Talk:Dietsch

Interpretation of Dutch national anthem disputed

note: I am removing a paragraph of uncited POV interpretation (bolded below) from the article text. I can't tell if it's a legitimate point of disagreement but among other things its current placement just confuses the issue. If it does represent a legitimate point, please re-add that information in a better location.

A historical remnant of the original meaning of 'Duits' to refer to the people of the Netherlands, rather than the people of Germany, can still be seen in first line of the Dutch National anthem:

Comment: This is an understandable interpretation but very disputable as he has been born in Dillenburg (see also www.dillenburg.de): " William of Nassau, later to become Prince of Orange, first saw the light of day at Dillenburg Castle in 1533. As a result of his diplomatic success, and successes in the field, he became leader of the Dutch aristocracy. With his brothers, he led the Netherlands battle to overthrow Spanish oppression from 1568 from Dillenburg."

"Wilhelmus van Nassauwe / Ben ik van Duitsen bloed" (William of Nassau / Am I of Dutch blood)

This statement about the anthem referring to the people of the modern Netherlands alone is complete and total nonsense. In the era in which it was used, the word simply referred to speakers of Germanic dialects in the Netherlands and parts of Germany, since there was no clear political, ethnic or linguisttic difference between these peoples at the time.

Exactly, so why is the translation changed to "Dutch" blood? Of course he was and is Dutch as we use the word today. But the word "Duits" to that time referred to both Dutch and Germans. So the correct translation would be German. IMHO. If we don't point it out here, who without knowledge of either Dutch or German would understand it?`The whole confusion is because of it, and if we translate it just with "Dutch" we don't explain anything.

)

84.187.110.107 15:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, do you read your own comments?!

>>the word "Duits" to that time referred to both Dutch and Germans. So the correct translation would be German.<<

Why the hell should the correct translation be German if the word Duits refered to both ?! Dutch has the same history as Duits, ie it refered to both.So it will be used, not German. Sander 15:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The correct translation would be neither "Dutch", nor "German", but "Germanic".

What the article fails to mention is that the word Diets is actually the very same word as Duits! "Dietsch" is the old Flemish equivalent of the old Brabantian "Duutsch", which later became "Duytsch" en finally "Duits" in the Netherlandic standard language. And the word quite simply means "Germanic".

And the translation of the Wilhelmus is this:

I am William of Nassau, of Germanic blood. I will remain loyal to the Fatherland unto death. I am a prince of Orange, free and (onverveerd: 'fraid I don't know what it means!), I have always served (lit. honoured) the king of Spain.

-The Zealandic-Canadian- 19 May 2006

Diets does not refer to "Germanic", its much deeper.More of a cultural thing really, but certainly not Germanic. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 11:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The combined (regional) languages/dialects and other cultural expressions of The Netherlands, Flanders, Germany, etc. are most certainly Germanic, and that is PRECISELY what is meant by Diets/Duits; don't give me that "it's much deeper" nonsense!!! -ZC-

No, but if you want to believe otherwise be my guest. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 15:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent rebuttal there, Germanic King, almost as good as "it's much deeper"!!! -ZC- 20 May 2006

I believe a small general rebuttal is better than a silly one, 82.176.16.97.Like claiming "Diets" means "Germanic".

Diets, simply means "middle Dutch".It refers to various dialects of the Dutch language at that time, particulary and almost exclusively the Low Franconian ones.Although now many linguists agree that at that time they spoke modern Dutch, but of course they could never know that.

The word was used in the anthem to imply that he sees himself as a man of the people, eventhough he is of noble blood.

