That word is German. And so we can, and do, often talk about German dialects. This usage is confusing, for with German we then do not mean the German standard language. Still many use the word this way. And so do you. For when you speak of High German as opposed to Low German, you are not referring to standard languages as such, but to divisions within the unity of German dialects.

And now the facts about the germanic dialects spoken in The Netherlands and Belgium. Are they closely related to Low German? To affirm this would be suggesting that they are outside of Low German. And that is quite false, for they are Low German. They are of course most closely related to those Low German dialects spoken in the Federal Republic of Germany. So closely even that on the level of the original dialects no seperation is at all possible. The only dialects of which it could be correctly stated that they are related to Low German, are those of the both provinces of Limburg - for they are Middle German themselves.

You are of course quite correct in claiming that there are Saxons living in the border area. But this suggests a falsehood also. The implication is that the Saxons are somehow in between - and thus the "Dutch" seperate. You seem to forget that the Saxon territory stops north of the Rhine. In the south, it is Franks all the way, from the North Sea till deep in Bavaria. Do you realy think that a subdivision of the five tribes, the tribe of the Franks, is intrinsically divided between a "Dutch" and a "German" part, even though Low Frankian is spoken on the Lower Rhine and Middle Frankian in Limburg? To repeat myself: the divisions of the dialects have nothing whatsoever to do with the state borders, which only reflect the vagaries of history. I know you don't deny this; but do you fully see its implications?

MWAK


 * This is getting difficult! 'German' is an overloaded term, mainly caused by the fact that German language speakers tend to call the standard German language 'High German', and any dialects 'Low German' (Platt), even though about half of them are in fact also on the High German branch! Let me try something else.
 * In the 'West Germanic' phylum, there are three main branches (and a few others like Frisian):
 * Anglic (English, Scots),
 * Low German (Low Franconian, Low Saxon, East Low German)
 * High German (Upper German, Middle German).
 * The standard German language is on the 'High German' branch in the 'Middle German' "family", the standard Dutch language is on the 'Low German' branch in the "Low Franconian" family.
 * Now the overlap between the 'Low German' languages is great: many Low Franconian dialects are closely related to and influenced by Low Saxon dialects, and the fact that there is no one single Low Saxon language means that there is a spectrum of dialects rather than a clear-cut division between the languages. On the other hand, many other Low Saxon dialects are closely related to and influenced by East Low German dialects.
 * There is a similar problem with the 'High German' branch: Austria, Bavaria, Switzerland etc. speak 'Upper German' dialects, yet their official language is standard German, which is a 'Middle German' dialect. What you call Frankian is not actually Fränkish, but a series of (West) Middle German dialects!
 * To get back to the point I was trying to make, in the Dutch-German border area there are three identifiable "languages": Dutch (Low Franconian), Low Saxon (Low Saxon), and German (Middle German). However, there are also some dialects which do not belong to any readily identifiable languages (unless Limburgs is counted as one &mdash; which from personal experience I'd do, but standard linguism seems to oppose this &mdash; Limburgs is a good example of an West High German dialect): the East Low German and the West Middle German dialects. (And, to be precise, along the Rhine, some Alemannic (Upper German) dialects). There is thus a clear difference between Dutch and German, and while they do belong to the same family, they are not closely related anymore.
 * And alas to most people 'High German' means 'Standard German', and 'Low German' means a German dialect which deviates from this. To lable Dutch thus as Low German &mdash; while linguistically speaking correct &mdash; is confusing, as Dutch is not a German dialect which deviates from standard German, but rather a fully distinct Germanic language.
 * In any case the old Germanic tribes you mention do not exist any more, nor are their languages surviving in any way. From 1150 onwards we can clearly distinguish Middle Dutch, Middle Low German and Middle High German which, respectively, lead to Dutch, Low Saxon, and German.
 * To keep it within Dutch only, roughly spoken Dutch dialects in Holland, Utrecht, Brabant, Zeeland are Low Franconian, "Dutch" dialects in Groningen, Drenthe, Overijssel and parts of Gelderland are Low Saxon, "Dutch" dialects in parts of Limburg and parts of Gelderland are East Low German, and "Dutch" spoken in mainly southern Limburg is West High German (with some Upper German peaking in along the Rhine). And this dialect confusion is of course not neatly bound by national or provincial boundararies, but it mostly works. &mdash; Jor (Talk) 15:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again I agree with your remarks. But now they really adress the issue. Now you have described the real situation. A truth that is extremely complex and extremely confusing. And one that is very difficult to explain. So we would like to simplify things a bit, when explaining them to the uneducated. We could pretend that the dialects on the Dutch side of the border are simply Dutch, and those on the German side are simply German. What's in a name?

