Talk:koud

OK, so here's a can of worms.

Linguistically speaking, Nederlands (Dutch), Vlaams (Flemish) and Afrikaans (South African), Platdeutsch are all simply dialects of "low German" ("low" in the sense of "lowlands", with no connotation of inferiority). Depending on whether the Afrikaners came primarily from what is now the Netherlands or what is now Belgium, we could say that Afrikaans is derived from Dutch or Flemish, but this would be incorrect. All three have diverged since the split (and in fact, Afrikaans, like many colonial variants, is more conservative in at least some ways).

As a practical matter, I would prefer to list most of these terms as "Dutch". For example, koud means cold in Nederlands, Vlaams and Afrikaans (not sure how Platdeutsch has it &mdash; and that's probably another can of worms).

Particularly Afrikaner terms (dochterke instead of meisje, perhaps &mdash; my knowledge of Afrikaans itself is sparse) might go under "Afrikaans", or might go under "Dutch", tagged as Afrikaans. The latter would, I think, be more consistent with our treatment of English regional variants.

I'll say very clearly, and expect to have to repeat, that none of this is meant to imply any superiority of Nederlands over Vlaams, Afrikaans or any other language, low Germanic or otherwise. It's simply a practical decision. I would prefer not to list common terms like koud, boom, hond or whatever three different ways. If there's a better generic tag than "Dutch", I'd be glad to use it. -dmh 16:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And another can of worms. What senses does this have in Afrikaans? Temprature, certainly. Coldness of manner? I think so, but naturally I'll defer to a native speaker. Cold as in sniffles? No idea. I don't even remember if it's true for Dutch.

I suspect that, the more we look at this, the more we'll find senses that are peculiar to particular variants, along with some that are common. Just as we do in English. -dmh 16:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the point ??
Dutch and Afrikaans are not part of the "taalunie", the consequence is that they are completely and utterly seperate languages. They should be treated as such. In Dutch we do not have a "braai" and many other words and, "het laat me koud" if these languages used to be the same. Practically, I do understand Afrikaans or Boers as long as they do not speak to rapidly. GerardM 17:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you could plug in "American" and "English" for "Afrikaans" and "Dutch" and get a similar statement.


 * The fact that you can basically understand each other (even if Afrikaans is generally subtitled on Dutch TV) is pretty solid evidence that the two languages/dialects are not "completely and utterly separate," from a linguistic point of view. I'm well aware that there are significant differences between Nederlands and Afrikaans. What I'm calling into question is whether they're different enough that we should list every word they have in common twice (leaving aside Vlaams, Vries or whatever else), or whether we should list most words just once and point out the differences.  I also realize that this is a topic which has been discussed before, once or twice.


 * Here's a random page in Afrikaans:

Welkom by die Afrikaans oppie Net webwerf. Geniet jou besoek.

As jy 'n webwerf het waarop jy Afrikaans gebruik, sit die logo (met die skakel) daarop, laat weet my, en ek sal probeer om dit so gou moontlik by te voeg. [Ek vra om verskoning dat dit tans redelik lank neem - ek hoop om binne die volgende maand weer 'n redelike bywerking van Afrikaans oppie Net te doen.] Moenie worry as dit nie teksboekafrikaans is nie. Geniet Afrikaans!

Ek wil jou aanmoedig om, indien jy dit nog nie gedoen het nie, self 'n Afrikaanse webblad te skep. Daar is deesdae verskeie plekke waar 'n mens gratis webbladruimte kan kry. Dit is ook moontlik dat jou Internetverskaffer as deel van die pakket vir jou webruimte gee.

As jy sien van die skakels is verkeerd en/of werk nie meer nie, laat weet my asseblief.


 * Frankly, much of the difference appears to be in spelling. E.g.


 * bij => by, jij => jy, mij => my etc.
 * bezoek => besoek, zit => sit, zal => sal etc.
 * redelijk => redelik
 * thans => tans


 * Some spelling changes seem to indicate genuine sound shifts


 * als => as
 * ik => ek
 * alsjeblieft => asseblief


 * There are also some changes in vocabulary and grammar, but my Dutch is pretty rusty so some might just be forms unfamiliar to me.


 * So I could certainly see separate entries for differently spelled words, though it's an open question whether we should consider "jy" as Afrikaans for you (informal) or as Afrikaans spelling of "jij". What I don't like is separate entries for thinks like welkom, het, gebruik, daarop, wil, om, indien, dit, nog, gedoen, het, daar, is, waar, 'n, mens, gratis, kan, ook, dat, jou, deel, van, die, werk, laat, weet and so forth.


 * Does that help? -dmh 17:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really as in my mind you are utterly wrong. Afrikaans has evolved in isolation. Isolation that is disimilar to what happened with English, American etc. As far as I am concerned, I would speak English in South Africa because it is much more comfortable. I have met South Africans on several occasions; we speak English it is to much of a strain otherwise. GerardM 19:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I really don't want to get any further into the question of whether Dutch and Afrikaans are different dialects or different languages, as it's about as fruitful as arguing over species vs. variety. The point remains that there is a large group of words that, let's say through sheer coincidence, happen to have the same spellings and at least most of the same meanings in Dutch and Afrikaans.  There is another large group that have at least most of the same meanings but predictably different spellings.  Should we really list all of them twice, making sure that we keep the separate entries in sync when only the spellings differ?  If people really want to do this, I suppose it's mostly harmless.


 * Personally, I would be comfortable if, say, the Afrikaans entry for by said Afrikaans (Afrikaner?) spelling of bij (hmm ... all senses, or just the preposition senses and not the insect?). I take this example because a word like  by/bij will require a fairly detailed entry.  It doesn't simply translate to English by.  The problem, of course, is this appears to give Nederlands some degree of preference, and this sort of thing never sits well &mdash; see the largely dormant but unresolved controversy over color/colour.


 * On the other hand, I recognize that both Nederlanders and Afrikaners feel fairly strongly that Nederlands and Afrikaans are two different things, and I don't see anything wrong with that. If this manifests as duplication in Wiktionary entries, I suppose that's not the worst thing that could happen.


 * This is probably another in the class of problems that would require a change in the data model to fix properly, and such changes are necessarily slow in coming. -dmh 21:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are both very wrong. Afrikaans hasn't developed "in isolation", because the Dutch in South Africa continued to write in standard Dutch until the early 20th century. On the other hand, the differences between Dutch and Afrikaans are considerable and mutual intelligibility is limited. The differences are greater than those between Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, and possibly comparable to those between Spanish and Portuguese. That languages share a lot of words is normal. English just happens to have no very closely related language.