Talk:Dutch language

Moved from Talk:Netherlandic language

It would be nice to have the phonemes in IPA (using Unicode entities); see Unicode_and_HTML

-- Kwaku

---

Wouldn't this page be more appropriate at Dutch language (now a redirect)? "Netherlandic" is maybe more correct, but certainly not the most common. "Netherlandic language" gets about 500 hits at Google, of which 20% comes from Wikipedia; "Dutch language" gets a lot more. Also ethnologue is using Dutch as the name for the language. Any objections against moving this to Dutch language? Jeronimo 07:48 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)

I'd suggest leaving it where it is, I like the correct term. With Wikipedia's wonderful redirections the conflict between using the most common or the correct name isn't that big an issue. Besides, Ethnologue even mentions that "Dutch" is not seen by everybody as the proper term, even though I'm not overly impressed with the Dutch entry on that site anyway. Also think of the potential Dutch/Deutsch confusion. -Scipius

I know, but I've been told several times that giving an article its most commonly used name is Really Important. The United States of America is the formal name, but the article is now at United States, and Games of the I Olympiad is now at 1896 Summer Olympics. It appears to be "policy".... Jeronimo 14:14 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)

I see. Well, in the case of the Olympics a point could be made that people wouldn't immediately recognise "Olympiad" or something and I'll leave the political discussion on the proper US name to the USians ;) In this case confusion with Dutch isn't an issue ("Dutch" is mentioned at the start of and used throughout the article) and most references come from [[<xxx> language|Dutch]] anyway, so people aren't seeing and using the whole language name at any rate until they arrive here. Might as well point out the proper name right in the title...

I'm more for proper names over common names (an encyclopedia should be as accurate as possible, even at the expense of some perceived extra usability IMHO), and I would think that redirections would solve most problems. Let's agree that for languages the most proper name be used as "policy"? ;) -Scipius

No, I really do think we should put pages at a place where people expect them. Naming the pages of persons with their full firstnames listed would be a bad thing. Making exceptions for languages would make things inconsistent. Jeronimo

I believe we put this page here because "Netherlandic" is the only single term in English that refers to both Dutch and Flemish. ---rmhermen

As discussed in Talk:Belgium, Flemish isn't a "real language", like "American" isn't a "real language". The Belgians have their own pronounciation and some of their own words, but it isn't a different language.Jeronimo

However we have a word for it in English, unlike the compound, American English. Flemish is a word used to describe the language of Belgian and serves to confuse the issue if we call the article "Dutch", not the acceptable and inclusive (in English) "Netherlandic". I call it Dutch myself but all my relatives came from north of the border. --rmhermen

To confuse the matter further, I have seen linguists call the language (i.o.w. that which is spoken in The Netherlands AND Belgium) Flemish, although I cannot remember why they did that.--user:Branko

---

I'm Dutch. I was born and raised here in the Netherlands, and I've lived in the UK long enough to be fluent in English. The language is called "Nederlands" in Dutch, and "Dutch" in English. Calling it the "Netherlandic language" is like calling what is spoken in the US "United Statian". Maybe not insulting, but certainly wrong and possibly disrespectful. The main entry should definitely be under "Dutch Language", and not here. Unless someone has a really good argument otherwise, I'll move it in a few days time. NTF

I'm Dutch. I was born and raised here in the Netherlands, and I realise that when Anglophones speak of the "Dutch language", they most often mean "the language spoken in the Netherlands", in accordance with "Dutch" describing something of the Netherlands. Similarly, then often use "Flemish" when talking of Belgium. As stated above, "Netherlandic" is the only term that describes both and makes it clear that "Dutch" and "Flemish", despite their differences, are in fact the same language. There's no need to move this page from what is a perfectly valid linguistic term. Scipius 17:44 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)

Well, let me quote from the web pages of the Flanders Authority at http://www.flanders.be/public/flanders/explore/language/index.asp. They say "The official language of Flanders is Dutch, although the region is rich in Flemish dialects. Over 20 million people in Europe speak Dutch as their native tongue...." In other words: the language is called Dutch, and Flemish is a group of dialects of the Dutch language. I'd say this is a fairly authoritative source, coming from the governmental of Flanders. The term "Dutch language" includes Flemish, just like it includes all the other Dutch dialects. I therefore see no reason to use the weird term "Netherlandic". NTF 13:00 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)

The Flemish government is an authority on many things, but not necessarily on the English language or linguistics in general. "Netherlandic" is an accurate and precise linguistic term, "Dutch", regrettably, is not (even disregarding its etymology). You may feel it's weird, but it isn't really so. As discussed above, this is hardly an issue. "Dutch" is most certainly more frequently used, even in Wikipedia and within the article itself, but it must be noted that "Netherlandic" is a more precise name and why not indicate that right in the title? Kindly leave the article where it is. Scipius 14:37 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)

If the article is going to stay here, should sentences such as "...Dutch has a rather complicated word order" be changed to "...Netherlandic has a rather complicated word order"? It is rather confusing at the moment. --Camembert

No, I don't think so. "Dutch" certainly is more common and the article now makes the distinction clear. The use of "Netherlandic" in the title serves primarily to point out that there is a more precise term, even if it isn't one that is commonly used. Scipius 14:49 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)

That's silly. You acknowledge that Dutch language is the most used term. The "rule" on Wikipedia is to put articles at their most common name. Yet we put Netherlandic language as the title and write Dutch throughout the text? I think having an article on Dutch language which says that is it more technically correct to say Netherlandic would be much, much better here. Jeronimo

But then we would be acknowledging a more correct term and ignoring it in our most basic expression of the subject, the title. That would not seem very professional. "Holland" is also frequently used to incorrectly refer to the country, yet we don't put the country under that heading. Putting an article under its most common name is fine, but has that debate considered what to do when the most common name is either incorrect or inaccurate? An encyclopedia should IMHO strive formost for accuracy; after all, what's the point otherwise? Scipius 18:04 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)

I'm surprised by Scipius's claim that "Netherlandic" is more accurate than "Dutch". None of the dictionaries I've looked at excludes the Flemish dialects from the meaning of "Dutch". But several dictionaries have no entry for "Netherlandic" at all, and my spell checker doesn't like it either. The Flemish themselves call it "Dutch" when speaking English. Given this overwhelming evidence, what is the claim for the better accuracy for "Netherlandic" based on? NTF 18:46 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)

My goodness! What an interesting discussion! I would like to put in my two (euro)cents in this debate on "Netherlandic" and "Dutch". First, to answer NTF's question, it seems that the "better accuracy" claim popped up at the very beginning, when Jeronimo first wrote that " 'Netherlandic' is maybe more correct" and Scipius wrote that he preferred the "correct term," referring, it seems, to "Netherlandic." I beg to differ, but I will explain shortly. First I would like to reply to Scipius's later comment ("The Flemish government is an authority on many things, but not necessarily on the English language or linguistics in general"). Point well taken. But I would expect the Flemish (Belgian?) goverment to know what the official language of their country is, even in English. What authoratative source does Scipius, a "Netherlandic person," have for "Netherlandic"?

Well, how's about this Britannica article? Note that "Dutch language" links to the same article, as it does here. As far as the Flemish government is concerned, my comment was meant to illustrate that introductionary webpages are not necessarily the best place to be too precise. It's not prudent to confuse a visitor with information he may not want or expect. For much the same reason "Holland" is frequently used by the Dutch to advertise themselves abroad, but it doesn't mean that this is then the correct term. Scipius 15:05 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)

The quote from the Flemish government is an answer to the specific question what their language is called. This is not someone being imprecise; that is what they themselves call the language they speak (when speaking English). The refeerence to Britannica is interesting, the first real reference for the use of "Netherlandic". It still does not weigh up to anywhere near the other contradictory sources. Note, for example, that Britannica contradicts the OED, which I certainly rate higher. NTF Oct 1, 2002

Again, the site is far too general to be a good source for determining correct terminology. Note for instance how the History page refers to William I of the Netherlands as "William I of Holland". The issue isn't whether "Dutch" is a good name for the language (it is, to an extent) or whether it's more widely used (it certainly is), but whether a more precise term exists and whether we should use that as the title at the very least. As for the OED and the EB contradicting itself, they don't necessarily do so. See below. Scipius 13:06 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

