Talk:Dutch language/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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.

Sorry but people in Aberdeen speak a dialect of lowland Scots, which is a language closely related to English yet separate from it. Also, I am from America and I can generally understand Scots as long as the speaker makes an effort to be understood.

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm sorry but it is very typical for Hollanders to think that their dialect is the correct form of Dutch, where the Limburgs accent (as well as Flemish, Frisian, etc.) are all just as correct. And a seperate accent used in Algemeen Nederlands has nothing to do with dialect, they are two different animals. But when I was growing up in Limburg a Hollandic accent sounded astoundingly funny to us kids at school, where we would say that Hollanders sounded mean and rude, and that that must be how the song "Advocaatje ging op Reis" came to be -Andreas Dolos

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)

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)

British English is most widely taught of the two, the European union considers British English the correct version of spelling and pronunciation, In other former colonies of Britain also use the British variation also.86.186.3.245 (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

References, people!

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

I think that's because a lot of native speakers add to this article, for which the reference would be their Dutch teacher.. Robbinski12 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2010 (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)

Actually, there are people in the north of the northern areas, close to Belgium, who speak Dutch. I know, I'm a native seaker of Dutch --Sjorskingma (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (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)

These are allophonic diphthongs, not phonemic ones. Jalwikip (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2010 (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)

(I've just been bold and removed the paragraph. Please do reinsert it when i'm wrong). Joepnl (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Kerstomaatje and Kartongeval are 2 other examples, but I can't think of any other. --Sjorskingma (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

O, and "als u mij wil verschonen". I don't think Dutch is a stress language, so that nonsense hhas to be removed. --Sjorskingma (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

May be Limburgs is?

The Limburg dialect of Dutch is according to this nl.wiki article. The word bein (leg or legs) can be be either singular or plural depending on pronouncation. The "voorkomen" example might be silly, but saying that at least one dialect is a stress language could be justified. We need a linguist for this I guess. Joepnl (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC

No Limburgs is tonal not stress. I know, I am a native speaker. One syllable words will have their tones changes but switching syllabic stress has no effect. Stress is overwhelmingly often on the first syllable unless the word is of Romance (French or Latin) origin. Also, Limburgs is not Dutch! It is its own regional language with its own grammar, vocabulary, and writing system. :) Your use of Bein (leg) instead of been shows this clearly. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.198.148 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Diminutive

Please reconsider the part on diminutives because it may be wrong. There is no citation whatsoever. Diminutives are not formed by the suffix -je, plural -jes but originally by the suffix -tje, plural -tjes. According to the Taalunie 'the rule' is that there are four suffixes: -je, -tje, -etje, and -pje. There are various rules regarding the change of these suffixes which are determined by length of the preceding vowel and stress. Please see Taalunie website or try any more trustable source. I can try to improve the article once I found a good source. Myterjov (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Accent differences in Standard Dutch

As also posted by me at nl:Overleg:Nederlands I would like to ask if there is any interest to create an article Regional accents of Dutch or Regional accents of Standard Dutch. Indeed, varieties of Dutch are touched upon by the Dutch dialects series, but do not cover the notion of regional accent (linguistics) / pronunciation of Standard Dutch speakers. For instance, I myself hail from the Dutch province of Limburg but I do not speak a the Limburgian dialect. The Standard Dutch I do use is however laden with a strong Limburgian, or even Maastrichtian, accent. In my personal opinion the difference between accent and dialect should be made more clear. Let me know what your thoughts are. Take care, LightPhoenix (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

An accent is what occurs when the phonology/phonetics of one language are applied to another. That's about as clear as it gets, but it does show that what we really need to document in the articles you're suggesting is the phonetics of each dialect. The various accents of Dutch are a consequence of that, but you can't really pull the two apart. The Limburg accent of Dutch is the result of Limburgish language phonetics being applied to the Dutch language. CodeCat (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Phonology section

I would propose to limit the size of the phonology section, remove the example words etc. It is almost as large as the main article it refers to, and bound to be less up to date (I just corrected the "14 single vowels" to "13", which I had corrected in the phonology article years ago). Jalwikip (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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 unusual 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)

I'm Dutch so I know. A newspaper today will write vandaag. You almost no one uses heden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.75.131 (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2011 (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)