But then some bright kid asks: "How is it that there is no ethnic German minority in The Netherlands, nor a Dutch one in Germany?" And now we can no longer give her the true answer: "Because beneath the appearance of imposed artificial standard languages, we form a unity", and are forced to invent those mythical entities called "transitional dialects", to avoid the answer: "But there are! Let's immediatly invade the Lower Rhine to liberate our Low Franconian brethren from the German yoke. At the peace talks we can cede those essentially undutch Saxons and Limburgers - and the Frisians at a bargain. A pure Dutch state at last!"
 * Isn't there a German minority in Belgium in the Eupen-Malmedi region making Standard German the third official language of Belgium?!? (OK it's only a product of WWI and I have no idea what the original dialect of this region was, it seems it wasn't any Low German ) Rolf --84.167.155.167 12:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

And an insolent German might casually suggest: "Your puny language is but a dialect of our mighty German". And now we can no longer give him the appropriate retort: "Be silent, you insolent German! Remember that in a healthy development it is the most wealthy and civilized region that provides the standard language - so were it not for your backward political divisions, you yourself would be speaking Dutch this very moment!! Your nation is as a decapitated giant, flailing madly through history, in search of its severed head: the Netherlands!!! Yours is an overrated peasant brogue that should have given way to Dutch long ago!!!!", and we are forced to cast our eyes down and humble ourselves so: "My good German, I believe I do understand why you might think so, but it is really one big misunderstanding, you see. Our both languages have been seperate for, oh, I don't know how long. You do have forgotten about those old tribes, I trust? What tribes? Good, good, I can't imagine why I mentioned them in the first place. Dead as a dodo they are. So don't you get any funny ideas about swallowing us and such! You might choke on it! No, just my little joke. Really Dutch-German segregation is for the best of all parties involved. We like to be on our own, you see."

So there is a certain price to pay for simplicity: it diminishes veracity. But perhaps at this moment it is too late, or too early, to start divulging the truth. And perhaps it's really all for the best.

MWAK


 * I think you have a definition problem when using english terms, let me use the originals for a while. This dialect continuum has three big branches "Niederdeutsch" (Low German) in the north, "Mitteldeutsch" (Middle German) in the middle and "Oberdeutsch" (Upper German) in the south. "Nederlands" evolved from Hollandic which was seen as dialect of "Niederdeutsch" (which had a broad literature at that time), "Hochdeutsch" as a compromise of Oberdeutsch and Mitteldeutsch (influence of the Luthers bible) combined with a northern prononciation (phonetics of the Hanover region). In the last 2 centuries Hochdeutsch replaced most dialects as spoken idioms in Germany stopping at the borders of the Netherlands. Deutsch, Dutch, Duits or Diets have originally the same meaning.


 * On the one hand you can say "Nederlands" and "Hochdeutsch" are standarcised dialects of Dutch/Deutsch language, on the other hand I'm quite sure that Norwegian, Danish and Swedish are closer to each other than Swissgerman and Hollandic. (NB: There are also "Alemanisch" and "Plattdütsch" Wikipedias). Anyway referring to this language group of the west germanic branch the most accurate english term is "Dutch" which is just the anglosaxon pronunciation of "Duits" or "Deutsch". To be politically correct just say "Netherlandic (so called Dutch) and Highgerman (so called German) are actual official standards of the German (Dutch/Deutsch) language group originating in the Holy Roman Empire. This might be acceptable among german haters in the netherlands. Please correct my english I hope you got my point and


 * BTW: What was the language of luthers bible when introduced in the Netherlands??? Low German???


 * Rolf/Darmstadt--84.167.145.51 12:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rolf. I'm sure you don't have to worry about German-haters here. Can I just point out that "Mitteldeutsch" is known in English as "Central German". In German, a slight confusion (though only for laypeople) is caused by the fact that the element "mittel" has different meanings in Mitteldeutch and in Mittelhochdeutsch. This problem is eliminated in the English terms Central German and Middle High German. Please note also that in English, the term High German is only used in its linguistic sense (a form of German which has experienced the High German consonant shift), and never in the loose sense which Hochdeutsch has in German popular language (meaning standard German). --Doric Loon 13:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Doric, I didn't mean the editors here but there are for sure some sentiments from Dutch readers against common roots. Your remarks are correct and I'm not a linguist. IMHO the term "Hochdeutsch" is even in Germany now in a false interpretation since most people believe it to be a higher quality german but originally it was just meant "high" (like upper) in contrast to (geographically) low german. Anyway the article looks fine for me, in stating that Dutch belongs to "Low German Languages" (plural) there is no risk of polemics about any inferior dialect of Standard German. Maybe a link to the Holy Roman Empire would make history even clearer. (Or maybe a comparison to Portuguese and Spanish) Bye Rolf --84.167.145.51 15:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank You
I was on a computer at school and I happened to come across your discussion. I am currently studying first year German in America and having heard and seen Dutch in text, I was very confused by the similarities and differences. Thank you for making it a little more clear what the relationship really is between Dutch and German.

-Grant (USA Ninth Grade)


 * No thanks...;o)

MWAK--217.122.44.226 17:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Edits by User:83.109.164.193
I removed the sentence, "Dutch did orginally belong to the German language area, being a Low German language, but eventually became considered a language of its own." Dutch is indeed a member of the family of West Germanic languages, but that is different from how that sentence put it.

Instead I would put it as "Dutch is descended from Old Low German, and is a member of the West Germanic family of languages." However, that's in the box, so it seems redundant.

The main difference is that Germanic languages is not the same as the German language area. That latter phrase implies that there was such an area that is related to what we specifically call the German language. If the phrase were changed to replace "German" with "Germanic" that would also be untrue, as Dutch is still a Germanic language, and that is separate from its development into a separate language.

Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

long/short vowels
I noticed a lot of indications of a long vowel were added in the prettified tables. In many Dutch grammars you find the notion of long and short vowels, but actually these terms refer to pairs of sounds often spelled with single or double occurrences of the same letter (a, aa, e, ee, o, oo, u, uu). In reality these differences are not one of length, but of form of the mouth. Vowel length in Dutch is not phonemic. The are no minimal pairs distinguishing them. There may some small physical lengthening, but it is of no importance. (Remark: also the first column needs the IPA template) &minus;Woodstone 22:53, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Link in intro to "Flemish"
It is perhaps a minor matter, but the link to "Flemish" in the first paragraph points to a disambiguation page, Flemish language. Normally, this is something to avoid, but I can see that in this case there might be something to be said for leaving it the way it is. Still, I think a real article on the Flemish language would be better. Any volunteers? ;) I can't write one from scratch myself, but I would be more than happy to translate one from Dutch, er... Flemish. -- Viajero 15:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I took a little over from nl:vlaams but it still could use some attention. -- Viajero 15:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem with your article is that it supposes there is a "Flemish language". But there simply isn't one. :o) I've changed it - and I hope the changes speak for themselves. Also the talk page of West Flemish should be most informative...--MWAK 09:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Former capitalisation of commoun nouns?
I've either read or heard that several Germanic languages besides German used to capitalise all common nouns. In Danish this practice was abolished in a spelling reform in the late 1940s. Can anybody tell me if this was ever practiced in Dutch and if so when was it abolished? &mdash; Hippietrail 06:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The first official Dutch spelling, that of Siegenbeek (18 december 1804), didn't use many capitalisations; not even for ranks or months. It reflected normal usage of that time. However in earlier centuries some writers did use capitals, often rather haphazardly to give special emphasis to concepts, persons or events. I'm not aware of any statistical studies ever being done (though they probably do exist :o)

--MWAK 09:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What system of dialect classification to use?
I've noted that Sarcelles changed the section about "Flemish" dialects in the article about the Dutch language. He apparently based these changes on the Dutch article about Dutch and the German article about Limburgish. At first blush they seem very reasonable. They also pose a few major problems however:

I. He is now mixing up two irreconcilable systems. What most German linguists mean with Limburgisch-Bergisch is not the same either in range or interpretation as the Limburgs of linguists in the Low Countries. Hint: the old town of Limburg is today located in Germany.

II. He uses Dutch and German names. However there are English ones and obviously these should be preferred, especially when they link to already existent articles.

III. He uses the higher-level grouping of the Dutch article. It's not a very bad system and often used, but there is no consensus whatsoever among linguists about its validity. The relations between the various Low Franconian dialects are extremely complex. East Flemish in particular is very difficult to categorise. In some ways the southern Brabantic dialects and East Flemish are very closely related. That's one reason to talk about a Central Dialect Group. However there's also a very strong isogloss bundle between them, while there's none between the southern and more northern Brabantic dialects. And in some ways West Flemish and East Flemish are more closely related. So it seams preferable to me to use a more traditional and "atomistic" lower-level approach and to speak of four groups. Of course we should then add that according to some criteria East Flemish should be grouped with Brabantic.

IV Strangely however the system is in some ways too atomistic: it shows divisions where there are none. Now why should it do that? The answer is: Hollandocentrism. Holland has been for four centuries the dominant province in The Netherlands. The normal sociological process has taken place of creating a value system in which the Hollander is at the top and the others are his inferiors. To emphasize his uniqueness his language also has to be set apart. In reality however the standard Dutch the Hollander today uses is basically Brabantic in origin. To repress this painful truth defence mechanisms have been activated. One other reason to use the term Central Dialect Group, is that "Brabantic" can be avoided. Also the fact is hidden that Brabantic very gradually fades into present Hollandic. So artificial dialects are created in the system to form a buffer, like the non-existent Zuid-Gelders (no isogloss bundle exists) and the barely discernable Utrechts (very weak isogloss bundle). The same trick is used to keep the Flemish away by talking about Zeeuws which in fact is northern West Flemish. But is there no justification to be found to distinguish a separate Zeeuws in the fact that the dialect continuum is broken by the geographical division in several islands? No. For the dialect of each islands then would have be considered its own dialect group: they form no unity.

--MWAK 09:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have changed back to your last version.

However, I still think that Limburgisch-Bergisch can be integrated into this system, even if most Dutch speaking respective German linguists disagree about the scope of Limburgish. Sarcelles 20:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I fully agree: I've changed the Limburgish article to clarify matters a bit. But it's a contentious subject, to say the least. :o)

--MWAK 13:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * many senior citizens there are unable to speak standard Dutch

This statement regarding Belgium seems doubtful. Is a replacement of the expression standard Dutch with Hollandic suitable ? Sarcelles 20:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


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


 * Algemeen Nederlands is mentioned without referring to Hollandic.

However the phrase hottentots which as far as I know has no meaning is used. Sarcelles 21:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zuidrijnmaasfrankisch
Is the difference of limburgish to other parts of zuidrijnmaasfrankisch greater than the difference of Zuidrijnmaasfrankisch and Zuid-Gelders ? If yes, the remainder of Zuidrijnmaasfrankisch should be mentioned. Sarcelles 12:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the difference is far less. In fact the Cleves dialects and those of the Bergish group are mutually unintelligible to most speakers.--MWAK 13:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Spelling rule
I have added an explanation of the spelling rule concerning vowel length and the doubling of letters because I need to refer to this from another article I am working on. However, I am not sure if this is the best place to put this. Perhaps it should be in the article on grammar. Or should there be a separate page for Dutch spelling. I also wonder if that long and detailed explanation of Dutch sounds should not be moved to the grammar article - phonology is a branch of grammar. --Doric Loon 14:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said above under "long/short vowels", it is not correct to state that "a" and "aa" (etc) are a short/long contrast. They are really different vowels, that happen to be spelled in Dutch using the same letters. Since Dutch has 14 vowels, the available 5 vowel letters (a e i o u) have to be used in a rather complex way. &minus;Woodstone 17:59, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

No, this is not incorrect. You are of course quite right that there is ALSO a qualitative difference. It would be very difficult to find an example in any language where a vowel has a long and a short variety with no qualitative difference whatsoever accompanying the quantitative difference. English long and short "i" in "beat" and "bit" may well strike us as being further apart in quality than in quantity. But that does not change the fact that for historical and other comparative reasons they are a pair. And in Dutch this is particularly so, because seeing them as a pair is the easiest way to explain the spelling rule. After all, the grammarians who invented the spelling rule were thinking in such pairs. It is the traditional way of analysing the language. --Doric Loon 19:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want proof of a philological relationship between "a" and "&#257;", look at the alternation in the preterite of class 4 and 5 verbs: nam (short), namen (long). --Doric Loon 20:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The change of vowel between "nam/namen" is an ablaut. Just like in "schip/schepen", "stad/steden", "lid/leden", "overheid/overheden". It does not prove in any way that the vowels are somehow "the same". The semi-official book "Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst" does not mention short/long in this context (but tense or relaxed). There are no minimal pairs in Dutch where length alone is discriminating.


 * On the other hand for example in Thai language most vowels occur in short/long pairs, where the quality is exactly the same and only the length is different. There are abundant word pairs in Thai where length is the only difference. English "bit/beat" are approximately equally long and differ in quality.


 * The international alphabet (as shown in the article) has different symbols for the a/aa etc pairs. Whereas the ":" would have been used if length was the discriminating factor. &minus;Woodstone 20:41, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Sorry, Woodstone, but you are wrong. I know that "nam/namen" is ablaut - I more or less wrote the wiki article on ablaut myself. ("Stad/steden" and the others are NOT ablaut - I also co-authored the wiki article on umlaut.) The point I was trying to make was that this particular ablaut distinction illustrates the relationship between these two sounds. If you look at the wiki article on the West Germanic strong verb (which I also wrote) you will see how this goes back to an Indo-European QUANTITY ablaut.

The distinction between tense and relaxed vowels is a trendy thing favoured by some phoneticists. I have no problem with it as a useful adjunct to our repertoire of analytical tools, it does help teachers in language labs to get the students to pronounce foreign languages better, but it does not replace the traditional view. The linguists who developed the tense/relaxed terminology did not try to claim long/short was thereby disproved. And as you said yourself, MOST modern grammars still speak of long and short, and they do so quite rightly.

Quite objectively, there IS a difference in length between English "bit" and "beat", or between Dutch "pot" and "poot", though I am aware that some native speakers have difficulties in hearing this - you may be one of them. But even those who can't hear it, do it. The reason you may have difficulty hearing it is because there is ALSO a qualitative difference, and some people are more closely attuned to that. I can't comment on Thai, but as I said, in my experience of Western languages you never get a pure quantitative phonemic distinction - it is always both quanitative and qualitative. And when both aspects are present, they carry the phonemic distinction together. I can't see why you have a problem with that.

You are also wrong about the IPA - it DOES normally use the length symbol for both Dutch and English, even if a few linguists suggest this is redundant. The IPA distinguishes the quality through different symbols, and it distinguishes the quantity through a ":". Since the symbol is enough to identify the phoneme, you can get away with missing the length sign, but you would be marked down for that in a university phonetics exam. I suppose it just depends how narrow a transcription you want (i.e. how much information you want to include).

So you have a choice. You can highlight length as a factor, or ignore it. But you cannot say that people who choose to hightlight length are wrong. Personally I highlight length when it is useful. In the case of the Dutch spelling rule, it is very useful. If you refuse to talk about length, you will have a much harder job explaining Dutch spelling to anyone who is struggling with it. --Doric Loon 00:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NONE OF WHICH answers my original question - do you all want this kind of detailed description on the general Dutch language page? English has a separate article on English spelling. Dutch spelling is not so difficult as English, but it still has some idiosyncracies, quite apart from the particular rule I was describing here. Shall I start a Dutch spelling article and move this material there?--Doric Loon 09:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, on the basis of feedback elsewhere (no-one responded here) I am going ahead with a new article on Dutch spelling, and will export that material there. Apologies to Woodstone, BTW, if I was unnecessarily irritable yesterday - sleep deprivation! --Doric Loon 15:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Layout
I arranged the IPA tables to the side of the examples for a better overview. I could however not find an acceptable way of moving the notes under the IPA chart. Anyone knows how to? &minus;Woodstone 17:59, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm not sure what you intended with "better overview", but as a matter of fact, the two consonant tables now overlap (Mozilla Firefox 1.0 PR).
 * 2) There is a factual error in the consonantal IPA chart. Either the sounds denoted by k, g are velar, in which case they should be listed as such, or they are palatal, in which case they should be written as c, &#607;. EJ 14:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Ad 1) Do the tables both overlap on the left side? Or is one left and one right and have some overlap. The latter can happen if you have a really low resolution set on your display.


 * The latter. And 800x600 is not a particularly low resolution. I've also tried it on another machine with 1024x768, and it was still overlapping unless the browser window was occupying the full width of the display. All in all, this is hardly acceptable. Moreover, the benefit is only minor (the tables are not really side by side, as the second one is just too long), thus I am restoring the original layout. EJ 09:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ad 2) Thanks for identifying the mistake with k and g which are indeed velars (although g only occurs in loanwords).

&minus;Woodstone 11:10, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Loanwords
I'm not sure where in the article this should be mentioned, if it should be mentioned at all, but one difference betweeen Flemish and Dutch (I know, they're the same language, bear with me for a moment) is that Dutch uses more loanwords, whereas Flemish more often finds a translation for new words. (Subjective bit: And while I'm no expert, I suspect this difference is getting bigger as more Dutch people get the English Disease mentioned in the article) DodgeK 00:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds very interesting, Dodge. I would suggest mentioning this in Flemish and under "Vocabulary" in this article. I think this slightly puristic and conservative feature is very common among dialects that have a minority status. I know that, for example, that Finland-Swedish has a tendency to adhere to somewhat archaic features of grammar and vocabulary that are hardly used at all in Swedish as spoken in Sweden due to the minority status that Swedis has in Finland. It is sometimes ironically said that Finland-Swedes speak better Swedish than us Swedes. :-)
 * It would be great if you could find a source for this, but if not, try to at least ask some friends to see if they share your opinon. Your suggestion sounds plausible enough to me to be worthy of inclusion.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Could this sentence get clarified, please, as it is ambiguous: "Dutch has more French loanwords than German, but fewer than English." It should say something like: "Dutch has more French loanwords than German does, but not as many as English does." or something like that...

Classification and related languages
Am I the only one who is unhappy about the "Classification and related languages" section of this article? It seems very superficial, and the examples chosen are entirely arbitrary. I'm not sure whether this section should be in here at all, because all it does is define Dutch in contradistinction to German; but if a comparison of these two languages IS desired, it should be arranged according to phenomena, with examples illustrating these, not just a random collection of words which apparently serve only to illustrate that cognates occur. I'd be glad to co-operate on a new section if one is required, but first those who have worked on this so far need to tell us what they actually want. --Doric Loon 14:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel a section comparing Dutch with German is most informative as they are essentially two rivalling standard languages for a single dialect continuum. Highlighting the relationship with German is therefore hardly an arbitrary choice. But I agree it's in its present form very amateurish. Feel free to improve it, but keep, I would say, its function of conveying to the layman an general impression of the closeness between these languages.--MWAK 13:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm unhappy about it too, because IMHO it shows a German approach to Dutch. Portuguese people wouldn't be amused at all if you define their language in contrast to Kastilliano. The basic idea of comparing these languages is good, but should better be placed in a different neutral article equally linked to German_lanuage and Dutch_language. Since the English equivalent needs to be mentioned as well, I think the article West_Germanic_languages would be an appropriate place. Maybe adding examples of other (historic?) standards like Low Saxon or Yiddish would round it up. Rolf--84.167.139.130 11:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW: even if they find the spoken language very amusing. I feel umcomftable about this, it's true a lot of Germans think Dutch is either cute or horrible, especially with a lot TV-People like Linda de Mol or Rudi Carell who perfectionised a ridiculous strong accent. (Herman van Veen in contrast is considered as a poet). But this sentiments are not typical German and covers all accents. Ask Flemish what they think about Hollandic and vice versa. Ask what Swissgermans think about standard German and vice versa. Ask Americans about Oxford English and vice versa. Maybe one quote from Train de vie helps ..."German is like Yiddish without Humour. You can say Yiddish is basically a parody making fun of German! - Oh! Is that why they hate us???". :)


 * OK, since we all seem to agree that this section cannot stand as it is, I have re-written it, focussing on placing Dutch within the West Germanic languages rather than on a definition of Dutch specifically in contradistinction to German. I have removed the slightly patronising comments about Dutch sounding funny, but kept the idea that speakers of German (and also of English!) may find an instinctive affinity.  It seems to me that the point of the table is to show the nature of the relationships rather than to prove that there are differences, so I have changed the examples to ones which do this slightly more systematically.  It could of course be extended, but that is probably enough for present purposes.  Choosing the example of "town" to show that sematic changes also occur was deliberate, and I hope useful.  Any comments?  --Doric Loon 15:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Very good, looks professional! The only little thing is, an english speaker can't see that "broeder" and "Bruder" are pronounced the same way, without knowing the spelling rules. But I don't know how to solve this in a elegant way. Rolf --84.167.169.36 17:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe with English spelling in brackets -> broeder (brooder)


 * Do you think I should add a sample text? Perhaps a couple of verses of the Bible in Dutch, English, and German?  (Linguists often use a Gospel text because it is readily available in every language, including most of the historical ones!)  --Doric Loon 15:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * hmm... I just wonder if the New Testament exists in Yiddish ;-). OK ...two or three sample phrases might be OK. But don't you think a systematic comparision should be rather placed in a separate article, showing for example that common words are only sometimes out of fashion like "swarty"/"Schwarz"... Do you know a list of the 200 most important words in West Germanic? Rolf--84.167.169.36 22:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)