Back to the "Netherlandic"/"Dutch" question. I am a student of Germanic languages (specifically English, German and Dutch), and am currently working on a doctorate in Modern Languages. In all my years (decades) of academic study, and in my many more years as a native speaker of English, I have never, ever, seen or heard the term "Netherlandic" until I came across this page. So I looked it up; one can always learn something. It is not in my trusty (new) Merriam-Webster's dictionary, so I lugged out the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). The OED entry for "Netherlandic" refers me to "Netherlandish." This leads me to conclude that this discussion should be about the merits of the term "Netherlandish" vs. "Dutch", but I digress. The OED defines "Netherlandish" as "of or pertaining to the Netherlands, Dutch". So the term is not INclusive, as rmhermen claims (" 'Netherlandic' is the only single term in English that refers to both Dutch and Flemish") but EXclusive, as the term itself suggests. "Netherlandic" excludes the language spoken in Flanders. The OED confirms my initial, gut reaction that "Netherlandic" is incorrect in this context.

Despite what the dictionary may imply, "Netherlands" (and thus "Netherlandic") can most certainly be used to include Belgium, though it should be avoided in a geographical context because of potential confusion with the present-day nation-state of the Netherlands. See Talk:Netherlands for more on that. One other reason that "Netherlandic" would be preferred in a linguistic context would, I suspect, perhaps be for conformity with the name of the language in Dutch and other nearby languages (Nederlands in Dutch, Niederländisch in German, Néerlandais in French). Scipius 15:05 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)

I think you are on very weak grounds here, contradicting both dictionaries, common usage, and an academic expert. Your last argument makes no sense at all. Although languages have common roots, there is no rule or pressure that the same concept has to be expressed using similar sounding words. NTF, 1 Oct 2002.

There's not a contradiction per se. The OED apparently has no real entry for "Netherlandic" (and Webster doesn't have anything at all), but the EB and various websites obviously indicate that there is a meaning and use to the word. This means the current revisions of the dictionaries could simply be a little negligent. As for the conformity of the name, this has not so much to do with how it sounds, but rather with how it looks. Note that "néerlandais" seems very much constructed, it has no meaning in French AFAIK, apart from being a direct derivation of Nederlands. "Netherlandic" could be somewhat similar when used to refer to the language. Scipius 13:06 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of attention and care paid on this site in general to the use of the "correct term" and I applaud that. But it seems that there is, as of yet, no agreement on the criteria for a "correct term." People seem to favor the use of the most commonly used term, the most historically correct term, the most accurate or inclusive term, or the term that has the strongest etymology. If we apply these criteria to the two terms under discussion, I have to say that "Dutch" is the stronger under any of them. "Dutch" can also refer to other things, but I do not see this as a great hindrance to any English speaker. We usually add adjectives to limit the term (Pennsylvania Dutch, etc.). Dutch also has the "older" and therefore more extensive etymology, as someone already pointed out. The OED dates "Netherlandic" to the early 20th century, and "Netherlandish" to the mid-19th century. "Dutch" as someone already wrote, dates back to Old English (which is one reason why the term has taken on multiple meanings). I hope this helps. GreenPen 13:13 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

I would disagree with you there. Even under all four criteria, I think "Netherlandic" would still be a good choice. "Dutch" indeed has a longer etymology, but it is this very etymology that has led to most confusion surrounding that term, i.e. the Pennsylvania Dutch have nothing whatsoever to do with the Dutch, because in their case "Dutch" is used in the original context, not the modern one. Historically I would say that "Netherlandic" certainly is more precise, since it at least refers to the correct corner of the HRE. "Dutch" may go back to Old English, but I don't think it refered specifically to the Netherlands in any way back then. Scipius 15:05 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)

Wikkipedia is not out to fix illogical aspects of the English language. If you want a logical language, I suggest you drop English and work on the Esperanto version. Pennsylvania Dutch has nothing to do with Dutch, but that is how the language is. And the reason why "Dutch" did not originally refer to the Netherlands is because in those days there was no such country. Dutch is certainly the most commonly used term, the term "Dutch language" gets over 50000 hits in Google, "netherlandic language" gets only 209, some of which are Wikkipedia. Even on Wikkipedia itself there are more references to "Dutch language" than to "Netherlandic language" even though there is a re-direct page up and you'd expect people to link directly here. You also seem to be the only person argueing that "Netherlandic" is better. The word "Dutch" has been applied to the language I speak for centuries, so it is certainly the historically correct one. I've seen no evidence that "Dutch" excludes what the Belgians speak. In fact, they themselves claim that "Dutch" is inclusive. And we both seem to agree that Dutch has a stronger etymology. Now how exactly is "Netherlandic" a good choice under these four criteria? NTF Oct 1, 2002

I'm not sure what you mean with the illogical aspects of English, but I would say it's clear that no matter what we pick, it's not going to be a perfect solution. So, as for the title (note: not overall usage), do we then bow to whatever most people would think it is, or do we use what we think is a more precise name?

You seem to be under the impression we're forcing "Netherlandic" down people's throats or that we're trying to claim "Dutch" is a wrong term, but this is far from the case. As you can see, even I have used "Dutch" when referring to the language (if only because it saves typing ;)), and it should remain so as in most contexts "Netherlandic" is too detailed and unexpected. However, in a strict defining context (such as the title), we'll have to use it IMO, if we agree that it is a more precise term (with an explanation as to why). You can perhaps compare it with how we refer to some persons, e.g. take a look at how the article on Montesquieu is titled.

You claim that "Dutch" is no way excludes Belgians, but it obviously does. "Dutch" (without knowing whether someone means the language or not) is in most contexts a reference to the Netherlands, just like Dutch says. This is the primary reason for using "Netherlandic", to indicate that "Dutch" and, similarly, "Flemish" are in fact the same language. "Netherlandic" or rather "Netherlandish" can also have the problem of belonging just to the Netherlands, but to a far lesser extent, because a) it is not widely used and b) "Netherlands" can also be considered as including Belgium if we remember the original mediaeval meaning (again see Talk:Netherlands), whereas "Dutch" (outside of the language) never includes Belgium.

I would disgree that "Dutch" has a stronger etymology as far as it pertains to the Netherlands. I only agree it has a longer one. "Dutch" is a cognate of German Deutsch and Dutch Duits/Diets. As such, it did not refer specifically to the Netherlands in any way, but rather to the whole of the West Germanic continental area or perhaps better, the Holy Roman Empire. "Netherlands", at least, has always refered to this corner of the HRE and note that though "Netherlandic/ish" may be 19th century, "Netherlands" is likely much older. For some reason (likely because the Netherlands were closest to England and a major trade rival) "Dutch" began to shift in English to refer to only the Netherlands, but the archaic meaning is still a source for some confusion, as witnessed in the Pennsylavania Dutch or e.g. people confusing the Deutschmark for a Dutch coinage or thinking people in the Netherlands speak German. So, "Dutch" too can be thought of as having problems, but the fact that the majority use is now in reference to the Netherlands still makes it a good enough term for general use.

In conclusion, I don't see a great problem in using "Netherlandic language" only as the strict definition and "Dutch (language)" as the general usage. It would seem to me a good compromise between accuracy and common usage, which is frequently the best we can hope for on Wikipedia. Scipius 13:06 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

"You claim that "Dutch" is no way excludes Belgians, but it obviously does. "Dutch" (without knowing whether someone means the language or not) is in most contexts a reference to the Netherlands, just like Dutch says."

That would only be true if the country Amsterdam's in was called Dutchland, instead of the Netherlands. I think it's patent silliness to claim that "Dutch" is too focused on the Netherlands, and "Netherlandic" is not. While we're at it, why don't we say that the term "French" excludes the Quebecois and the Walloons, and call the language "Francian"? - user:Montrealais

Because apparently such a term does not exist in English, and if it did perhaps the Quebecois and Walloons would welcome it. "Netherlandic" does exist. So why not use it? Scipius 16:23 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

I, for sure, would not welcome it. I've always called the language "dutch" and that's how it was called at school. It's shorter, and as accurate as "french" is to describe my own native language. --FvdP born, raised & living in Belgium.

---

You seem to be under the impression we're forcing "Netherlandic" down people's throats or that we're trying to claim "Dutch" is a wrong term, but this is far from the case. As you can see, even I have used "Dutch" when referring to the language (if only because it saves typing ;)), and it should remain so as in most contexts "Netherlandic" is too detailed and unexpected. However, in a strict defining context (such as the title), we'll have to use it IMO, if we agree that it is a more precise term (with an explanation as to why). You can perhaps compare it with how we refer to some persons, e.g. take a look at how the article on Montesquieu is titled.

However, from the discussion it seems clear that we don't agree that it is a more precise term. You claim that Netherlandic is more precise. Everyone else claims that the two words mean exactly the same.

You claim that "Dutch" is no way excludes Belgians, but it obviously does. "Dutch" (without knowing whether someone means the language or not) is in most contexts a reference to the Netherlands, just like Dutch says. This is the primary reason for using "Netherlandic", to indicate that "Dutch" and, similarly, "Flemish" are in fact the same language.

I think montrelais's reaction hits the nail on the head here: We use 'English' for the language whether it's spoken in England, Ireland, the US or Australia, 'French' whether it is in France, Canada or Africa, 'German' whether it is in Germany, Austria or the Balkans, 'Spanish' whether it is in Spain, Latin America or the United States, etc. 'Dutch' is no different.

In conclusion, I don't see a great problem in using "Netherlandic language" only as the strict definition and "Dutch (language)" as the general usage. It would seem to me a good compromise between accuracy and common usage, which is frequently the best we can hope for on Wikipedia.

Since you are the only one who seems to claim that Netherlandic is more accurate, and everyone agrees that Dutch is the common usage, I think the compromise is the wrong one. My proposal would be to move the page to Dutch language, and handle your objection by mentioning (as well as the alternative name 'Netherlandic') that Flemish is Dutch as well in the first paragraph rather than the third. Andre Engels 08:50 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

I fully agree with this. Jeronimo

Implemented. - user:Montrealais

Well, I don't much appreciate the change being made without at least waiting for my response, but oh well. Note that the text at present does not explain why the language is also called "Netherlandic". I'm in fact not the only one making this argument, rmhermen appeared to think along the same lines earlier in the debate, but more importantly, the EB apparently agrees with me. Would any of you care to explain why the EB calls it "Netherlandic"? I'm awaiting your answer. Scipius 16:23 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

Agree with the move. Scipius, I think you ought to explain why it's called Netherlandish. FvdP

Sadly, there is nothing to agree to, the move has already been made. As for explaining myself, surely the above text should be sufficient? Scipius 16:38 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

Sure it is sufficient, sorry. About nothing to agree to, I see sense in agreeing to the move even after it's done. Perhaps it's not worth argueing much further though. FvdP

Well, you'll need to talk to 132.216.80.80, who moved the page. He didn't think it necessary to wait for my approval, so I see no reason to give it now. My reluctant acquiescence is all you'll get ;) Scipius 17:09 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

From the EB: Although speakers of English usually call the Netherlandic of The Netherlands “Dutch” and the Netherlandic of Belgium “Flemish,” they are actually the same language. If they are the same, why not use the official name of the language which appears to be "dutch" ("nederlands") both in the Netherlands and in Belgium. Netherlandic seems to be used by EB mainly as a means to avoid the wrong equation "dutch language" = "spoken by dutch people"; or maybe to preserve what they perceive as the "usual" meaning of "dutch". FvdP

Firstly, I don't think there actually is an official English name for the language, the only true official name being Nederlands (which is more similar to "Netherlandic" than "Dutch"). As for the EB, you're quoting the same argument I've made here. Now should Wikipedia deviate from this or not? Is the EB usually talking bollocks or do they have some authority? We don't need to emulate the EB in everything, but EB and Wikipedia seem to have arrived at the same conclusion. Remember, I'm not the one who put the page at "Netherlandic language", just like I'm also not the one who started this debate. Scipius 17:09 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

Well, EB were the ones who stated that "drawing" in drawing and quartering meant disembowelment. They're not the infallible gods of the universe.

"Firstly, I don't think there actually is an official English name for the language, the only true official name being Nederlands (which is more similar to "Netherlandic" than "Dutch")."

Well, if we're going to use that argument, looks like we're going to have to move German language to Dutch language. After all, www.m-w.com gives "German" as an alternate meaning of the word Dutch (see Pennsylvania Dutch), and Dutch is a cognate of the "real" word Deutsch, which German is not. I think it's a silly argument. Face it: this is the English 'pedia, and the name of the language in English is Dutch. - user:Montrealais

Your example is not applicable because in general English usage "German" and "Dutch" have taken on entirely different meanings, with only one archaic meaning of "Dutch" being ambiguous (note that this meaning is larger than just "German"), and so "Dutch" is no longer available for use as a viable alternative for "German" and vice versa. This is not the case with "Dutch and "Netherlandic", both of which may have imperfections, but which can still both be used interchangeably to an extent, with "Netherlandic" being a more obscure, scientific name. My comment was meant to again illustrate that one motivation for using "Netherlandic" may be the similarity in the various names of the languages, including its indigenous name. As a Francophone, could you perhaps explain where "Néerlandais" comes from, which I suspect may be similarly motivated?

As for the EB, I'm not sure what your point is. The current EB article certainly seems to have the correct interpretation of "drawn". I assume you were perhaps refering to the 1911 EB, but I don't see the point in trying to fault a nearly 100 year old encyclopedia. No, the EB is not 100% perfect, but neither is Wikipedia and at this point EB certainly has the authority Wikipedia lacks. My fear is that this is a point where Wikipedia could be considered to be less accurate than the EB, especially given the fact that we previously were using "Netherlandic language".

I presume you were the one who moved the page, Montrealais. Could I ask you why you felt the need to force the issue? Scipius 21:37 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

Quick points: Who cares what other languages use - this is the English wiki, and what other languages say has no bearing on what English speakers say. (As any Deutscher/allemand/tedesco/niemetz/etc. will tell you.) The EB apparently had the incorrect interpretation of drawing and quartering until Cecil Adams corrected them, not just 100 years ago. As for why I "forced the issue": Be bold in updating pages. - Montréalais

This can hardly be compared to the conventional meaning of "being bold". You must have known there was an extensive debate going on, yet despite contributing nothing so far, you forced the issue. NTF and Jeronimo also wanted to move the page, but they didn't make the change, so long as there was no consensus. Apparently this was not important to you and I find the whole turn of events most regrettable, especically since NTF (a newbie) then proceeded to change all the links to present my argument with a bit of a fait-accompli. If this is the level of discussion one can expect from fellow Wikipedians, then I'm a little disappointed. Scipius 15:28 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

---

Let's not have a big fight over this. I hope we can keep the articles Dutch and Flemish, at least.

Dale Carnegie often said that the most important word in any language is the name of the person you are talking to. If you guys starting calling me Eddie, you would quickly sense my displeasure!

I only speak English, although if you want to say that I speak "American" that's fine with me. My friends from England and I, we often joke about being "one people separated by a common language".

I daresay the real name of the language spoken in Netherlands is called something other than "Dutch", because Dutch is an English word. Much as the real word for the language spoken in Japan isn't "Japanese" -- surprise! they speak Nihongo (日本語) over there...

Hope this helps. --Ed Poor

Thanks Ed. I have no idea why some people get so irritated about using "Netherlandic" or why it would be such a problem to have it just in the title. "Common usage" is fine and dandy as a rule of thumb, but it is not sanctifying. A certain measure of accuracy needs to be adhered to and I certainly don't want to see Wikipedia "dumb down" its content solely on the grounds of "that's how everybody calls it". I am still planning extensive edits to the article (especially on the development), so I'm afraid the issue may be brought up again in the future. Scipius 21:37 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

This is an English language Encyclopedia. There is no more reason to label this Netherlandic than there would be to label the Spanish language article Español or the Italian language article Italiano. It is not "dumbing down", it's making a useable encyclopedia. "Netherlandic" isn't even an English word. -- Zoe