I must say that being dutch in America I am confused for German 99% of the time, and then when I say am Dutch, I always here back Sprechen Sie Deutsch?'. Though there is no source to cite for this, all dutch in North America can relate the the before mentioned. I have been in the USA since 2007 for Uni, and if I had 10cents for each time I was called german!ivogöllepe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.252.90 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Dutch being a german dialect name for Deutsch,

No no! Deutsch is the German word for the German language. I'm Dutch, so I know it for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.75.131 (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

[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)

Pronunciation is not described by the Dutch Language Union, so all pronunciations of 'r' are considered correct.Nico (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2011 (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)

Easy, being raised in a bilingual German / Dutch household I can tell you that ein Bißchen (a little) is not pronounced ein Biʃen, but ein Bi/sx/en. I've always thought this to be an urban legend, but some of the more ignorant Dutch in the north would arrest Limburgers assuming they were speaking German and labeled it a "vijandige taal" (enemy language) - Fritz Schröders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.57.62 (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2010 (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)

I think the opposite is true; it's not a matter of pride that the Dutch think it's a difficult language for non-native speakers. It's a matter of experience. That's why learning English, German and French is considered important. By the way, there are plenty of educated Dutch people who don't have that heavy accent. I meet them every day. :) Endcourts (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2011 (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.

I think you should just remove Indonesia altogether. Dutch language in modern Indonesia is a total foreign language. While it's true that we have a lot of Dutch loanwords, virtually nobody speaks it any longer. The few older generation who can speak the language is fading away, and they don't generally pass their knowledge of the language to their children. They teach students English in our schools, but not Dutch. Some schools even offer French, German, Mandarin, or Japanese as optional subject, but not Dutch. You can see more French, German, Mandarin and Japanese language courses in Indonesia than Dutch ones. I'm a bit upset here, because I'm interested in learning the language but having a hard time looking for a place to learn it from. Jiwa Matahari (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2011 (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 would like to point out that issues such as the capital of the Netherlands do need references in English, not so much because the language is English as because the language is not Dutch. Therefore, what is common knowledge to a Dutch speaker is not common knowledge to non-Dutch speakers and should therefore be referenced on non-Dutch pages. (Ok maybe you won't have to reference them on the Frisian pages but on the German and Albanian pages, yeah.) Dave (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 25 April 2011 (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)

Far from the truth. While it's true that we use Dutch codes in our law, there is no requirement of Dutch proficiency in the context of modern Indonesia. Jiwa Matahari (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Word order section

In the section about word order, it says:

Subclause: "omdat het veel te donker is" The verb or verbs always go in the final position.

It does not always go in the final position, as I could also write "want het is veel te donker."

85.24.188.86 (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dutch in New Zealand

Your info box is interesting in that it doesn't include New Zealand as a country where Dutch is spoken. As far as i'm aware, until recently Dutch was the second most spoken language in NZ after English. Only recently has it been overtaken in second place by NZ's native language Maori. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2011 (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)

Alright, I'll add something. By the way, Finnish really has lots of diphthongs, öy isn't the only unusual one :-) Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(Oslo) Norwegian has it, too. So did Old Norse, reportedly.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The relative rarity of the Germanic umlaut

The introduction of the article speaks about the "the relative rarity of the Germanic umlaut". Now, the is not entirely wrong, but it's not right either. We do not have the Germanic umlaut at all. We do use the same diacritic in a different role (calling it a trema rather than an umlaut.

The idea is that the umlaut changes a vowel into another vowel. The trema (as used in Dutch) separates a diphthong, keeping it as two vowels where without it, it would have been one.

