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

[Mark Williamson]

> >So, are you saying that a man from Lars cannot understand a man from
> >Gramsbergen??
> >
> No, I am not! Please read my messages more closely. I stated that those
> dialects are not to be mutually understood /when written down/. The
> spellings used are incompatible.

Nonono, this was in response to Walter.

> How easy, for someone who has not studied it!

To find out about such a matter as orthographic variants does not
require the study of a language for its own sake, but rather an
analysis of interlinear texts in the same dialect using two different
orthographies. This does not require even the most basic knowledge of
the language.

> Do you notice the length of
> the list yourself?

Yes. But:

>> 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).

You haven't commented on the test yet.

> And though near-identical dialects in different spellings
> might be mutually understood, it becomes a different thing when you talk
> about divergent dialects. I say that the wide differences between several
> Low Saxon variants *in combination with*  the differences in spelling make
> the possibility of a Wikipedia a valuable one.

Unfortunately it is not quite so clear-cut. As you can see by
searching the internet for http://www.google.com/search?q=keunigriek ,
most people use a sort of mixture of the two spellings -- many of the
pages that appear are from people on the German side of the border.
(vs pure German "Königriek" or "Königrik")

"Dialect differences compounded with different spellings" doesn't make
much sense since it's a dialect continuum. Spelling and dialect
continuum are separate issues that should be treated separately.
Dialect continuum is obviously a much more difficult issue to solve.

> O yeah? Where exactly does Waerth tell him they don't? The only thing he
> says is that he is in favour of two separate wikipedias!

He states very clearly: "No it is not read what the others said. A
personn from one side of the area it is spoken in cannot understand
someone from the other side."

I responded to your private e-mail offlist, but there is a section I
would like to respond to publicly.

> There we go again.... Will you quit already? You just persist in your own opinion 
> constantly (...)

So you are against free thinking? Instead of persisting in my opinion,
I should just adopt yours? The whole purpose of differing opinions is
for people to discuss them and see if they can't come up with
something that will satisfy all parties and end up making the world a
better place.

Mark