Talk:Dutch language

A chart

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3: Aug 2005–May 2006 Archive 4: June 2006-May 2007

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

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

Spreektaal vs. schrijftaal

User:PaddyBriggs, there is nothing "unusual" about the distinction between colloquial and written Dutch, and the differences are nowhere as great as is suggested by the examples you give. Any newspaper will write "vandaag" for "today", not "heden", which is a very archaic word that is only used in an extremely formal context nowadays. For a review of your source, see Taalunieversum, which shows that even the more recent version of this grammar (and not the one from 1977 you mention), with all due respect, is considered rather old-fashioned by today's native speakers of Dutch. Iblardi 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Dutch is very unusual in having this distinction. And my reference, which is from a non-Dutch source but perfectly acadamically robust, is s valid one. Tot ziens! PaddyBriggs 17:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Iblardi. First of all, heden; rijwiel etc. are very archaic even in written language (cf thy and thou in English). Second English also distinguishes between written and spoken language (e.g. ain't). Third, if you refer to a reference you should give that in the article, without this, your statement is a violation of WP:OR. The reference should (explicitly) metion 2 things: 1) There is this difference between written and spoken language in the Netherlands 2) This is unuasual for other languages. For your example you need further references to make clear that the written language is not merely archaic use, but is still in common use in written language. Without these references inline in the article the statement is just not supported (hence I removed it for now). Also make sure that whatever academic reference you use it is recent; academic ideas only last as long as the next competing theory gains prominence. Mind you, there are also academic source claiming the earth is flat (although most are prior to 1492). Arnoutf 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Although rijwiel is archaic, heden is certainly not. Where I live, the phrase tot op heden is more often used than tot op de dag van vandaag. I assume this is the case in many more regions. Mallerd 07:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What you mention is a fixed expression. Heden as a synonym for vandaag is archaic. See the second meaning of heden at Van Dale. Iblardi (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

British English .v. American English

I am informed that American rather then British English pronounciation is that which is now being taught in Dutch schools. Certainly most student-age people I met recently spoke with a very pronounced US accent whereas older people did not. I am not aware of what spelling is taught.

IanWorthington 16:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the pronounciation has more to with the dominance of US movies and TV-series (which are subtitled not voiced over in the Netherlands). I am not sure what version is taught in schools. I fail to see the relevance for this specific article anyway. Arnoutf 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

British English (both spelling and pronunciation) is being taught in schools in the Netherlands, but the mentioned dominance of US movies and TV series results in an increase in Dutch people who speak English with an American accent. Maarten 13:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, English taught in Dutch schools is typically British, with idioms and pronunciations unheard of in America. However, most Dutch people speak with a slightly American accent, because American English is most dominant. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to the films etc., Dutch people are starting to use American idioms and phrases as well. But as mentioned :-) it is not taught in schools. Mallerd 07:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

<l>

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

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

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

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

IJssel etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dutch vs "Deutsch"

Hi, I added the entry for Dutch vs Deutsch as a misconception. Although it's now morphed into something where it states English users aren't generally confused, it's one of the most common questions I get (being Dutch and living in the U.S). Many folks do not understand the difference between Dutch & Deutsch and often ask for further clarification. Not to even go into the fact the Dutch and the Danes are the same thing either. I suggest this should be captured as part of the paragraph, but want to ensure I'm following some guidelines and have agreement (as a newbie here). 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Malbers

The problem here is that Americans asking you to explain the difference does not make up for the claim that it is a very common misconception (you may have been talking to all American's who have this problem, and in that case it would be only a very small minority). There is another issue involved that is a core Wikipolicy directive that is not to include original research into articles. Your observations are made by you, the interpretation that this is a big problem is also made by you, hence the conclusion (which you put in the article) is original research. This is the reason I flagged your remark with the -fact- / citation needed tag. Since then people have been changing the text to better fit their "truth" which is the idea behind Wikipedia, change ideas by other to make them better.

About the Dutch Deutsch idea contentwise; I think you are right in your claim, but we need a published report to make the claim stick. As long as that is not found, changing, altering and ultimetaly deleting is open for anyone. (Obviously the same goes for the Danish-Dutch thing). Hope this explained why your contribution was changed as quickly and dramatically as it was (and why this is actually a good instead of a bad thing). Arnoutf 20:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dutch being a german dialect name for Deutsch,

[ˈne:dərlɑnts] vs [ˈne:dəɹlɑnts]

The infobox currently says that the name of the language is pronounced [ˈne:dərlɑnts]. However, the R in 'auslaut' (placed after the vowel in a syllable) is pronounced ɹ in the Randstad and some parts of Zeeland and Utrecht, ʁ in Brabant/Limburg, R in the rest of the Netherlands (primarily the north and east) and as a lengthened r in Flanders. What to do? Melsaran 14:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest a regular "r" be used to cover all the pronunciation variants. --Targeman 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  that doesn’t quite work in phonetical transcription. -moyogo

Melsaran: do you mean r in the rest of the Netherlands or ʀ? R isn’t an IPA symbol. --moyogo 17:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That was an error; I meant "r" :) Melsaran 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dutch language#Consonants says :

The realization of the /r/ phoneme varies considerably from dialect to dialect. In "standard" Dutch, /r/ is realized as [r]. In many dialects it is realized as the voiced uvular fricative [ʁ] or even as the uvular trill [ʀ].

