After much thought, I have had a change-of-heart regarding separate Wikipedias for Low Saxon.
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.
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. Drèents: 't Tuunkroepertien had zien nust ebouwd in 't achterhuus. Op 'n keer waren allebeide de oldeluui uut-evleugen um wat èten veur de jonchies te halen – en ze hadden heur hummelties glad allennig thuus elaoten. Tweants: Et duymke has sin noes in de skueppe. De olden warren der maol ut evloegen, sey wollen wat te aetten krygen vuyr hoer jongen, en hadden de kleinen alene achter elaoten. Achterhooks: Et nettelkönninksken had zien nust in de wagenloze. No bunt de olders op ne kere allebeide oet evloggene ewest, ze wolden wat te aeten veur aere jongen halen, en hebbet de kleinkes helemaole allene achter elaotene. English: There once was a wren who had made his nest in a garage. He lived there with his family. One day he and his mate went out to look for some food to bring their chicks, leaving the young birds all alone.
In addition, each has a history of somewhat separate literature: Asterix has separate translations in each language as does the Bible, and there are websites about them and in them.
http://members.home.nl/goaitsen/twents/ (Tweants) http://www.drentsetaol.nl/ (Drèents) http://www.grunnegertoal.nl/ (Grunnegers) http://www.stellingwarfs.nl/ (Stellingwarfs)
All of websites except the Tweants one are of organisations for promoting the languages; the Tweants site is a page with information on Tweants.
Mark
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.
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.
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.
Kind regards,
Heiko
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
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
Hi Servien,
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)
Actually it is "Buur" or "Buer" on our side of the spelling border.
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).
To me this means: 1) You say you can go along together and you will be able to sort out upcoming problems between Veluws, Grunnings, Drents and Stellingwarvs, and one wikipedia is sufficient for all of you. 2) You are the native speaker that Mark keeps demanding.
OK, that means that there is no reason left not to create nds-nl.
I therefore again request the immediate creaton of nds-nl.wikipedia.org. We have been discussing far too long and I really think it is time to go back to work.
Kind regards,
Heiko Evermann
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
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
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
Hi everyone,
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.
Mark, it is no use arguing about all this with you any longer.
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.
Nevertheless they share one important thing: a heavy influence of Dutch in all areas where Low Saxon lacks modern words.
Please, help us to reconcile your classification with your statements.
No Mark, the whole discussion has last much too long. Let's make it short and clear: it is not up to you to decide all for yourself about what is right and what is wrong. It was a long way to convince you that we need a separate wikipedia for those Low Saxon speakers that come from the Netherlands. Again: there are two grave factors. Spelling and vocabulary. Now you want to make fun of us and want to cause confusion by demanding 5 (in words five !!!) new wikipedias for "Dutch Low Saxon". Now this is ridiculous.
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.
Mark, I am fed up with trying to explain things to you.
And, why do you change your mind now about Low Saxon being your native language?? It either is, or it isn't.
He made perfectly clear how he sees himself. Please read it again.
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 ...
Mark, we are not interested in such a converter. Again: the difference is spelling AND vocabulary. When editing nds.wikipedia.org I do not want to be limited by having to worry about side effects of your converter. Finding the right words for nds.wikipedia.org is difficult enough. We have spent quite some time on finding words where most dictionaries fail. (E.g. what is "jungle" in Platt, or "abbot"? It took us quite some time to sort that out.) So please, please stop talking about your converter. This might work for converting azerbaijani from cyrillic to latin, but not for us. (As the saying goes: "Which part of NO don't you understand.")
You may have gotten 5 supporters, but how many of them can write in this "Dutch Low Saxon" language you speak of?
5 is five. period. Servien wants to go on and we back him up. And I am very much curious to find out what the community will look like that will form from this seed. I really want to know, and I want to see this started soon.
Perhaps the main point in all this discussion with you has not been mentioned before. you do not even come from the Low Saxon language area. It is OUR language, not YOURS, and how many or how few wikipedias we want for our Low Saxon language is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, and whether or not nds-nl.wikipedia.org will be created is not up to you to decide. This is my final word.
So here again is my official request: please create nds-nl.wikipedia.org, or is this the wrong place to ask for this? If so, please tell me whom to ask.
Regards,
Heiko
Hi everyone,
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.
Mark, it is no use arguing about all this with you any longer.
Does this mean that you have no logical explanations anymore?
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.
Mark, I am fed up with trying to explain things to you.
So you don't respond to it. Just say you're fed up. That works well.
And, why do you change your mind now about Low Saxon being your native language?? It either is, or it isn't.
He made perfectly clear how he sees himself. Please read it again.
In his e-mails, he did. Yet, he makes clear through babel templates that it is not his mother-tongue. This is confusing, and self-contradictory.
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 ...
Mark, we are not interested in such a converter. Again: the difference is spelling AND vocabulary. When editing nds.wikipedia.org I do not want to be limited by having to worry about side effects of your converter. Finding the right words for nds.wikipedia.org is difficult enough. We have spent quite some time on finding words where most dictionaries fail. (E.g. what is "jungle" in Platt, or "abbot"? It took us quite some time to sort that out.) So please, please stop talking about your converter. This might work for converting azerbaijani from cyrillic to latin, but not for us. (As the saying goes: "Which part of NO don't you understand.")
Perhaps the part of "no" where you thought I was talking about converting from Ron's orthography to German orthography? At what point did you actually understand what I was offering? That is the part of "no" I didn't understand. Like, "Would you like a banana?" -- "No, I would not like an elephant"; "No, I said a BANANA" -- "I already said, I don't want a banana!".
And, you said, and I quote (text in parenthesis is mine):
(> > 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.
Now, can you honestly tell me that is not confusing? You said in the newest e-mail that it is of spelling and vocabulary, yet in one from nearly a day ago you said exactly "The national border is a border of spelling"??
You may have gotten 5 supporters, but how many of them can write in this "Dutch Low Saxon" language you speak of?
5 is five. period. Servien wants to go on and we back him up. And I am very much curious to find out what the community will look like that will form from this seed. I really want to know, and I want to see this started soon.
So, if I request a new Wikipedia in Drents, and I find 5 people to support me, no matter what their credentials, it should be created right away? Do you wonder why the Sranang Tongo and Papiamentu Wikipedias have not been created?? Perhaps it is because there are still outlying issues with them...?
Perhaps the main point in all this discussion with you has not been mentioned before. you do not even come from the Low Saxon language area. It is OUR language, not YOURS, and how many or how few wikipedias we want for our Low Saxon language is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, and whether or not nds-nl.wikipedia.org will be created is not up to you to decide. This is my final word.
Oh, so it is your language, but your native language is Hochdeutsch? This is just fabulous. So, if I learn to speak perfect patentplatt (don't tell me it isn't patentplatt, I forwarded you accusations from Jonny Meinbohm, and put on the list accusations from Ron hahn, both of whom are, unlike you, native speakers), it suddenly becomes my language? Interesting. In fact, my great-great-grandparents spoke Platt natively... so it must be my language, then??
So here again is my official request: please create nds-nl.wikipedia.org, or is this the wrong place to ask for this? If so, please tell me whom to ask.
It isn't that simple. You don't just request a Wikipedia, and then suddenly it is created. Look at how long ago the Scots Wikipedia was first requested; it was created only a week or two ago. It didn't have any issues regarding it, either.
An Extremaduran Wikipedia looked promising -- support from native speakers (which doesn't exist here; even if Servien is a native speaker, he is only 1, in the last 4 Wikipedias to be created, there were at least 2 potential contributors, and often as much as 5), language-promotion organisations (none here), and the like. Yet, there were some questions about the status of Extremaduran: is it a language, or a dialect? These concerns were very, very short, no long discussions. And yet, it was never created, and interest gradually waned.
Cantonese, for which I advocated, was supported by well over 5 people, many of them native speakers. And yet, due to the fact that nobody ever reached agreement, it has not been created.
When there are no disputes, it usually takes a long time for it to be created anyways. When there are outstanding issues, it takes even longer.
I would like to remind you that I hold no official position with the Wikimedia Foundation.
However, the whole idea was submitted to the list, and as a member of this list and of the community, I have the right to argue against it. This does not mean that it will not be created, although it is likely to be created substantially later if the dispute is not resolved, which you certainly have not tried to do ("I am tired of explaining things to you" -- Boris Lohnzweiger provided such a nice, point-by-point response to me... why can't others do that? why do you just repeat yourselves over and over? "oh right whatever, but it's still separate"?)
You did not address any of the individual arguments in my last message, most important among them:
a) Servien's e-mails say that there is a clear line between Netherlands (Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Drèents, Tweants, and Achterhooks) and German (Oostfreesk, Nordnedersassisch, Westphaelsch, etc. etc. etc.) varieties of Platt/Low Saxon. This is fine. ...until, he writes an article in his test-wikipedia which categorises:
de noordelike groep (Sleeswyk-Holstein, Nedersaksen, Grunningen, Drenthe, Stellingwarven, and Overyssel.) de suudwestelike groep (Westfaolen, Twente, Sallaand, Gelderland).
Now, I'm sure you know the countries for these: Schleswig-Holstein is in Germany, Saxony is in Germany, Grunnegers is in the Netherlands, Drèents is Netherlands, Stellingwarfs is Netherlands, and Overyssel is Netherlands.
And, Westphalia is in Germany, Tweants is spoken in the Netherlands, Sallands in the Netherlands, and Veluws in the Netherlands.
So, both of his principal divisions of Low Saxon include varieties from both countries. This is the primary contradiction here, and I would like to see someone explain it -- it has not been explained before, because I only noticed it today (he created the article yesterday, I think).
b) Regardless of what you think, there is a tradition of separate literature in Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Drèents, Tweants, Achterhooks, Sallands, and Veluws -- the Bible, first of all; the Asterix comics also.
And then, there is the fact that each one of those websites I linked to refers to each one as a language -- Drentsetoal, not Drentse-streektoal or Drentse-dialekt.
c) Although important, this is probably not directly related to the issue of nds-nl: Someone searching for a word for "abbot" is surely not a native speaker; I imagine most native speakers would know "jungle" too.
Both Jonny Meinbohm and Ron Hahn have testified that nds.wiki is written in Patentplatt, in fact I sent you the text of a ballad Ron wrote to tease Jonny about it. The ballad is of course in Patentplatt, the translation to real Platt he provided later (I didn't send that part to you, though I offered to if you wanted it) is quite enlightening.
So, let's see credentials here: I am not a native speaker. My command of Low Saxon can be said to be between nds-0 and nds-1. You are not a native speaker. You claim nds-3. Slomox is not a native speaker. He does not give a proficiency level, although my guess would be nds-3.
Ron Hahn and Jonny Meinbohm are both native speakers, and they have both said that it is written in Patentplatt. It's very strange that you ignore the opinions of these people. If I were writing a Wikipedia in a language that wasn't my native language, I would listen very closely to what native speakers had to say.
Mark
Hi Mark,
Your e-mails are VERY LONG!! I can't read all of it since most of it is BLABLABLA... I'll reply to only a few points which you stated:
First of all the Low Saxon page is translated, I haven't had the chance to actually read everything word for word... I don't care in what group Grunnings or Stellingwarvs and Sleeswyks falls... you are correct though that Oost-Vrys (Ostfräisk, or something like that) is understandable to us, the spelling used is a bit complicated but the reason why we can understand it is because it is closely related to Westlauwers-Vrys. Since Oost-Vrys isn't used on nds.wiki it's not relevant, FYI, I read somewhere someone wanted to start a Ostfräisk Wiki, but that's a completely different thing, not related to this at all. I don't even believe the information is correct, but you're welcome to check it if you want!!
As you mentioned the whole of the South group is in the NL, the only Dutch dialect in the North group is Grunnings, I'm not Grunnings so I can't tell you if they understand DLS but I and most others don't (OKAY THAT'S CLEAR - I HOPE?) In the Netherlands we understand Grunnings (and for me as far as I've read Ostfräisk, I understand it reasonably well) But if you know any Grunningers ask them if they understand the nds.wiki some will but most won't, anyone is welcome on the nds-nl.wiki when it's created but I'm sure that when it's created they'll prefer that to nds.wiki. (Looking up information should be easy not very difficult, then what's the point it!) the converter doesn't help @all for me it could as well be a currency converter, but I don't care, it doesn't help...
Point B: I don't care if they all have a different way of writing, if you want to make a wiki workable then you have to have a common writing system (especially if the way of pronouncing in most dialects are the same, only the writing style differs - as seen on nds.wiki -)
Point C: No one cares if it's patentplatt, if they have a problem with it they will change it!
You also said no of the websites use the term "spellingswyse" - ever heard of synonyms? Most probably they'll use "schriefwieze/schryvwyse" or "spellingswieze" or something similar, it's a common occurance as also seen in English. Besides Veluws is not word-for-word the same as dialect as Drents.
They may use the term LANGUAGE, but it's officially not a language but a DIALECT of Nedersaksisch!! (No arguing about that, that's a fact!.. in fact most things are a fact so don't know why you're arguing)
I told you I'm BILINGUAL, that means I'm fluent in aswell DUTCH as VELUWS (NEDERSAKSISCH) but because Dutch is the prominent language and it's seen as most "polite" language, you hear more Dutch ...explained that to you in the last e-mail so not doing that again! (One has to explain thing 100 times to you - that's why Heiko doesn't want to continue this conversation because we're not getting anywhere with you, you don't even speak LS so how could you judge the language?? Please for the next time you come tell your stories here, have some facts instead of "Mark believes that...")
TIP: For you next e-mail make it SHORT and don't talk BLABLABLA but with actual content, to which we can reply!
Servien
2005/7/14, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Hi everyone,
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.
Mark, it is no use arguing about all this with you any longer.
Does this mean that you have no logical explanations anymore?
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.
Mark, I am fed up with trying to explain things to you.
So you don't respond to it. Just say you're fed up. That works well.
And, why do you change your mind now about Low Saxon being your native language?? It either is, or it isn't.
He made perfectly clear how he sees himself. Please read it again.
In his e-mails, he did. Yet, he makes clear through babel templates that it is not his mother-tongue. This is confusing, and self-contradictory.
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 ...
Mark, we are not interested in such a converter. Again: the difference is spelling AND vocabulary. When editing nds.wikipedia.org I do not want to be limited by having to worry about side effects of your converter. Finding the right words for nds.wikipedia.org is difficult enough. We have spent quite some time on finding words where most dictionaries fail. (E.g. what is "jungle" in Platt, or "abbot"? It took us quite some time to sort that out.) So please, please stop talking about your converter. This might work for converting azerbaijani from cyrillic to latin, but not for us. (As the saying goes: "Which part of NO don't you understand.")
Perhaps the part of "no" where you thought I was talking about converting from Ron's orthography to German orthography? At what point did you actually understand what I was offering? That is the part of "no" I didn't understand. Like, "Would you like a banana?" -- "No, I would not like an elephant"; "No, I said a BANANA" -- "I already said, I don't want a banana!".
And, you said, and I quote (text in parenthesis is mine):
(> > 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.
Now, can you honestly tell me that is not confusing? You said in the newest e-mail that it is of spelling and vocabulary, yet in one from nearly a day ago you said exactly "The national border is a border of spelling"??
You may have gotten 5 supporters, but how many of them can write in this "Dutch Low Saxon" language you speak of?
5 is five. period. Servien wants to go on and we back him up. And I am very much curious to find out what the community will look like that will form from this seed. I really want to know, and I want to see this started soon.
So, if I request a new Wikipedia in Drents, and I find 5 people to support me, no matter what their credentials, it should be created right away? Do you wonder why the Sranang Tongo and Papiamentu Wikipedias have not been created?? Perhaps it is because there are still outlying issues with them...?
Perhaps the main point in all this discussion with you has not been mentioned before. you do not even come from the Low Saxon language area. It is OUR language, not YOURS, and how many or how few wikipedias we want for our Low Saxon language is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, and whether or not nds-nl.wikipedia.org will be created is not up to you to decide. This is my final word.
Oh, so it is your language, but your native language is Hochdeutsch? This is just fabulous. So, if I learn to speak perfect patentplatt (don't tell me it isn't patentplatt, I forwarded you accusations from Jonny Meinbohm, and put on the list accusations from Ron hahn, both of whom are, unlike you, native speakers), it suddenly becomes my language? Interesting. In fact, my great-great-grandparents spoke Platt natively... so it must be my language, then??
So here again is my official request: please create nds-nl.wikipedia.org, or is this the wrong place to ask for this? If so, please tell me whom to ask.
It isn't that simple. You don't just request a Wikipedia, and then suddenly it is created. Look at how long ago the Scots Wikipedia was first requested; it was created only a week or two ago. It didn't have any issues regarding it, either.
An Extremaduran Wikipedia looked promising -- support from native speakers (which doesn't exist here; even if Servien is a native speaker, he is only 1, in the last 4 Wikipedias to be created, there were at least 2 potential contributors, and often as much as 5), language-promotion organisations (none here), and the like. Yet, there were some questions about the status of Extremaduran: is it a language, or a dialect? These concerns were very, very short, no long discussions. And yet, it was never created, and interest gradually waned.
Cantonese, for which I advocated, was supported by well over 5 people, many of them native speakers. And yet, due to the fact that nobody ever reached agreement, it has not been created.
When there are no disputes, it usually takes a long time for it to be created anyways. When there are outstanding issues, it takes even longer.
I would like to remind you that I hold no official position with the Wikimedia Foundation.
However, the whole idea was submitted to the list, and as a member of this list and of the community, I have the right to argue against it. This does not mean that it will not be created, although it is likely to be created substantially later if the dispute is not resolved, which you certainly have not tried to do ("I am tired of explaining things to you" -- Boris Lohnzweiger provided such a nice, point-by-point response to me... why can't others do that? why do you just repeat yourselves over and over? "oh right whatever, but it's still separate"?)
You did not address any of the individual arguments in my last message, most important among them:
a) Servien's e-mails say that there is a clear line between Netherlands (Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Drèents, Tweants, and Achterhooks) and German (Oostfreesk, Nordnedersassisch, Westphaelsch, etc. etc. etc.) varieties of Platt/Low Saxon. This is fine. ...until, he writes an article in his test-wikipedia which categorises:
de noordelike groep (Sleeswyk-Holstein, Nedersaksen, Grunningen, Drenthe, Stellingwarven, and Overyssel.) de suudwestelike groep (Westfaolen, Twente, Sallaand, Gelderland).
Now, I'm sure you know the countries for these: Schleswig-Holstein is in Germany, Saxony is in Germany, Grunnegers is in the Netherlands, Drèents is Netherlands, Stellingwarfs is Netherlands, and Overyssel is Netherlands.
And, Westphalia is in Germany, Tweants is spoken in the Netherlands, Sallands in the Netherlands, and Veluws in the Netherlands.
So, both of his principal divisions of Low Saxon include varieties from both countries. This is the primary contradiction here, and I would like to see someone explain it -- it has not been explained before, because I only noticed it today (he created the article yesterday, I think).
b) Regardless of what you think, there is a tradition of separate literature in Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Drèents, Tweants, Achterhooks, Sallands, and Veluws -- the Bible, first of all; the Asterix comics also.
And then, there is the fact that each one of those websites I linked to refers to each one as a language -- Drentsetoal, not Drentse-streektoal or Drentse-dialekt.
c) Although important, this is probably not directly related to the issue of nds-nl: Someone searching for a word for "abbot" is surely not a native speaker; I imagine most native speakers would know "jungle" too.
Both Jonny Meinbohm and Ron Hahn have testified that nds.wiki is written in Patentplatt, in fact I sent you the text of a ballad Ron wrote to tease Jonny about it. The ballad is of course in Patentplatt, the translation to real Platt he provided later (I didn't send that part to you, though I offered to if you wanted it) is quite enlightening.
So, let's see credentials here: I am not a native speaker. My command of Low Saxon can be said to be between nds-0 and nds-1. You are not a native speaker. You claim nds-3. Slomox is not a native speaker. He does not give a proficiency level, although my guess would be nds-3.
Ron Hahn and Jonny Meinbohm are both native speakers, and they have both said that it is written in Patentplatt. It's very strange that you ignore the opinions of these people. If I were writing a Wikipedia in a language that wasn't my native language, I would listen very closely to what native speakers had to say.
Mark _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark,
I checked the German-LS Low Saxon page, and there's a seperate group for the Dutch dialects called WESTPLATT, these are the dialect which are normally understood in the Netherlands.
Emslänner Platt (Very lose to Grunningen in Germany) Grunnengs un Noord-Drents (NL) Westerwolds (") Midden-Drents (") Zuid-Drents (") Twentsch (") Twents-Graafschaps (") Stellingwarfs (") Veenkoloniaals (") Gelders-Overijssels en Urks (") Achterhoeks (") Sallands (") Veluws (") Noord-Veluws (") Oost-Veluws (") Kollumerlands (" - Vrieslaand)
Also see the changed page!
Servien
2005/7/14, Servien Ilaino servien@gmail.com:
Hi Mark,
Your e-mails are VERY LONG!! I can't read all of it since most of it is BLABLABLA... I'll reply to only a few points which you stated:
First of all the Low Saxon page is translated, I haven't had the chance to actually read everything word for word... I don't care in what group Grunnings or Stellingwarvs and Sleeswyks falls... you are correct though that Oost-Vries (Ostfräisk, or something like that) is understandable to us, the spelling used is a bit complicated but the reason why we can understand it is because it is closely related to Westlauwers-Vries. Since Oost-Vries isn't used on nds.wiki it's not relevant, FYI, I read somewhere someone wanted to start a Ostfräisk Wiki, but that's a completely different thing, not related to this at all. I don't even believe the information is correct, but you're welcome to check it if you want!!
As you mentioned the whole of the South group is in the NL, the only Dutch dialect in the North group is Grunnings, I'm not Grunnings so I can't tell you if they understand DLS but I and most others don't (OKAY THAT'S CLEAR - I HOPE?) In the Netherlands we understand Grunnings (and for me as far as I've read Ostfräisk, I understand it reasonably well) But if you know any Grunningers ask them if they understand the nds.wiki some will but most won't, anyone is welcome on the nds-nl.wiki when it's created but I'm sure that when it's created they'll prefer that to nds.wiki. (Looking up information should be easy not very difficult, then what's the point it!) the converter doesn't help @all for me it could as well be a currency converter, but I don't care, it doesn't help...
Point B: I don't care if they all have a different way of writing, if you want to make a wiki workable then you have to have a common writing system (especially if the way of pronouncing in most dialects are the same, only the writing style differs - as seen on nds.wiki -)
Point C: No one cares if it's patentplatt, if they have a problem with it they will change it!
You also said no of the websites use the term "spellingswyse" - ever heard of synonyms? Most probably they'll use "schriefwieze/schryvwyse" or "spellingswieze" or something similar, it's a common occurance as also seen in English. Besides Veluws is not word-for-word the same as dialect as Drents.
They may use the term LANGUAGE, but it's officially not a language but a DIALECT of Nedersaksisch!! (No arguing about that, that's a fact!.. in fact most things are a fact so don't know why you're arguing)
I told you I'm BILINGUAL, that means I'm fluent in aswell DUTCH as VELUWS (NEDERSAKSISCH) but because Dutch is the prominent language and it's seen as most "polite" language, you hear more Dutch ...explained that to you in the last e-mail so not doing that again! (One has to explain thing 100 times to you - that's why Heiko doesn't want to continue this conversation because we're not getting anywhere with you, you don't even speak LS so how could you judge the language?? Please for the next time you come tell your stories here, have some facts instead of "Mark believes that...")
TIP: For you next e-mail make it SHORT and don't talk BLABLABLA but with actual content, to which we can reply!
Servien
2005/7/14, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Hi everyone,
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.
Mark, it is no use arguing about all this with you any longer.
Does this mean that you have no logical explanations anymore?
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.
Mark, I am fed up with trying to explain things to you.
So you don't respond to it. Just say you're fed up. That works well.
And, why do you change your mind now about Low Saxon being your native language?? It either is, or it isn't.
He made perfectly clear how he sees himself. Please read it again.
In his e-mails, he did. Yet, he makes clear through babel templates that it is not his mother-tongue. This is confusing, and self-contradictory.
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 ...
Mark, we are not interested in such a converter. Again: the difference is spelling AND vocabulary. When editing nds.wikipedia.org I do not want to be limited by having to worry about side effects of your converter. Finding the right words for nds.wikipedia.org is difficult enough. We have spent quite some time on finding words where most dictionaries fail. (E.g. what is "jungle" in Platt, or "abbot"? It took us quite some time to sort that out.) So please, please stop talking about your converter. This might work for converting azerbaijani from cyrillic to latin, but not for us. (As the saying goes: "Which part of NO don't you understand.")
Perhaps the part of "no" where you thought I was talking about converting from Ron's orthography to German orthography? At what point did you actually understand what I was offering? That is the part of "no" I didn't understand. Like, "Would you like a banana?" -- "No, I would not like an elephant"; "No, I said a BANANA" -- "I already said, I don't want a banana!".
And, you said, and I quote (text in parenthesis is mine):
(> > 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.
Now, can you honestly tell me that is not confusing? You said in the newest e-mail that it is of spelling and vocabulary, yet in one from nearly a day ago you said exactly "The national border is a border of spelling"??
You may have gotten 5 supporters, but how many of them can write in this "Dutch Low Saxon" language you speak of?
5 is five. period. Servien wants to go on and we back him up. And I am very much curious to find out what the community will look like that will form from this seed. I really want to know, and I want to see this started soon.
So, if I request a new Wikipedia in Drents, and I find 5 people to support me, no matter what their credentials, it should be created right away? Do you wonder why the Sranang Tongo and Papiamentu Wikipedias have not been created?? Perhaps it is because there are still outlying issues with them...?
Perhaps the main point in all this discussion with you has not been mentioned before. you do not even come from the Low Saxon language area. It is OUR language, not YOURS, and how many or how few wikipedias we want for our Low Saxon language is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, and whether or not nds-nl.wikipedia.org will be created is not up to you to decide. This is my final word.
Oh, so it is your language, but your native language is Hochdeutsch? This is just fabulous. So, if I learn to speak perfect patentplatt (don't tell me it isn't patentplatt, I forwarded you accusations from Jonny Meinbohm, and put on the list accusations from Ron hahn, both of whom are, unlike you, native speakers), it suddenly becomes my language? Interesting. In fact, my great-great-grandparents spoke Platt natively... so it must be my language, then??
So here again is my official request: please create nds-nl.wikipedia.org, or is this the wrong place to ask for this? If so, please tell me whom to ask.
It isn't that simple. You don't just request a Wikipedia, and then suddenly it is created. Look at how long ago the Scots Wikipedia was first requested; it was created only a week or two ago. It didn't have any issues regarding it, either.
An Extremaduran Wikipedia looked promising -- support from native speakers (which doesn't exist here; even if Servien is a native speaker, he is only 1, in the last 4 Wikipedias to be created, there were at least 2 potential contributors, and often as much as 5), language-promotion organisations (none here), and the like. Yet, there were some questions about the status of Extremaduran: is it a language, or a dialect? These concerns were very, very short, no long discussions. And yet, it was never created, and interest gradually waned.
Cantonese, for which I advocated, was supported by well over 5 people, many of them native speakers. And yet, due to the fact that nobody ever reached agreement, it has not been created.
When there are no disputes, it usually takes a long time for it to be created anyways. When there are outstanding issues, it takes even longer.
