Talk:West Flemish

Untitled

Question: Is West Flemish just another Dutch dialect, distinct from Flemish, or is it a separate language? -- SJK

Doesn't this page need disambiguation? - Olivier

As a former inhabitant of Zeeuwsch Vlaanderen I can declare that this page is total bunk. Jcwf

Please correct it! I don't know where the data about Zeeuwsch Vlaanderen came from. — Toby 07:27 Dec 1, 2002 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Flemish language, only a myriad of dialect, each of which is older than the only standard language we have :DUTCH Jcwf

I agree. There is no such language as "Flemish", any more than there is a language called "American" or "Quebecois". This article should be deleted. soulpatch

Thank you

Flemish is Dutch, West Flemish is different; I think that the titles clarify this now. I'm following Ethnologue in saying that West Flemish is distinct from Dutch; if that's wrong, then this article can still exist as an article about a specific dialect, now with minimal changes. I also don't know if it's spoken in Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen; Ethnologue says yes, but not exclusively. It may be that West Flemish is distinct from Dutch in France but not in the Netherlands; that sort of thing can happen with languages. -- Toby 00:07 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

'There is no such language as "Flemish"'... It would be as true and fair to say there was no such language as Dutch, bearing in mind that literary tradition goes back further in Flemish dialects than in Dutch ones (e.g. "Til Eulenspiel" or "Til Eulenspiegel"). The fact of the matter is that the language is distinct, not so much in its content as in its attachments to a body of speakers, who can and do distinguish themselves. Approve or not, there is such a thing as the Vlaams Blok. Claiming Flemish does not exist is like the early persecution of people who claimed to speak Afrikaans rather than Dutch. This attitude is strongly reminiscent of claims I have heard that 'There is no such place as Belgium'. PML.

I fully agree. As a fleming, I take great offence in the statement 'there is no such thing as Flemish'. I'm speaking it every day, as are 6 million other Flemings. The fact that there are dialects even among the flemish-speaking populace is of no influence on the fact that Flemish *is* distinctly different from the Dutch spoken in the Netherlands. This sort of statements reflect the old orangenesk-nationalistic tendency of the Netherlands, together with some former misguided elitist flemings in the years between 1930 and 1980 (afraid that Flemish would not be a viable language on it's one) to superimpose their 'correct' Dutch. When in school, I still had to learn that Dutch, which was called "Algemeen beschaafd Nederlands" or "Genral Civilized Dutch"...as if Flemish was somehow 'less civilised'. Luckily, times have changed, and in a change of mentality, more and more Flemings realise that the old doctrine was foolish and even on all educational levels oàne now accepts that Flemish has a right of its own.

Maybe it's still called Dutch officially, but Flemings speak Flemish, period.

---

To inform the uninitiated, the following scientific facts:

• The Germanic dialects spoken in Belgium do not originally form a unity against those spoken in The Netherlands. As there was no such unity there could not be a valid name for it. Thus "Flemish" is historically not a valid name in this respect.

• They are divided in West Flemish, East Flemish, Brabantic and Limburgian. All of these groups are also spoken in the adjoining areas in The Netherlands. There are over four million people living in these areas. On the level of dialects, the state border between Belgium and The Netherlands is thus not a language border.

• Of the six million people in Belgium that speak Dutch, only a minority uses Flemish dialects. The largest group consists of Brabantic dialect speakers. A second reason why the use of the generic "Flemish" is inaccurate and misleading.

• The Dutch standard language originated in those areas now located in Belgium. As it is mainly Brabantic in origin and reflects the dialects spoken by a majority of the Belgian speakers of Dutch, stressing the contradistinction between Dutch and "Flemish" is utterly absurd. Thus the state border between Belgium and The Netherlands is not a language border on the level of standard languages also.

• From 1830 in Belgium the Dutch standard language was almost completely replaced by French. Its more recent rebirth as a living spoken entity came about by an almost perfect imitation of the language spoken in The Netherlands. So the standard in Belgium differs only slightly from that in The Netherlands. Those differences as there are however, are again mainly of Brabantic, not Flemish origin.

• The only distinction within the continuum of Continental Germanic dialects that makes a dialect Dutch or German, is whether a dialect uses Dutch or German as its standard language. West Flemish is thus a Dutch dialect for the simple reason that the speakers of West Flemish use Dutch as their standard language. The fact that West Flemish is indeed a very aberrant dialect group does not alter the other fact, for there still (or perhaps "again") is a gradient. Of course all this is contingent on future development, for the continuum could yet (or again) be broken, or a separate West Flemish standard language could replace Dutch.

MWAK--217.122.44.226 13:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, MWAK, but unless you actually speak Flemish, I don't think you know what you're talking about. I do take offense to your statements that Flemish and Dutch are one and the same because they're not. When I turn on Dutch television I have great difficulty what they're saying. When a Dutch show airs on Flemish television they often have subtitles because.... we can't understand it. By the way--when you speak to someone from Roosendael, just across the border from Antwerp, the language difference is quite distinct. I suggest you try it sometime before you come and blabber about your scientific facts. dri3s

I am Fleming and I speak DUTCH, I take it as an insult if someone says I speak Flemish. Some people in Flanders might prefer to call create a new "Flemish" language. But the problem is that most of them never learnt to speak Dutch properly. And there is no standard "Flemish language". I have no problem to understand Dutch shows, so I don't need those subtitles, nor do I have problems with understanding people from Roosendaal. It is on the other hand VERY difficult for me to understand somebody from Antwerp, Limburg, Brabant. And all of these dialects have subtitles on Flemish TV. The problem is that some Flemings will do anything they want to ridicule or even destroy the Dutch language in Flanders, But they don't see that there isn't a Standard Flemish to replace it.

Well, in a way there is a Standard Flemish: it is called Dutch. :o) The influence of the real Flemish dialects on the Dutch standard language has been quite considerable; and modern Dutch is even largely of Brabantic origin. However Dutch was created a long time ago, in the 16th century. Since then some developments haven taken place that obscure the historical facts. The original dialects of Holland have all but been wiped out and replaced by Dutch so Dutch now seems more Hollandic. Meanwhile the dialects in the south have changed quite a lot. The fathers have alienated from their child. At present the urban dialect of Antwerp is emerging as a new Dutch standard in the South. If you call that standard "Flemish" (though it's really as Brabantic as the Randstad Dutch), you can easily make the mistake to think that the disparate local dialects in Belgium and that new standard are "essentially" the same and form a unity against the language of the North. But the (more) original dialects of Roosendaal and Antwerp are of course much closer to each other than to those of Brughes, Amsterdam and Tongeren, not to mention those of the Saxon and Frisian regions in The Netherlands. dri3s - and the vast majority of the population of both nations - is understandably confused by all this. I think he's upset by the perceived implication that somehow his dialect is inferior or that it would be improper for a person not to follow the conventions of the North. Being a Brabander myself (as you could have guessed) I personally reject that possible implication.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 12:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Help.

Eeer , West-Flemish is totally different from Standard Dutch, all the other dialects ( East-Flemish , Antwerp-dialect , Limburgish ) are all quite the same as standard dutch , except pronounciating. West-Flemish isn't a language , but it certainly has the potential for it ! It dirived from Middle Dutch , and has a different word for almost any Standard Dutch word . Verbs are completely different too. "Ik zien /gie ziet /zie is / em is / wieder zien / zieder zien " is "to be" in W-Flemish, while the dutch verb for to be is " Ik ben / jij bent / zij is / hie is / wij zijn / zij zijn " . can you see the difference ? I'll bet you can

--81.245.168.155 18:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)This is utter nonsense. I am from Ghent, and even I have problems understanding the original dialect spoken in my city. Maybe Ghentish should be called a seperate language? But wait, the 'language' spoken in the eastern region of my city sounds different than the one spoken in the western region. So there should be two different Ghentish languages... And maybe the boy with his Turkish accent should also create a new language? We shouldn't go back to the Middle Ages and kling on to our regional dialects that are mutually unitelligable... That's hardly progress. Standardisation started in the Middle Ages, please let's not turn back time. People who speak 'Flemish' just can't speak proper Dutch. That's the problem.

In the Middle ages dialects were in fact much closer - with, interesting enough, the possible exception of West Flemish, perhaps due to a Saxon or Frisian substrate. So, of all the Low Franconian dialects, West Flemish is indeed best qualified to form a separate standard language - but for the fact that Dutch's earliest origins are West Flemish! Besides, it would be terribly expensive and awfully awkward to do this in modern times. But then, what with the Hubbert Peak and all, times very soon won't be modern anymore and your desire will be fulfilled. ;>]

MWAK--84.27.81.59 12:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Attencion West Flemish speakers!

If you are fluent in West Flemish, please go to the following page: Talk:Dutch_language#Requested_help_from_Dutch_and_Flemish_people_from_all_Dutch_speaking_regions and help complete a project concerning all Dutch dialects.  Rex  13:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That section would be in Talk:Dutch language/Archive4, but it isn't. Frankly speaking, the archive only strengthened my impression that a discussion between us would produce more heat than light.

In short, I reverted your deletion again. I you wish to report me, just do so. Erik Warmelink 01:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Erik, you should try to discuss matters with good points rather that from a hate for someone. On wikipedia you should revert or adapt things when trying to improve the wikipedia project, not to lure uot a negative reaction. Try to back up your points otherthan asking people to report you if they disagree. You are being a vandal right now...145.93.126.83 08:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So, why did you (among others) change the spelling of "zyn" to "zijn"? If A says to B "Jaoj, C does/has/is ...", what is the contraction?

I don't hate Rex Germanus, though I dislike his edits when they push a POV. Accusing me of vandalism when I only revert to a fairly old and stable version doesn't improve wikipedia. In reaction to an edit summary like "no linguistic experience. Discuss on talk or I'm reporting you" by a person whose latest addition to the talk page is more than one year old, I don't see much reason to say more than "If you wish to report me, just do so". It wasn't the first time Rex threatened to report me. Once he does report me, I'll have concrete accusations against which to defend. Erik Warmelink 00:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

IP, I'll get back on this later, but remenber Erik accused you of WP:OR? What he does above: If A says to B "Jaoj, C does/has/is ...", is just that.Rex 08:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You say you dont hate rex, but I think thats a lie Erik. You' re edits just scream ' hatefilled POV!' .145.93.123.60 (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I try not to take notice to this kind of behavior. So far he's been proven wrong continuously and by acting like he does he's only making a fool of himself.Rex (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It still is a bad development and should not be allowed ... even if he is being proven wrong every time his behavior still harms the project and trustworthiness of this encyclopedia... 145.93.125.93 (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

@145.93.123.60: No, I don't hate Rex Germanus, not even when he "forgets" to log in when he arrives at school in the morning. Erik Warmelink (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One more false and unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry and I will report you on WP:ANI, either prove it or drop it. Someone who disagrees with you is not a sock, just another person who does want a better more reliable wikipedia.Rex (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Y vs. IJ

There has been some back-and-forth to decide if words are written with "y", "ij", or both according to preference. Now, in general, when people write Westvlaams, they use the "y". Evidence of this can be seen throughout the West Flemish Wikipedia[1] or the Dutch wikibooks[2]. Fram (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

West Flemish has no standard form, the 'West Flemish Wikipedia' is not the guide to how to write in the West Flemish dialect, and no fixed spelling whatsoever. To claim otherwise, as you do, and to make a letter variation seem as a linguistic difference between West Flemish and Standard Dutch is not only Original research, also false. Leave languages to linguists.Rex (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not the guide of how to do it, it is an example of how many West Flemish people themselves agree to write down their dialect. If there is no standard form (logical, since there is no governing body), why would we use anything else than what the actual speakers of the language do? The "y" seplling was added in August[3], and no good reason has been given no to use it.

As for the rest of your post: please remain civil, don't accuse people of original research when it is nothing of the kind, and try to support your position with references. If you have a good reference that it is more often written as "zin" or even (less correct) "zien" than "zyn", be my guest. "Zijn", however, gives a totally wrong image as to how it is actually pronounced, and is therefor rarely used when writing down West Flemish. Fram (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at all that amount of original research. You know, it should (when referenced) be written in IPA, but it is original research. It is an unreferenced claim with a unreferenced sentence. You are the one here who ought to provide references, the sentence as well as the untrue 'conjugation' of 'yes' (also original research) is to be removed.Rex (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean the sentence that you changed from "zyn" to "zijn"?[4] And again?[5] Don't lecture me, Rex Germanus. Fram (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ow I will lecture you whenever I think it's neccesary. You're defending and reimplementing Original Research.What do you have to say for yourself?Rex (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if there is no official spelling and no source for the text supported by Erik and Fran it should be removed as Original Research.145.93.125.93 (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Note:Today Fram once again reverted without adding anything to this discussion in the form of a comment, or his/her badly needed sources.Rex (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Vlaemsch?

I don't think "Vlaemsch" is the West-Flemish word for "West Flemish" I live in West Flanders and when people talk about the dialect they say "west-vlams" or something similar. --Lamadude (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The speakers in France refer to their language as "Vlaemsch". In Belgium speakers refer to it as both "Vlams" and "West-Vlams"

If you want an example: d'Akademie voor Nuuze Vlaemsche Taele is about French-Flemish. DasRakel  〒  11:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd claim

"It is generally considered a dialect of Dutch but is hardly comprehensible to speakers of the Dutch dialects of Antwerp and Amsterdam."

I wouldn't put Antwerp and Amsterdam in the same category, but anyhow, this is an odd claim. Amsterdam is not necessarily Standard Dutch and, as someone who speaks SD: I can understand West Flemish just fine. I'm really not sure how this can be properly verified. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)