Talk:Flemish dialects
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flemish dialects article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| On 12 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Flemish language. The result of the discussion was moved to Flemish dialects and moved. |
Requested move 12 June 2023
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved to Flemish dialects and moved, respectively. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- For the record, this page had 1k links, all of which need fixing, and some of which are incorrect and need more detailed fixing. I'm currently in the process of fixing these with AWB (~¼ of the way done), I have not forgotten about this RM and will move these pages once I'm done. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 23:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
– Similar to English and English language, Russian and Russian language, etc. —Vigilant Cosmic Penguin (talk | contribs) 20:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose because Flemish isn't a language. It would be bad to give an article a title that's immediately contradicted by its first sentence ("Flemish (Vlaams) is a Low Franconian dialect cluster of the Dutch language"). Largoplazo (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support Flemish people are a thing. This is a clarifying improvement. Walrasiad (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- How does it clarify anything to call it "Flemish language" when Flemish isn't a language? Largoplazo (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Clarifies its not people. Walrasiad (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- That seems a rather silly argument... —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's like clarifying that you mean the state of Mexico rather than the country of Mexico by describing it as the continent of Mexico. It doesn't exactly help the situation. Largoplazo (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Brigade Piron @Largoplazo I think the point raised here is that just like "Mexican" is an ambiguous adjective, which legitimately refers to a place, people, characteristics of people like dialects, ..., that in the same vein so is "Flemish". --Joy (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I got that, and my response is that you don't clarify the matter by making up a title that's an outright falsehood. Largoplazo (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- That is fine, we are not bound to consider only the original submitter's ideas verbatim. (Also they're a comparably a very new editor, so errors are to be expected.) --Joy (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I got that, and my response is that you don't clarify the matter by making up a title that's an outright falsehood. Largoplazo (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Brigade Piron @Largoplazo I think the point raised here is that just like "Mexican" is an ambiguous adjective, which legitimately refers to a place, people, characteristics of people like dialects, ..., that in the same vein so is "Flemish". --Joy (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Clarifies its not people. Walrasiad (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- How does it clarify anything to call it "Flemish language" when Flemish isn't a language? Largoplazo (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose because it is not a language. The only change I would support is "Flemish (language variety)". The alternative "Flemish (dialect cluster)" would be incorrect as certain dialect groups in Flanders like Brabantian and Limburgish are more related to the dialects across the border in the Netherlands than to other "Flemish dialects". --Glennznl (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per Largoplazo. Does not improve understanding. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Flemish dialects is already an incoming redirect (since 2003), that can be used instead of 'language'? The idea of clarifying that the adjective is ambiguous while there are clear replacement proper nouns - seems reasonable, it sounds like we could have a lot of ambiguous links as it is now. --Joy (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- It should be noted that while https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Flemish doesn't clearly indicate a preponderance of clicks on a hatnote, Flanders and Flemish people are already the most common outgoing destinations, so there's reason to believe that the graph would look like any other such adjective disambiguation page graph if we disambiguate. --Joy (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Move to Flemish dialect(s) - Flemish is not a language, rather a dialect of Dutch. But there is still a reasonable case for confusion so the present title is unsustainable. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose proposed move, but support "Flemish dialects". I note that we already have Brabantian dialect as a sub-article of this. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support. I don't really care if it says 'language' or 'dialect(s)'. Given the existence of articles like Bosnian language and Montenegrin language, we can handle it. Srnec (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
followup to move discussion
[edit]I checked https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Flemish a few months after the move.
In October '23, there were 6.9k incoming views, and 3.5k outgoing to 5 identified destinations: 1.64k to dialects, 1.08k to Flanders, 720 to people and two much smaller ones. --Joy (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Opening
[edit]In the pronunciation of Belgian Dutch (Belgisch-Nederlands [ˈbɛlɣis ˈneːdərlɑnts] ⓘ) in Dutch, it is shown here that there is a "ɣ" for the "g" sound. But the audio doesn't appear to show this. It very much sounds like the "g" in the audio is rendered as a "j". Am I hearing this incorrectly? Criticalthinker (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- [ɣ] is correct as long as the linked key makes that distinction. Nardog (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- You're almost correct - see hard and soft G in Dutch. /ɣ/ is often pre-velar or post-palatal in Belgium and Zeeland, Brabant and Limburg in the Netherlands. It's still a fricative, so it's articulated more forceful than [j] (compare [ʒ] with [ɹ] in English, it's a similar distinction) and it's a little bit backer than [j]. A full-on replacement with [j] happens only in a fraction of dialects (Ripuarian, to be precise, often mislabeled as Limburgish by the Dutch), e.g. Kerkradish and it's regionally marked (as it is in Germany, see Colognian phonology). Maybe I'd go as far as to say that the phonemic distinction between /ɣ/ and /j/ in Southern Dutch is a distinction between a fricative and an approximant as they can have a very similar if not identical place of articulation. I'm pretty sure that even northern speakers can easily tell the difference between the two, even though they use a very different (uvular) sound instead: [χ].
- If we introduced [ʝ, ç] to the Help:IPA/Dutch guide we'd have to account for the allophony, and it seems to be dialect- and speaker-specific, with some speakers having more fronted (post-palatal) [ʝ, ç] than others (pre-velar). Some also use these allophones in contact with /aː/ (and /ɑ/ if it's not back but central or front), yet others don't. It's a bit variable, but not nearly as much as the pronunciation of /r/. Sol505000 (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate you two explaining this. But all I was asking about was the voice in the audio attached to the pronunciation. I'm not hearing a "g" at all, the hard or soft one. Criticalthinker (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I understand you can't hear the difference, but it's there. I hear a voiced pre-velar fricative on the recording. It's a standard pronunciation, the southern one.
- Maybe the confusion stems from the fact that this fricative is far more weakly articulated than the northern [χ], if that's what you're used to hearing - but it's still a fricative, not an approximant. The speaker is not saying Beljisch-Nederlands. Not even the residents of Kerkrade or Vaals say that (they'd say [ˈbælɣiz‿ˈneːdəʁlɑn(t)s], with a cardinal velar (or maybe pre-velar)), it's un-Dutch. What you can hear in (West-Flemish-accented or Zeelandic-accented) Dutch is a glottal fricative instead of the velar, thus [ˈbælɦis ˈneːdərlɑnts]. That's pretty common I think - or common enough to mention it here, anyway. Sol505000 (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate you two explaining this. But all I was asking about was the voice in the audio attached to the pronunciation. I'm not hearing a "g" at all, the hard or soft one. Criticalthinker (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
[edit]There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dutch in Belgium which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)