That's not what I'm saying, far from it. I'm not arguing we should call this article Nederlands. "Netherlandic" most certainly is an English word. I didn't invent the term and I'll give the EB link again for a reasonably authoritive English source demonstrating this. Scipius 22:03 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

It's not a word I've ever heard, and it's not found in dictionary.com. A google search of "dutch language" brings up 50,600 hits. A search of "netherlandic language" brings up 208, of which the first is the wikipedia and the second is Brittanica. A search of "netherlandic" brings up 3260 hits. -- Zoe

All of which demonstrates "Netherlandic" is indeed a word and it also shows the core issue, the more often used "Dutch" versus the supposedly more accurate "Netherlandic". To all those who argue that "Netherlandic" is non-existent, weird or silly: why do other people use it? Scipius 22:28 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

The meager usage seems to make its use as an article title rather nonsensical. -- Zoe

But why then do they use it? What made them pick it over "Dutch language", which is a term they must have been familiar with? Scipius 22:55 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

The reason for same has been more than adequately explored - we are arguing that it is not a good enough reason to use an obscure word instead of a regular one. - Montréalais

One issue that you're leaving out here is whether or not you agree the word is more accurate, as that is the whole point in using "Netherlandic". Just because a word is (somewhat) obscure doesn't it can't be the correct terminology. What puzzles me is that people seem to think that there must a rigid link between what the title is and what the general usage is, but I would imagine that is likely why redirects where implemented on Wikipedia, for flexibility. Scipius 15:28 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

No, actually, I do not think it's more accurate, since "Netherlandic" seems to refer much more strongly to the Netherlands than Dutch does. And I don't think it's somehow more proper, since it is much more obscure. Cor may be some kind of official medical terminology, as sanctioned by Dorland's, but our article is still at heart. (In both of these cases, the primary meaning of "official" seems to be "more obscure and snottier".) What puzzles me is that you think that Netherlandic is somehow more proper or useful than Dutch, when we've given you scads of reasons why this isn't so. - Montréalais

I'm with Montrealais. I don't CARE if it's more accurate or not (and I'd debate that it is), it is NOT the word most people would use. And therefore it is NOT the word we should be using as the label of an article. -- Zoe

---

Can someone help me with this? I'm editing a few things for clarity, but I can't make heads or tails of this: "Of all the major modern languages, Dutch is the one that is closest to English. The lesser-known Frisian language, very closely related to Dutch, is even closer to English." How can Dutch be closest to English if Frisian is even closer to English? Perhaps someone else should tackle this first, since I'm out of my depth with Frisian, and I'll sweep up behind you if need be. Thanks!GreenPen

I think what is meant, but poorly expressed is that of all MAJOR MODERN languages, Dutch is closest to English. Frisian is even closer to English, but it is not a MAJOR language; it's only spoken by a small group of people. Jeronimo

Hmm. That helps a bit. I've puzzled over this for a couple of days, and still haven't come up with anything better. Perhaps if I come with problems, someone else can bring solutions, or at least better suggestions. The paragraph in question: Of all the modern Germanic languages, Dutch is closest to English. The lesser-known Frisian language, very closely related to Dutch, is even closer to English. Another language that is very closely related to Dutch is Low German, while Afrikaans derives from Dutch. The first line is my revision, and it's wrong. The second sentence makes no sense. The third sentence...well, Low German is not a language but a group of dialects. I'll take out the first sentence and the reference out to Afrikaans, as that is covered more thoroughly in a previous paragraph.

I also question the wisdom of comparing languages like this. Dutch (just to have a specific example) is closer to another language in what sense? Geographically closer, closer in grammar, syntax, semantics, pronunciation? GreenPen

---

The expression 'Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands' is not used anymore; it's called 'Algemeen Nederlands' nowadays.

Then someone needs to correct the page it links to, as well as the wording on this page. GreenPen

---

The final 'n' of the plural ending -en is often not pronounced (as in Afrikaans).

This is ambiguous: is it pronounced, or not pronounced, in Afrikaans?

Sebastjan