I would like to remind you that I hold no official position with the Wikimedia Foundation.
However, the whole idea was submitted to the list, and as a member of this list and of the community, I have the right to argue against it. This does not mean that it will not be created, although it is likely to be created substantially later if the dispute is not resolved, which you certainly have not tried to do ("I am tired of explaining things to you" -- Boris Lohnzweiger provided such a nice, point-by-point response to me... why can't others do that? why do you just repeat yourselves over and over? "oh right whatever, but it's still separate"?)
You did not address any of the individual arguments in my last message, most important among them:
a) Servien's e-mails say that there is a clear line between Netherlands (Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Drèents, Tweants, and Achterhooks) and German (Oostfreesk, Nordnedersassisch, Westphaelsch, etc. etc. etc.) varieties of Platt/Low Saxon. This is fine. ...until, he writes an article in his test-wikipedia which categorises:
de noordelike groep (Sleeswyk-Holstein, Nedersaksen, Grunningen, Drenthe, Stellingwarven, and Overyssel.) de suudwestelike groep (Westfaolen, Twente, Sallaand, Gelderland).
Now, I'm sure you know the countries for these: Schleswig-Holstein is in Germany, Saxony is in Germany, Grunnegers is in the Netherlands, Drèents is Netherlands, Stellingwarfs is Netherlands, and Overyssel is Netherlands.
And, Westphalia is in Germany, Tweants is spoken in the Netherlands, Sallands in the Netherlands, and Veluws in the Netherlands.
So, both of his principal divisions of Low Saxon include varieties from both countries. This is the primary contradiction here, and I would like to see someone explain it -- it has not been explained before, because I only noticed it today (he created the article yesterday, I think).
b) Regardless of what you think, there is a tradition of separate literature in Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Drèents, Tweants, Achterhooks, Sallands, and Veluws -- the Bible, first of all; the Asterix comics also.
And then, there is the fact that each one of those websites I linked to refers to each one as a language -- Drentsetoal, not Drentse-streektoal or Drentse-dialekt.
c) Although important, this is probably not directly related to the issue of nds-nl: Someone searching for a word for "abbot" is surely not a native speaker; I imagine most native speakers would know "jungle" too.
Both Jonny Meinbohm and Ron Hahn have testified that nds.wiki is written in Patentplatt, in fact I sent you the text of a ballad Ron wrote to tease Jonny about it. The ballad is of course in Patentplatt, the translation to real Platt he provided later (I didn't send that part to you, though I offered to if you wanted it) is quite enlightening.
So, let's see credentials here: I am not a native speaker. My command of Low Saxon can be said to be between nds-0 and nds-1. You are not a native speaker. You claim nds-3. Slomox is not a native speaker. He does not give a proficiency level, although my guess would be nds-3.
Ron Hahn and Jonny Meinbohm are both native speakers, and they have both said that it is written in Patentplatt. It's very strange that you ignore the opinions of these people. If I were writing a Wikipedia in a language that wasn't my native language, I would listen very closely to what native speakers had to say.
Mark _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi Mark,
Your e-mails are VERY LONG!! I can't read all of it since most of it is BLABLABLA... I'll reply to only a few points which you stated:
You might as well say "I don't know what to say to most of the things you said. They're good arguments, and I have no logical rebuttal. But, I will make a snide remark in an attempt to dodge them, and only argue against the few points which I feel I have a good case for."
First of all the Low Saxon page is translated, I haven't had the chance to actually read everything word for word... I don't care in what group Grunnings or Stellingwarvs and Sleeswyks falls... you are correct though that Oost-Vrys (Ostfräisk, or something like that) is understandable to us, the spelling used is a bit complicated but the reason why we can understand it is because it is closely related to Westlauwers-Vrys. Since Oost-Vrys isn't used on nds.wiki it's not relevant, FYI, I read somewhere someone wanted to start a Ostfräisk Wiki, but that's a completely different thing, not related to this at all. I don't even believe the information is correct, but you're welcome to check it if you want!!
Oostfreesk generally refers to the Low Saxon dialect spoken in Ostfriesland, rather than the independent language spoken only in a tiny village in the Saterland.
You say you don't care what group they fall in... you may not, but it is very relevant here.
Again: de noordelike groep (Sleeswyk-Holstein, Nedersaksen, Grunningen, Drenthe, Stellingwarven, and Overyssel.) de suudwestelike groep (Westfaolen, Twente, Sallaand, Gelderland).
In the Northern group, there is a mix of German and Dutch varieties of Low Saxon. In the Southwest group, there are three Dutch varieties and one German variety (Westphaelsch).
So, rather than dividing by country, it makes more sense to have one Wikipedia for the "Noordelike groep", including Sleswigsch, Grunnegers, Drèents, Stellingwarfs, and Overyssels, and another one for the "Suudwestelike groep", including Westphaelsch, Tweants, Sallands, and Veluws.
So, this is clear evidence -- VERY clear evidence -- that you are placing an arbitrary dividing line.
Also, I wonder do you speak East or North Veluws? Acc'd to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Low_Saxon_language&oldid=52022... , East Veluws is a Dutch/Low Saxon mixed language, perhaps a Dutch version of Missingsch.
As you mentioned the whole of the South group is in the NL, the only Dutch dialect in the North group is Grunnings, I'm not Grunnings so I can't tell you if they understand DLS but I and most others don't (OKAY THAT'S CLEAR - I HOPE?) In the Netherlands we understand Grunnings (and for me as far as I've read Ostfräisk, I understand it reasonably well) But if you know any Grunningers ask them if they understand the nds.wiki some will but most won't, anyone is welcome on the nds-nl.wiki when it's created but I'm sure that when it's created they'll prefer that to nds.wiki. (Looking up information should be easy not very difficult, then what's the point it!) the converter doesn't help @all for me it could as well be a currency converter, but I don't care, it doesn't help...
Again, you are trying to force a situation. If Grunnegers speakers can understand it, then it is an arbitrary national division. You put the dividing line at the border, when it doesn't make sense, especially when you say "...I can't tell you if they understand DLS..."
Point B: I don't care if they all have a different way of writing, if you want to make a wiki workable then you have to have a common writing system (especially if the way of pronouncing in most dialects are the same, only the writing style differs - as seen on nds.wiki -)
You don't care? But maybe they do. You are a speaker only of Veluws, you cannot speak for all other Low Saxon speakers in the Netherlands. They might want separate Wikipedias, or they might not. But then, you wouldn't know that any better than I would, because neither of us is a native speaker of, say, Grunnegers or Dreents.
Point C: No one cares if it's patentplatt, if they have a problem with it they will change it!
Noone cares if it's patentplatt? You obviously didn't read Point C -- Jonny Meinbohm and Ron Hahn __DO__ care. Ron tried to change it, but Heiko was as always very cold towards him and took a very uninviting stance, as usual, rather than welcoming in and being thankful for a native speaker as it should be.
They may use the term LANGUAGE, but it's officially not a language but a DIALECT of Nedersaksisch!! (No arguing about that, that's a fact!.. in fact most things are a fact so don't know why you're arguing)
Yes, but, then, "officially" Taiwan is part of China, yet it doesn't generally follow laws made by the PRC government; Serbian and Croatian are "officially" separate languages but they are at best dialects and at worst sociolects; Cantonese and Mandarin are "officially" one language, but most linguists will tell you they aren't; Somalia is "officially" unified under a single government, but this is only at an international level and the real situation is one part order two parts chaos, with a number of self-declared independent states and powerful warlords fighting for influence.
French is the only "official" language of France, but that doesn't mean nobody there speaks any other languages.
What is official, and what is reality, are often different.
I told you I'm BILINGUAL, that means I'm fluent in aswell DUTCH as VELUWS (NEDERSAKSISCH) but because Dutch is the prominent language and it's seen as most "polite" language, you hear more Dutch ...explained that to you in the last e-mail so not doing that again! (One has to explain thing 100 times to you - that's why Heiko doesn't want to continue this conversation because we're not getting anywhere with you, you don't even speak LS so how could you judge the language?? Please for the next time you come tell your stories here, have some facts instead of "Mark believes that...")
Please, realise there is a difference between being fluent in a language, and it being your mother tongue. I can study a language for 10 years at the age of 45 and become "fluent", but it won't make it my native language. I can have a native language which I am very poor at speaking now, just because it is my native language does not mean I am fluent.
You still are using the two terms interchangably. Are you native AND fluent? Or are you just fluent? "native" means it is the language of your cradle, spoken by one or both of your parents or other people who raised you. "fluent" means you are very capable in it, and can read books and carry on conversations and write letters. Most (but not all!) native speakers are also fluent, but by far not all fluent speakers are native.
TIP: For you next e-mail make it SHORT and don't talk BLABLABLA but with actual content, to which we can reply!
What exactly are you talking about here? I never once said "BLABLABLA"... you put those words in my mouth.
So, to sum up, the main points which you still have not responded to (you said to some of them even that you "didn't care") are...
1) The groupings of Low Saxon dialects/languages/varieties/speeches indicates that the dividing line is more properly drawn between North and South, not East (Germany) and West (Netherlands).
In case you still don't seem to get it, I've made an illustration: http://fixedsys.org/~node_ue/o%27ohadag/index.PNG
The red is Northern, and the purple is Southwestern. As you can see, each extends into Germany. The long dark blue line is the division YOU would have us make between "German Low Saxon" and "Dutch Low Saxon".
I've also labelled other languages of the Netherlands, I think it makes it easier to relate with the map.
2) It's quite self-serving of you to say, "Well, they're officially one language" just because you want them to have a single Wikipedia. I can't find very many pages that say "dutch low saxon": http://www.google.com/search?q=%22dutch+low+saxon%22 finds 275 pages; out of the first 10, 3 are from your messages to this list, and most of the other ones have them as consecutive members of a list, like: "Dutch, Low Saxon" (with Frisian or German usually coming after), or in the phrase "Dutch/Low Saxon mixture" to refer to East Veluws.
"netherlands low saxon" only finds 10 results, only one of which seems to be referring to it as a variant (others are in phrases like "In the Netherlands, Low Saxon is...".
If we subtract all the "Dutch/Low Saxon mixture" results, we get http://www.google.com/search?q=%22dutch+low+saxon%22+-%22mixture+dialect+in+... 174 pages.
Among the first 10 of these, 5 of them are from messages written by you. None of the other ones in the first 10 refer to "Dutch Low Saxon" (again, they are all parts of lists and the like) except for http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-i18n/2003-April/msg00069.html , which actually raises the issue of disunity of Low Saxon in the Netherlands, with many different dialects, orthographies, etc.
Now, you asked me to present you with "facts" rather than my opinion. I have provided you with plenty of evidence from websites now (I will direct you again to http://members.home.nl/goaitsen/twents/ , http://www.drentsetaol.nl/ http://www.grunnegertoal.nl/ , and http://www.stellingwarfs.nl/ ...) that 1) not many people seem to believe in a variety called "Dutch Low Saxon"; 2) many people regard Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Drèents, Tweants, Achterhooks, Veluws, Overyssels, etc. as separate languages.
Mark
OK Mark,
it is dangerous to feed the trolls, but there are some things that need to be sorted out.
Point C: No one cares if it's patentplatt, if they have a problem with it they will change it!
Noone cares if it's patentplatt? You obviously didn't read Point C -- Jonny Meinbohm and Ron Hahn __DO__ care. Ron tried to change it, but Heiko was as always very cold towards him and took a very uninviting stance, as usual, rather than welcoming in and being thankful for a native speaker as it should be.
1) we are on a good way in nds.wikpedia.org. The flooding with low quality articles has stopped. There has been a lot of cleanup, and recently some nice new articles were written. 2) I am interested in building up, but your intention is tearing down. I can live with a certain abount of problems in nds.wikpedia.org and I prefer helping people instead of accusing them. The one user who wrote lots of low quality articles is doing a quite good job at the moment with edits where he has sufficient competence. I think you would just have kicked him out. 3) For the record: several of Ron's proposals are still kept in the current article, this includes grammar fixes, choice of words, but it specifically EXCLUDES changes in spelling. The text originally came from Ron, but was made in anonymous edits. Anonymous edits are suspicious. We do have lots of trouble with anonymous spamming and (as said before) anonymous edits are living a dangerous life. Most of his changes were spelling, and these changes went against our spelling policy on nds. Therefore I took his article, and reverted the spelling changes. Even at that time I checked the grammar changes and kept some of them. Then you started a spelling war on nds. This I reverted. I will continue to do so, unless there is a broad consensus in nds to switch spelling. (And besides: any further edit war by you on nds will be ansered with a swift blocking.) Ron's suggestions about grammar fixes will always be welcome. I liked his lowlands-l, but it has much too much traffic, and therefore I have unsubscribed from this list. I appreciate his experience in Low Saxon. We have been in contact concerning "Linux op platt", and he has helped us with several words about computers. If the first edit had not been anonymously, things might have been different.
- It's quite self-serving of you to say, "Well, they're officially
one language" just because you want them to have a single Wikipedia. I can't find very many pages that say "dutch low saxon":
OK, would you prefer to say "Plattdüütsch" and "Nedersaksisch", or would you still complain that "Nedersaksisch" should also include the area of "Niedersachsen"? That is the problem with you. You twist the words in our mouth.
Regards,
Heiko
OK Mark,
it is dangerous to feed the trolls, but there are some things that need to be sorted out.
Meaning, again, "I have no response to most of your assertions because they are probably correct, so I have ignored those and answered only those I have a good response for rather than conceding you are right".
Point C: No one cares if it's patentplatt, if they have a problem with it they will change it!
Noone cares if it's patentplatt? You obviously didn't read Point C -- Jonny Meinbohm and Ron Hahn __DO__ care. Ron tried to change it, but Heiko was as always very cold towards him and took a very uninviting stance, as usual, rather than welcoming in and being thankful for a native speaker as it should be.
- we are on a good way in nds.wikpedia.org. The flooding with low quality
articles has stopped. There has been a lot of cleanup, and recently some nice new articles were written.
"Katt" had been edited by Sarcelles just before Ron edited it. There is a difference between low-quality articles and poor-grammar articles -- someone who writes articles with bad grammar will not easily be able to fix it. Someone who makes low-quality articles, can easily fix it.
- I am interested in building up, but your intention is tearing down. I can
live
You are twisting the words in my mouth. "your intention is tearing down"... like all the pages I blanked? Oh wait, I didn't blank any pages! All the pages I proposed for deletion? Oh wait I didn't do that! Where do you get the idea that my "intention is tearing down"? My single concern about nds.wikipedia is quality. It has been pointed out by both Jonny Meinbohm and Ron Hahn that the entire Wikipedia -- not just large parts of it -- are written in Patentplatt, and I trust them both more than I trust you because 1) they are both native speakers and you are not and 2) I have known them longer, and 3) they are always kind and they do not say things like they will not allow that on THEIR Wikipedia!
with a certain abount of problems in nds.wikpedia.org and I prefer helping people instead of accusing them. The one user who wrote lots of low quality articles is doing a quite good job at the moment with edits where he has sufficient competence. I think you would just have kicked him out.
Again, you are twisting the words in my mouth. I don't mind about articles of poor quality, in that they need cleanup -- they exist on ALL Wikipedias. What I do mind is articles written in Patentplatt. According to Ron and Jonny, this is the vast majority or even all of the articles at nds.wiki.
- For the record: several of Ron's proposals are still kept in the current
article, this includes grammar fixes, choice of words, but it specifically EXCLUDES changes in spelling. The text originally came from Ron, but was
What is your point here? When you reverted me, each time in addition to the spelling changes you discarded about half of the changes in grammar and choice of words.
Please see http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22196&oldid=220... http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22047&oldid=220...
This is extremely arrogant considering that: 1) Platt is his native language, it is not yours and 2) In the second diff, perhaps you did not know it was made by a native speaker, but by the first one, you certainly knew it was from Ron Hahn.
made in anonymous edits. Anonymous edits are suspicious. We do have lots of trouble with anonymous spamming and (as said before) anonymous edits are living a dangerous life. Most of his changes were spelling, and these changes went against our spelling policy on nds. Therefore I took his article, and reverted the spelling changes. Even at that time I checked the grammar changes and kept some of them. Then you started a spelling war on nds. This I reverted. I
Some of them? You "checked the grammar changes"? Again, you are pretending that your Platt is better than Ron's. There is no good explanation for reverting so many grammar fixes made by a native speaker, when it isn't your native language.
will continue to do so, unless there is a broad consensus in nds to switch spelling.
When and where was the "broad consensus" on nds.wiki to use the older Sass spelling in the first place?? I searched for 15 minutes using Google, with terms like "sass", "schriefwies", "orthographie", etc. and yet I never did find a page where people voted on orthography.
(And besides: any further edit war by you on nds will be ansered with a swift blocking.)
Ahh, so you don't block people who flood "your" Wikipedia with poor-quality articles, but you DO block people who revert spelling? Hmm. That seems a bit hypocritical.
Ron's suggestions about grammar fixes will always be welcome. I liked his lowlands-l, but it has much too much traffic, and therefore I have unsubscribed from this list. I appreciate his experience in Low Saxon.
If you "appreciate his experience", then why did you revert some of his grammar fixes even AFTER you found out it was him??
We have been in contact concerning "Linux op platt", and he has helped us with several words about computers. If the first edit had not been anonymously, things might have been different.
- It's quite self-serving of you to say, "Well, they're officially
one language" just because you want them to have a single Wikipedia. I can't find very many pages that say "dutch low saxon":
OK, would you prefer to say "Plattdüütsch" and "Nedersaksisch", or would you still complain that "Nedersaksisch" should also include the area of "Niedersachsen"? That is the problem with you. You twist the words in our mouth.
What on earth are you talking about?? Please, read what I said again -- "I can't find very many pages that say 'dutch low saxon'". And it is true -- there are none, really, except messages from Servien.
Of all the pages in English about Low Saxon, none of them says anything about it.
And you twisted the words in my mouth too just now before I even had the chance to say them. "or would you still complain... ? That is the problem with you.", as if I had complained about it already... again you are being a hypocrit.
And again you have not responded to the most important points, writing them off as "trolling".
Mark
Hi Mark,
OK Mark,
it is dangerous to feed the trolls, but there are some things that need to be sorted out.
Meaning, again, "I have no response to most of your assertions because they are probably correct, so I have ignored those and answered only those I have a good response for rather than conceding you are right".
No Mark, ich habe einfach keine Lust mehr, dafür ist mir meine Zeit zu schade.
"Katt" had been edited by Sarcelles just before Ron edited it.
Mark, please read, what is there, and not, what isn't. http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&action=history&offse... shows a list of all edits on nds:Katt ever since it was created on July 16th, 2004. Sarcelles is not listed here.
Again, you are twisting the words in my mouth. I don't mind about articles of poor quality, in that they need cleanup -- they exist on ALL Wikipedias. What I do mind is articles written in Patentplatt. According to Ron and Jonny, this is the vast majority or even all of the articles at nds.wiki.
Low quality can mean 1) Low quality of content 2) Low quality of grammar 3) Low quality of vocabulary etc.
- For the record: several of Ron's proposals are still kept in the
current
article, this includes grammar fixes, choice of words, but it
specifically
EXCLUDES changes in spelling. The text originally came from Ron, but was
What is your point here? When you reverted me, each time in addition to the spelling changes you discarded about half of the changes in grammar and choice of words.
Please see http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22196&oldid=220... http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22047&oldid=220...
Shall we count it? http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=prev&oldid=2203... shows 39 words in red. I count All but 4 are spelling. 3 are words, 1 is grammar. What do you count?
it was made by a native speaker,
yada, yada, yada but by the first one, you
Some of them? You "checked the grammar changes"? Again, you are pretending that your Platt is better than Ron's.
I still state that http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22047&oldid=220... did leave the grammar changes intact, apart from "Un Katten doot wäten" which I consider to be out of place for an excyclopedia.
(And besides: any further edit war by you on nds will be ansered with a swift blocking.)
Ahh, so you don't block people who flood "your" Wikipedia with poor-quality articles, but you DO block people who revert spelling? Hmm. That seems a bit hypocritical.
Actually Sarcelles had been warned several times and then he was blocked for two days.
If you "appreciate his experience", then why did you revert some of his grammar fixes even AFTER you found out it was him??
Again, I have shown you that I did not.
Heiko
OK Mark,
it is dangerous to feed the trolls, but there are some things that need to be sorted out.
Meaning, again, "I have no response to most of your assertions because they are probably correct, so I have ignored those and answered only those I have a good response for rather than conceding you are right".
No Mark, ich habe einfach keine Lust mehr, dafür ist mir meine Zeit zu schade.
Which language you write your excuse in, does not change the fact that you are only saying it because you have realised my arguments are sound and cannot think of a good response.
"Katt" had been edited by Sarcelles just before Ron edited it.
Mark, please read, what is there, and not, what isn't. http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&action=history&offse... shows a list of all edits on nds:Katt ever since it was created on July 16th, 2004. Sarcelles is not listed here.
You are indeed right. I meant Slomox. They both start with an "S" ;p
Again, you are twisting the words in my mouth. I don't mind about articles of poor quality, in that they need cleanup -- they exist on ALL Wikipedias. What I do mind is articles written in Patentplatt. According to Ron and Jonny, this is the vast majority or even all of the articles at nds.wiki.
Low quality can mean
- Low quality of content
- Low quality of grammar
- Low quality of vocabulary
etc.
"in that they need cleanup", means "low quality of content". I do not mind these pages, they exist on every Wikipedia. Low quality of grammar and low quality of vocabulary, however, are detestable.
- For the record: several of Ron's proposals are still kept in the
current
article, this includes grammar fixes, choice of words, but it
specifically
EXCLUDES changes in spelling. The text originally came from Ron, but was
What is your point here? When you reverted me, each time in addition to the spelling changes you discarded about half of the changes in grammar and choice of words.
Please see http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22196&oldid=220... http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22047&oldid=220...
Shall we count it? http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=prev&oldid=2203... shows 39 words in red. I count All but 4 are spelling. 3 are words, 1 is grammar. What do you count?
You changed "oder koter" to "ok koter schräven", "vörweser" to "vörfohr", "dör" to "dörch", "al de olen buurn in Ägypten" to "al de buern in 't ole Ägypten", "Un de Katten weern hillig." to "Katten weren dor dunntomaal as hillig ankeken.", "Un wenn se doodbleven" to "Wenn 'n Katt doodbleev", "wen" to "jichteneen", "slieken" to "anslieken" (this in particular is a typical Patentplatt construction -- not all Platt words are direct cognates of their German counterparts), "kan dat malöörn" to "kan dat maal malöörn", and a few other changes which weren't spelling, but also were more like adding content than changing grammar.
it was made by a native speaker,
yada, yada, yada but by the first one, you
Some of them? You "checked the grammar changes"? Again, you are pretending that your Platt is better than Ron's.
I still state that http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22047&oldid=220... did leave the grammar changes intact, apart from "Un Katten doot wäten" which I consider to be out of place for an excyclopedia.
Uhh... no.
(And besides: any further edit war by you on nds will be ansered with a swift blocking.)
Ahh, so you don't block people who flood "your" Wikipedia with poor-quality articles, but you DO block people who revert spelling? Hmm. That seems a bit hypocritical.
Actually Sarcelles had been warned several times and then he was blocked for two days.
I apologise for calling you hypocritical, I wasn't aware of this.
If you "appreciate his experience", then why did you revert some of his grammar fixes even AFTER you found out it was him??
Again, I have shown you that I did not.
And, in return, I have shown you that you did.
Best Mark
Hi Mark and the rest,
Final reply to your questions:
* Is it my native language: Bilingual, so yes, I didn't say this because in my opinion one only has one native language, and since Dutch is more often used I put it as my native language. Besides I don't get you not getting my point of bilingualism, your "Great Holy Emperor of Platt-Ausland" also is a "native-bilingual"
* Difference should be clear by now, if it's not tough luck, everyone else seems to understand, I'll explain further when you speak NDS...
* You also mention "Which I raised" you are right: which YOU raised, you invented the "problem" but there is no problem, so stop complaining.
Servien
2005/7/15, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
OK Mark,
it is dangerous to feed the trolls, but there are some things that need to be sorted out.
Meaning, again, "I have no response to most of your assertions because they are probably correct, so I have ignored those and answered only those I have a good response for rather than conceding you are right".
No Mark, ich habe einfach keine Lust mehr, dafür ist mir meine Zeit zu schade.
Which language you write your excuse in, does not change the fact that you are only saying it because you have realised my arguments are sound and cannot think of a good response.
"Katt" had been edited by Sarcelles just before Ron edited it.
Mark, please read, what is there, and not, what isn't. http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&action=history&offse... shows a list of all edits on nds:Katt ever since it was created on July 16th, 2004. Sarcelles is not listed here.
You are indeed right. I meant Slomox. They both start with an "S" ;p
Again, you are twisting the words in my mouth. I don't mind about articles of poor quality, in that they need cleanup -- they exist on ALL Wikipedias. What I do mind is articles written in Patentplatt. According to Ron and Jonny, this is the vast majority or even all of the articles at nds.wiki.
Low quality can mean
- Low quality of content
- Low quality of grammar
- Low quality of vocabulary
etc.
"in that they need cleanup", means "low quality of content". I do not mind these pages, they exist on every Wikipedia. Low quality of grammar and low quality of vocabulary, however, are detestable.
- For the record: several of Ron's proposals are still kept in the
current
article, this includes grammar fixes, choice of words, but it
specifically
EXCLUDES changes in spelling. The text originally came from Ron, but was
What is your point here? When you reverted me, each time in addition to the spelling changes you discarded about half of the changes in grammar and choice of words.
Please see http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22196&oldid=220... http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22047&oldid=220...
Shall we count it? http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=prev&oldid=2203... shows 39 words in red. I count All but 4 are spelling. 3 are words, 1 is grammar. What do you count?
You changed "oder koter" to "ok koter schräven", "vörweser" to "vörfohr", "dör" to "dörch", "al de olen buurn in Ägypten" to "al de buern in 't ole Ägypten", "Un de Katten weern hillig." to "Katten weren dor dunntomaal as hillig ankeken.", "Un wenn se doodbleven" to "Wenn 'n Katt doodbleev", "wen" to "jichteneen", "slieken" to "anslieken" (this in particular is a typical Patentplatt construction -- not all Platt words are direct cognates of their German counterparts), "kan dat malöörn" to "kan dat maal malöörn", and a few other changes which weren't spelling, but also were more like adding content than changing grammar.
it was made by a native speaker,
yada, yada, yada but by the first one, you
Some of them? You "checked the grammar changes"? Again, you are pretending that your Platt is better than Ron's.
I still state that http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22047&oldid=220... did leave the grammar changes intact, apart from "Un Katten doot wäten" which I consider to be out of place for an excyclopedia.
Uhh... no.
(And besides: any further edit war by you on nds will be ansered with a swift blocking.)
Ahh, so you don't block people who flood "your" Wikipedia with poor-quality articles, but you DO block people who revert spelling? Hmm. That seems a bit hypocritical.
Actually Sarcelles had been warned several times and then he was blocked for two days.
I apologise for calling you hypocritical, I wasn't aware of this.
If you "appreciate his experience", then why did you revert some of his grammar fixes even AFTER you found out it was him??
Again, I have shown you that I did not.
And, in return, I have shown you that you did.
Best Mark _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org