Talk:Dutch Low Saxon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[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)

[edit] Merge done, please check

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

[edit] Map

Key: K - Kollumerlands GN - Gronings and North-Drents S - Stellingswerfs MD - Middle-Drents SD - South-Drents T - Twents TG - Twents-Graafschaps GO - Gelders-Overijssels (Achterhoeks) and Urks V - Veluws

I had added a map of the Netherlands to this article to make clear that the Low Saxon dialects were physically close to Germany and because the order of dialects matched the north->south order of the provinces. Someone else removed it so I just want to know how others feel about the map. Tocharianne 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It added nothing, if it had been a dialectal map it might have improved the article, but now it was a topographical map of the Dutch provinces.Rex 22:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, I couldn't find a dialect map. I thought this might help because the province names matched the dialects in most cases. Do you know where we could find a map showing the dialects? Tocharianne 16:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about this? It's based on this. Tocharianne 14:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] What does "this word" refer to?

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

[edit] Merger proposal

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

[edit] Re: Merger Proposal - Guess What?

If there is a political difference, GUESS WHAT?, there is a difference? Is it that hard to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.187.165 (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A minor political difference is not a linguistic difference; this article has no need to have it's own article as it is the SAME language as referenced in the other article, but with political bias added. Antman -- chat 08:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlands it is a part of Dutch. Hence it is different enough from German dialects.

Sarcelles (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You cannot use Wikipedia to cite for Wikipedia. Antman -- chat 05:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any research at all has been done on this, but the immense impact of Dutch on Low Saxon as used in the Netherlands and of German on Low Saxon as used in Germany has to be factored in when deciding on the merit of a separate article on 'Dutch Low Saxon'. While it's true that dialects on either side of the border still share many features, it's equally true that all varieties in either country now share many features derived from the standard language that they don't share with the varieties in the other country.

This becomes instantly clear when you either hear or read, and compare, a Low Saxon dialect from the Netherlands with one from Germany.

Ni'jluuseger (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Names of the Low Saxon variants

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

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