So [ˈne:dərlɑnts] seems to be the standard Dutch pronunciation. Does the R-auslaut still apply? --moyogo 17:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the first one, just like the Italian "r". Iblardi 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here in Belgium, it's either the voiced uvular fricative [ʁ] or the voiced tap (ɾ). I'd propose to use the standard Dutch pronunciation, disregarding dialects. --Targeman 17:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge as a native speaker, the conservative pronunciation (which I guess can be considered "standard") of an Auslaut-r is r. Iblardi 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

References, people!

This article is almost completely unreferenced. Do something about it. Shinobu 18:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Flemish vs. Netherlandic Dutch

This comes from the article introduction:

The difference between Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch is roughly comparable to the difference between American and British English, though only pronunciation-wise as both countries use the same written standard. However, most Belgian Flemings, if asked what their mother-tongue is, will give it as Dutch rather than Flemish.::

This paragraph is in my opinion not very successfull in characterising the differences between Flemish and Dutch. As a flemish speaker and being familiar with the way Dutch is spoken in various areas in the Netherlands (except Friesland) I would say that in general the differences between Flemish and Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands boil down to this:

Flemish:

• Flemish speakers generally have no difficulty in understanding native speakers from the Netherlands (except for specific dialects).
• Flemish uses a lot of old words - like schelm - that are either known but not used by or unknown to native speakers from the Netherlands.
• Common Flemish (flemish not spoken by all flemish speakers yet understood by all of them) uses a lot of expressions that are not official Dutch (in Flemish: 'k zal sebiet is afkomen, in Dutch: Ik zal dadelijk eens langskomen, in English: I'll come by shortly).

Dutch as spoken by native speakers in the Netherlands:

• Native Dutch speakers from the Netherlands don't tend to use old words as much as flemish speakers.
• Native Dutch speakers from the Netherlands are generally confused by common flemish expressions. From my experience, if Flemish speakers don't do an effort to speak AN people from the Netherlands will have a hard time to understand them.
• Native Dutch speakers from the Netherlands tend to use words that are never used and sometimes not understood by flemish speakers, like peuk.

This list is not exclusive but it's my attempt to demonstrate we need to come up with a better way to describe the difference between Flemish and Netherlandic Dutch than roughly comparable to the differences between American and British English. 62.102.20.12 16:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me begin with stating that the sentence you quote is very, very hard to understand (a.o) because of its structure, so a copy edit is needed.

In response to your comparison: I think there are more Dutch dialects then you think. E.g. Rotterdams dialect uses words like "stuf" for "vlakgom"; switches "leggen" en "liggen" (dat leg op tafel); Limburgers poor coffee in a tas (lit. a bag) a loan word from German tasse, and they sit "langs" someone else (instead of "naast"), Brabanters are talking about "Ons Mam" rather then "mijn ma". However, in general Dutch dialects are closer to AN compared to Flemish and most Dutch people can talk in AN when talking with people from other regions.

Use old words in Flemish, maybe the case, but that is more an issue of style than of language. But I agree that is a difference.

Again for expressions there is a substantial difference between regions within the Netherlands to an extent that not all expressions are understood between the regions. The Flemish expressions are perhaps a bit more removed from the mainstream Dutch ones compared to the differences between Dutch dialects, but I think that is mainly a shade of grey.

I don't know how to classify the difference between Nl-Dutch and Flemish-Dutch. I think the whole paragraph needs rephrasing. How about:

One of the major dialect groups of Dutch is Flemish, which is spoken in the northwestern part of Belgium. "Flemish" or Southern vernacular is sometimes used as the name of one of the languages in Belgium. Officially, Flemish is not a distinct language as both Belgium and the Netherlands have adopted Standard Dutch as an official language. If asked what their mother-tongue is, most Flemish-Belges will report it being Dutch rather than Flemish. The difference between Belgian and Netherlandic use of Dutch lies in the pronouncation and the choice of words and expression. As such it is roughly comparable to the difference between American and British English although there is only one spelling to be used in both countries.

If no objection I will exchange it Arnoutf 17:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would entirely remove the comparison between American/British English and Netherlands/Flemish Dutch. If we want to keep it we first have to understand the differences between American and British English, then understand the difference between Netherlands aend Flemish Dutch, and then decide if these differences are roughly similar.

I would suspect they are not similar, not even roughly. The Netherlands and Flanders territories form a discrete region where Dutch dialects have emerged throughout the centuries. American English on the other hand has evolved in a region that is geographically seperated from Britain. In this context maybe it would make more sense to compare the differences between Afrikaans and Netherlands Dutch to the differences between American/British English.

