[Wikipedia-l] Request for creation of Dutch-Low Saxon (nds-nl)

[Mark Williamson]

Re Papiamentu and Sranan Tongo (NOT "Surinamese"), they have indeed
gotten plenty of support votes but have any native speakers showed up
yet? No. People have said "I have a friend..." or "My dad's business
partner is a native speaker..."  or things like that, but as of yet
not a single native speaker has showed up to express their support for
these Wikipedias. If they had, they would've been created with
Cebuano, Kapampangan, Scots, and Võro.

Mark

On 25/06/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>  Mark Williamson wrote:
>  
>  I will say it again: "Before whinging to us about that, can you at
> least actually try to use your dialect on nds.wiki to prove to us that
> it really doesn't work?"
> 
> Mark
> 
>  
>  There is two people from NDS both admins there supporting the creation of
> NDS-NL they are:
>  Slomox and HeikoEvermann. They are native speakers of the dialects
> involved. You are most definately not. Read their arguments. Apart from that
> there is a minimum of 5 for and if you count Slomox 6. 
>  
>  You really want me to hustle up more support? I can do that if you want. It
> says 5 in support. Those are the rules. May I also point out that
> nl.wikipedia is doing quite well so is li.wikipedia and fy.wikipedia. So a
> wikipedia in another language in the Netherlands area might just do very
> well.
>  
>  And on another point Papiamentu and Surinamese have also reached support of
> more than 5 people. 
>  
>  Here are the arguments in favour of NDS-NL by native speakers (Which Node
> most obviously is not)
>  
>  Lowlands-l does not help here. After some discussions we have decided to
> use the German based spelling according to SASS for the nds wikipedia. The
> spelling proposed by Lowlands-l is no option for us. And I can understand
> very well, that the dutch based spelling and our spelling do not match. In
> addition to that we have another problem: when Low Saxon lacks a word, we
> (on the German side of the border) have the tendency to borrow a German
> word, and on the other side of the border they would certainly prefer to
> borrow a dutch word. The language fell apart a long time ago. In fact most
> people in Germany do not even know that there is a Low Saxon language on the
> other side of the border. When I think about the two different versions of
> the Norse wikipedia that are made for one single country and when I think
> about the Aromunian wikipedia, I think that having a separate wikipeda for
> nds-nl is the best option. HeikoEvermann 11:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
>  
>  For what shall we try first? I looked for a comparison in English language
> and I would say, that nds-de and nds-nl are as far apart in pronounciation
> and in spelling as modern English and the 1400 example of middle English in
> en:Middle English (this isn't the best comparison because one is a parallel
> development and the other serial, but the best example I found). If it were
> possible I really would like and want one Wikipedia for both. But it would
> be very hard to understand. Sure, if there would be a common orthography
> neither based singly on German nor on Dutch, this would be easier, but there
> is no such common orthography that is in broader use. The actual reality is,
> that we need two Wikipedias. --Slomox 16:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
>  


-- 
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE