Template talk:Dutch and Low Saxon dialects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Languages (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Dutch Low Saxon

Since when is DLS considered a Dutch dialect in mainstream linguitics? Please show some (English) non-chauvinistic sources. Until then, DLS goes, as it is a minority of (Dutch) linguists who share this view, including Rex, though this should be dealt with in detail at the article. What you are (rightfully so) conceding is that a Low German family does exist. Please refrain fromr everting until sources are brought up front. Ulritz 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to communicate with you as long as you refuse to participate in wikipedia dispute resolution. You might have gotten away with refusing a mediation, I don't think you'll get away with ignoring an Arbcom case.Rex 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Limburgish and Dutch Low Saxon (as spoken in Drenthe, not Niedersachsen)are not Dutch dialects. Here is a Dutch Low Saxon source [1] free of any chauvinist bias. Ulritz 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To the above

I will be removing both Limburgish and Low Saxon/German from this template unless actual sources are shown stating that the two languages are Dutch dialects -- as far as my knowledge is concerned, they are German dialects, with Limburgish having leanings towards Dutch. Antman -- chat 08:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Isn't Afrikaans recognised as a separate language from Dutch, rather than just being a dialect? Likewise, surely the accepted English name for it is "Afrikaans" these days, not "African Dutch"? Dewrad (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Low Dietsch

This is part of a wider set of varieties already mentioned in this template. Continuing to include this, is a precedent. Sarcelles (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Being a part of a wider set does not preclude a subject from also being dealt with in particular. Nor would this be unprecedented. The same holds true for French Flemish. Ad43 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
French Flemish should be different enough, in the case of Low Dietsch I doubt that.
Sarcelles (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
And there is another striking parallel here. Both Low Franconian dialects are situated in regions under French speaking administration. This already threatens their very existence. From this point of view alone special attention seems more than justified. Ad43 (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you give evidence that it is sufficiently different ?
Sarcelles (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Low Dietsch is a part of the transitional zone between Limburgish and Ripuarian. This position it shares with Southeast Limburgish. It deserves special mentioning because of the fact that is relatively unknown to the general public, and that is endangered of becoming extinct. Ad43 (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The German interwiki of Southeast Limburgish suggests that Low Dietsch belongs to
Southeast Limburgish. Then either that article should be changed or Low Dietsch should be removed from this template.Sarcelles (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Southeast Limburgish is the practically same variety spoken within Dutch Southeast Limburg as Low Dietsch is in Belgium and Aachen dialect in Germany. It is regarded by many people as a Limburgish dialect, just as Aachener Platt is regarded by many people as a German dialect. Speakers of Low Dietsch regard themselves as speakers of a non-German and equally non-Limburgish dialect. This explains that there are three different names for essentially the same variety. This also explains why there are three different articles here for essentially the same variety. -- Ad43 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think frontiers definitions should be based on actual definitions, not about how the local residents see thinks. Sarcelles (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Not only local residents feel this way. The problem is, that state borders do interfere with linguistic borders. Dialectologists use the concept of roof languages to account for this complication. Southeast Limburgish/Aachen dialect/ Low Dietsch happens to be roofed over by three culture languages. There is every sociolinguistic reason to distinguish the three variaeties. Ad43 (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Southern Meuse-Rhenish

This is very similar to Limburgish. Hence I suggest its removal from this template. Sarcelles (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Southern Meuse-Rhenish is a more generic term for Southeast Limburgish, which is more Ripuarian in nature. Ad43 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the border is important enough to result in a split.Sarcelles (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean with this? Ad43 (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The border between the countries also is one between dialects. Sarcelles (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That is true to some degree. There is a dialect continuum, but the national borders are on their way of functioning more and more as language borders, especially since WW II. This process goes much faster at the German side than in Limburg. Ad43 (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Meuse-Rhenish and Low Rhenish

I think it is redundant to include both. [User:Sarcelles|Sarcelles]] (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Meuse-Rhenish also includes the Dutch and Belgian varieties of South Guelderish and Limburgish. Ad43 (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Those two are inconsistent with the system used here. Sarcelles (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no real problem here. What counts is, that it is generally unknown to the public, that Low-Rhenish, Limburgish, South Guelderish/Kleverlandish and Bergish are shades of a common continuum that is neither Brabantian nor Hollandic. It is important to deteremine its areal. Meuse-Rhenish is the sum of these varieties, hence its own denomination. So, what is your point? Ad43 (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
According to Low Rhenish article, Low Rhenish runs into the Netherlands and Belgium as well. Sarcelles (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Low Rhenish is a denominator in Germany, in the Netherlands its Dutch correlate is called South Guelderish. Others include Limburgish and Bergish into it, but it is more appropriate to collect them all under the term Meuse-Rhenish. Ad43 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest you make a redirect to South Guelderish of it. Sarcelles (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It is at least useful to indicate that this variety also exists in Germany with totally different names as Kleverlandish, Gemandutch, Bergish or Low Rhenish. This fact is relatively unknown in the Nerherlands, and vice versa. Ad43 (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Meuse-Rhenish should either replace Limburgish and South Guelderish or moved to the top of the template. Sarcelles (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's do the last. It's done already. Ad43 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Southeast Limburgish / Low Dietsch / Aachen dialect

If this is considered a main dialect/the same grouping of dialects, there should be an additional single article on these varieties. Sarcelles (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? There are three separate articles already, but they also refer to each other. They can be headed as Dialects of the Three Countries / Three Languages Area. Ad43 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If this group of dialects is mentioned in this template, it deserves a article. Sarcelles (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That could be an option indeed. There really is nothing against it. However, three potentially subsuming articles do exist, which together cover the whole areal quite appropriately. A superposing article might be added as well. In the mean time, ample cross-referencing can do the job. Ad43 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This template includes Aachen dialect. This probably is incomplete as neighbouring dialects are missing. Sarcelles (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I've just added Eschweiler dialect, but this could be found via Aachen dialect also. Stolberg could be mentioned likewise, especially the village of Breinig. Ad43 (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Taalafstanden.jpg suggests it should be removed. Sarcelles (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Unmotivated tag

As far as I can see, there is no contradiction whatsoever between the content of this article and that of nl:Nederlandse dialecten, let alone a serious one. Who is responsible for this tag and on what grounds could it have been assigned? I am very curious to hear which reservations on whose side there possibly could be here. It looks like some unexplicable mystery. -- Ad43 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It has South Guelderish as part of Brabantian, for example. Sarcelles (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That is no signicant difference. The Dutch article (which doesn't have to be more accurate) gives the following division:

E. Zuidelijk-centrale groep in Nederland, België en (niet op de kaart aangegeven) in een aangrenzend deel van Duitsland
20. Zuid-Gelders
21. Noord-Brabants en Noord-Limburgs
22. Brabants
23. Oost-Vlaams

There is surely nothing wrong with that. Neither it is with our template. It is ridiculous to call notational variants like these contradictions and it is totally unjustified to add a tag of that tenor to our template. I regard that move of yours as nearly an act of vandalism. --Ad43 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image used

With all due respect to User:Rex Germanus (RIP), I think the image that is used is not good. I have a bad feeling about those words 'the series'. Has wikipedia released multiple volumes about the Dutch language? No, it just handles the entire language at once. Is it possible that those words are taken out of the picture? Apologies for my English Mallerd (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Surinamese Dutch

Is this really different from Hollandic enough to have a place in this template? Sarcelles (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello. What is ISO code of East Flemish? Your dear Chris (My talk) 19:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Grouping of Dutch dialects by a dialectologist

Would it be an improvement to rearrange according to this source ? Sarcelles (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

[2] includes the dialects of Belgium as well. The dendrogram on Hoppenbrouwers, Cor (2001). De indeling van de Nederlandse streektalen. Van Gorcum. p. 58 has higher-level groupings, which can be summed up as follows:
  • Low Saxon
  • Frisian
  • Hollandic/Brabantic
  • Flemish/Zealandic
  • Limburgish
Should one of them replace the current content?

Sarcelles (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What might be worth changing to is the following subdivision of the dialects excluding Frisian and the area East of the Benrath Line as in Antonius A. Weijnen, Nederlandse dialectkunde. Phonology and Morphology, Assen 1966, p. 322:
  • zuidelijk-centrale (dialect)
  • noordelijk-centrale (dialect)
  • noordoostelijke (dialect)
  • noordwestelijke (dialect)
  • zuidwestelijke (dialect)
  • zuidoostelijke (dialect)

Sarcelles (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Dutch_and_Low_Saxon_dialects&oldid=660474143"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dutch_and_Low_Saxon_dialects
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Template talk:Dutch and Low Saxon dialects"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA