Talk:Old Dutch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relation to Middle Dutch[edit]

If 'Old Dutch' = 'Old low west Franconian' (Oud-West Nederfrankisch) then this chapter is pretty unclear as the development from old Dutch as described here, uses the sentence 'Irlōsin sal an frithe sēla mīna fan thēn thia ginācont mi, wanda under managon he was mit mi.' That sentence is from the 'Wachtendonckse Psalmen' which is Old low EAST franconian and not OLWF which the article defined as Old Dutch. It might have been 35 years ago or more, but I have a degree in Old Low West Franconian & Old Low East Franconian (under professor A. Quack).

In Dutch, the term 'Oud-Nederlands' (Old Dutch) is seen to be equivalent to 'Old Low Franconian' including both the East and the west variety. This is also represented as such in the Dutch article 'Oudnederlands' in Wikipedia.

It does not really matter wether Frankisch and franconian mean the same or not the definition in this article of what Old dutch is, is not adhered to in the same article. It is like defining: "murder=murder with intent and manslaugther is murder without intent"

20-11-2011

naughty[edit]

oh, good, i can start the discussion off with a complaint.

i originally wrote this article.

i appreciate the addition of modern Dutch translations of the OLFr sentences....

but, i was shocked to find someone had changed the following things:

  • the rewording of "especially the west middle german dialects" > "those dialects affected by old frankish"
  • the removal of the mention of Limburgish veer


- i can only assume a native Dutch speaker (or someone who has read some in Dutch on the history of the language) made these changes. in english, terms such as 'old frankish' (as well as 'low german' or even 'dialect') do not mean the same thing as in Dutch. in fact, old frankish is not a linguistic term; 'frankish' is only used to refer to certain modern dialects of German (Ripuarian Frankish, Rheinland Frankish, etc.). historically, it is perhaps accurate to say that the Ripuarian Franks probably spoke a version of East Low Franconian, but by the first appearance of these dialects in writing (Oaths of Strasbourg), they had become more like Upper German (in certain respects); but since they're significantly different from either Low Franconian (Dutch) or Upper German (Swabish, Bavarian), they formed their own group - Middle German. in any case, they were not affected by old frankish; just the opposite, they were influenced by old high german.

- if you doubt veer is the right Limburgish word for standard Dutch wij, then please consult the link at the bottom of this article (Streektaal); you'll find a brief grammatical outline where veer "we", oos "our", ós "us" = wij (we), ons/onze, ons. you may also consult the Limburgs Woodenboek Interactif: http://www.limburghuis.nl/Interact/menunl_wdb.html

Flibjib8 20:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


oh dear[edit]

Rex, if you really, absolutely, must see the title "Old Dutch" over "Old Low Franconian" to be able to sleep at night, I will not try to stop you, but try to preserve the proper terminology[1]. "Old Dutch" is synonymous to Old West Low Franconian (Western Old Low Franconian). The distinction between the two dialects was completely lost in your revision. I have no idea why you hate the term "Old Low Franconian" so much, but that's what the language is called. dab (ᛏ) 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will and a section explaining the particular difference soon. An no, my sleep wasn't effected by my long desire of seeing this articles title changed. But you're right;
  • Oudnederlands
  • Old Low Franconian
  • Altniederländisch
was a "thorn in my eye" for quite some while, apart from that it's inaccurate. So, I finally made my move.
Rex 17:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, what was the rationale behind the move? Ulritz 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the above and you'll find out. Rex 13:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation[edit]

I am sorry, apart from the {{disambig}}, it is entirely unclear why this page should be a disambiguation page: the text explains the term "Old Low Franconian", hence it is a genuine article (albeit a very short one) about Old Low Franconian. It is also unclear what ambiguity there is supposed to be here: afaics, "Old Low Franconian" is used in only a single sense. Rex, I am very willing to listen to your concerns with an open mind, but I am afraid you to not make your intentions and motives clear at all. All that is obvious is that you feel emotional about them, but your decisions, including moves/splits/disambigs are just not clear: I honestly don't see the problem. dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make clear you're talking about the Old Low Franconian page, not this one, right? We have two options: If we find that the difference between "OD" and "OLF" is significant enough to warrant two separate articles, we can simply remove the "disambig" notice from OLF, and de-redirect the talk pages. If not, we must again turn one of the two pages into a redirect. What do you prefer, dab? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, strictly, if one wants to make an article on Old Dutch then Old Low Franconian is incorrect (be it with a razor thin margin) as a synonym because that would be Old West Low Franconian. In the same way Old Dutch does not cover Old Low Franconian. In the ideal situation we'd have 2 separate articles; one on Old Dutch and the other on Old East Low Franconian, and a disambig at Old Low Franconian.
Rex 20:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody describe what's the linguistic differences between Old Dutch and OELF? The article currently has sections on linguistic relations to neighbouring varieties, but this one is missing, and it would be the most important item to justify the separation of articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be honest it's all quite blurry, but try to stick with me. Modern standard Dutch (+/- 1600+) is almost completely based on 2 Middle Dutch dialects: Brabantian and Hollandic. These 2 dialects, decended from Old Dutch/Old West Low Frankish. In the East there was another Old Low Frankish dialect, Old East Low Frankish, and it too "fathered/influenced" middle Dutch dialects (Limburgish for example) but its decendants did not or barely had any effect on Modern Dutch, hence eventhough at the time they have got to have been extremely close, Old Dutch (because it resulted in Dutch) is considered the direct ancestor and not OELF. But it has to be said that because both "languages/variants" have left extremely little written accounts (compared to Old English or Old High German) that they are treated as virtually the same language by (at least Dutch) linguists. Old Dutch, in the Dutch langauge is often used, by linguists as well to indicate either. It is only on special occasions that a difference is made (for example when determining in what variant an Old Dutch (see...) text is written. Its a bit double because the modern decendants of Old East Low Frankish (and also its historical one) are treated as Dutch. Rex 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's so close, and we don't have any concrete linguistic information to fill the second article with, that would tend to support treating both under a single article, I'd say. Possible wording variants in lead paragraph:
  • Old Low Franconian, also known under the name of its best-attested member, Old Dutch, was a group of dialects [...] Strictly speaking, Old Dutch refers only to the western subdialect of Old Low Franconian, the ancestor of Brabantian and Hollandic Middle Dutch, while Limburgish and other varieties are classified as Eastern Old Low Franconian.
  • Old Dutch, also known as Old Low Franconian [...] Strictly speaking, Old Low Franconian refers to a group of dialects slightly larger than Old Dutch [...]
Take your pick where you want the article to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'd go for the second one, given the terminology in Dutch. With a propper and throrough explanation it would be an easy to grasp concept. Rex 11:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Rex (Germanus) is obviously a Dutch nationalist who, furthermore, seems to have a problem with everything that might link Dutch culture to German culture. Taking these two facts into account, it is clear that, from his perspective, the article has to be named "Old Dutch" instead of "Old Low Franconian" ("Altniederfränkisch") although the last cited notion is the terminus technicus. (194.9.5.12 09:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why you use the German term next the English goes past me, it has no value whatsoever Also, what you're trying to accomplish? Calling me a nationalist is not going to get you anywhere.
Rex 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Rex, please, what was e.g. your intention to create this lovely synomyms for Germans-side, honestly? (194.9.5.10 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

For "Germans-side"? Rex 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_words_for_Germans (194.9.5.12 14:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hey, could you two perhaps take your personal feud elsewhere? Like, outside in the parking lot or somewhere? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal feud whatsoever. I (think I) do not know this contributor, I can't help that some people look for confrontation. Btw, I replied to your comment on my talkpage. Rex 14:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quite apart from any personal feuds, I see simply no reason to favour the more precise (as admitted by Rex) term "Old Low Franconian" over "Old Dutch" beyond a patriotic pleasure in seeing the word "Dutch" in article titles. I mean, how many articles titled "X" do we have that begin with
"X (more correctly known as Y) ..."?
In any such case, mere common sense suggests a move to Y. dab (ᛏ) 13:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's really a question of a larger and a smaller classificatory unit, as Rex seems to be saying (OD being a part of OLF), I'm not sure one is objectively more correct than the other. The relevant question in that case seems to be: Is the linguistic information contained in the article, and the information about its extant corpus, representative of OD specifically or equally representative of OLF? What's the implicit scope of the article as actually treated in the text now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you really meant "...no reason to disfavour..." above, didn't you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly and more correctly speaking Old Dutch should be included, as a part of Old Low Franconian, not as a synonym. Patriotism has nothing to do with it, afterall, Dutch in this sense does not specifically refer to the Netherlands. If you, Dbachmann, still think I made this move on nationalist grounds then please believe me when I say I didn't. I did it because I felt it didn't sound right compared to others (you must agree that Old Dutch is much more recognizable than "Old Low West Franconian") and because (in the end and by the narrowest of margins, I agree) it is incorrect. As for nationalism in linguistics in general (not a confession ;-) it has always been there. I remember not so long ago some linguists called Common West Germanic "Old German" and I also know that during the 19th century English was put in the North Germanic group simply because of the Viking revival, so its always been there, just look at "High German".
Rex 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I haven't read the literature (and I assume you have), I can only re-state my question in more precise terms: (1) do the lingustic statements about grammar, phonology, sound changes etc. as contained in this article now apply only to OD proper, or are they equally true for OLF in general? (2) Do the books quoted in the reference section, speaking of "oudnederlands" and "Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal", deal exclusively with OD proper, or do they discuss the history and development of the whole of OLF? We should follow the scope of the literature. If the contents of the article are to be a sketch of narrow OD, as opposed to the rest of OLF, let's have it under "OD". If the contents of the article are to be a sketch of OLF, only illustrated primarily through OD as its best attested variety, then let's have it under "OLF". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I meant "no reason to disfavour" :) and yes, I meant "more precise" in the sense that OD=OLWF is a subset of OLF, and since OLEF and OLWF are too close to warrant two separate articles, to keep the single article at "OD" would be like, say, discussing the Eastern Iranian languages under the title of Northeastern Iranian languages. (ᛎ) q∀p 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ɓǃs əɔǃN -- :-) ɟɹədˑʇʌɟ ☼ 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
how could I forget IPA! what say you, mirror symmetry or proper case? (ᛎ) qɐp 15:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. But you might not make friends among IE users with this. :-D Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article in the way I rewrote it discusses Old Dutch. Rex 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which means that you now need to create two more stubs, one for OLF and one for OLEF. If you don't, Wikipedia will have no coverage of OLF minus OLWF. If those do not accumulate enough material to stand on their own, they will have to be merged together again, at OLF. Come on, that's just elementary set theory. (ᛎ) q∀p 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sources FPaS asked for;

  • A. Quak en J.M. van der Horst, Inleiding Oudnederlands. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2002). [(advanced)Old Dutch)]
  • Maurits Gysseling m.m.v Willy Pijnenburg, Corpus van Middelnederlandse teksten (tot en met het jaar 1300) reeks II (literaire handschriften), deel 1: Fragmenten. 's-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1980. [Middle Dutch texts until 1300 (The boundary between Old and Middle Dutch is very blurry and so some text show features of both Old and Middle Dutch, extremely valuable information)]
  • M. Gysseling, "Prae-Nederlands, Oudnederlands, Vroegmiddelnederlands", in: Vierde Colloquium van hoogleraren en lectoren in de neerlandistiek aan buitenlandse universiteiten. Gent, 1970, pp. 78-89. [Old Dutch]
  • M.C. van den Toorn, W.J.J. Pijnenburg, J.A. van Leuvensteijn, e.a., Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1997. [History of the Dutch language]

Dbachman, I believe there is some information on Old East Low Frankish (eventhough any Old Low Frankish source is rare) so yes that article should be created, but I don't think we should turn Old Low Frankish into an article, I'd say a disambig would suffice. Rex 15:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently:
  • The map here at Old Dutch seems to be including Limburg, which according to you was OELF.
  • The maps at Low Franconian and Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages fail to show the boundary between OD and OELF
  • The article Old Dutch fails to describe the linguistic difference between it and OELF.
  • None of these articles describes which sub-dialects within OLF were "East" and "West" respectively.
And the list of references you give above doesn't make it clear to me if the treatment of these works factually covers OELF or not.
Which all seems to boil down to the difference between OWLF and OELF being so elusive that no two separate articles are warranted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not jump to conclusions, like I said I Dutch linguistics Old Dutch is used in a quite broad sense. The map problems are not extremely severe, you see the maps at Low Franconian and LF-LS do not indicate Old Dutch or any other historical language because they give the (semi)modern situation. The map currently which currently indicates "Old Dutch" could easily be modified, for example with a small line marking the "border" while in the same way making a referance to their close connection. As for the differences between OD and OELF ... well I suppose such a section isn't impossible. Rex 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way the text is now, the Wachtendonck psalms are included in Old West Low Franconian, whereas they are usually cited as our main source for Old East Low Franconian. Klassi 14:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankish/Franconian[edit]

As a professional philologist, I am somewhat amused by the presence of an article on "Old Frankish" and the link to it here on Wikipedia. It assumes that "Frankish" was a predecessor to "Franconian." Now, I have never encountered the term "Frankish" in this meaning in any scholarly literature. The exclusive term English for linguistic topics related to the Franks is "Franconian." No historical linguist would talk about "Old Frankish" being a linguistic stage preceding "Old (Low) Franconian." The confusion is made worse by the use of "Dutch" in the modern political meaning for a period at which the Low Countries were inhabited by a variety of Germanic tribes, united under three large confederacies (the Franks, Frisians, and Saxons). The question whether Old Dutch = Old Low Franconian is a pointless discussion. The recent rise of the term "Old Dutch" in scholarly use, does not make me happy. When we talk about the earliest stages of the Dutch language, we are using anachronistic terminology--we cannot use the word "Dutch." Thus, "Old West Low Franconian" and "Old East Low Franconian" are to be preferred because these are neutral terms describing dialects of Franconian without drawing later dialects of Dutch into it. The Wachtendonck Psalms are OELF, the Willeram is a mongrel with an OWLF heart. "Frankish" never existed--instead, historical linguists talk about preliterary Old Franconian or preliterary Old West Low Franconian (or, if they're naughty boys, preliterary Old Dutch). Even the term "West Germanic" is used for the period before literacy. Lufiend 04:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Old Dutch is by no means recent and fairly accepted and is used more than the subterms OWLF and OELF. Apart from that, I believe wikipedias use of "Old Franish" was caused by German wikipedians calling a German dialect Frankish/Franconian here.Rex 11:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not disagree, really. I am not disagreeing that the term "Old Dutch" is now in fairly widespread use. Nor am I even claiming that the term is recent--it has been around for well over a century (in Dutch and German, too). Also, I am not even arguing that Wikipedia should change the terminology. That discussion, as the talk page indicates, has already been had and I am not such a hothead that I will insist on this change. However, (and here's the but you've been waiting for) I do think the term "Old Dutch" is inaccurate and that it is not nearly as widespread in the specialized scholarly literature as the terms "Old Low Franconian" or "Old West Low Franconian." There has been an increase over the past 15 years or so in the use of "Old Dutch." There has been an outpouring of handbooks on and introductions to the earlier stages of Dutch, especially in Holland and Belgium, and in those circles the term "Old Dutch" is used a lot. Many of these books are meant for undergraduate students, so I can understand the pedagogical choice of "Old Dutch" over the akward "Old West Low Franconian." Methodologically, it should be avoided since it causes a number of problems with regards to the non-Franconian dialects of Dutch. What role do Old Frisian and Old Saxon play in the formation of Dutch? Is it fair to talk of Old Dutch when we are only talking of the Franconian dialects? Additionally, in recent decades serious questions have arisen over the determination of the origin of certain old texts, e.g. the C manuscript of the 'Old Saxon' Heliand (Is it Old Saxon? Anglo-Saxon? Old Low Franconian? A weird mixture of two?) And that famous 'Dutch' sentence haban olla vogala is now even claimed to be Anglo-Saxon by some. Now, I don't want to get into a long discussion over this. I have stated my position and I do not want to make a big deal out of it. I would urge everyone to be careful with these terms, but let's leave it at that.
  • As for "Frankish," however, this is really a mistranslation from German Fränkisch or perhaps a misunderstanding of the English adjective Frankish which is used of cultural matters (i.e. "a Frankish sword"), but never of linguistic matters. I would strongly urge that the term "Frankish," when talking about linguistics, be dropped and replaced with "Franconian." Lufiend 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These comments by Lufiend are fascinating and most useful. The fact that English-speaking scholars use "Frankish" in a cultural context and "Franconian" in a linguistic context is key I think, an important point that should be explained directly in the article itself so that the rest of us can learn this as well. (We'd need an authority for this though.) As an English speaker, I perceive "Franconian" as a foreign-sounding, unusual word. "Frankish" is a natural English word, the word I would want to use for anything relating to the Franks, including their language. Most of us are enthusiasts, not academics or scholars of the field, so we need as much professional/academic input as we can get. I'd like to add that if a professional academic is unhappy with some development in these Wikipedia pages, why not simply make the amendments (including your authorities of course). I see quite often on Wikipeda that an expert spends some time in the comments pages explaining why the article is incorrect but then doesn't spend any time amending the article itself. Schildewaert (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain that last one. If you are an academic who actually is an authority in a given field, you do not wish to enter an edit war with an unqualified person. The democracy of wikipedia is a double-edged sword. For instance, I cannot contribute to pages discussing the great contributions I made to science. It would be tagged original research: you're damn right it is! (Before you point out that I should simply cite the primary sources where my research appears in peer-reviewed form: yes of course I know that. But it is unseemly; the point is that wikipedia is for and by amateurs, which is a good thing, but academics do not easily mix, since it is impossible to be an equal and an authority at the same time.) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:2884:4E05:2EAE:21 (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lufiend, I am struggling with this statement of yours: "non-Franconian dialects of Dutch". I understand the nuances involved (i.e. that Dutch, like English, was strongly influenced by other dialects and languages), but I find it difficult to accept that in an encyclopedia of this nature it may be considered simplistic and wrong to make a simple statement like "Frankish developed into Dutch". In English, one can easily write in an encyclopedia that "Anglo-Saxon developed into English" even though it disregards the enormous complexity involved and the effect of Danish, French, etc. This all speaks to a need to add a detailed paragraph explaining the transition from Frankish/Franconian into Dutch. And a paragraph explaining the terms involved. We would like to know what academics think about all this. Schildewaert (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nationalhistory tag[edit]

Recently a tag with the following text:

An editor has expressed a concern that this article's presentation, coverage and accuracy is distorted and damaged by the influence of later national entities or otherwise by the influence of modern political entities. Please improve the article by making such assumptions explicit, resolving the problem, or else discuss the issue on the talk page.

was added. Personally I don't see these problems. Yes, the article is influenced by modern insights not relevant at the time of Old Dutch but that argument goes for all history.
Perhaps I did not understand the text of the tag (which I find both vague and complex).
In any case, the tag as such is not pointing toward concrete improvements, and the lack of talk page arguments by the tagger make this impossible. The tag without such information is therefore not useful, and I have removed it. Arnoutf (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Dutch is a modern construct, and is clearly based on back-dating a modern state-based language. This is too normal a linguistic habit of classifiers for a general case against it to be made here. But some sections need tweaked. The speakers of the dialects closest to what modern writers call old Dutch called their language by the same term other German speakers called theirs. This does not translate as "Germanic" (a category including English and Norwegian, of post-medieval invention), but as "German". The language Charles V learned, heard and spoke in the Low Countries was called German way after the "Old Dutch" period; the term included the dialects spoken in Austria and in Silesia; it didn't include Germanic dialects spoken in the British Isles (West Germanic) and Scandinavia (Germanic). Because the article depicts Dutch's relationship with German as purely that of Germanic or West Germanic, it is historically (not to mention linguistically) highly misleading (and btw readers relying on this article will experience much confusion if they move on and routinely hear historic Dutch called "Low German"). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, some sections need tweaking, it is a C class article. No need to slap offensive tags on articles for that reason.
I don't understand what you mean with "and routinely here historic Dutch called "Low German"" - Low German dialects are those of North Eastern Netherlands (not those of Western/Southern). So what do you mean? Arnoutf (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He evidently means that parts of the relevant literature do actually treat older forms of Dutch, including but not restricted to "Old Dutch", as part of a unit called "Low German". I haven't got examples at hand, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. An Indoeuropean Classification: A Lexicostatistical Experiment (1992), p. 57 (find many examples through intelligent searches on google books). In my own experience with writing the article Roman van Ferguut, one of my sources described it as Low German and another as Dutch (though it describes itself as simply German), so I innocently included both designations, which as you will see from the article history caused one Dutch user much offense. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get somethings straight
1) I seriously doubt the word used in the old language was "German". It is more likely it is a variant of Diets, Deutsch, or Dutch. The exact phrasing in the original documents, in the local language, is essential as Diets, Deutsch and Dutch are not the same.
2) Nobody ever denies Germans and Dutch have the same roots. However, if you say the Dutch were Germans, it is strongly implied that the Dutch were at one time modern Germans. This is not true (except for 1940-45). In fact it has similarity to the (erroneous) idea that Mankind descended from Chimpanzees (Darwin year after all). All editors will agree the German language and the Dutch language descend from the same ancient (set of) dialect(s). Everyone will disagree that modern Dutch descended from modern German.
3) If you are surprised some Dutch are offended, consider what would happen if you say outright to Scots they are English; or at least that their culture and identity is just a late split from the English culture. It has the same sensitivity; and is equally incorrect. Arnoutf (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity's sake, the terms cannot be used synonymously. Diets, Deutsch and their variants are of a much more general nature than modern "German" and primarily mean "the people's language" (as opposed to Latin or its derivative French). Iblardi (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fut. Perf. may well be right that some literature does that. The question is whether that literature should not get tagged as 'distorted by political desires'. Mostly of the annexational kind. As in 1940-1945. It would be nice if Germans would show themselves as good Europeans and stop doing that. Even more so because the dialects spoken in the Netherlands north/east of the IJssel river are truly Low German (based on Low Saxon rather than Low Frankian) and most Dutch people have no problem with that fact. In fact some of my own relatives that live in that region are bilingual in Dutch and Low German. The actions of Pndapetzim are based on gross ignorance and I call upon him to remove his shameful tag. Jcwf (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to the question what the old Franks called their own language we can be quite specific, because that is quite well documented: they used the term Theodisk of which Dutch is the English cognate. So to call their language 'Dutch' today would really not offend them. The fact that other Germanic tribes speaking other varieties of West-Germanic like Bavarian or Saxon that they subjugated and forced to become christians the hard way also took it upon themselves to use that same word and their modern descendants therefore call themselves Deutsch does not change that fact. Interestingly, only the English have continued calling the descendants (ethnic as well as linguistic) of the low western (Salian) Franks by the name they used themselves: Dutch. Those descendants stopped calling themselves Diets or Nederduitsch etc. much, much later for various reasons. One was not to be confused with their onetime subjects to the east. Jcwf (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being the voice of reason. It is true that the Dutch are generally not offended to be called Dutch --- except for the small matter that in the early Modern Age, the English lost a series of naval engagements to the Dutch and struck back by coming up with sundry expressions in which the word Dutch is used pejoratively. Being aware of such gems as going Dutch, Dutch courage, Dutch oven etc. a civilised person hailing from the Low Countries understandably hesitates to self-identity as Dutch in polite conversation. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:2884:4E05:2EAE:21 (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Older Sentences[edit]