We both don't fully understand the actual differences between Flemish and Netherlandic Dutch. I guess the only solution is for an academic to step in and clarify the differences.62.102.20.12 18:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call, let's remove the UK-US comparions. I agree about specialist help, the academic should be a linguist preferably; otherwise his/her input is probably as bad as mine (as I am an academic, but not a linguist) Arnoutf 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the comparison. It does not have to be proven in a deep scientific way. It serves to give the non-Dutch-speaker reading the article an impression of the distance between the two. Just like English and American, they are considered one language, and just like them they are instantly distiguisheable. −Woodstone 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, it's the impression that the comparison invokes with the readers that's important. However, I would like it to be more specific. Things cleared up a little for me and after reading the paragraph again I noticed it makes a specific reference to spelling. This is the important part.

You see, if you would dictate a text to an American and a Brit - assuming they don't make any spelling errors - you would get two text that use different spellings for some words. If you would dictate a text to a Dutch and Flemish person you would end up with exactly the same text, not taking spelling errors into account.

In a similar exercise, if you would let an American explain his weekend to a Brit the Brit would probably understand the American. However, if the Brit would explain his weekend to the American and the Brit is a native from Aberdeen it's not entirely sure the American would understand a single word.

Based on my personal experience I have little difficulty understanding Dutch speakers as long as they don't use dialect or slang words or expressions. Again based on my personal experience Dutch speakers don't always understand me when I'm talking in my regular flemish way without using dialect words.

So my conclusion is that although Dutch and Flemish speakers use the same spelling in writing their pronounciation differs enough so that in some cases they don't understand each other. The same if true for me when I'm listening to a speaker from West Flanders by the way.

So I would like to rephrase the last phrase of Arnoutf's re-write:

As such it is roughly comparable to the difference between American and British English although there is only one spelling to be used in both countries. However, Flemish and Dutch speakers use different words, expressions and pronounciations that sometimes make it impossible for them to understand each other.

It's probably not perfect but it at least gives the reader a better understanding of the differences between Flemish and Netherlandic Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.12 (talk) 20:51, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I've met many people who seemed to think that Dutch (from The Netherlands) and "Flemish" were two completely different languages. At least the American/British comparison gives a general idea of how big the differences are. --Lamadude (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I'm from Flanders, I would suggest that there is a difference between Dutch and Flemish, no yet as important as the difference between American and British, but already as important as between Mexican and Spanish or Brazilian and Portuguese.

The spelling is the same, most words are used in both 'states' (Flanders isn't a country yet) but the pronunciation differs somewhat and the expressions, the fixed propositions (after adjectives and nouns) and some words differ enough to same there is a standard difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.152.214 (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

a standard pronunciation difference: nationaal Dutch [na:tsiona:l] versus Flemish[nasiona:l]

 this applies to all international words with vowel + ti + vowel

some words:

Flemish stoof Dutch kachel (but kachel is understood in Flanders too) Flemish tas Dutch kopje Flemish corniche Dutch dakgoot

Pieter Jansegers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.152.214 (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Error on map?

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

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

Shibboleth

There is a well-known Second World War anecdote in which the name of Dutch town Scheveningen was used as a Shibboleth by the Dutch Resistance, as there is also no phonetic counterpart in German. Native German speakers will pronounce the consonant cluster sch in Scheveningen as /ʃ/ (as in the English word short), while Dutch native speakers will pronounce it as /sx/. This linguistic difference provided an excellent thumb instrument to uncover German spies in the ranks of the Dutch resistance.

This is nonsense. There is /x/ in German. Germans who don't know dutch probably will read that name with /ʃ/, but I doubt that spies or anyone with good knowlege of dutch wouldn't be able to read it correctly. See German_orthography#Grapheme-to-phoneme_correspondences and Dutch_orthography#Basic_graphemes--88.101.76.122 12:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point here. Germans cannot pronounce the word-inital combination of /sx/ in a word as Scheveningen. Not only is this a linguistic fact, it is a very hard historic one too. Ad43 16:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience they can, so I never understood the alleged "Scheveningen" shibboleth. Känsterle 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps after a very extensive training, but not in any more natural way. It may be a mere anecdotical thing, but at least there is a lot of verifiable truth and plausibility in it. The argument can be reversed, for that matter. Fluent Dutch speakers of German can often be recognised as such after speaking only a very few syllables in German. Ad43 22:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this combination should be harder to pronounce than any other. Places of articulation are entirely different, so no quick movements are necessary. And why no other nations used words with /sx/ to discover spies?--88.101.76.122 15:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The story is that the /sx/ is typically Dutch and only the Dutch would be able to pronounce it easily. It seems like an urban legend to some extend, and probably more of trivia anyway. Arnoutf 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not typically Dutch. /sx/ is also common in most (if not all) Slavic languages. --88.101.76.122 15:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the Dutch resistance was a bit more arogant about the uniquenes of their language??? Anyway, the whole issue seems trivia anyway and could (in my opinion) best be removed per WP:TRIVIA or WP:NOT Arnoutf 16:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Scheveningen-story may be somewhat anecdotical, still an intresting morphonological difference of Dutch vs German or English is this characteristic /sx/, which must be an articulatory nightmare for all neighbours of the Dutch and Flemings. This is what counts here. Ad43 13:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So should we mention this in every language which has /sx/? And I'm still not convinced that this consonant cluster is significantly more problematic than any other.--88.101.76.122 14:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me 1 word in German where you pronounce an /sx/. Sure they have the /x/ sound in for instance Bach, but if you want to say Schumacher you hear: shuma/x/er. Mallerd 14:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I said in Slavic languages, like Russian, Czech, Slovak etc. Right, there is no word with /sx/ in German, but places of articulation are entirely different, why it should be hard to pronounce?--88.101.76.122 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but then, I am not raised as a German speaker. I am Dutch. Mallerd 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that the problem is that /x/ is not a separate phoneme in German, but just an allophone of /ç/ after back vowels. I used to have problems pronouncing /ŋ/ not followed by k or g. So I guess that German people have similar problem to pronounce /x/ not preceded by a back vowel. So, maybe German people say /sç/ and /sç/ sounds to Dutch people like /ʃ/?--88.101.76.122 15:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am a German native speaker, and I have absolutely no problem saying [sxe]. (by the way, IP, [sç] occurs only when the diminutive "-chen" follows a syllable ending on "s" (Hase [haːzɘ] (hare) > Häschen [hɛːsçen] (little hare, bunny)). It seems to me that the only reason you could uncover a German spy by letting him say Scheveningen is that initial "sch" is always pronounced [ʃ] in German and the combination [sx] does not occur naturally. As a spy, he needs to be very dumb not to know the basic differences between German and Dutch pronounciation. But combining [s] and [x] is not a serious problem. In some dialects, eg. Swiss German, you can say "s'Chäfi" [ˈsxæfi] (Das Gefängnis - the jail). What would be more of a problem is the [ɣ] (or [ʝ]?) in "Gent", since this sound does not exist in standard German at all. -- megA 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As a Flemish speaker wgo has lived in Germany, I agree with MegA, /sx/ is quite easy for German speakers, the main problem would be the pronunciation of the initial letter in "Gent" But the pronounciation of this letter is also one of the main differences between Holland "hard g" and Flanders "soft g" (and other regions of course, I'm not going to name them all) the soft g in particular is very difficult for German speakers, in my experience --Lamadude (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, this perennial "folk legend" of Germans-cannot-pronounce-Dutch-sch does not feature in the article itself. Very noticeable nonetheless is the frequency with which the words "difficult" and "difficulties" appear in the article. I wonder: why DO so many Dutch seem to prize and hug to themselves this notion that foreigners will NEVER master 100% native accuracy pronunciation of their language? Is it perhaps (I ask mischievously) the reverse facet of Netherlanders' fluency in so many other languages which they nevertheless speak with VERY DISTINCT Dutch accents!! :) -- Picapica (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Immigrant language

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay :-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sweden???

infobox mentions dutch spoken in sweden. i only know 2 people who speak it here and know it has not much of an official presence... waht's the source ofthis claim? 77.116.230.85 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it seems weird, maybe true, but then needs reference. I took it out for now. Arnoutf 20:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Same in France !! no one speaks dutch there!! weird .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.87.93.59 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands and Belgian Sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25% of Bruxellois? Nope

The article exagerates the number of people speaking Dutch. --Gronky 16:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And another intresting question would be how many of the new Francophones or their parents have (had) another mother tongue, be it Flemish Dutch or otherwise. Ad43 08:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That would indeed be interesting to know. (Although it would belong on the Brussels article.) --Gronky 20:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This problem seems to be solved. There's a graph and it adds to 16% Dutch speakers, which seems reasonable (it corresponds to Flemish guaranteed representation in Brussels' parliament) 212.76.245.4 (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Belgium Section

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

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

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

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

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

The Map

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

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

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

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

Deutsch

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

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

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

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

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

Origin of AN

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

"Contemporary" map

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

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

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

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

number of speakers

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

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

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

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

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

Vowels and diphtongs

The list of fourteen simple vowels and four diphthongs listed in this article seems to fall short in that it merely distinguishes between ʏ and øːand omits the intermediate ʏ : as in "deur", "geur" and "zeur". There is a marked distinction between the pronunciation of the diphtong in these words and the pronunciation of both the diphtong øːin "neus", "leut" and "deuk" and the vowel ʏ in "hut", "dus" and "bul". One also notices the absence of œ as in "huid", "uit" and "fuik", which is markedly different from the open œy in "ui", "lui" and "bui". I am hesitant to edit correspondingly since references do not generally appear to support this, but I do wonder what the general feeling about this is. --Roger Pilgham (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not a linguist myself; I am Dutch and I think the difference is subtle (at least in AN dialects). In any case I would say, find a reference that supports it, otherwise it looks a lot like original research to me. Arnoutf (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Arnout. Thanks. --Roger Pilgham (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Other diphthongs: aren't these also diphthongs: aai (baai, haai), ooi (mooi, dooi), oei (roei, woei), eeuw (leeuw, sneeuw), ieuw (nieuw, kieuw), uw (duw, luw) ? 195.240.67.116 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Netherlandic

