Talk:Dutch language

"Dutch language, spoken in Aruba, Belgium, Curaçao, the Netherlands, Sint Maarten, and Suriname." Speling12345 (talk) 3:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There are NL words like:

• Dremptst = most (i.e. superlative) relating to Drempt (geographical place)
• promptst = quickest
• herfstst = most like or relating to autumn
• ernstst = most serious

I hasten to add that a) the adjectives "herfsts" and "ernst" are probably both archaic and b) while pronouncing the "mptst"-sequence in normal speech one usually leaves out "p".

But in careful speech these clusters are nonetheless grammatical.

Do you have any examples of historical texts in which herfsts appears or ernst functions as an adjective?--MWAK (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I probably have to correct my statement with respect to the use of "herfsts" as an adjective. A very similar word <herfts(ch)> (autumnal) {which might actually be a orthographic variant of <herfsts> and where "ch" remained unpronounced; for the latter cf. https://etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/isch fifth paragraph starting with "Voor de 19e-eeuwse woorden op -isch"} has been used by the poet Bredero in 1620 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/De_werken_van_G.A._Bredero_%28IA_dewerkenvangabre03bred%29.pdf p. 115 l. 2).

The adjective <herfsts> is used on https://www.reddit.com/r/DanmeiNovels/comments/16suxy9/is_thousand_autumns_worth_reading/?tl=nl (in a declined form <Herfstse> in <Duizend Herfstse Nachten> (A Thousand Autumnal Nights) in what appears to be a book title), as well as e.g. in a dictionary https://mijnstadmijndorp.nl/app/detail.php?nav_id=0-1&id=277118808&index=335.

And a slightly different word with the same form has been used, too: <herfsts> (autumn's) is a genitive form and occurs on https://www.trouw.nl/duurzaamheid-economie/dat-er-zo-veel-takken-en-zo-weinig-blaadjes-vallen-is-niet-des-herfsts~b7c418c4/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F and dates from 2021:1007.

A couple of centuries ago, <ernst> was in use as an adjective, accoording to https://gtb.ivdnt.org/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M016083&lemmodern=ernst&domein=0&conc=true.

An etymological dictionary page on https://etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/ernst says about <ernst> as an adjective: "Het gebruik als bnw., sedert het Mnl., Mnd., Ofri. (ërnst, alleen als bnw. opgetekend), Vroeg-Nhd. (sedert Luther) zal wel uitgegaan zijn van de praedicatieve functie van het znw. (vgl. vroom, fout)." (Use as an adjective, since Middle Dutch, Middle Low German, Old Frysian (ërnst, only recorded as adjective), Early Lower High German (since Luther) must have originated from the predicative function of the noun (cf. vroom (pious), fout (wrong)).)Redav (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

More importantly, in almost all NL syllables ending in a cluster of more than two consonants, the ones from the third phoneme onwards belong the set /s, ʃ, t, c/:

• <herfst> /hɛrfst/
• <ernst> /ɛrnst/
• <promptst> /prɔmptst/
• <borsjtsj> /borʃcʃ/ (if /cʃ/ is not interpreted as a single affricate phoneme /ʧ/)
• <crunch> /krʏɲcʃ/
• <mentsj> /meɲcʃ/
• <mulch> /mʏʎcʃ/ or /mʏltʃ/
• <kulturkampf> /kulturkɑmpf/ (if /pf/ is not analysed as a single affricate phoneme /p͡f/)

Several linguists analyse the maximal NL syllable as:

• (C)(C)(V)(X)(C)

where (X) may be a consonant (C) or a vowel (V) creating either a tense vowel or a closing (i.e. falling) diphthong in combination with the other (V).

Any extra consonants from the third consonant onwards at the end of the syllable belong to the set given above, and any extra consonant from the third consonant onwards (counting from the syllable nucleus) in front of the syllable belongs to the set /s, ʃ/:

• <straf> /strɑf/
• <strudel> /ʃtruːdəl/

Exceptions are (depending on exact prunciation for the third example):

• <Elmpt> /ɛlmpt/
• <Calmpthout> /kɑlmpthɔut/
• <sgraffito> /zgrɑfito/
• <'ndrangheta> /ndrɑŋɡeta/

So a question is: is the statement in the current article text that the maximal syllable reads (C)(C)(C)(V)(C)(C)(C)(C) even accurate, or insightful?Redav (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

In my view the more interesting (and actually common) word is Ooievaar (Stork), it follows a (V)(V)(V)(V)(C)(V)(V)(C) structure (although the OO and AA diphones inflate it all and the I is more of a J sound). Still rather uncommon to have so few consonants in a long word. 20:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC) Arnoutf (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

While interesting in itself, Arnutf, I fail to see how the subject of longer vowel strings relates to the subject of longer consonant strings, which seems to be the subject at hand here. I would suggest the statement in the article text about syllable structure (at the phonemic level) be changed somewhat along the lines:

• maximum (S)(K)(K)(V)(X)(K)(C) with X = konsonant or X = G(lide), S = sibilant, C = cluster of coronal stop(s) and/or sibilant(s);
• with a few exceptions.

(Notice I have adapted to the glide from my previous contribution.)

Now, as for <ooievaar> (stork), I would analyse this word phonemically as follows:

• /o.jə.var/

The fact that the official NL spelling writes the /o/ with two vowel letters, /j/ with a vowel letter and the /a/ with two vowel letters does not make the word <ooievaar> have a long string of consecutive vowels. In fact, it has at most one "consecutive" vowel (in three separate places).

Even the former word <papagaaieëieren> (currently spelled <papagaaieneieren> could be analysed as:

• /pa.pa.ga.jə.(ʔ)ɛj.jə.rən/

ʔ indicating the glottal stop(-like sound) inserted to prevent an onsetless syllable. By putting it in parentheses I mean to indicate it is not a phoneme but rather a glide-like insertion. I think the NL language always inserts "something" (like ʔ) before any (seemingly) syllable-initial vowel, unless of course a final consonant from an immediately preceding syllable fulfils the role of an onset. Of course, after any tense vowel (other than schwa), a homorganic glide is inserted before any immediately following phonemic vowel. So we have:

• /zu.(w)av/ <Zoeaaf>
• /ɦi.(j)at/ <hiaat>
• /fly.(ɥ)ɔr/ <fluor>
• /bə.(ʔ)am/ <beaam>

So the glottal stop may be viewed as the “glide” after /ə/, as well as after /a/; cf. /ka.na.(ʔ)a.nit/.

What I mean to say: however many orthographic vowel letters may be concatenated in an NL word, at the phonetic level there is never more than one consecutive vowel, as long as the final sound of a diphthong is considered a (glide) consonant.

I have to admit, correcting my previous thoughts, that phonemically vowels may be next to each other, as in the examples above. But /o.jə.var/ is not such an example, since its /j/ is phonemic, not just phonetic.

A more interesting example is:

• /he.(j)a.(ɦ/ʔ)o.(ɦ/ʔ)ɔp.lɛj.dɪŋ/ <heao-opleiding>

with four consecutive phonemic vowels, interspersed by “automatic” homorganic glides. In my personal speech I seem to detect an [ɦ](-like) phone instead of [ʔ] in allegro speech, and I gather the two are two allophones of the same “glide”.

Consonants still seem to be concatenated more easily, I think, within a syllable, and to a larger extent across syllable boundaries, <angstschreeuw> ~ /ˈɑŋst.sxrew/ being a case in point.Redav (talk) Redav (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

If, and that is a big if, clitics may be included in the clusters, sequences like the following might be added:

• Ik zei dat ik - van allen - het allerpromptst 'm 't 'r 'ns stevig zou inwrijven!

(I said that - of all people - I would most quickly rub it in his face!)

Probably the clitics would then have to be divided over the previous and the following word, and I would not yet know how exactly.Redav (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

While the sentence you provide is more or less grammatically correct it would be an exceedingly rare line. That such a line could (in theory) be constructed does not mean that we should construct such line to make a point. It would of course be more convincing if there were texts in actual use. Especially since clitics are to my experience fairly rare in Dutch. I have hardly ever seen the 'm (hem/him) 't (het/it) 'r (er/there) form in written language and even de 'ns (eens/once) is rare in my experience, much rarer than the English it's form (which you find in formal texts). Also not very clear where to put it in, in what way. Arnoutf (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

And as there is no proof that such sequences ever occur in actual speech, it would be Undue Weight to mention them.--MWAK (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

But examples as:

• <‘k Struikel erover, joh!>
• <‘k Zal ‘m ‘t ‘r ‘ns schriftelijk inwrijven.>

definitely occur, on occasion even without any schwas intervening between the clitics and their hosts. (Natural speech has the most bizarre reductions, like [tyk] for <natuurlijk>.)

Now, according to https://e-ans.ivdnt.org/topics/pid/topic-16007639306879258 paragraph 1.5.3 (and another source that I might be able to find again), vowelless clitics are part of the prosodic word headed by the grammatical word they lean against. If that view is accepted, the first example contains the initial quadriphonemic cluster

• /kstr/

and, depending on how the clitics are (to be) distributed over the hosts, the second example contains:

• /lm/ + /trnssxr/

as syllable-final and syllable-initial clusters.

I am not suggesting to add “all” details about clitics to the article. It might be a good thing, though, to make the wording more precise, e.g. by defining a restriction to cliticless syllables, for example.Redav (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

History

Dech in malabar 2409:4073:2097:AB:8CCA:8F0:DE68:EC6A (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

You mean Dutch Malabar? What has that to do with the history of the Dutch language? Fram (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

They are posting a homework query to the talk page under the misguided assumption it is a search query, auto translate, or ChatGPT. The tell is a short non-grammatical question by an IP with a school subject like "History" as the title. Delete this stuff per talk page guidelines, don't reply to it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

About the country of Holland

Can you talk to me in dutch language about the holland country 185.187.131.132 (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

We are not a chatbot. And the country is The Netherlands. At nl:Nederland Dutch text can be found about the subject.--MWAK (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

1947 Act

The 1947 spelling reform act is mentioned in a footnote, but we could do with a little more than that. As I understand it, that act not only reformed the orthography but also officially removed the Germanic system of noun cases from the grammar of the official language, which is quite a big issue. Can someone with a reliable source add a sentence or two about this? Doric Loon (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a common misunderstanding. Let's look at Art 1, lid 5: De naamvalsuitgang -n bij lidwoorden, voornaamwoorden, bijvoeglijke naamwoorden en daarmee gelijkstaande woorden mag, behalve in staande uitdrukkingen, worden weggelaten. So it's not really about nouns but about articles, pronouns, adjectives and such. Furthermore it's not mandatory to omit the n-suffix but only allowed (mag) to do so. The n-suffix had already been largely been abandoned by the Spelling-Marchant of 1934. Real noun declensions were in disuse long before any official spelling was established. The e-suffix for datives was not mandatory in the Spelling Siegenbeek.--MWAK (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)