Misplaced Pages

Talk:Netherlandic languages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Redirect page

Redirect to:

  • From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

Rationale: concerning the use of 'Netherlandic'

After seeing this edit, I feel an explanation for the changes to this article is in order. I've been meaning to do so, but hadn't gotten around to it.

Use of the term

First and foremost I want to stress that "Netherlandic" as used here is not an invented term. The celebrated German linguists Theodor Frings, who is to be considered an expert in this particular field, called his book Niederländisch und Niederdeutsch (Netherlandic / Dutch and Low German) and indeed uses and prefers those terms to Low Franconian / Low German. In fact in this specific book, he refers to the dialect which is currently called South Guelderish on this Misplaced Pages as "Niederländisch" (ie. Dutch / Netherlandic). Frings uses those terms / dichotomy in all his subsequent work, which is extensive and authoritative.

Now I understand that "Netherlandic" is taking some liberty to a certain extent , as the terms "Nederlands" and "Niederländisch" used in the aforementioned literature could also be translated, simply, by "Dutch" as they are in almost all cases, concerning most subjects. I chose not to translate the term as "Dutch" for two reasons: 1) I believe it creates to much confusion between standardized languages, dialects and dialectal grouping. 2) Because Netherlandic is an acceptable alternative evidenced by the Encyclopedia Britannica, which already uses the term (though its meaning is still dependent on context) in its articles on the West Germanic languages, the Frankish dialect and the Dutch language and specifically mentioned the "Low German - Netherlandic languages" grouping as opposite to the High German consonant shift in volume 5 of its 2003-edition, thereby clearly showing its synonymity with "Low German - Low Franconian".

For those who suspect this is very recent usage of the term in English, it isn't: evidenced by C.B.van Haeringen who, in 1960, already uses the term.

I can understand the rationale between translating "Nederlands" / "Niederländisch" as "Dutch" in English, but would advise against it, because while Dutch and German linguists do use the terms "Nederlands" and "Niederländisch", I feel that their readers have more of an innate knowledge of their meaning in a broader linguistic context. Though I'm open to discussion, in this regard.

I'd like to note that all dialects currently called "Low Frankish" all descend from Old Dutch / Middle Dutch; for which the German and Dutch terms are "Alt- / Mittelniederländisch" and "Oud- / Middelnederlands" respectively, hence dropping the "Frankish"-part following attestation.

Drawbacks of Netherlandic

Now I know that the adjectival use of "Netherlandic" in English can also be used for the Low Countries as a whole (Early Netherlandic Painting) and I have seen it as a 'neutral' term binding "Dutch" (i.e. spoken in the Netherlands) with "Flemish" ... which is a use, I personally find more confusing than enlightening and which is, linguistically untenable on a dialectal level. With regard to linguistic matters, I think it isn't that much of a problem as Dutch dialects = Netherlandic / Low Frankish. The only situation where I can see some problems, is when discussing the Dachsprachen within Germany/Netherlands/Belgium/South Africa as being a Netherlandic / Low Frankish dialect doesn't necessarily equate to having Standard Dutch (which should hence be avoided to be called 'Netherlandic') as the standard variety.

I think all of the above problems can be prevented by clearly explaining the use of the term in both this article and that of the Dutch language.

Drawbacks of Low Franconian

My main argument is actually a general note about this Misplaced Pages (though much the same could be said about the Dutch and German Misplaced Pages) : it has used too many outdated sources, both currently and in the past; especially with regard to terminology. Misplaced Pages still employs this overwhelmingly 'Wenkerian' vocabulary, which revels in the idiom of Tacitus and the Ottonians with dialectal differences not only marking simple isoglosses, no, they are ancient boundaries between Franks, Saxons, Alemanni and Bavarians. Now I'm perfectly aware that this was the style of the era (and that particular style of mythologizing linguistics didn't really stop until 1945) but it hasn't been the dominant style of more recent years. Now it's hard to fully replace a term like "Low Frankish" which has been in so many three diagrams that it's bound to stay for quite some time to come, and indeed still is in common use - though mainly in general reference books, not so much anymore in specialized literature, which is why the article should definitely mention the term more than once.

In the case of Dutch, these names suggest a commonality that is either significantly less than expected or nonexistent. To clarify: a lay person might assume that Low Franconian is more closely related to Middle Franconian and Upper Franconian than with Low Saxon-dialects, (and vice versa) , which is not the case. To put it very simply, adding half of the High German consonant shift to Dutch, doesn't give you Kölsch; there are other sound laws at play, idiomatic or vocabulary differences, syntactic differences, etc.

What speaks for Middle Franconian and Upper Franconian (and indeed most German dialects) keeping their names, is that most of their speakers actually refer to their dialects as "Franconian" or "Middle Franconian" (when spoken in Mittelfranken) i.o.w. with terms at least similar to those used by several linguists. But speakers of Low Frankish do not do this, indeed none of the larger dialectal groupings in the Netherlands or Belgium do this.

Adding to the reasons why Netherlandic should be preferred over Low Frankish as the title of this article (again, I'm not arguing to remove the term) is that in Germany and among some German linguists the term "Niederfränkisch" has become very closely tied to "Rheinfränkisch", "Nordniederfränkisch" and "Südniederfränkisch" (you'll find that the German wikipedia articles on them overlap to a large extent because of this) by which they actually mean Netherlandic / Low Frankish spoken in Germany instead of the larger grouping.

Several modern Dutch linguists, on the other hand, have started to use "Nederfrankisch" in a sense that closer to the protolanguages of Friedrich Maurer, that is; as an extremely sparsely attested predecessor or influencing dialectal grouping to Old Dutch, from which - in its western and eastern variants, or following Middle Dutch if you want - in turn all other modern "Low Frankish" dialects descended, which might provide an opening for a new Low Franconian-article on Misplaced Pages, separate from Netherlandic.

Discussion

I think you for reading the argument and would ask not to place any remarks in it, but discuss it here. Thank you, AKAKIOS (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


"The celebrated German linguists Theodor Frings, who is to be considered an expert in this particular field, called his book Niederländisch und Niederdeutsch (Netherlandic / Dutch and Low German)" The term Niederddeutsch referes to a German dialect. Do not conflate that to Dutch, please. As to the rest Sources please and I still want the ISBN to "Het Nederlands" by G. Janssen. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, the only thing I will accept now are proper references (book, date and place of publishing and ISBN), not you explanations laced with WP:PEACOCK terms. Kleuske (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
First of all I already provided you with all the data concerning that particular book. Secondly, you don't seem to understand what a "dialect" is within the context of this article, or indeed Germanic linguistics as a whole.
Niederddeutsch, is a German dialect in the same way that Achterhoeks is a Dutch dialect, that is, in the sense that the Dachsprachen are German and Dutch respectively. That however, is a superficial (if you want, layman or everyday) way of looking at these dialects. When you go into the realm of protolanguages, dialectology and phylogenetics, this changes. In this regard, Low German, is not a dialect of German (and in much the same way Achterhoeks is not a dialect of Dutch) but a separate dialectal grouping. What you (and most people) call German, is a standardized language which originated from different dialectal groupings, High and Central German in this case. Of course Low German is related to German (as it is to Dutch/English/Frisian) but it is not a dialect of German.
In much the same way - and it is essential you understand this - Netherlandic here does not refer to the Dachsprache but to the dialectal grouping. But where Low German does not (or, no longer) possesses a native Dachsprache (it uses either Standard German, or Dutch) the Netherlandic / Low Frankish group does have a native Dachsprache, as Standard Dutch (and by extension Standard Afrikaans) originates from within the Netherlandic dialect grouping - building mostly on the Hollandic and Brabantic subdialects - and can hence be included within the Netherlandic group, just like Standard German and Standard Yiddish are included in the High German languages group.
In all honesty, this is basic Germanistik. If you dismiss an author like Frings (whose bibliography and frequent citations by other authors speak for themselves) by refering to WP:PEACOCK and by saying "Niederddeutsch referes to a German dialect" ... and think that this somehow undermines (or bares even the slightest relation to) my point ... you are, very much, wrong. I'm serious, any linguist, or person well read in the subject really, would tell you this.
Not to be demeaning in any way, but for the sake of this discussion I have to ask: do you fully understand the subject being discussed here? I ask not only because your remarks above, but also because you seem to think that Netherlandic can only mean Dutch and that Low Franconian itself refers only to two dialects spoken in Germany, which are both false assumptions/statements. Cheers, AKAKIOS (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)