I will say it again: "Before whinging to us about that, can you at
least actually try to use your dialect on nds.wiki to prove to us that
it really doesn't work?"
Mark
On 25/06/05, Walter van Kalken <walter(a)vankalken.net> wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
As I noted before, it is a dialect continuum.
Stellingwarfs and Middel-pommersch are surely not mutually
intelligible, but Grunnegers and Oostfreesk very well should be.
You are foolishly dividing Platt by nations. This is illogical. If we
had an Oostfreesk Wikipedia, Grunnegers-speakers would surely
understand it and vice-versa, even though Grunnegers is in the
Netherlands and Oostfreesk is mostly in Germany.
The problem of dialect continuum is a very difficult one.
HOWEVER, given the community reaction to a request for a Baseldytsch
Wikipedia, I think the same is logical for a request for a "Dutch Low
Saxon" Wikipedia -- your language may be different to whatever degree
than what many people on X Wikipedia use, but there is no rule
forbidding its use. There is no rule against writing pages and pages
and pages of content on nds.wiki in Stellingwarfs or Achterhooks. When
I suggested doing this, I got a cold response that Dutch Low Saxon and
German Low Saxon aren't mutually intelligible. Before whinging to us
about that, can you at least actually try to use your dialect on
nds.wiki to prove to us that it really doesn't work?
Mark
Mark here we go again. It has plenty of support and someone reacted to
your arguments. You do not speak it. So how can you judge?
Walter/Waerth
--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE