Please read what I wrote, and respond to that, instead of just telling me over and over that my opinion doesn't count.
Mark
On 25/06/05, Walter van Kalken walter@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)