Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sarcelles (talk | contribs) at 20:57, 20 April 2005 (→What system of dialect classification to use?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Older talk on "Dutch" vs. "Netherlandic" can be found in Talk:Dutch language/Archive1.

32 million speakers?

As far as I can tell, if you put together all inhabitants of Flanders, the Netherlands, Suriname, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, the number of Dutch speakers barely exceeds 23 million. Also, Afrikaans is not a "dialect of Dutch", nor is it widely considered such -- at any rate not by the academic world. Afrikaans speakers may find that comment offensive. Let's not overestimate the role and presence of our mother tongue here. Captain Q

It is certainly defensible to call Afrikaans a dialect of Dutch. See for example www.afrikaans.nu and especially www.afrikaans.nu/pag5.htm. Mutual understanding is quite easy (after getting used to it). --Woodstone 23:34, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Certainly, it is. But I'll use the classic example of Norwegian and Swedish, which are also mutually intelligible to a large degree, yet are considered seperate languages. On academic grounds, your claim is defensible, but politically, Afrikaans is considered a different language. Captain Q 11:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On academic grounds, one standard language - e.g. Afrikaans as such - cannot be the dialect of another standard language :o)

MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dutch closest to English

Can someone help me with this? I'm editing a few things for clarity, but I can't make heads or tails of this: "Of all the major modern languages, Dutch is the one that is closest to English. The lesser-known Frisian language, very closely related to Dutch, is even closer to English." How can Dutch be closest to English if Frisian is even closer to English? Perhaps someone else should tackle this first, since I'm out of my depth with Frisian, and I'll sweep up behind you if need be. Thanks!GreenPen

I think what is meant, but poorly expressed is that of all MAJOR MODERN languages, Dutch is closest to English. Frisian is even closer to English, but it is not a MAJOR language; it's only spoken by a small group of people. Jeronimo

Hmm. That helps a bit. I've puzzled over this for a couple of days, and still haven't come up with anything better. Perhaps if I come with problems, someone else can bring solutions, or at least better suggestions. The paragraph in question: Of all the modern Germanic languages, Dutch is closest to English. The lesser-known Frisian language, very closely related to Dutch, is even closer to English. Another language that is very closely related to Dutch is Low German, while Afrikaans derives from Dutch. The first line is my revision, and it's wrong. The second sentence makes no sense. The third sentence...well, Low German is not a language but a group of dialects. I'll take out the first sentence and the reference out to Afrikaans, as that is covered more thoroughly in a previous paragraph.

I also question the wisdom of comparing languages like this. Dutch (just to have a specific example) is closer to another language in what sense? Geographically closer, closer in grammar, syntax, semantics, pronunciation? GreenPen

Of course, German is the closest relative to English. The article is as such written as to avoid any reference to the closeness of German to Dutch. Maybe a Dutch speaking writer who hates Germany and the Germans? Who knows? Striking the denying any identity of the word "Dutch" with "Deutsch". A falsification I dare say!

Fact is Dutch is closer to German than an English speaking person might imagine.

Anyone a mind to correct this? Spazzo, 5th January 2005

The proximity is almost certainly meant in terms of language geneology. The Anglo-Saxons immigrated from the low countries and took with them their Germanic dialect. The speakers of said dialect had recently split off from the speakers of the dialect that was on its way to becoming Dutch and had much earlier split off from the the speakers of what would become Platt and still earlier split from the speakers of what ultimately became standard German. The speakers of this pre-emigration Germanic dialect who stayed on the continent became Frisian speakers; the ones who had moved to Britian came to speak English, Scots and the other Anglo-Saxon dialects of the British Isles. Ergo, Dutch is far closer to German than to English, but English is closer to Dutch than German.

Arguably, Scots is a separate language and is far closer to English (while retaining a number of contiental Germanic words and features like kirk for church (compare to the Dutch kerk).

This "genetic" approach to language classification is linguistic orthodoxy but has in recent years had some detractors. Nonetheless, it is still the mainstream method of evaluating language similarity. It is in that light this should be interpreted.

Diderot 10:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, Diderot, bare with me but the above is not at all correct...!

The Anglo-Saxon language never "split off" from what was on its way to becoming Dutch so as if Angles and Saxons left North Germany for the British Isles and on their way losing speakers who had then to become today's speakers of Dutch. Whatever the language in Germany was like in the 5th century when Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded Britain, it is simply unknown and only hypothetical. At that time there were no such languages as Dutch, Low German or High German but just Germanic languages on the continent that must have been more or less similar. What was to become Dutch had already been there but it was certainly not a brother of some Anglo-Saxon dialect that split from a dutch ancestor. The alleged similarity between Dutch and English does not mean that the two languages derive from the very same source dialect as your description implies.

Dutch and English are similar but not at all to the extent as some people claim them to be. A good example is the verb system: what is similar between Dutch and English on that subject? Nothing at all except that the two languages show similarities as all other West Germanic languages do. That is all.

But, the German and the Dutch system are almost the same. If you explain the Dutch verb system to a German student, he would feel at home from the start.

Just food for thought: As a German Speaker grown up in the west of Germany with a low franconian dialect I was capable of inventing Dutch words that were in reality Dutch words even before I knew Dutch. Difficult to understand for a foreigner and not in the least possible neither for a Dutchman in relation to English or an English speaking person in relation to Dutch.

Uwe

"Closeness" can mean two things: close genetic relationship and close morphology. Standard Dutch has only been slightly influenced by Saxon dialects. It's mainly Franconian. Standard German has a much stronger Saxon component. As the West Germanic roots of English are mainly Saxon too, in this genetic respect English and Standard German are closest. However, standard German is High German and as such more derived than the more primitive, "plesiomorphic", Dutch and English. In this respect Dutch and English are closest. Nevertheless in many other ways English is much more derived (what with its strong Danish component and all). So in this third respect Dutch and German are closest. But of course there's also Frisian, which is closest to English in some plesiomorphic respects. And in some derived respects. And closest to Dutch the same way! Language is fun.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ABN

The expression 'Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands' is not used anymore; it's called 'Algemeen Nederlands' nowadays.

Then someone needs to correct the page it links to, as well as the wording on this page. GreenPen

There is no mention of Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands on the entire Taalunie web site, which suggests to me that that is not the term they are using to describe standard Netherlandic.

Does anyone know where the name ABN comes from?--branko

ABN or Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands is considered obsolete. In the Dutch version of the Misplaced Pages we decided to use the current name Standaardnederlands (standard Dutch). See http://nl.wikipedia.org/Algemeen_Beschaafd_Nederlands and http://nl.wikipedia.org/Standaardnederlands (both are in Dutch of course). Also note that the Taalunie, unlike some authoritative Dutch dictionaries, uses Standaard Nederlands (with a space). Perhaps a native English speaker can adjust the English Misplaced Pages accordingly. Thanks, René. 194.109.127.162 19:35 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

In Belgium we use AN, which stands for Algemeen Nederlands. We just droped the B from ABN. Do they say it otherwise in the Netherlands? I should contact some people who live there perhaps...

Currently I mostly see Standaardnederlands or AAN: Algemeen Aanvaardbaar Nederlands. — Jor 14:38, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

This is first time I see the term Algemeen Aanvaardbaar Nederlands. I suspect it more something for the Netherlands. And ABN is maybe not political correct but still the most know term for it in my surroundings (Brussel). Walter 21:37, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I also never heard of AAN, and I'm from the Netherlands. A google search reveals that the only pages mentioning AAN are Misplaced Pages and an article (Dutch) by linguist Jan Stroop from 1992 in which he coins the term AAN. I propose the remove AAN from the article. Mtcv 11:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation of final 'n'

The final 'n' of the plural ending -en is often not pronounced (as in Afrikaans).

This is ambiguous: is it pronounced, or not pronounced, in Afrikaans?

Sebastjan

Depends on the word and the dialect. — Jor 14:38, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Depends on where you are in NL; in the randstad dialects the -n is dropped; as in koe - koeie'. In the northern and eastern dialects the e preceding the n is dropped; koe - koei'n. This not only true for nouns, similar for verbs; lopen - lope' - loop'n, where the final n sounds like an m; loop'm.

"Northern" and "eastern" dialects being the Low Saxon ones.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dutch close to English, 2

Moved from article by sannse 09:27 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC):

Of all the major modern Germanic languages, Dutch is closest to English (is this correct? I'm not a linguist, but am Dutch, and would say that Dutch is closer to German than to English. A reader).

The issue here is not about the Germanic language closest to Dutch, but the closest major Germanic language to English. As such, the claim is correct, as mentioned above. I've clarified the text. -Scipius 16:45 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Commodore and fuck

Removed commodore (originally from French commandeur) and fuck (origin unclear). --Wik 11:46, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Lighter colour on table

Could we use a lighter color on the table. The current choice is hard to read because of low contrast. Rmhermen 16:16, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Number of genders in Dutch

Does Dutch currently have 3 genders (masculine, feminine, neuter) or 2 (common, neuter)? It is clear that it used to have 3 but from what I read on the internet it's roughly as common to say it has 3 now as that it has 2 but the whole topic is a lot less discussed than for the Scandinavian languages. If Dutch still has 3 genders, what are the differences between masculine and feminine genders these days? Hippietrail 17:06, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Spoken and written Dutch from the Netherlands has only 2 genders (common, neuter) — this is in nearly all cases the masculine gender. Flanders Dutch still uses 3 genders, as do some Dutch people: 'De deur klemt, ze moet gemaakt worden' (the door jams, SHE must be fixed). Masculine/Feminine is rapidly disappearing though, and Dutch is rapidly moving to two genders. — Jor 14:14, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

To add, I believe the only point where it still really matters is in the gentive: 'De man wiens zoon…' (The man whose son…) vs 'De vrouw wier dochter…' (The woman whose daughter…) are the only real masc/fem terms I still see in the language. — Jor 14:14, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Again people forget that in The Netherlands a third of the population lives in dialect areas where three genders are still used.

--84.27.81.59 09:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)MWAK

For some reason I see no references to the "ij", which is pronounced similar to the "ei".

That's because the page talks only about Dutch pronounciation, not its spelling. In pronounciation "ei" and "ij" are the same. - Andre Engels 12:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've added a link to Dutch alphabet, which discusses and links to Dutch Y. Jor 14:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dutch as a German dialect

Dear Jor, do you not agree that it is a simple historical truth that the situation of the German dialects is such that they are spoken in both the areas in which today "Dutch" and "German" are used as standard languages; and that there are thus two competing standard languages (for the same dialect group) the use range of which is a political contingency that has nothing whatsoever to do with the original qualities or divisions of those dialects; that on the level of dialects the state border between The Netherlands and the German Federal Republic would thus in no way have been a language border, were it not for the fact that present dialects are influenced by the standard languages?

Do you not agree that it is deceptive to obscure this simple historical truth by not speaking of "German" but of "West Germanic"; that this usage is often not caused by a honest valuefree scientific desire to avoid confusion between the usage of German as "The whole of Continental West Germanic dialects" and as "The standard language used by most speakers of Continental West Germanic dialects", but by a petty nationalism very common among us Dutch, expressing itself in an irrational denial of that taboo: that we Dutch are in a very real sense Deutsch too?

MWAK (een Bezorgde Brabander)

I disagree actually. Dutch is undoubtedly closely related to Low German, and is certainly a Germanic language — but Dutch has little in common with the German language, or High German. The dialects on the borders are partially Dutch nor German, but accents of Low Saxon (Nedersaksisch/Niedersaksich/Nedersässisch), which is another Low Germanic language. Fact is that Dutch as a seperate language from the high German is known since at least the 1600s, a time in which there was still no single "German", so to speak about Dutch as a German accent is factually incorrect. — Jor (Talk) 16:18, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jor, let me first express my joy at discovering that you recognize the presence of Saxon dialects in The Netherlands. So often in our society the very existence of the Saxons themselves is not acknowledged - another taboo subject.

I must say that I agree with most of your remarks. But do they really adress the point that I made? That point is not that Dutch would be a dialect of German. How could one standard language possibly be the dialect of another standard language? Nor is it that Dutch dialects would be dialects of the German standard language. Dialects are never "of" any standard language. The point is a simple historical fact that I believe to be undisputed: in the time standard languages had not yet developed, there were five tribes: the Franks, the Saxons, the Frisians, the Suebians and the Bavarians. These tribes were divided in their language, in that they each had their own group of dialects. These tribes were also united in their language, in that there was a unity of the whole of their dialect groups. We can apply to that unity the very cumbersome name of Continental West Germanic. Few do, if only for reasons of convenience. There is a common word for all that regards the unity of these tribes. That word is German. And so we can, and do, often talk about German dialects. This usage is confusing, for with German we then do not mean the German standard language. Still many use the word this way. And so do you. For when you speak of High German as opposed to Low German, you are not referring to standard languages as such, but to divisions within the unity of German dialects.

And now the facts about the germanic dialects spoken in The Netherlands and Belgium. Are they closely related to Low German? To affirm this would be suggesting that they are outside of Low German. And that is quite false, for they are Low German. They are of course most closely related to those Low German dialects spoken in the Federal Republic of Germany. So closely even that on the level of the original dialects no seperation is at all possible. The only dialects of which it could be correctly stated that they are related to Low German, are those of the both provinces of Limburg - for they are Middle German themselves.

You are of course quite correct in claiming that there are Saxons living in the border area. But this suggests a falsehood also. The implication is that the Saxons are somehow in between - and thus the "Dutch" seperate. You seem to forget that the Saxon territory stops north of the Rhine. In the south, it is Franks all the way, from the North Sea till deep in Bavaria. Do you realy think that a subdivision of the five tribes, the tribe of the Franks, is intrinsically divided between a "Dutch" and a "German" part, even though Low Frankian is spoken on the Lower Rhine and Middle Frankian in Limburg? To repeat myself: the divisions of the dialects have nothing whatsoever to do with the state borders, which only reflect the vagaries of history. I know you don't deny this; but do you fully see its implications?

MWAK

This is getting difficult! 'German' is an overloaded term, mainly caused by the fact that German language speakers tend to call the standard German language 'High German', and any dialects 'Low German' (Platt), even though about half of them are in fact also on the High German branch! Let me try something else.

In the 'West Germanic' phylum, there are three main branches (and a few others like Frisian):

• Anglic (English, Scots),
• Low German (Low Franconian, Low Saxon, East Low German)
• High German (Upper German, Middle German).

The standard German language is on the 'High German' branch in the 'Middle German' "family", the standard Dutch language is on the 'Low German' branch in the "Low Franconian" family.

Now the overlap between the 'Low German' languages is great: many Low Franconian dialects are closely related to and influenced by Low Saxon dialects, and the fact that there is no one single Low Saxon language means that there is a spectrum of dialects rather than a clear-cut division between the languages. On the other hand, many other Low Saxon dialects are closely related to and influenced by East Low German dialects.

There is a similar problem with the 'High German' branch: Austria, Bavaria, Switzerland etc. speak 'Upper German' dialects, yet their official language is standard German, which is a 'Middle German' dialect. What you call Frankian is not actually Fränkish, but a series of (West) Middle German dialects!

To get back to the point I was trying to make, in the Dutch-German border area there are three identifiable "languages": Dutch (Low Franconian), Low Saxon (Low Saxon), and German (Middle German). However, there are also some dialects which do not belong to any readily identifiable languages (unless Limburgs is counted as one — which from personal experience I'd do, but standard linguism seems to oppose this — Limburgs is a good example of an West High German dialect): the East Low German and the West Middle German dialects. (And, to be precise, along the Rhine, some Alemannic (Upper German) dialects). There is thus a clear difference between Dutch and German, and while they do belong to the same family, they are not closely related anymore.

And alas to most people 'High German' means 'Standard German', and 'Low German' means a German dialect which deviates from this. To lable Dutch thus as Low German — while linguistically speaking correct — is confusing, as Dutch is not a German dialect which deviates from standard German, but rather a fully distinct Germanic language.

In any case the old Germanic tribes you mention do not exist any more, nor are their languages surviving in any way. From 1150 onwards we can clearly distinguish Middle Dutch, Middle Low German and Middle High German which, respectively, lead to Dutch, Low Saxon, and German.

To keep it within Dutch only, roughly spoken Dutch dialects in Holland, Utrecht, Brabant, Zeeland are Low Franconian, "Dutch" dialects in Groningen, Drenthe, Overijssel and parts of Gelderland are Low Saxon, "Dutch" dialects in parts of Limburg and parts of Gelderland are East Low German, and "Dutch" spoken in mainly southern Limburg is West High German (with some Upper German peaking in along the Rhine). And this dialect confusion is of course not neatly bound by national or provincial boundararies, but it mostly works. — Jor (Talk) 15:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again I agree with your remarks. But now they really adress the issue. Now you have described the real situation. A truth that is extremely complex and extremely confusing. And one that is very difficult to explain. So we would like to simplify things a bit, when explaining them to the uneducated. We could pretend that the dialects on the Dutch side of the border are simply Dutch, and those on the German side are simply German. What's in a name?

But then some bright kid asks: "How is it that there is no ethnic German minority in The Netherlands, nor a Dutch one in Germany?" And now we can no longer give her the true answer: "Because beneath the appearance of imposed artificial standard languages, we form a unity", and are forced to invent those mythical entities called "transitional dialects", to avoid the answer: "But there are! Let's immediatly invade the Lower Rhine to liberate our Low Franconian brethren from the German yoke. At the peace talks we can cede those essentially undutch Saxons and Limburgers - and the Frisians at a bargain. A pure Dutch state at last!"

And an insolent German might casually suggest: "Your puny language is but a dialect of our mighty German". And now we can no longer give him the appropriate retort: "Be silent, you insolent German! Remember that in a healthy development it is the most wealthy and civilized region that provides the standard language - so were it not for your backward political divisions, you yourself would be speaking Dutch this very moment!! Your nation is as a decapitated giant, flailing madly through history, in search of its severed head: the Netherlands!!! Yours is an overrated peasant brogue that should have given way to Dutch long ago!!!!", and we are forced to cast our eyes down and humble ourselves so: "My good German, I believe I do understand why you might think so, but it is really one big misunderstanding, you see. Our both languages have been seperate for, oh, I don't know how long. You do have forgotten about those old tribes, I trust? What tribes? Good, good, I can't imagine why I mentioned them in the first place. Dead as a dodo they are. So don't you get any funny ideas about swallowing us and such! You might choke on it! No, just my little joke. Really Dutch-German segregation is for the best of all parties involved. We like to be on our own, you see."

So there is a certain price to pay for simplicity: it diminishes veracity. But perhaps at this moment it is too late, or too early, to start divulging the truth. And perhaps it's really all for the best.

MWAK

Thank You

I was on a computer at school and I happened to come across your discussion. I am currently studying first year German in America and having heard and seen Dutch in text, I was very confused by the similarities and differences. Thank you for making it a little more clear what the relationship really is between Dutch and German.

-Grant (USA Ninth Grade)

No thanks...;o)

MWAK--217.122.44.226 17:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Edits by User:83.109.164.193

I removed the sentence, "Dutch did orginally belong to the German language area, being a Low German language, but eventually became considered a language of its own." Dutch is indeed a member of the family of West Germanic languages, but that is different from how that sentence put it.

Instead I would put it as "Dutch is descended from Old Low German, and is a member of the West Germanic family of languages." However, that's in the box, so it seems redundant.

The main difference is that Germanic languages is not the same as the German language area. That latter phrase implies that there was such an area that is related to what we specifically call the German language. If the phrase were changed to replace "German" with "Germanic" that would also be untrue, as Dutch is still a Germanic language, and that is separate from its development into a separate language.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 15:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Trema/Umlaut in loanwords

Is überhaupt still spelled with the umlaut?

Yes it is. Meursault2004 14:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Earliest attested Dutch

I am interested in the oldest fragments of the Dutch language which are allegedly older than the famous sentence: "Hebban olla ..." My question is: "Where have you found this information?" Can you tell us more about this? And besides how come you are so sure about the fact that it is Old Dutch. These sentences might also be regarded as Old English, Old Low Saxon etc ..., who knows. Thanx! Meursault2004 14:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

long/short vowels

I noticed a lot of indications (:) of a long vowel were added in the prettified tables. In many Dutch grammars you find the notion of long and short vowels, but actually these terms refer to pairs of sounds often spelled with single or double occurrences of the same letter (a, aa, e, ee, o, oo, u, uu). In reality these differences are not one of length, but of form of the mouth. Vowel length in Dutch is not phonemic. The are no minimal pairs distinguishing them. There may some small physical lengthening, but it is of no importance. (Remark: also the first column needs the IPA template) −Woodstone 22:53, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Link in intro to "Flemish"

It is perhaps a minor matter, but the link to "Flemish" in the first paragraph points to a disambiguation page, Flemish language. Normally, this is something to avoid, but I can see that in this case there might be something to be said for leaving it the way it is. Still, I think a real article on the Flemish language would be better. Any volunteers? ;) I can't write one from scratch myself, but I would be more than happy to translate one from Dutch, er... Flemish. -- Viajero 15:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I took a little over from nl:vlaams but it still could use some attention. -- Viajero 15:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem with your article is that it supposes there is a "Flemish language". But there simply isn't one. :o) I've changed it - and I hope the changes speak for themselves. Also the talk page of West Flemish should be most informative...--MWAK 09:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Former capitalisation of commoun nouns?

I've either read or heard that several Germanic languages besides German used to capitalise all common nouns. In Danish this practice was abolished in a spelling reform in the late 1940s. Can anybody tell me if this was ever practiced in Dutch and if so when was it abolished? — Hippietrail 06:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first official Dutch spelling, that of Siegenbeek (18 december 1804), didn't use many capitalisations; not even for ranks or months. It reflected normal usage of that time. However in earlier centuries some writers did use capitals, often rather haphazardly to give special emphasis to concepts, persons or events. I'm not aware of any statistical studies ever being done (though they probably do exist :o)

--MWAK 09:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What system of dialect classification to use?

I've noted that Sarcelles changed the section about "Flemish" dialects in the article about the Dutch language. He apparently based these changes on the Dutch article about Dutch and the German article about Limburgish. At first blush they seem very reasonable. They also pose a few major problems however:

I. He is now mixing up two irreconcilable systems. What most German linguists mean with Limburgisch-Bergisch is not the same either in range or interpretation as the Limburgs of linguists in the Low Countries. Hint: the old town of Limburg is today located in Germany.

II. He uses Dutch and German names. However there are English ones and obviously these should be preferred, especially when they link to already existent articles.

III. He uses the higher-level grouping of the Dutch article. It's not a very bad system and often used, but there is no consensus whatsoever among linguists about its validity. The relations between the various Low Franconian dialects are extremely complex. East Flemish in particular is very difficult to categorise. In some ways the southern Brabantic dialects and East Flemish are very closely related. That's one reason to talk about a Central Dialect Group. However there's also a very strong isogloss bundle between them, while there's none between the southern and more northern Brabantic dialects. And in some ways West Flemish and East Flemish are more closely related. So it seams preferable to me to use a more traditional and "atomistic" lower-level approach and to speak of four groups. Of course we should then add that according to some criteria East Flemish should be grouped with Brabantic.

IV Strangely however the system is in some ways too atomistic: it shows divisions where there are none. Now why should it do that? The answer is: Hollandocentrism. Holland has been for four centuries the dominant province in The Netherlands. The normal sociological process has taken place of creating a value system in which the Hollander is at the top and the others are his inferiors. To emphasize his uniqueness his language also has to be set apart. In reality however the standard Dutch the Hollander today uses is basically Brabantic in origin. To repress this painful truth defence mechanisms have been activated. One other reason to use the term Central Dialect Group, is that "Brabantic" can be avoided. Also the fact is hidden that Brabantic very gradually fades into present Hollandic. So artificial dialects are created in the system to form a buffer, like the non-existent Zuid-Gelders (no isogloss bundle exists) and the barely discernable Utrechts (very weak isogloss bundle). The same trick is used to keep the Flemish away by talking about Zeeuws which in fact is northern West Flemish. But is there no justification to be found to distinguish a separate Zeeuws in the fact that the dialect continuum is broken by the geographical division in several islands? No. For the dialect of each islands then would have be considered its own dialect group: they form no unity.

--MWAK 09:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have changed back to your last version.

However, I still think that Limburgisch-Bergisch can be integrated into this system, even if most Dutch speaking respective German linguists disagree about the scope of Limburgish. Sarcelles 20:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)