Jump to content

Talk:Archaic Dutch declension

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

þThis page pertains mainly to an invented (by linguists) Archaic Dutch Declension system which was never in popular use. To this extent the article is about 100 years out of date at least. This declension system was prescribed in writing (it was never used in the spoken language) by linguists who felt Dutch should be more like Latin grammatically.

Besides, like the article Archaic Dutch Declension, this is not at all an accurate description of the Declension System which was prescribed the Dutch in the 1800's. This article is full of errors. Regarding its errors please see Talk:Archaic_Dutch_Declension

These errors notwithstanding, Modern Dutch these days in both writing and speech in fact has a much simpler system of declension and inflection which is nothing like this.

The article on Archaic Dutch Declension appears to have been merged with this one and this whole thing is very misleading.

It desperately needs an overhaul! It either needs to be corrected and re-titled "Archaic Dutch Declension" or re-written totally to reflect the Modern Dutch situation. But I'm not going to do this if someone's just going to come along and revert everything the next day.


Modern Dutch has only one active case: common case; two genders: common and neuter; two numbers: singular & plural and two adjective inflections: -e and -Ø (ie no/zero ending); one indefinite article; two definite articles etc. etc.

EG:

  • de man, de vrouw, het kind - de mensen
  • de goede man, de goede vrouw, het goede kind - de goede mensen
  • een man, een vrouw, een kind - (Ø) mensen
  • een goede man, een goede vrouw, een goed (Ø) kind - goede mensen

All other declensions and inflections for oblique cases are archaic [such as "den goeden kinde" (to the good child), "eener goede vrouw" (of a good woman) etc.] and used and recognized to about the same extent that English speakers would use/recognize archaic English declensions such as "þæm godum childe" (to the good child) or "anes godes wifmannes" (of a good woman). (In other words, not at all.)

Finally this article should be titled "(Archaic Dutch) Morphology" not "Declension". "Declension" only refers to how nouns and adjectives show gender and case by taking endings, "inflection" refers to how nouns and adjectives show number by taking endings. These two taken together, are called "morphology".

Duprie37 10:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you should really read and the study the following, before making any more comments: (since you know so much about Dutch, the fact that all of this is written in Dutch shouldn't be a problem):

A lot to read, and a lot to learn!

Govert Miereveld 16:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yes I do know a lot about Dutch as I am 1) a native Dutch speaker [you seem to imply I do not 'know' (sic) Dutch] and 2) have a university degree in Linguistics, majoring in the History of Germanic Languages, specalizing in the History of Dutch Grammar. Just because articles appear in Wikipedia do not make them correct. Which is why I refer to the Van Dale Groot Woordenboek as my source and make these comments here for discussion (I haven't made any edits as yet by the way - but unless you can provide PROOF otherwise, the factual accuracy of this article is still disputed). That's the whole point of Wikipedia. In any case, the articles in the Dutch Wikipedia are by and large correct (to the extent anyway that it pertains to the invented system of the 1800s which was officially abandoned by the Taalunie in the 1950s). The article HERE is NOT the same. It has additions which are incorrect, such as the section on the indefinite article. You have a Dutch name so I assume you are Dutch, like me. Don't assume just because I write here in English that I'm not a Dutch native speaker. Saying "A lot to read and lot to learn" is rather arrogant I think.

And I would happily bet $1000 that if Govert Morevield is a native Dutch speaker, that unless he wanted people to laugh at him or look at himstrangely, he wouldn't dream of speaking Dutch using sentences such as, for example, "Ik heb vandaag mijnen besten vriende wat geld geleent." or "Ik heb vandaag in eenen Nederlandsen krant gelezen dat de president der Verenigde Staten der koninginne der Nederlanden over de vriendschap der twee landen gesproken heeft." Hence, I rest my case.

As I stated in the Talk page for Archaic Dutch Declension (which article has now merged with this one) for an accurate description of the real Dutch declension system as it functioned when it was in fact productively used [as opposed to the one described here which is an invented system made up by prescriptive linguists in the 1800s to make the language more 'Latin', as Latin was seen to be more noble, and was never productively used by Dutch people) please refer to: The Middle Dutch case system

  • This is an article written by a faculty of Dutch Linguistics appearing on a University Website. And if that's not a reliable enough source on Dutch Declension then I really have nothing furter to add.

I am surely a native Dutch speaker, and you are right that I wouldn't say sentences like "Ik heb vandaag mijnen besten vriende wat geld geleent." or "Ik heb vandaag in eenen Nederlandsen krant gelezen dat de president der Verenigde Staten der koninginne der Nederlanden over de vriendschap der twee landen gesproken heeft." (by the way, it should be "geleend"). That's why the article states which forms are archaic and which forms aren't. If you want to write an article about the Middle Dutch Case system, please do, since I'm very interested (I am not being ironic).

Govert Miereveld 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not really clearly distinguish which forms are current and which forms are archaic. It gives the impression of there being a fully-fledged declension system in Dutch, which although archaic, is still latently accessible to Dutch speakers, in the same way that Middle English forms such as "thou wert, he worketh" are latently accessible to English speakers. This is not true. The average Dutch speaker would have no idea how to "use" this Declension system if presented with it. As far as modern Dutch declension goes this whole article is kinda redundant - there is in any case already a fine article in Wikipedia about Dutch grammar. To that end this article is confusing. It should just be left as "Archaic Dutch Declension System". Calling it "Dutch Declension System" gives the distinct impression that this is a declension system which is currently in use, whether latently or not, by Dutch speakers, whereas it's not and never even has been (except in formal writing). This was my first point originally. My second one is that the article, as it stands, contains factual errors which I've discussed at Talk:Archaic Dutch Declension, which have not been addressed. Yet my tag keeps being removed. However, I've already lost interest in this discussion, so, good luck :)

If you still don't believe me, can I cite a passage from J.M Hoogvliet (1909), Elements of Dutch, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co. which, although almost a century old, is an excellent one to keep in mind when it comes to this article:

The "official" grammars of our language contain many things, which are not at all in accordance with the real state of things. These grammars indeed give many chapters and paragraphs on the four cases of declension and on the three grammatical genders. The truth is, that there is of declension in our language no greater amount than there is in English...[but] whereas the English nation has hailed the aboliton of cases and genders as a natural and in many respects a useful and a practical reform, the Dutch nation, or at least the authors and learned people of Holland, often wholly absorbed in classical studies, admiring the Greek and Latin languages for their riches of grammatical forms, and having besides this on the eastern frontier of their country a neighbour people which in its language had still in the course of centuries preserved the greater part of that exuberance of forms, which the Dutch language had had to part with, were very sorry for the "losses" they had sustained and tried by any kind of violent means to have their riches back. In this way the system of "genders" and "cases", condemned and thrown away by language itself, continued to be reared and cultivated artificially by the authors and the learned people. They held on like grim death, they strove and struggled with might and main - they plodded on, toiled on, trudged on...and succeeded in keeping the thing going to the present day. The result is this, that even now a well-educated Dutchman, when going to write no matter which contribution to a magazine or paper, or even an ordinary letter, nay nothing more than a simple postcard of a few lines, will most inevitably have to turn a good many of dictionary-leaves just to ascertain whether in his own language this or that word belongs to the masculine or to the feminine gender. -Of course, in our present idiom we have a large quantity of words, which in the middle-ages, during the period of "genders" and "cases", did not exist at all.... What in the world may be the gender of all those words, ex. gr. of a word like fiets...(a bicycle) or trem...(a tramway)? Of course nobody knows. But never mind.... Our learned men will set to work at a moment's notice and for each new word which you choose to bring them they will forge at their private workshop a brannew [sic] "gender" while you wait. (pp. 6, 24-25)

I must say that I find it ironic that almost a century later this passage still appears to have relevance.



Duprie37 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I doubt quoting from Dutch version of wiki. They are not referenced, nor are they from institurtes nor universities. In addition, there are so many English materials one can quote from on the internet, or even books. Afterall the article is in English, is it really that hard to reference in English? Or one just can't explain Dutch grammar in English? matt-(my page-leave me a message) 12:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV-forking chaos

[edit]

Good heavens, what's going on here? We have:

This is absolutely chaotic and unacceptable. Just a few obervations:

  • The move to the misspelled "ArchaicDutch" (presumably intentionally, in order to avoid the already existing Archaic Dutch Declension) was unacceptable. If you want to move a page and the target is already taken, you do a Requested Move, you don't move it to a bad spelling instead.
  • Both Archaic Dutch Declension and ArchaicDutch Declension were misspelled anyway, because the capitalisation was wrong.
  • The existence of two or even three separate articles on basically the same topic is inexplicable. Okay, I understand there is a tension within Dutch grammar writing, between a more conservative system preserving more inflections, and a more progressive system where most of them have become obsolete. And apparently there are some POV issues here among contributors about how to weigh these different strands of the grammar. But I can't understand why it shouldn't be possible to treat these together in one article. The state of affairs here smacks of POV-forking, which is very strongly frowned upon. Come on, guys, it can't be that difficult, can it.

For the moment, I'm moving the page from ArchaicDutch Declension to Archaic Dutch declension, just to get the spelling right. (Incidentally, that spelling isn't taken yet.) However, I expect you guys to find a way how to then merge that page back into the main article Dutch declension. These simply must be de-forked, in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As I now see that Archaic Dutch Declension and the present Archaic Dutch declension are virtually identical anyway, I'm going to do a history merge between the two. I've also moved the old talk page of Archaic Dutch Declension into an archive under the main Dutch declension, at Talk:Dutch declension/ArchiveADD1. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2: The history of the POV fork formerly at Archaic Dutch Declension (edits between October 2006 and 23 March 2007) has now been hist-merged into the present page at Archaic Dutch declension. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page Dutch declension, but after lot of attacks by user:Rex Germanus and user:Matt ke (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutch_declension&action=history), user:Rex Germanus moved the original content to Archaic Dutch Declension, which it is not, I tried to explain this a hundred times, then I moved it to Dutch Declension System. Meanwhile user: Rex Germanus had been blocked (I don't know why, but I guess it was for a good reason), after the block was lifted, he began attacking the page Dutch Declension System and all of what you described above started. But I wanna make clear I DID NOT make the page Archaic Dutch Declension. Bombshell 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your words there. I did not attack. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then how would you call reverting a page over and over again? Bombshell 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call for another merger

[edit]

I propose to merge the contents of the present page Archaic Dutch declension back into the main article Dutch declension. Unless there will be some very good reasons presented here as to why there should continue to be two separate pages, by next week, I'll boldly redirect this page to Dutch declension and leave it to the parties to work out how to transfer and merge whatever parts of the content are applicable there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse merger
Object to merger
  • It's user:Rex Germanus who keeps reverting and moving this article to Archaic Dutch Declension. He originately deleted this article from Dutch declension. I think we should have two pages: one concise and one extensive. Everything that's in the concise one Dutch declension is already incorporated into this one Dutch Declension System. It's just user: Rex Germanus and user: Matt ke who keep deleting the info. Furthermore the system is not pointed out as archaic at the Dutch wikipedia Govert Miereveld 23:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your position seems incoherent. Matt ke and Duprie37 seem to want two separate articles because they believe there are two different systems to describe, a modern and an archaic one. That's okay. But you seem to be saying there's only a single system worth treating, the fully inflecting one. In that case there can't be a reason to have two pages - we don't do alternative concise and extensive treatments of the same issue, over and above the summary-and-main article structure with Dutch grammar. And please stop quoting the Dutch Wikipedia as if it had any authority as a source. It doesn't. What they write there is utterly irrelevant. Cite sources from the reputable literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The systems described now are the same: the system "described" by user: Rex Germanus, is just a resume of the one described here (if you would just try to read it (I know this is hard because it's a lot of rubbish). Furthermore I won't stop quoting the Dutch wikipedia, because lot's of Dutch speaking people visit these pages and they seem correct to them. I can't deny that I have the impression that some people (ii sunt user: Rex Germanus and user: Matt ke seem to be frustrated and want to oversimplify Dutch grammar. At the moment both pages seem to be a lot of bullshit to me (no offense to user Duprie37 who did a lot of interesting and correct changes). I suggest that both pages be deleted as they are, and that a new article (id est not the bullshit-one that exists at the moment) on Dutch declension. I still think this should reflect the articles on the Dutch wikipedia. En voor de zekerheid nog eens duidelijk maken dat ik wel degelijk Nederlandstalig ben. Govert Miereveld 18:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if you were a Kayapo indian it would not matter to me. It has no worth. I'd also urge you to stop to speak "on my behalf" and using swearwords. Furthermore your comments make little sense to me know. What do you want?!Rex 18:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just think this page should reflect the views on the Dutch wikipedia. Govert Miereveld 19:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Govert, you failed to address either of the two points I made: (1) If you think both articles are on the same topic, why would you want to keep them separate and not merge them? (2) You show a total lack of understanding of our attribution policy. What you personally consider correct Dutch is of no importance. What readers and editors on the Dutch wikipedia consider correct is of no importance. Get a book and quote from it. You want us to follow the views of the Dutch wikipedia? The anser is no, and if you repeat it a thousand times, it will still be no. It's the policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want to make it look like Dutch wikipedia ... do you see an interwiki? There is no article like this on Dutch wikipedia.Rex 12:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey hold on. It's the people who use Dutch daily simplify things, not just me and Rex. You cannot even provide a single source in English (Yes it's about Dutch but bear in mind this is English wiki), nor you can provide any reliable source in Dutch either. On the other hand when I keep reverting back you tag the article as unreferenced and I referenced it straight away, and I do remember one come from a uni in Netherlands. How on earth would referring to Dutch wiki which by the way, not referenced as well, and without a background, not reliable at all. And also, I did not delete anything. I found it terribly different from what I learnt in uni thus noticing Rex was contributing to the Dutch language articles, I ask to to rewrite. And then the reverts. Some unnamed user keeps reverting back (let's say is vandalism) and never made any comments. OK now suddenly comes Govert with all the "no oh do you actually know Dutch, please read Dutch wiki and that will be the definitive version of the current Dutch language". And Taalunie is the official regulator of the Dutch language and in their site it provides some excellent links to sites which pretty much follows the way what Rex wrote and none of all the complex unknown inflections like Govert or Bombshell wrote/insists. If you're telling everyone the Official regulator of the language - Taalunie is wrong, please tell me who is the most superior of all. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 17:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying Taalunie is wrong, they just don't say eveything. They thry to keep it plain and simple. E;g. if you search for "datief" 5=dative case) on Taalunie, you'll find a short description on the dative in Dutch, mainly stating that it isn't used very often, but it exists. If you would like to know how declensions are formed in Dutch, you better check: dbnl: Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse letteren, if you search for Spraakkunst (=Grammar), you'll find several modern and historic grammars: [1], note that different spellings may be used(e.g. eenen versus enen), this is because Dutch spelling changed like over five times during the last century. Furthermore, about the Taalunie: people are not obliged to follow them, so even stuff the Taalunie disapproves should be in a Dutch declension article, as long as people use/have used it in speach or in writing. Govert Miereveld 19:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps.Dutch conjugation is another piece of article that needs to be redone as well. Dutch never gets that complicated nowadays just like the declension.matt-(my page-leave me a message) 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
  • It's not just a simple POV, it's like "thy", etc in English which are not used in common conversation/document type situation nowadays unless in certain places where it is required. Yes I agree the old complex one should be kept, that's why I proposed long ago that it is "archaic" as it's not used in normal situation anymore just to stop confusing readers. But the thing is some contributor erases all the info on the normal page which describes how Dutch is inflected nowadays and puts the old complex one back, which is totally unacceptable. It's either normal current one, or both with some sort of warning tags that the old complex one has been fallen out of use for ages. That way it can only gives the correct information to readers. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 02:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Dutch declension and Gender in Dutch grammar should come under Disputes in Dutch language next to IJ Govert Miereveld 23:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have had it for now! I just wanted to post something on this page, and it was allready erased by user: Matt ke before it was written (in a way of speaking), no trace in history. (Personal attack removed)

Govert Miereveld 18:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing to add to this discussion other than your own opinion and personal attacks, then leave Govert. Now. Rex 20:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting grammar

[edit]

It looks like there is (amongst other things) some mixing up of categories here:

Nominative
The nominative (eerste naamval) is the most frequent case in Dutch, normally following sentence elements are allways in the nominative:

* The direct object (only pronouns demand the accusative case): Anja schildert de muur (Anja paints the wall)
* The indirect object (only pronouns demand the dative case): Joop geeft het meisje een ijsje (Joop gives an ice-cream to the girl)
* All other objects are allways in the nominative case: Deze maandag is hij niet naar school gegaan (This Monday he didn't go to school)
* The nominative is required after all prepositions, except for the preposition te, fixed expressions and some prepositions with a figurative meaning (only pronouns demand the accusative case): aan de boom (on the tree), door het huis (through the house) ==

To the best of my knowledge, even if nouns are not formally inflected, this does not automatically mean that they all assume the nominative case no matter what their grammatical function. If this were the case, one could claim the same thing for instance for Latin (e.g. singular and plural neuter forms (parvum animal est, parvum animal video; parva animalia video etc.) and German (e.g. neuter nouns (das kleine Kind spielt, ich rufe das kleine Kind), feminine nouns (ich sehe die schöne Frau, etc.) on those grounds. Iblardi 06:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the user who wrote that is a bit confused. Probably it's "Even if the noun is an accusative, it is not inflected, just like writing in the nominative case". Which holds true for Dutch. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 11:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would probably be the source of the error. Iblardi 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not the case: their exists an accusative case in Dutch, but nouns with are the direct object assume the nominative case, they only assume the accusative case after certain prepositions

Bombshell 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but unless you provide credible sources for this remarkable statement, I have to assume that you are confusing the morphology of nouns (i.e. their form) with their grammatical function (i.e. how they relate to other words in a sentence). Iblardi 21:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone blocked me, I can't sign this statement:

  • Nouns are in the nominative when their used as direct or indirect objects, the dative and the accusative are only used after (certain) prepositions; most prepositions ask the nominative of nouns
  • Pronouns take the accusative and dative case when their used as direct or indirect object.

E.g.:

For the accusative case of nouns:

  • Accusative case: In den regel wordt de accusatief van zelfstandige naamwoorden in het Nederlands bijna niet gebruikt (In princaple the accusative of nouns is almost not used in Dutch). (Figurative preposition)
  • Nominative case: Hij gebruikte de accusatief toch, en schond de regel (He used the accusative case, and violated the rule) (Direct object)
  • With a pronoun, accusative case: Hij schond mij (He violated me)

For the dative case of nouns:

  • Dative case: Ik kwam ter plekke (I arrived at the spot, after preposition te)
  • Nominative case: Ik gaf de man een glas water (I gave the man a glass of water, indirect object)
  • With a pronoun, dative case: Ik gaf hun een glas water (I gave them a glass of water)

Bombshell

I hope you change it to the way it was, because it is just wrong now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.39.64.72 (talk • contribs).

  • That's not even correct. Nominative is the one who execute an action. Accusative is the one who received the action directly from the nominative. Dative is the one who received the action indirectly. For example. The Man (nom.) gives her daughter (dat.) a book (acc.). Or in simpler English, Nominative is the subject, accusative the direct object and dative the indirect object. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 11:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It IS correct. Learn Dutch for God's sake. In Dutch the nominative replaces the accusative and the dative of nouns if their used as an object.

e.g. De man (nom.) gaf der dochter(e) (dat.) den stoel (acc.) --> this is incorrect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It should be: De man (nom.) gaf de dochter (nom.) de stoel (nom.) --> this is correct!!!!!!!!! ("The man gave the chair to the daughter ) However if you replaces them by prounous: Hij (nom.) gaf het (acc.) haar (dat.) (He gave it to her)

Correct use of cases in Dutch: Toen Peter (nom.) en Peters (gen.) vriend (nom.) aan den toog (acc.) zaten, gebeurde er buiten een ongeval (nom.), de hulpdiensten (nom.) waren direct ter plaatse (dat.). THIS IS A CORRECT DUTCH SENTENCE

Bombshell

  • Eh? You still don't understand? You don't even understand what I was saying you're wrong for. First of all do you know what grammatical cases are? Stop lecturing me as if you know. The case rule applies to all Germanic languages and other Indo-European languages. And I suggest you to learn English as well. I think I have to take you don't know English well enough to explain yourself. Go read a book about grammatical cases for everyone's sake. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 11:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been discussed at WP:AN/I

[edit]

See the discussion, including the list of blocks of some editors who were active here. It is conceivable this will make it easier for the remaining editors of this page to finish some reforms that they were recommending. EdJohnston 15:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombshell is back, enhancing the article again with his unique theories

[edit]

I left a message for the administrator who blocked him previously. This time he is editing with the IP 86.39.64.72 (talk · contribs). I assume that his recent additions to the article are incorrect just like the previous ones, but I'll leave it to someone who knows Dutch to look at his changes. It may be necessary for someone to revert all his article contributions. EdJohnston 17:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks for being alert. Iblardi 22:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the use of the dative in Dtuch see: http://oase.uci.kun.nl/~ans/e-ans/03/04/02/body.html (it's from ANS, the standard Dutch Grammar)

Redundant article

[edit]

I've been reworking the article on Dutch declension lately, and as far as I'm concerned, this one, which lacks references, perspicuity and factual accuracy, is up for deletion. What good information there is may be included in the other article. Iblardi 11:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pledge full support to that. On factual accuracy, for instance: the "tje" diminutive is the norm in the dialects (!) of Western Flanders (excepting Kortrijk). Last time I checked, Western Flanders is still a part of Belgium. --Pan Gerwazy 11:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

The view of this article does not coincide with Dutch sources (e.g. Dutch Wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.39.64.59 (talk • contribs)

Could you please specify which information does not correspond to which information elsewhere? Remember to keep in mind that Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a reliable source. AecisBrievenbus 00:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} or better yet {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 02:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains doubtable information

[edit]

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Dear friend on the English Wikipedia,
With apologies for my lack of knowlege about English language, I want to write you the following:
Your article Archaic Dutch declension is realy concerning me. Indead, Dutch knew a long time ago declension because of having cases. The article says right: this declension wasn't used in dayly talking, but just a formality in written language.
But then... I cannot find any literature that tells about a vocative and a locative in (writen and archaic) Dutch at all. There are certainly ways, gramaticle constructions, that take over the function of these cases in Dutch comparing with Latin, but this seems to be really nonsens. Also does declension of all pronouns. It looks like some one translated the German grammar with Ducht examples.
The indefinite article has no plural as such, but "vele" (many) may be taken as its plural? May taken as a indefinit article? Vele is a collective numeral, also specified in Dutch grammar as a so called indefinite numeral (e.g. much, manny, lots, few).
The chapter Diminutives is not about archaic Dutch! Is about modern Dutch since the last two times we officially changes our spelling in 1995 and 2005.
I hope some one with more knowlege of English and Dutch both can review and overwrite this article. It's worth explaning about languages on this Wiki, but this article is not telling the truth.
Last thing: furthermore your English Wikipedia is a succes full project and I like the most of your articles. Please go on succeeding!
Mark Coenraats (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing. If you don't feel able to make changes yourself, the place to discuss the problems in the article is in its talk page. --ColinFine (talk)

Mark Coenraats (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical Overhaul needed!

[edit]

Sooo, I've read a few fragments of this article (I, as a Dutch native find it boring since it has no relevance whatsoever) and I've come to the conclusion it was written by Dutch Linguists. Who clearly aren't as fond of their English as they are of their Dutch. I myself am not the most qualified person to do this, but I'll try my best. It would be nice however, if someone more familiar with wiki could put a banner or something next to the other banners, asking people to help improve it grammatically (do these banners exist?), because to me it's clear this is a translation from Dutch sources, instead of an English source based off of Dutch sources.

Kind regards, 83.83.88.133 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was some discussion about this recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch declension. The conclusion was that Dutch declension should be merged into this article, and that more attention should be given to describing the language in reality, rather than trying to fit it into a shape it never had. This is a problem with several articles about Dutch grammar, Dutch conjugation also suffered from it until it was rewritten from nothing. I'm not sure why but it seems almost like it's a symptom of Dutch linguistics itself. Over the centuries, people have kept trying to either artificially retain features, or add new features. Like the hen/hun distinction which was "added" to the language by linguists of the 17th century. Or the three-gender system which is still taught in schools even though the students have never seen it before. And this article still contains mention of a vocative and locative case, which haven't existed in the language since Old Dutch times (Proto-Germanic had no locative, and its vocative was falling out of use).
I think that this article should focus specifically on the former case system, and the endings that came with it. Dutch grammar#Nouns already explains how the case system is used, or how it isn't rather. CodeCat (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

[edit]

I've rewritten a lot of this article now, and tried to remove the POV bias so that it is more clear that it describes a historical language and not a current one. Can someone have a look to see if everything is ok? CodeCat (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is in much better shape now, but why would we modernize the spelling? The lead explicitly states that the article gives a description of how people used to write until 1946/7, which is when the -sch of mensch was dropped along with the case endings. It isn't supposed to be a manual for using an ancient case system in modern writing, at least not at present. Iblardi (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is supposed to describe the archaic case system, not the archaic spelling used in the written standards that required it. The case system is not generally used anymore, and the standard doesn't mandate its use, but it doesn't forbid its use either. They're still part of modern standard Dutch if anyone decides they want to use them. And people occasionally do use them. And when they do, they use modern Dutch spelling. For example, a single -e- is used in enerzijds and enerlei. So we should use the modern spelling here. If we want to describe the archaic spelling (which we should if we want to be complete), then we should do that at Dutch orthography or History of Dutch orthography. CodeCat (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archaic Dutch declension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Use of Accusative/Dative with Prepositions

[edit]

I was interested in learning the now archaic Dutch case system when I came across this article. Unfortunately some of the information in the article seems to be inconsistent with written texts from the late 19th century and early 20th century. For example, the article says that the accusative case was used with all prepositions except "te". However, reading a 1900 Dutch Bible, one finds sentences like (Matthew 8:16):

en Hij wierp de boze geesten uit met den woorde, en Hij genas allen, die kwalijk gesteld waren

Clearly, "den woorde" is the dative form of "het woord" and is being used with the preposition "met" (cf. the use of the dative with "mit" in German).

Also, the article claims that the dative singular and accusative singular forms for neuter nouns were identical in the written language by the early 20th century. However, in the same 1900 Bible, I found (Matthew 10:15):

Voorwaar zeg Ik u: Het zal den lande van Sodom en Gomorra verdragelijker zijn in den dag des oordeels, dan dezelve stad.

Again, we see that the dative form "den lande" differs from the accusative/nominative form "het land". In the same verse BTW, one can also see the genitive form of a neuter noun ("des oordeels"). "In den dag", on the other hand, appears to be a masculine accusative form (based on the use of "dag" rather than "dage") although, in German for example, a similar construction would, I think, require the dative case.

In summmary, the use of the accusative or dative cases with different prepositions in early 20th century written Dutch is not clear at all (as it does not necessarily match German usage for example)and the information in the Wikipedia article seems questionable. I would appreciate if an expert could fix it and provide us with more reliable information.191.184.66.209 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Later 20th century to present

[edit]

«[T]he only remaining distinction is the one between singular and plural.»
I was taught in junior high school, while studying Dutch as a foreign language, that there exists two other distinctions in the agreement of the adjective: between attributive and predicative, and in the neuter singular attributive between definite and indefinite, as follows:

  • A predicative adjective never takes -e: deze man is goed this man is good, dat huis is wit that house is white, etc.
  • An attributive adjective used with a "de" word (masculine or feminine any number, or neuter plural) or with a neuter singular word accompanied by het, dit or dat takes -e: de goede man, een goede man, de goede mannen, sommige goede mannen, het witte huis, de witte huizen, sommige witte huizen, het kleine meisje (the little girl) etc.
  • An attributive adjective used with a neuter singular word not accompanied by het, dit or dat (or, in a different formulation of the same criterion, accompanied by een, geen, elk, welk or nothing) takes no -e: een goed kind (a good child), een wit huis (a white house), welk klein meisje? (which little girl?) etc.

AFAIK this rule has not changed in the decades since I came out of secondary school, and in particular all authors of the Dutch Wikipedia still abide by it, or when they don't it's regarded as a typo and soon corrected; this article seems to assume that in the neuter singular there is no difference between the definite (shown) and the indefinite (not shown) agreement of the adjective. The difference between attributive (French: épithète) and predicative (French: attribut) uses of the adjective is also not shown. (I should beware of false friends: my mother language is French) — Tonymec (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archaic_Dutch_declension&oldid=1241650617"