Mark Williamson wrote:
Hmm... according to the ISO, "nds" does not include East Low German. Only Low Saxon. Seems this Wikipedia is not in accordance...
Plattdüütsch covers the non-frankish parts of Low German, but there is no ISO code for this portion. I don't know the discussion held when creating nds.wikipedia, but I think it was intended to cover this portion, but the code nds was chosen, because he was the best-matching code therefore. It would be silly to separate East Low German and Low Saxon, because they are closely related.
Servien Ilaino wrote:
You are very wrong in saying (at least I think so) that in Germany are the most "important" dialects of Low Saxon...
Important is not the right word, yes (sometimes the correct English words are lacking).
The reason why Dutch speakers don't contribute is because the writing system is completely incomprehensible!
Long time no writing system was given and nevertheless any Dutch contributed.
It is not possible to write an Low Saxon/Plattdüütsch/Low German whatever wikipedia understandable to all speakers in all parts of the Netherlands and Germany without inventing a common writing and a common standard for the use of words not common. But this invention can't be task of a wikipedia, but must be based on a broad consensus in language community. Therefore we need two projects for the main varieties Dutch-influenced and German-influenced Low Saxon. (coming back to the original issue)
I hope nobody will think anymore, nds.wikipedia is mainly written in a corrupted form of Low Saxon, this is not true.
Slomox (Marcus Buck)