Talk:Dutch Low Saxon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Unreferenced
While searching for sources of the subdivision of Plattdüütsch, neither of the two sources I've found (Metzler Lexikon Sprache (ISBN 3-476-01519-X) and the site of the Institut für niederdeutsche Sprache) mentions any Netherlands dialects. -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 12:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I find this article utter nonsense. Low Saxon is spoken on both sides of the Dutch/German border. Dividing it between Dutch and German Low Saxon is pretty useless an quite artificial. Suggest it is removed and the contents included in the Low Saxon article. --Lucius1976 20:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge?
It seems this article is basically about the same thing as the Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands article. Which one should be merged into which? --Khoikhoi 05:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest to transfer the information on Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands to the Dutch low Saxon article. Sander 12:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest the oppposite. This article falsely suggests that 'Dutch Low Saxon' is a separate (main) branch of Low Saxon, while it clearly isn't. Caesarion 13:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
How can you even say that? Of course is Dutch low saxon is a seperate branch of the low saxon tree. Sander 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- No. There is very little linguistic unity within the Dutch LS dialects. Gronings is perfectly similar to Ostfriesisch and falls within the North Low Saxon group, the rest into the West Low Saxon group; there the disunity already starts. And evin within these dialects the differences are huge, while the similarities between Westphalian on the German side and Twents and Achterhoeks on the Dutch side of the border are highly similar. This division suggests that the Dutch-German border is a major defining isogloss, and in fact it defines no grammatical and/or phonological areas at all. As far as it does serve as an isogloss, it only does so for vocabulary (and, admittedly, especially for new words it is quite strong an isogloss), and that's not enough when you are defining main dialect divisions.
- This view probably ensues from the fact that the Low Saxon language area is comparatively large and diverse, so dialectologists from either country chiefly occupied themselves with the dialects from their own homeland only (perfectly in line with the ancient view that the Enschede dialect would be Dutch and the Gronau dialect would be German). Caesarion 00:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The Low saxon, or Platt dialects that exist today are not 'pure' they are (especially the German ones) very much influenced by the neigbouring standard languages; Dutch and German.There is a difference. Sander 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a difference, but the influence hardly goes beyond lexical matters, so the difference is not structural. Caesarion 20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That difference is also seen in pronounciation. Sander 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, the differences never run along the national border. Caesarion 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Dutch Low Saxon. I think that name (besides being more elegant and avoiding the qualificative dialects) is fully justified. The situation seems to be similar to Swiss German: It's a subdivision not based on linguistic features, but on language use. Dutch Low Saxon and German Low Saxon have different Dachsprachen. The differences seem to be so irreconcilable that the Low German wikipedia has split up exactly on that border. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 16:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, as long as we clarufy that it is not a linguistic unity, as does the present Low Saxon dialects in the NEtherlands article. Btw I was unaware of the existence of the Dutch Low Saxon article, and I created the former in order to fulfil the need for an article describing the content of nds-nl:. Caesarion 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
strongoly oppose merge, it has its own language edition that is reason enough for it to have its own articleQrc2006 12:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- It certainly needs its own article, but there's no need for two different articles. -- j. 'mach' wust ☞ ☏ 13:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dutch Low Saxon as a "Dutch dialect"
This is sure an argument of Dutch linguistic nationalism. Even the article text asserts that Dutch Low Saxon dialects share many traits common with Westphalian a Low Saxon language but somehow it is classified as a dialect of Dutch, which is a Low Franconian language. Also a funny thing is that the area of Dutch Low Saxon is adjacent to German-Dutch political border. This is arbitrary (if not purposeful) nationalistic propaganda. --Behemoth 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Attencion Dutch Low Saxon speakers!
If you are fluent in Dutch Low Saxon, 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 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent false edits by User:Ulritz
Recently, despite of my warnings and explanation in edit summary, User:Ulritz has added a template in which the term Low Germanic is used. Now I was under the impression that not so long ago the we had a vote, rendering that term obsolete. Could User:Ulritz please explain why he used it again, but more importantly; why he ignored my warnings and instead hurls insults directed at me.
Also the comment; "please keep Dutch conventions to the Dutch Wikipedia" is kind of strange. I have no idea what User:Ulritz means with this. If he could explain this, that would be great. Rex 10:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