In the article under "Older Sentences" is mentioned that Old Dutch was discovered in the "Lex Salica" and on the sword sheath of Bergakker and that both should be better considered as Old Frankish instead of Old Dutch. This is not correct since both are clearly seen as expressions of Old Dutch. This is amongst others clearly evidenced by: accepted as Old Dutch by the INL and by reputed scollars as Frits van Oostrom and Nicoline van der Sijs. Both sources are clearly accepted as Old Dutch by the Istituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie (INL) and are incorporated in the Old Dutch dictonary (see:http://gtb.inl.nl/?owner=ONW ).--86.95.48.226 (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need for two additional paragraphs: "Origins" and "Terminology"[edit]

Could an academic with in-depth knowledge of this field please add a paragraph to this article explaining the transition from the language spoken by the Franks as represented by the Bergakker inscription (Old Frankish or whatever you want to call it) to Old Dutch (or whatever you want to call it)? I also think we need a careful style/terminology paragraph that explains to the reader what terms should be used in English. There is obviously a good deal of confusion about that. Schildewaert (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do academics see "Old West Low Franconian" as being the predecessor of "Middle Dutch"??? Surely there was a transition from the language spoken by the Salian Franks around 450 AD (Bergakker inscription) to the language spoken around 900 AD (i.e. well before the transition to Middle Dutch). It makes complete sense to me for the transition to be from Frankish to Old Dutch to Middle Dutch. Is this sentence in the article wrong: "It evolved from Old Frankish around the 6th century and in turn evolved into Middle Dutch around the 12th century." If scholars have another view of this (as indicated above and in the Talk page for Old Frankish, it would be appreciated if this were explained in the article). Schildewaert (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that the current comment on the origin of Old Dutch in the introduction is not supported by the article itself. If this is contentious, it should at the very least not be in the introduction.Schildewaert (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really quite sure what the differences were, and I'm not sure anyone does considering Frankish isn't attested anywhere in any amount, and Old Dutch isn't terribly well attested either. It's only through reconstruction of French words that scholars have been able to figure out which changes had not happened yet in Frankish. This includes at least the loss of -j- in suffixes, the monophthongization to -ē- and -ō-, and the dipthongization to -ie- and -uo-. But there is no way to tell when those changes happened; they happened in Old Saxon and Old High German, but that doesn't say much about the dating except that it happened sometime after the creation of the Frankish kingdom and before the first written attestation of Old Dutch.
Frankish probably was not the ancestor of just Old Dutch but also of the Central German dialects spoken along the lower Rhine and Moselle, including the areas around Cologne, Trier and Luxembourgish. (There is a map of this on the Old Frankish article.) Those areas underwent the High German consonant shift later, but at the time of the Franks, that had probably not happened yet, so that they formed a single language with Low Franconian. There are barely any differences between Old East Low Franconian and the 'High German' dialects of those areas aside from the consonant shift. CodeCat (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Dutch language. And of course no Old Dutch.[edit]