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

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

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

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

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

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

A search on Google Books turns up several instances which suggest that "Netherlandic language" is used as a synonym of "Dutch language". Here we have a NEB article mentioning the word otherwise than as a title: [1]. Your own suggestion needs to be corroborated with sources. I reverted your edit because it directly contradicted what was explicitly stated in the EB article, which is normally fine to use as a source. The expression may not be widely used, and maybe it should rather be put between parentheses or even made into a footnote, but as it is now it looks as if you're discarding an often-used source only on the base of your opinion. You keep talking about sources you have; fine, but if you want your proposals to be accepted you should show those sources yourself instead of laying the burden of proof on other people and expect them to go and look for them. Iblardi (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is relevant, because you removed a sourced mentioning of the occurence of a synonym and then adduced a multitude of other sources which did not mention it to prove that it didn't really exist. The dispute is about whether the word is used in English as a synonym for Dutch and hence its inclusion in the article is justified, not if it is the more common term. Other examples where the term "Netherlandic" is used in this way are the census lists of the Australian government ([3]) (as inferred from the fact that "Dutch" isn't listed separately and "Afrikaans" is) and at least one English dictionary entry. [4] Iblardi (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Then I suggest you read the entry again (and see [5]). But you know what, this whole point isn't really worth the drama. As far as I'm concerned, the article is fine as it is now. Iblardi (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Translation of Nederlands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afrikaans-speaking Cape Coloureds

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

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

Invalid Reference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genders

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

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

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

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

I agree they have not merged.

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

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

Rewritten - Aanspreken

I've rewritten a section, and my original source uses the wording "wat de streng gelovige Nederlanders zeer aansprak". I've translated "aanspreken" with "to like" but I have a feeling it's not entirely correct. But I can't find the "full" English translation of aanspreken .. anyone else got any ideas as how to translate?HP1740-B (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration is often difficult as it often fails to capture the feeling. "To like" is close, perhaps "to appeal to" might be an option (see third option) ? Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

try 'liable' at wiktionary...it translates to aansprakelijk.--Buster7 (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is a meaning of "aanspreken", but in the given context "wat de streng gelovige Nederlanders zeer aansprak" the other meaning is clearly intended. Arnoutf (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"liable" to "aansprakelijk" is OK, but it is only in context of law. "I am liable to pay damages": "ik ben aansprakelijk voor schade". "Iets wat mij aanspreekt" is "something that appeals to me". "Appeal" in a literal way may mean "talk to", so there is a correspondency in the terms on more levels.Marc1966 (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

map

I am not really happy with the map.

• all Dutch-speaking countries are small; hence the need for striking colours. Why don't we encircle the Benelux region and Suriname, just as with the Antilles? This way one does not need to enlarge the map to see where the blue things are.
• Suriname deserves the same colour as the Netherlands and Belgium. Dutch holds official status and is the majority language. (the article will explain the multilingual situation of Belgium and Suriname)
• the current blue shade for the Antilles (somewhere in between the one of Afrikaans and the one of the other Dutch-speaking nations) is ok to me. (official, but no majority)
• the rest of the European Union should not be highlighted at all (this is not done for other languages either), and neither should French Guyana.
• since Afrikaans belongs to the legacy of Dutch (it is not just related to it but a direct split-off), both Namibia and South Africa should be highlighted indeed. I think the current colour is ok.
• Indonesia on the other hand should just have a green dot, the situation there is not comparable to the situation of "Dutch in Africa" = Afrikaans.
• Canada deserves one of those green dots as well.

I think this way the map represents a good overview of where Dutch (and Afrikaans) is spoken. Unfortunately, I lack the software and the skills to edit the map myself, so if someone could do that, that would be fantastic. Cheers, --Hooiwind (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• French Guyana is part of the EU so if the EU is blue French Guyana has to be blue too.
• I agree that Canada also needs a green dot, but those immigrants live everywhere in the country.
• In Indonesia you still got a few people who talk Dutch in "normal" way but it is also used in court etc.

