This isn't as it appears to me. For example, "un denn de wildkatt" -> "un denn gifft 't noch de wildkatt", "dorbi dominant" -> "daar bi tovörkamen", "dor een mumie rut" -> "daar 'n mumie vun", "de Kierl kreeg sien Straaf" -> "bestraaft"...
You say "where usually both words are acceptable for different people" -- how would YOU know this, since Platt isn't your native language?? Maybe, it sounds unnatural to all native speakers? It's awfully strange that you expect me -- nay, everyone -- to take your word over that of Ron Hahn.
Mark
On 12/07/05, Heiko Evermann Heiko.Evermann@gmx.de wrote:
Dear Mark,
I certainly do not believe that I am right and everybody else is wrong... well, I do, but it is an opinion easily changed by solid evidence -- Boris did a very good job of presenting real evidence, and convinced me partially. I still haven't been able to sort out: 1.Differences caused by the use of Patentplatt,
We are still talking about nds/Katt. And you are still accusing us of using "Patentplatt", a pejorative word for "deficient Platt". Please have a look at http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=21810&oldid=185... This is a diff between the last version before the anonymous changes (by Ron) and the end of his edits.
Almost all of them involve spelling. In a few cases a different word was proposed, . The only real improvement is the last paragraph under "biology". Here the overall structure has improved a bit and the point in the last sentence was made clearer.
So in short: this does not at all allow anyone to describe the whole article before to be "deficient Platt". And frankly I cannot stand that accusation any longer.
Regards,
Heiko Evermann
-- Weitersagen: GMX DSL-Flatrates mit Tempo-Garantie! Ab 4,99 Euro/Monat: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl