Servien,
I hate to say it but I am getting contradictory information from you and Heiko.
In fact, I am getting contradictory information from the various things you write yourself.
See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/nds-nl/Nedersaksisch , under "Dialekten", the classification:
de noordelike groep (Sleeswyk-Holstein, Nedersaksen, Grunningen, Drenthe, Stellingwarven, and Overyssel.) de suudwestelike groep (Westfaolen, Twente, Sallaand, Gelderland).
Out of these, Grunningen, Drenthe, Stellingwarven, Overyssel, and Twente are, as I know, all spoken in the Netherlands. (using your names for the languages)
Yet, in this page you wrote yourself, the classification implies that Twente is further from Grunningen, than Schleswig-Holstein LS is from Stellingwarven? This is where your argument falls apart into inconsistency.
So, Grunningen, Drenthe, and Stellingwarven (varieties in the Netherlands) are closer to "Nedersaksen" and "Sleeswyk-Holstein", two varieties in Germany, than they are to Twente (another variety in the netherlands)???
So which is it now? I thought you said there was a clear difference between Dutch Low Saxon and German Low Saxon... now you've contradicted yourself.
Coincidentally, your classification appears with that I've found elsewhere on the internet -- most of the Low Saxon varieties spoken in the Netherlands are relatively close to Oostfreesk which is a variety in Germany, yet other varieties in the Netherlands (in your list, only Twents, but it differs in other lists) is more different?
Please, help us to reconcile your classification with your statements.
Also, how do you explain for the websites I linked you to? They use such terms as "drentse taol" rather than "drentse streektaol" or "drentse dialekt"... nobody says "spellingswyse" like you do on your test-mainpage, they all used different terms... it's suspicious.
And, why do you change your mind now about Low Saxon being your native language?? It either is, or it isn't. Why did you say on the babel templates that it wasn't, and then later now that it was when it suits you? (native speakers have some greater degree of credibility)
This is all very confusing, more than it appeared on the surface, and it appears that while there may be some linguistic issues at the existing nds.wiki, the most major issues are with your request, due to your contradictory statements on the mailinglist vs the test-wiki, and the contradiction of the websites, and you changing your mind about which is your native language.
You say you want Wikipedias created for different language boundaries, not national boundaries. This is not how it appears on the surface, and when I dug deeper it appears this way too -- your dividing line is even more arbitrary than I thought at first.
Heiko makes a distinction of spelling, not seeming to have realised yet that orthographic conversion is a full possibility although I tried to explain it (last time, Heiko thought I was talking about converting German spelling to ANS... which would serve no purpose here at all), yet does not seem to have much to say about the extreme dialect differences you cite that change between the countries rapidly rather than using it as an arbitrary dividing line like Ron said (he is a real native speaker, and doesn't change his mind about it), and as the evidence points (twents is closer related to Southwest Low Saxon languages in Germany, than other Low Saxon varieties in Netherlands?? this doesn't fit your argument, yet it comes from your own hand).
I found evidence for great dialect differences, but uniform differences: just as shockingly different between Drents and Stellingwarven as between Drents and Oostfreesk.
But, it is indicated by Heiko that there is greater unity in dialect with mostly differences in spelling; and it is indicated by you that the varieties in the Netherlands are all the same, and they are all very different from the varieties in Germany.
You may have gotten 5 supporters, but how many of them can write in this "Dutch Low Saxon" language you speak of? I'm not sure Guaka can, Wouter has told us he can't, Heiko and Slomox are out because regardless of how well they can speak it, they speak a German variety so they won't be able to contribute... which leaves for now one potential contributor, you, to a language which may be more languages or may be part of a bigger language.
Mark
On 14/07/05, Servien Ilaino servien@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mark and Heiko,
As explained it's not just a issue of spelling, and this cannot be solved with a converter, it's an issue of vocabulary, spelling and influence from Dutch and German.
As I said, I am bilingual meaning I am both native Dutch and Veluws, so there's your native speaker! (I put Dutch as native because I speak it with people who aren't Veluws and one hears it more often in the media unlike Veluws) Still not clear to you after so many messages? (I'll change from 'nds3' uutstekende kennis to 'nds' moerstaol...)
As for the dialects, there will be an article on the spelling system for the different dialects, as used on the mainpage now (http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Servien/Veurpagina) this is a generally used writing system, with some minor deviations as in kyk'ng is spelled as kyken for the clearity of the text, and instead of Z a S is used, and in some dialects the use I'J/IE/IEJ or Y, this is now fixed to Y.
As for the clearity between the dialects, that's not really a problem, as most dialects look quite similar, with some exceptions, like Grunnings uses: AIN BOER... Stellingwarvs, Veluws, Sallaands etc. use 'N BOER (for example on the German-NDS Wikipedia the word Boer isn't used/doesn't exist)
The dialect websites are indeed a language: Nedersaksisch (Dutch-Nedersaksisch that is: see: http://www.streektaal.net < Nedersaksisch; these dialects are all in the Netherlands, not one is in Germany, they're in Veluws [not up to date at the moment, new version has been sent], Grunnings, Drents and Stellingwarvs, all they use a different writing system [all Dutch-based] but with a fixed writing system it will be no problem... even now it's not a problem, but with titles it will be easier).
Servien
2005/7/14, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
On 13/07/05, Heiko Evermann heiko.evermann@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Mark,
After much thought, I have had a change-of-heart regarding separate Wikipedias for Low Saxon.
That is a surprise.
HOWEVER, I still believe it is wrong to divide on national borders. From what I can tell, Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Dreents, Tweants, and Achterhooks are all different enough from one another to warrant separate Wikipedias.
The national border is a border of spelling.
Servien claims that the national border is entirely based on vocabulary. If it is, however, based as you say on spelling, then it can easily be remedied by a converter between Netherlands and Germany spelling, similar to the converter used at the Chinese and now the Serbian Wikipedias (similar converters are tested for Kashmiri, Low Saxon, and even English right now).
Sample:
Stellingwarfs: Et doempien hadde zien nust in et waegenhokke. Op een keer weren beide oolden uutvleugen. Ze hadden eten haelen wild veur de jongen en hadden de jonkies hielendal allienig laoten. Grunnegers: t Was ain van de schierste zummers sinds joaren. n Steltje keudeldoemkes haren heur nust baauwd in de woagenschure stoef achter de baanderdeure. Op n dag sluigen baaide ollen de vleugels uut. Ze wollen veur de jongen wat te bikseln hoalen en luiten doarom de lutjen hailendaal allind achter.
...
Well, these different texts are not direct translations of each other. There is a lot of paraphrasing in them.
While this is certainly true, if one looks at individual words, you can see apparent differences (the words for "[he] said", are one example).
I was unable to find a better sample; however it became rapidly clear that they're different.
The main question here is: how different are theses 5 dialects of Low Saxon from each other from their own perspective. In other words: I think it is up to those people from this area to just tell us what they want. My guess is that they will feel that they can work together in one wikipedia. After all they did not ask for 5 new wikipedias, but just for one.
Each of these websites refers to its dialect/language as a language. Cf "drentsetaol", etc. The publishing of separate translations of both religious (the Bible) and secular (Asterix) literature indicates that there are indeed significant differences.
In addition, there was only one requester for this Wikipedia. As far as I know, none of the supporters speak Low Saxon, or if they do they are not from the Netherlands (for example you and Slomox are from Germany).
I suspect that if people from the websites I linked in a previous message were to see this discussion, they would jump on Servien's message and request instead separate Wikipedias.
And, unlike him, these organisations are founded and maintained by native speakers, which as far as I know are a bit more abundant in the Netherlands than in Germany (in the Netherlands, they are closer to Dutch which is more closely related to Low Saxon than German is, so some speak of "diglossia" rather than "bilingualism", similar to how true Japanese dialects are strong still but the Okinawan language is in poor health because it is not mutually understandable with Tokyo Japanese).
...
Current policy, so far, has been to wait for native speakers before starting a new Wikipedia. This is not a written policy, but it seems to be the case as there was created Voro, Scots, Kapampangan, and Cebuano Wikipedias, where native speakers were involved, but not Sranang Tongo or Papiamentu, where there was a lot of support but no native speakers.
Best wishes; Mark _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l