Also, the difference in spelling is easily solved.
Differences, as far as I know:
(German spelling -> Dutch spelling) Final nn -> n s -> z i -> ie o -> ao au -> aau ei -> aai u -> oe/o f -> v ü -> u mm -> m a -> aa ee -> eei ou -> oe ä -> ae / e ö -> eu/ui ll -> l ou -> oou w -> v/w oo -> o gg -> g chC -> gC uhi -> oei
Spelling can easily be converted, see http://s87257573.onlinehome.us/ks/index.php?title=Nds-test&variant=ks-de (obviously there are some shortcomings, but these can be fixed with a little programming).
Mark
On 26/06/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
So, are you saying that a man from Lars cannot understand a man from Gramsbergen??
Of course, this must be so, since the man from Lars speaks "German Low Saxon" and the man from Gramsbergen speaks "Dutch Low Saxon"... since of course languages always follow exactly political divisions.
Mark
On 26/06/05, Wouter Steenbeek musiqolog@hotmail.com wrote:
As I noted before, it is a dialect continuum.
All of the continental West Germanic language variants form a dialect continuum, with the possible exception of the Frisian tongues.
Stellingwarfs and Middel-pommersch are surely not mutually intelligible, but Grunnegers and Oostfreesk very well should be.
Yes, so are Berlinic and High German. And East-Veluws and Dutch. But Grunnegers and Oostfreesk are not or barely mutually intelligible when written down, because of the different spellings.
You are foolishly dividing Platt by nations. This is illogical. If we had an Oostfreesk Wikipedia, Grunnegers-speakers would surely understand it and vice-versa, even though Grunnegers is in the Netherlands and Oostfreesk is mostly in Germany.
"Foolishly"... Mr. I-owe-all-the-world's-languages'-wisdom.... May I point at the difference in spelling once more? And don't you think that the bulk of the Dutch Low-Saxon dialects share some features most German dialects don't?
The problem of dialect continuum is a very difficult one.
Yes, so it can't be solved by one such disregarding message.
HOWEVER, given the community reaction to a request for a Baseldytsch Wikipedia, I think the same is logical for a request for a "Dutch Low Saxon" Wikipedia
Is it? Is Servien requesting a Wikipedia for just one town, or region? No, she obviously realises that, though the speaking communities hardly link dialects on any higher level than their own region (they will never say they speak Low Saxon, but always either the dialect of their own village or region, Twents, Sallands, Drents etc.), we should group some of them together. This is very different from what the proposer of the Baseldytsch Wikipedia did: he simply said: "I have no affinity with the other Alemannic dialects, so I want to open one for my dialect only".
-- your language may be different to whatever degree than what many people on X Wikipedia use, but there is no rule forbidding its use. There is no rule against writing pages and pages and pages of content on nds.wiki in Stellingwarfs or Achterhooks. When I suggested doing this, I got a cold response that Dutch Low Saxon and German Low Saxon aren't mutually intelligible. Before whinging to us about that, can you at least actually try to use your dialect on nds.wiki to prove to us that it really doesn't work?
Some users of nds: made clear that they only use one spelling: the Sass one. Dutch Low Saxon dialects are /never/ written in German spellings, except with some German-initiated projects.
Mark
Imo, the combined facts of mutual confusion in both speach and spelling makes this idea a valuable one.
Wouter
Nooit ongewenste berichten ontvangen: gebruik MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
-- 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