I did not correct the sentence as I don't know just how to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.218.33 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Umlaut is not just a diacritical sign, it's also a phonetic process that affected all Germanic languages except for Gothic. Some languages have a separate sign for it, others use other letters or combinations. Dutch doesn't use the German umlaut sign, but it was affected by umlaut just like the other languages (Dutch examples are vol-vullen and goud-gulden, English has full-fill, but also foot-feet and man-men). However, where Dutch differs from other Germanic languages is that long vowels and diphthongs were not or only sporadically affected, while they are regularly affected in the other languages. Dutch also lacks many of the grammatical instances of umlaut like in plurals, comparative adjectives and diminutive forms. Again several other Germanic languages do have these features, especially German and Icelandic and to a lesser extent the Scandinavian languages. So the sentence doesn't refer to the umlaut diacritic, it refers to the phonetic process that the diacritic refers to in other languages. (and as a side point, Finnish has ä and ö, but they are not called umlauts) CodeCat (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As an American who is quite familiar with German and considerably less so with Dutch, my perception is that Dutch uses far fewer true umlauts in the phonological sense. That is, German has many more words in which umlaut serves as the marker for the plural of a noun or for certain parts of a verb conjugation. On the other hand, Dutch seems to use sounds like /œ/ (German "ö") and /ʏ/ (German "ü") considerably more than German, for a very simple reason: in Dutch, these sounds form part of many more words' uninflected roots, while in German it's frequently only the inflected forms of a word that carry the umlaut (e.g. German mochten/möchten ("like"/"would like").Pithecanthropus (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, while I do understand your point I just wanted to correct you on the mochten/möchten. möchten ("would like") is the Konjunktiv II of mögen ("like"). mochten (they/we "liked") is Präteritum 1. and 3. person plural of mögen. And as a German I can't really think of many verbs that change into Umlaut when inflected (the ones that do, only do so in Konjunktiv II as far as I can tell). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.237.172 (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Dutch has the same Germanic core as English? More Roman loanwords than German?

This comparison between Dutch and English is not correct - Dutch has a much larger and more developed Germanic vocabulary than English currently has. Words like "comparison", "developed", "core", "vocabulary", "difference", "sentence", "reliable", "source" and "remove" for example are respectively the Germanic "vergelijking", "ontwikkelen", "kern", "woordenschat", "verschil", "zin","betrouwbaar", "bron" and "verwijderen". in Dutch. Also, I am quite certain (knowing both Dutch and German) that there is not a significant difference in Roman loanwords between Dutch and German. Could anyone back these sentences up by some reliable online sources? Or else, remove them. Morgengave (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Core vocabulary is usually about basic words for everyday things. And especially words other than nouns, adjectives and verbs. For example, all the personal pronouns and numbers are Germanic in English, and so are many of the basic adverbs. It's this 'core' that's the same in both. CodeCat (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone source the statement that Dutch has "considerably more" Roman loanwords than German? I do not find any publicly available source backing this up. Knowing both languages, this seems untrue. If there's a difference, it's small, not considerable. Morgengave (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my fault, the word "considerable" slipped in. I think the current wording is perfect.--Hooiwind (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not have an online source, but knowing German and Dutch, I'll give you some examples: You'll see that Dutch contains considerably more foreign-stemmed vocabulary than German does:

• German Farbe, but Dutch kleur (from French couleur; color); German Hauptmann, but Dutch kapitein (captain); German Oberst, but Dutch kolonel (colonel); German Heft, but Dutch cahier (from French); German Vergaser, but Dutch carburator; German impfen, but Dutch vaccineren; German Wäscheschleuder, but Dutch centrifuge; German Schauspieler, but Dutch acteur; German Wohnwagen, but Dutch caravan; German endgültig, but Dutch definitief; German Halskette, but Dutch collier; German Zeitung, but Dutch krant (newspaper; from French courant); German Hindernis, but Dutch obstakel; German Ostern, but Dutch Pasen; German erlesen/erkoren, but Dutch select; German Schließfach, but Dutch safe; German Seite, but Dutch pagina; German Fußpflege, but Dutch pedicure; German Hose, but Dutch pantalon; German Weise/Art, but Dutch manier; German beglaubigt, but Dutch gelegaliseerd; German Betrug, but Dutch fraude; German durchsuchen, but Dutch fouilleren; German Rechnung, but Dutch factuur; German Werk, but Dutch fabriek; German steuerlich, but Dutch fiscaal; German Sessel, but Dutch fauteuil; German Ruhm/Ruf, but Dutch faam; German einverstanden / Einverständnis, but Dutch akkoord; German Anschlag/Aushang, but Dutch affiche; German Laufbahn, but Dutch carrière; German Hubschrauber, but Dutch helikopter; German Vertrag, but Dutch contract; German einstimmig, but Dutch unaniem; German Tal, but Dutch vallei; German dringend, but Dutch urgent; German Rat/Gutachten, but Dutch advies; German Lebenslauf, but Dutch curriculum vitae; German Anwalt/Fürsprech, but Dutch advocaat; German Beschleunigung, but Dutch acceleratie, German Aufschlag / (Kunden-)Dienst, but Dutch service; German Drucker, but Dutch printer (from english print to old french preinte).

Often, it happens that there's more than one word for a thing: Much words in Dutch do also exist in German and vice-versa: Dutch oorlog and German Krieg, but there's also Dutch krijg and German Urlug (though rarely used). Seldomly, the Dutchmen prefer Germanic and the Germans international one... Compare Germanic-stemmed Dutch denkbeeld and schouwburg (but idee and theater is also possible) to German Idee and Theater (but Denkbild and Schauburg are also known).

--user:Cristiano_16, 26.08.2012 —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's not oversell these examples. First of all, modern Dutch language has the tendency to adopt loanwords, regardless of origin, quite easily compared to other languages. (Consider e.g. the 'Dutch' words Macaroni, Sambal, Sate, Nasi and Bami). That does not say the original core is not the same of the German form.

Secondly, the Netherlands and Flanders have been overseas trading countries for most of their history. Hence contact with other language (groups) and subsequent adoption of loanwords is much more likely than for Germany which had less regular contact outside the Germanic languages.

Thirdly, both the Netherlands and Flanders, have at several times be under the control of French or Spanish speaking courts, which would also introduce Romanic loanwords in the language (just like it did in England, where you will find that almost any living animal has a Germanic name - Cow, Chicken, Sheep - while as soon as it is transformed into a dish (for the upper class) it changes to a Roman name Beef (boeuf), Poultry (poulet), Mutton (mouton) - which names identify both the animal and the meet in France).

Now let's have a look at some of the examples:

(1)Situations where the Roman form is sometimes used, but very rarely

German Heft, but Dutch cahier - I am not sure which German word is meant here, but in Dutch this would be either "boek" (book) "nummer" (issue) or "heft" (haft of a knife). Cahier is in practice never used

German Halskette, but Dutch in daily practice we always use "ketting" with “collier” being reserved for high class jewellery shops

German Hindernis, Dutch obstakel is sometimes used instead of the more common "hindernis"

German erlesen/erkoren, Dutch select but in many situations "gekozen" or "verkozen" is more common.

German Seite, but Dutch in daily use "bladzijde" is much more common than the somewhat formal pagina

German Schließfach, Dutch safe but also often more common "brandkast" (fire proof closet)

German Hose, Dutch “broek” with the formal pantalon rarely used and than only for formal attire

German Betrug, Dutch “bedrog” but sometimes in legal language fraude

German Rechnung, Dutch uses “Rekening” but in formal language (only) also factuur

German Tal, Dutch “dal” or vallei depending on the specific type of valley

German dringend, Dutch “dringend” and sometimes in formal situations urgent

German Rat/Gutachten, but Dutch “raad” or advies

German Sessel, but Dutch “Stoel” , but for specific large chairs frequently fauteuil

German Ruhm/Ruf, but Dutch “Roem” and much rarer faam (fame)

(2) Situations where the Roman word is more common, but the Germanic form is also frequently used.

German Weise/Art, but Dutch manier, although “wijze” is sometimes used as well

German Laufbahn, but Dutch “loopbaan” or carrière

German Schauspieler, Dutch acteur, but "toneelspeler" is also common.

(3)Situations where the Roman form is used, but the Germanic form in a slightly different situations

German einverstanden / Einverständnis, Dutch use “eens” (agreed) as a statement, but as a noun akkoord

German Farbe, but Dutch kleur (from French couleur color) - however, Dutch 'verf' for paint is clearly related to the German form.

German durchsuchen, but Dutch “doorzoeken” for e.g. houses and luggage but fouilleren for frisk search

German Oberst, but Dutch kolonel (colonel) but in the Netherlans a colonel is addressed as "overste"

German Wohnwagen, but Dutch caravan but in Dutch "woonwagen" is used for mobile homes that are permanent residence (so that word measn something similar but distinctly different)

German Vertrag, but Dutch contract, but for (international) treaties, the term “verdrag” is always used

German Drucker, Dutch printer (from english print to old french preinte); the word “Drukker” is reserved for the professional printer .

German Lebenslauf, but Dutch curriculum vitae for use in job applications, but outside that “levensloop” is probably more common.

(4) Situations where the Dutch use the Roman word exclusively for words that tend to be young terms

German Fußpflege, but Dutch pedicure

German beglaubigt, but Dutch gelegaliseerd

German Werk, but Dutch fabriek

German steuerlich, but Dutch fiscaal

German Hubschrauber, but Dutch helikopter

German Beschleunigung, but Dutch acceleratie

German Vergaser, but Dutch carburator

German impfen, Dutch more commonly "inenten" but sometimes vaccineren

German Wäscheschleuder, but Dutch centrifuge

(5) long standing language where there is a clear Roman form in Dutch but not in German

German Ostern, but Dutch Pasen (French Pacques - not related to English Easter)

German endgültig, but Dutch definitief

German Zeitung, but Dutch krant (newspaper from French courant)

German Anschlag/Aushang, but Dutch affiche

German einstimmig, but Dutch unaniem

German Anwalt/Fürsprech, but Dutch advocaat

German Aufschlag / (Kunden-)Dienst, but Dutch service (I dont know this one)

So consindering these examples, it is often not as clear as suggested. In many cases, the proposed Roman form is used less than the Germanic form, in other cases the Germanic form exists but is less frequently used, or reserved for another application.

This all means that the case is not very clear, and that a secondary source is indeed required. Arnoutf (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The list of Cristiano is in most cases incorrect or at least incomplete (e.g., impfen = inenten; Kundendienst = klantendienst; einstimmig = eenstemmig; Halskette = halsketting, etc.). Also, in many areas Dutch uses much less loanwords than German. For example: in mathematics or anatomy. Also, if we look to the global picture: for almost each Romance word, a Germanic exists in Dutch, albeit sometimes in archaic or literary language only. All in all, I think the current phrasing is fine: "Dutch vocabulary is mostly Germanic and contains the same Germanic core as German and English, while incorporating more Romance loans than German and fewer than English." Morgengave (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree, and indeed Dutch words like Wiskunde, Scheikunde, Natuurkunde have Germanic background where German (forgive me the spelling) mathematik, chemie and physik are of clear Roman descent.

The current text seems ok, and suggestions to change it would require a more in depth analysis that is based on reliable secondary sources; not a flawed list of examples which seem original research to me (and as both Morgengave and me show, sloppy and/or biased original research too). Arnoutf (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Gronings

The Dialect in Groningen should be called Gronings and not East-Frisian. Frisian is a dialect that is spoken in the Friesland province and some other places, but it is not an equivalent of Gronings. Gronings is a lower-saxon dialect. Lower-saxon dialects (a.o. Gronings, Drents, Twents) are spoken in the Northern East region of NL and a large part of Germany. Frisian is spoken mainly in the Friesland province which lies in the north-west and is not a lower-saxon dialect. See also http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Nedersaksiese_taalgebied.png

So please correct this.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil1980 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What is called East Frisian today is also Low Saxon, spoken in East Frisia which is east of West Frisia (the current province of Friesland). It displaced the original Frisian dialects spoken there. The only dialect that is actually still Frisian today is Saterland Frisian. CodeCat (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The dialect spoken in the province to the east of the province of Frisia, the Province of Groningen is called Gronings. It is a lower Saxon dialect and not Frisian. (See Gronings.) In neighbouring Germany however there is a historic county called East Frisia. In that county a lower Saxon dialect very similar to Gronings is spoken. It is called East Frisian. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Table of inflected forms of the article

The current table shows only the old genitive forms, but of these only the plural 'der' is commonly used outside set phrases and the like, and even then it is very old-fashioned. As for the other inflected forms, they are no less common in set phrases than the old genitives. I think it would be better to either remove the table altogether, or to add the other old forms as well, and use some marking to indicate which ones are only used in set phrases and which ones are still occasionally used in archaistic language. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the genetive forms are archaic, but even constructions with "des" are still used by many writers, poets and even journalists to bring some variation, albeit they use them only in a very limited extent. There's been done some research on the genitive case's productivity (whether the genitive forms are limited to fixed expressions or whether they are still actively applied). It came to the result that it is still indeed still productive. See: Alan Scott, "The position of the genitive in present-day Dutch Word Structure". As such, the genitive forms are different from the dative or accusative forms which are no longer productive at all. Morgengave (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but does the article talk about the genitive in general or genitive forms of the article in particular? Clearly the genitive is still productive for nouns, but for the article? Can you give an example of 'des' used outside set expressions? The only example I can think of is 'XXX is des YYY' in the sense of 'XXX is typical for YYY', but even that is almost a set expression, even though XXX and YYY are free parameters so to speak. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It talks about all, so including singular masculine and singular neutral (in most cases: "des <noun>s"). Of course, these constructions assume only a marginal place in Dutch; nevertheless, they are still productive: writers apply it to words not found in the many fixed expressions and readers have no difficulty understanding their meaning. Morgengave (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dialect continuum doesn't mean historical minority

"while historical minorities remain in parts of France and Germany, and to a lesser extent, in Indonesia, ..."(first paragraph). The existence of a dialect continuum (footnote 1) doesn't mean that there's a "historical minority" in the neighbouring German region. The Low Franconian and Low Saxon dialects spoken in the adjacent parts of Germany are quite close to Dutch and have often been regarded as "Dutch dialects", but the regions have never been part of the Netherlands (with the exception of few villages). Germany isn't mentioned in the "Geographical Distribution" section at all; otherwise, every German region where a potential "Dutch" dialect is or has been spoken would have to be listed.Johnny2323 (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dutch 'mother tongue' stat

The 'trots op het moedertaal' source, cited from 3 locations in the article, is not suitable for quoting here. It says that 96% *of survey respondents* say that Dutch is their mother tongue. Did they survey only Dutch speakers? It doesn't actually say one way or the other but my suspicion is yes.

Have some original research:

• Amsterdam: 800,000 people, around 40% likely to be non-native speakers based on nationality stats.
• The Hague: 500,000 people, around 40% non-native.
• Frisian languages: 'Most Frisian speakers live in the Netherlands, primarily in the province of Friesland, since 1997 officially using its West Frisian name of Fryslân, where the number of native speakers is about 350,000.'

That, right there, is more than 5% of the population being non-native speakers, and I've not remotely covered the whole population.--Froggienation (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that 96% seems too high, but your reasoning is not correct either. You forget bilinguals, for example those 350'000 native speakers are almost all native Dutch speakers too. As for immigrants in the big cities: many of them are grown up in Netherlands, they speak native Dutch as well as the native language of their parents.Nico (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

realizations of /t/ + /j/ and of /k/ + /j/ as parts of the Dutch consonant system

Now that ʔ and ɡ feature in the table, and ʃ is mentioned as being a frequent realization of /s/ + /j/ sequences, I propose to add frequent realizations of /t/ + /j/ and /k/ + /j/ to the table showing parts of the Dutch consonant system as well. I am in doubt though about what IPA signs ought to be used. Maybe ȶ or ʨ, and c, respectively?Redav (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the table is to show the phonology of the language. I don't think allophonic distinctions belong there. I think the various allophones that are already in the table should be removed. CodeCat (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Writing system: diacritical marks

I move to strike the following passage:

'The characters 'Ç', 'ç', 'Ñ' or 'ñ' can also be found in the Dutch language but the words which contain one of these characters are loanwords too and these words are inherited from Spain and Portugal. They don't occur very often.'

...because 1) its message is implied by the previous sentence: 'Other diacritical marks such as the circumflex only occur in a few words, most of them loanwords from French', which rather says it all; 2) its 'wording' is rather clumsy ('words... loanwords... words'; 'inherited from Spain and Portugal' instead of 'borrowed from Portuguese and Spanish, respectively'); 3) it contains errors: there are certainly no loanwords in Dutch from Portuguese which contain capital Ç (in Portuguese itself, Ç and ç never occur word-initially); in the same vein, I am quite sure there are no loanwords in Dutch from Spanish containing Ñ (or beginning with ñ). The only use for capitals Ç and Ñ is in all-capital (e.g. newspaper) expression (CURAÇAO, EL NIÑO), which is a world-wide shouting rather than Dutch writing system. Collideascope (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Synchronising the phonology section with Dutch phonology

These two pages should clearly contain the same information. How is this synchronised? CodeCat (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

History: remove 'Vorstermansbijbel'

I propose to remove the citation from the Vorstermansbijbel:

'want si waren onder veel teghen mi' means 'because they were amongst many against me'.

This is a different meaning from all other citations (which all read, essentially, 'because amongst many, he was with me'). Even if the Vorsterman translation (from the Vulgata) would in any way be arguably correct, it distracts from the linguistic comparison that is being made here.

Also, it looks like the Vorsterman citation has been inserted later and rather willy-nilly, without any consideration of context, as it spoils the flow and contents of the surrounding text. Collideascope (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the Vorstermansbijbel citation. Collideascope (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Word order: interrogative

I think the word order of the interrogative main clause should be mentioned, as it (at least in its simplest form) constitutes an exception to both the SOV and V2 word orders as described. If this view is supported I could edit this myself but I'll gladly leave it to the original editor of 'Word order'; or, indeed, to anyone else who feels the need. Collideascope (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Added word order in interrogative clauses. Collideascope (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Spoken in

Currently South Africa is listed as a country where Dutch is spoken, with a parenthetical explanation that it is spoken "as Afrikaans". Is that really appropriate? I don't think we list other closely related languages this way. Since Afrikaans is officially and linguistically a separate language now I feel like this entry should be removed. Opinions? Dusty|💬|You can help! 16:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, although the close relation in this case is that of a recent parent-daughter language so it is not a standard relation between the languages. Arnoutf (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Modern Dutch is not the parent of Afrikaans though, any more than modern British English is the parent of American English. Rather, they both diverged at some point in history and evolved distinctly since then. I suppose it's really the dialect or language debate again. Afrikaans is considered a separate language, but a lot of the varieties that are spoken in the Netherlands itself and are grouped under "Dutch" are often more distinct from standard Dutch than Afrikaans is. So from a linguistic perspective, not including Afrikaans under Dutch would make Dutch a paraphyletic grouping of dialects: a grouping of some, but not all descendants of a common parent. CodeCat (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right, sorry for my Dutch centrism.

Standard Dutch is, as far as I know based on the Northern Hollandic dialect; in particular dialects close to Amsterdam. As Amsterdam was the main office of VOC, which founded the Cape Town colony, it is not very strange that Afrikaans is closer to Standard Dutch compared to other languages from the (at that time federal) Dutch republic. In the Dutch language, Low Saxon, Limburgish, Frisian are officially recognized as regional languages. Nevertheless in all Dutch regions, standard Dutch is the official language and generally understood. Arnoutf (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Netherlandish

Sometimes "Netherlandish" is proposed as a more proper word in English to refer to "Dutch", because of the confusion this word creates, not only amongst English native speakers, but also amongst everybody learning about the Dutch language through English as a second language, thus propagating this confusion (between "Dutch" and "Deutsch", mainly) worldwide. Maybe it would be an idea to include a heading about this alternative term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joekiedoe (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, the language has always been referred to by English speakers as "Dutch", so how is there confusion? CodeCat (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Question (regarding Dutch as a foreign language)

Would it be possible for a keen-eyed English speaker who's good at making connections to learn Dutch as if it were English rather than from scratch like a foreign language? In the sense of how in uni, people read Chaucer in Middle English but with a glossary at the bottom but it's close enough that someone can pick it up and read it like modern English "naturally" with just a little help without having to learn it from scratch the way one would a more distant language such as Spanish or Japanese. What I wonder is if someone who had no difficulty reading Chaucer and making the mental connections without having to "learn" it as a separate language could possibly read Dutch as if it were English with a glossary at the bottom and understand it and even learn it without learning it as a completely separate unrelated language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.63.43 (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Being a native speaker of both, I don't think that would be possible. Many vocabulary items are similar, but grammatical endings are often different which may throw a listener off somewhat, especially when they carry meaning that would make words hard to understand if they were ignored. But more important are of course the many items of vocabulary that are not recognisably like anything in English at all (or have completely different meanings), including very essential words like of, van, het (as an article), om, veel and so on. Dutch also has many differences in syntax like the prominent SOV/V2 word order, and other grammatical idiosyncrasies like the frequent use of pronominal adverbs and diminutives. All of those add to the language barrier and make it strong enough that an English speaker is unlikely to understand Dutch without a fair bit of studying. CodeCat (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Early Limburgish Middle Dutch" and "Late Limburgish Middle Dutch" in table

In the table in the Diachronic paragraph I read of "Early Limburgish Middle Dutch" and "Late Limburgish Middle Dutch". I suppose "Early Middle Limburgish" and "Late Middle Limburgish" were meant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redav (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, Limburgish is still considered part of Middle Dutch in that time period, rather than clearly separated. CodeCat (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)