Danish

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

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

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

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

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

te na

   "Hij zal mijn ziel in vrede verlossen van degenen die mij te na komen, want onder velen was hij met mij" (Modern Dutch) (see Psalm 55:19)
   "He shall my soul in peace free from those who me to after come, because amongst many was he with me" (English literal translation in the same word order)

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

Angstschreeuw

I am a native Dutch speaker (from the Netherlands). When listening to the pronunciation in this audio, it somehow does not seem correct to me. It sounds like it was done by someone who speaks Dutch pretty fluently, but is not a native speaker. I can't put my finger on it, but it doesn't seem to me like any native Dutch speaker would ever pronounce "angstschreeuw" quite this way. But MAYBE that's just because the word is probably never used in actual speech without any passion. 97.103.81.29 (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a native speaker as well. I think it is just pronounced by somebody from Dutch Limburg or Dutch East Brabant, with a huge accent, or by somebody with a soar throat. The text says which is reduced further by some speakers in everyday pronunciation by blending consecutive consonants into one sound - e.g. "ch" and "r", which is the case here. The file should be removed beacuse the r is not realised as the alveolar trill [r] —standard pronunciation— but with a Limburgish r (the uvular trill [ʀ]). People shouldn't be taught dialect here. Same holds for the Nejdelans file, which is supposed to show how Nederlands is to be pronounced, and does not reflect the transcription [ˈneːdərlɑnts]. If I had a recorder I'd replace it immediately. --Hooiwind (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am Dutch too and agree with Hooiwind on both counts, the R is not pronounced according to standard dialect neiter in Nederlands nor in Angstschreeuw. Can someone record better ogg files (I can't)? Arnoutf (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no "standard" for Dutch pronunciation, it would be wrong to assume that the "hollandic" pronunciation of words is the only right one. If you listen to for example news broadcasts on Dutch and Flemish television you will hear a very clear difference in pronunciation and yet these two versions are both perfectly acceptable. There is only a standard spelling and grammar. --Lamadude (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

While there is no single pronouncation; the Hollandic/Utrecht dialect is both the largest, and the dialect usually considered as closest to Algemeen Nederlands.

In any case we should not use examples where the pronouncation differs too much between majar dialects. The example of the Nederlands is fine; as that difference is in the tone/sound, rather then in the structure of the word. However if we take an example where two consonants merge into one in the pronouncation example, that is not a good example. Arnoutf (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Being a native speaker, I am surprised that someone should introduce "standard pronunciation" in exactly the area of pronouncing r. In the 12 years of my schooling, no one ever mentioned there was a right (or wrong, for that matter!) pronunciation of r and I doubt if there are official guidelines in this area. I would love to be surprised! Pronunciation in the Netherlands varies widely. Some pronunciations may be frowned upon, but thinking of examples, those would be vowels (like 'a', 'ei'/'ij' from the Amsterdam area, as sung by Ciskede Rat in "Krijg toch allemaal de kolere, val van mijn part allemaal dood"), rather than consonants. Tongue-r (alveolar trill) or throat-r (uvular trill) depends on location/area, as does the pronunciation of 'g' and 'ch'. It has nothing to do with dialects, that is an entirely different subject matter. The only debate I know about pronouncing r, is the one about the Gooise r (nl:Gooise_r), that I will not comment on here...

My main reason for commenting, though: What about the translation? "Scream in fear" is given as translation for 'angstschreeuw'. It is hard to definitely judge that translation, but "scream in fear" sounds like a verb to me, whereas "angstschreeuw" is definitely a noun. Make it "scream of fear" if 'scream' and 'fear' are necessary. I would probably opt for "cry of terror".Marc1966 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about talking standard dialect, probably my Hollandic background speaking up ;-)

Anyway, I like "cry of terror" conveys more or less the same feeling of anxiety "angstschreeuw" does. Arnoutf (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

De Engelse Ziekte

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

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

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

Dutch in Indonesian law

Since the Dutch introduced Western law to Indonesia, the Dutch language is officially used during legal matters next to the Indonesian language. Also many jurists are required to know Dutch.
When I read the link http://www.wetenschapsagenda.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?c=22 which is ought to state the above claims, I cannot find anywhere that Dutch is still officially used in Indonesian courts nor that contemporary jurists are still required to know the language. It only says that some Indonesian jurists feel unsatisfied with the refinement of Indonesian law texts, and that some documents were never translated from Dutch to Indonesian but that those "have been obscured". Moreover, I doubt the authority of this link, since it is nothing more than a summary of a master thesis at Leiden University.--Hooiwind (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first off why do you think the university of Leiden has no authority? Just because it is a summary or something? That's nonsense.

Uh, I must regretfully add that I cannot seem to find the other sources which discussed this subject (about the part that some documents haven't been updated to Indonesian and therefore are Dutch). I have found some book summaries of Ab Massier that somewhat implies that Dutch is still used. If you feel better, delete the part that says "officially". However, I still find it strange that even though it is an English based encyclopedia, it still finds itself cultural bound. I believe there was something as WP:TRUTH, but that does only seem to apply to Anglophone countries. When we were in Indonesia at this court, we asked about the Dutch language and they said that it was still used and that jurists still learn Dutch by the way. I think that is just as much WP:TRUTH as when an English chap would say "English judges wear wigs". Then 90% of this wikipedia would say, well yeah we know that.

I really would like to know why an university which is well, the best in languages in the Netherlands, has no authority to you. Mallerd (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that Hooiwind thinks Leiden university has no authority. However, you can be sure that a PR text for a master course was never meant as a scientific statement, and as such I agree that such leaflets (even when produced by a good university) are weak sources.

Even more, I read the sources provided, and these say that Indonesian law has moved away from using Dutch, but that still a lot of the older laws, and original ideas in Indonesian law are derived from the Dutch laws prior to independence. (Basically what Hooiwind says above).

That you have been in Indonesia and asked lawyers whether they used Dutch is irrelevant as that is original research.

Nevertheless I think you have an interesting topic here, i.e. that Indonesian law is struggling with its Dutch roots, and some never revoked laws that have not been decently translated. That is an issues for the Indonesian law articles however, not for the one on Dutch language. Arnoutf (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research yes, but it doesn't make it untrue. Believe me, I am trying to find sources but in lack of any it is not very credible I guess. Google books has limited books on this, several are not available etc. Anyway I guess it's time to move on I just tried to tell the readers something. Mallerd (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mallerd, with all due respect, but as Arnout also said you will just have to find a credible source. And a summary of a master thesis or course at any university won't do. Even though it may be published on the university's website, it is not a university publication. I do not see what this has to do with anglocentrism since I'm Flemish, not anglophone. For now, I will replace your sentence with another section I will copy from Dutch as a foreign language and that should somewhat clarify the role of Dutch. As soon as you have found sources that state that Dutch is still actively or passively used in the Indonesian legal system, you're of course free to edit. Kind regards, --Hooiwind (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not referring to you Hooiwind, I know you are Dutch/Flemish. It doesn't matter if you didn't understand my point. Mallerd (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you must have been referring to me. I agree with Hooiwind. Whatever you hear from an Indonesian lawyer may well be true, but it is not verifiable to others (i.e. we cannot rewind that conversation). That makes it original research, and as such not a valid source for Wikipedia. This does not say it is not true, only that it is not reliably sourced nor verifiable. A core Wiki-policy is stating just that

Truth is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not referring to an actual person in this discussion. My point was that if something is so obvious in a culture, people of that culture don't bother check if it's actually verifiable. Sure, if something is that obvious there would be a source about it somewhere. But I don't see a reference tag on this sentence and many alike: "London ( pronunciation (help·info); IPA: /ˈlʌndən/) is the capital and largest urban area of both England and the United Kingdom.". This is not bad, because it is very obvious to anglophone people. I am not saying that if you don't speak English, you can't know it but it's harder to search for "reliable" sources. Even acceptance of sources on wikipedia is harder if you don't use English ones. However, it becomes more annoying when it comes to facts that are not part of the anglophone world. Say, the city of Rome: "Rome (pronounced /roʊm/; Italian: Roma, pronounced [ˈroma]; Latin: Roma) is the capital city of Italy and Lazio,[2]". For some reason, the obvious suddenly has to be verified and referenced. All fun and nice (leuk en aardig) those rules, but it's really stupid having to justify yourself against an anglophone majority, while that majority is inconsequent regarding their own. I don't know if those last few sentences were correct English, but I hope you understand my point now. I personally feel that these digital encyclopedias are better of when transferring and translating every single article including the tiny and seemingly unworthy to eachother, because then you cover the most "facts" from across the world. Mallerd (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the whole referencing thing. Something that is not likely to be challenged can be unreferenced, untill someone asks for the reference. So indeed, very obvious things may not require referencing. I doubt whether the language used in any legal system is this obvious (for non-law expert) even in their own country, so that would need referencing (at least when it deviates from the national language). For example if a Californian, or Florida court (both US states with large Hispanic communities) uses Spanish as a (secondary) language that would require a reference.

The example of London is interesting. The UK statistics agency has the population figures (and is indeed referenced elsewhere in that article), the status of London as capitol of the UK is undisputed. On the other had, the status of Amsterdam as capital of the Netherlands has been doubted (As it is not the seat of government; see some archive of the Netherlands article), which has lead to the Capital of the Netherlands article where the situation is explained and references are provided.

It think the status of Dutch language in Indonesian law is less obvious then either the capital status of London or Amsterdam, and as such requires referencing. Also, when writing for the English language Wikipedia non-English topics may indeed need more referencing (e.g. the Amsterdam example, the capital status of this city would not be doubted in Dutch Wikipedia). That is the consequence of writing in English Wikipedia.

All in all I hope I have made the points that (1) Legal languages, when deviating from the national language, are not obvious facts for anyone not involved in the legal system of that specific language and as such require a reference when asked for and (2) By engaging in English Wikipedia some obvious facts for non-English countries may not be obvious here, and thus require a reference. Arnoutf (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have accepted (1), but it is downright stupid to say "That is the consequence of writing in English Wikipedia". Is it not just an encyclopedia that is written in the English language? The great advantage of the internet is the possibility for many different people with different cultures to participate. What you are basically saying is that the English wikipedia is for people who speak English as their mothertongue and people who speak English as a secondary language can join too, but only