There is no Dutch language. And of course no Old Dutch. Dutch means "the common people" and is actually the proper word for all western Germanic speaking people on the continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.99.45.29 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken. CodeCat (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if there is no Dutch, what do you propose we call the language waarin deze woorden geschreven zijn? Netherlish? Netherlandish? West-Low-Germanic? Neo-Low-Franconian? (It is true that the modern appellation evolved from something else, and is one of the reasons most Americans to this day do not quite understand the difference between Germans and the Dutch, or the languages they speak.)2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:2884:4E05:2EAE:21 (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final devoicing[edit]

The text currently claims that final devoicing is already found in the Bergakker inscription. How does that work? The only word-final obstruent in the entire inscription is s, and 1) that's the genitive singular and the plural ending, expected to be *s anyway, plus 2) it dates from a time when *z was long gone, so there was nothing to devoice!

At least the quote from the Wachtendonck Psalms contains a devoiced mit. This establishes devoicing around 900, quite some time before it reached Middle Low and Central German. But is there any evidence either way earlier than that? And when does final devoicing show up in Old French – earlier or later than in Old Dutch?

David Marjanović (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source (Bernard Mees) presumes that the expected NWG form is logonez.--MWAK (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Old Dutch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of map[edit]

I recently replaced this map, with this one. The main differences being that the latter is of a higher resolution and includes the other Germanic languages (Old English, Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Old High German) mentioned with regard to Old Dutch in subsections concerning the relation between them and Old Dutch. I think this greatly clarifies the linguistic geography mentioned in the article, apart from being of a better quality. Apparently, given the multiple reverts, Kleuske disagrees. Perhaps support for his/her position (yet to be clarified though) includes others, or, perhaps more people fail to see (like myself) the logic behind these reverts. Cheers, AKAKIOS (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is on Old Dutch, It's preferable to show a map that concentrates on "old Dutch", instead of that language being buried amongst other languages. Since both images are schematic, resolution isn't a main factor. Apart from that, the sources of your image are not mentioned, so i'm left with the impression that your main reason for preferring that image is that it's yours. Kleuske (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on a West Germanic language in its earliest stage, the relation to other related languages is quite helpful. This is, I say again, corroborated by the article itself ... which mentions all the languages shown on the map. As for the sources, the previous map does not list sources at all. I would seem as if I forgot to add mine, something I will fix immediately on commons. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Now an addtional argument in favor of this map is the fact that it it's sourced, as opposed to the other map, which has apparently been made by a user who has since been banned from Wikipedia. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... WP:AGF is out the window and I don't trust your sayso on the subject of sources. Kleuske (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care about that, it's your personal opinion. Am I to assume this is your way of conceding; or are you still going to defend the unsourced map by the banned user? AKAKIOS (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ann, gun[edit]

The word ann, found in the partially-translated inscription is coined as the oldest Dutch by linguists Nicoline van der Sijs and Tanneke Schoonheim from Genootschap Onze Taal. They attribute that word to the ancestor of the modern Dutch verb root gun, through the addition of the prefix ge-.

That may all be true, Nicoline and Tanneke, but would you mind rewriting this using intelligible English? Coin is odd in this context (proposed would work better) and attribute likewise simply does not work that way in English (perhaps you had toeschrijven in mind); good alternatives would be propose to be or relate to. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:2884:4E05:2EAE:21 (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Old_Dutch&oldid=1209501887"