you know what, never mind. Mallerd (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree (2) is a deviation from a "perfect" project. But since perfection does not exist in reality, we (as non native English speakers) will just have to live with it. BTW it is likely not only about English speaking but mainly about living in the large anglophonic countries, I think many inhabitants of New Zealand will have the same problems..... Arnoutf (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps less is more and more is less in an encyclopedia. Since relying too much on references can leave out "facts", noteworthy to one or not to another, and any source about 1 subject added more in an article has less value in comparison to the other sources. Anyway, knowing that it cannot be perfect should not mean we should not try to build it. Have you ever read a religious text? If you have, you might know that the situation of "redemption", "nirvana" or "walhalla" are perfect and are strifed for. Some say they have reached this perfect state of being. Why not give it a shot? As they say in the Netherlands: "Een betere wereld begint bij jezelf." - A better world starts with yourself." If you don't agree, it sounds as defeatism. Mallerd (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case I think the "fact" is not sufficiently obvious, not even to a native Dutch speaker; so I would like to see a reference here.

Striving for perfection is fine with me, but in my experience a certain level of pragmatic realism keeps away a lot of unnecessary stress; and saves energy for the matters worth fighting for. Arnoutf (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you feel that it is not obvious, but in my experience a certain level of trust in people also keeps away a lot of unnecessary stress. Or do you not believe anything you see and hear about war zones? On wikipedia those are articles as well, with references. Are those references unreliable and one-sided? I don't know, you tell me. I believe a crying civilian who says she has just lost her entire family during a bombing raid, even without seeing the dead bodies. Or is that obvious? I hope you think wikipedia is not worth fighting for, it will hurt more people than it helps by preserving it. Mallerd (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Again an interesting example, the saying "in war, truth is the first victim" probably applies here. While a crying victim is likely to be true; in wars there is always a chance that it is an orchestrated PR offensive. So yes you would ultimately need neutral secondary sources in such a situation.

Taken togehter I don't think either of us will change our opinion, so I would rather invite additional editors to pitch in then continue this between the two of us. Arnoutf (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I also agree about the truth in war. That was what I was referring to. Let's say in Gaza/Israel at the moment, the Israeli's did try to reduce this example of a crying victim to propaganda and untrue. I personally find that really hard to do, as such a Palestinian documentary about the casualties in Gaza isareliable source to me. It shows that there are civilian casualties, perhaps those are the only ones, who knows? However, that does not matter when you are trying to answer the question are there civilian casualties? People surely don't believe that they are all Hamas? No instance has more "authority" than the other when it comes to distinguish truth from lies. So to say that "neutral" secondary sources are needed, mwah. (perhaps a little footnote, I found that even the UN is not neutral, at least in this conflict. They said Israel as a member state has the right to defend itself. No word about Palestine Gaza, which is not a member of the UN. Come on..) Or does this belong on someone's talkpage? Mallerd (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Delft blue

The number of unnecessary links is turning the article blue. Now, granted it might be nice to display a Dutch Delft Blue article. Given some time I will remove unnecessary links unless there is an objection--Buster7 (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Colloquial use in English

Hi, Maybe this is the wrong place, but is there a single article (or list) about the off-definition meanings and uses of 'Dutch' in English, like in Dutch courage and Dutch wife. Could be added to the See also-section (so I'm on the right place after all). -DePiep (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that maybe better suited for Dutch people, or the Netherlands article. Arnoutf (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it deserves a special article listed on Dutch. And it definitely deserves a mention of "Going Dutch" which is reversed by the Dutch expression "Amerikaanse Fuif", a party where everyone brings food and drinks :) Joepnl (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Polder Dutch?

Why cannot I find anywhere on Wikipedia a mention of the pronunciation (nowadays very common especially among young people) known as "Polder Dutch"? It means that the diphthongs spelled as ij, ou and ui are pronounced more open, like [aɪ], [aʊ] and [ɑʏ] or even [ɔʊ]. Sociolinguistically, the phenomenon is also interesting because it is apparently of recent origin (perhaps as late as the 1970s) and occurred first in middle-aged, urban and ambitious women.

By the way, a young lady from Folkestone, Kent (who learned Finnish as a hobby) told me a few years ago that she had heard very old people in Kent pronounce house like what she would spell höys in Finnish, i. e. [hœʏs]. This would confirm what has been claimed in an older discussion that is now archived, namely that there are indeed English dialects where house is pronounced essentially like Dutch huis. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree Polder Dutch should be added. Maybe you could do that? I think the Dutch nl:Poldernederlands describes the phenomenon quite accurate. I'm very surprised any other language has the Dutch "ui". (there's probably a Welshman somewhere who also hears the difference between "scheur" and "schuur" the Meertens Instituut would love to interview :))Joepnl (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Stress language"?

"Dutch is a stress language; the stress position of words matters. Stress can occur on any syllable position in a word." Besides the listed example (vóórkomen (occur) and voorkómen (prevent)), I can only think of one, even weaker (intended as word play by Marten Toonder) example "bommelding". I'm not a linguist but I guess a single example doesn't make a whole language a stress language. It's not like people who use Dutch as a second language make mistakes that completely change the meaning of a sentence like in Chinese. I would like a source saying it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joepnl (talk • contribs) 03:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)