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 13:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Dietsch", Flemish synonym of Brabantian "Duutsch" -later "Duytsch/Duits"- originally referred to more or less everything now included in the term "Germanic". This is the meaning the word "Duytsch" retained as the Netherlandic standard language was in development; the term "Nederlands" itself came into use later, the standard language itself being referred to as "Nederduytsch" which literally means "Low Germanic". In our times the word "Diets" has taken on a new meaning, and according to the Van Dale, that is namely as synonym for "Nederlands" and also "Grootnederlands", while "Duits" has come to refer specifically to all that is German. One has to recognize the shift in meaning over time, and also the fact that at the time these seperate terms were in common use there existed no standard Netherlandic language, and that the various regional languages had their own variants of the same words. What is unique in this case is that both the Flemish and Brabantian forms of the same word have been adopted by Standard Netherlandic, but diverged in meaning over time. "Diets" in its original usage did not refer exclusively to "Middle Dutch" as you state; the speakers of the regional languages referred to them by their local names, such as "Vlaams", "Hollands", "Brabants", etc., with "Diets/Duits" as collective name for all these regional forms. That the use of "Duits" in the Wilhelmus implies that William of Orange sees himself as a man of the people, is most probably a correct interpretation. Recognize though that both his roots in Nassau in Germany and the culture and language of The Netherlands were included in the term "Duits" at the time. -ZC- 20 May 2006

No, no and no. I suggest you try to find out what "Germanic" really means and comprises of. Btw I don't know what dictionary you use, but it sure isn't de van dale. As it says:

• http://www.vandale.nl/opzoeken/woordenboek/?zoekwoord=diets on Diets.

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Naturally the term "Germanic" also includes the Anglo-Frisian, Scandinavian and the extinct East Germanic cultures/languages; okay, technically I could have stated "Germanic minus the Anglic, Scandinavian and extinct Eastern Germanic components", but in the age that "Diets/Duits" was in common use to refer to these the speakers were not so particular about the exact boundaries; the Frisian language but not the English was included in the term Duits, which of course is not linguistically accurate, but oh well. It was more to distinguish from the Romance languages spoken to the south (oh, sorry, to the south in some places, but to the west in others, and possibly even to the east or north where the boundaries made erratic turns; is that precise enough for you?!)

I only wrote a comment here earlier because the writer(s) of the article were terribly remiss in not including the proper Flemish origin of "Diets" and its original synonymity to "Duits" and the modern divergence in meaning.

And yes, I was using the Van Dale.

I am sooooo not interested in an endless debate with someone who acts as though he is the sole repository of all knowledge about all that is Germanic, and arrogantly dismisses all my input without properly validating his own views.

-The Zealandic-Canadian- 20 May 2006

I'm not interested in a long discussion either, so let me make it very simple for you.I do not like you, your behavious and especially your tone.In that stanza of the Wilhelmus Diets is translated as "Dutch" , not German.Accept it or move on. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 17:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

To my great dismay the articles in Wikipedia pertaining to language in the The Netherlands and Flanders are heavily tainted by linguistic misconceptions that are still very alive and unfortunately continue to be propagated by even many linguists. These include treating regional languages as dialects of the standard language, treating political borders as linguistic boundaries, which results in conclusions such as in this article that "Dietsch" referred to "Southern Dutch" and "Duutsch" to "Northern Dutch", while in all actuality there was historically no north-south division, but more east-west. I refuse to spend hours rectifying misinformation only to have my work ruthlessly removed by others who replace it with their misguided ideas.

I decided not to meddle in the multiple mistakes I read in this article, but thought I would make a note here above to inspire someone to add the information about the roots of the term "Diets" being in old Flemish. I was not prepared to be attacked and provoked with such stupidity. I swore not to react, but here are my final words:

Are you seriously kidding me?!?! Along with the other nonsense I've gathered from you, your latest claim that I stated that "Duits" in the Wilhelmus meant German, has forced me to conclude that either:

a) you have not read a single word I have written before flying into hysterical fits (which precludes you from any right to respond),

b) you do not know the difference between the terms "German" and "Germanic" in English (in which case I suggest you reserve your contributions for the Dutch language Wikipedia),

c) you yourself have no idea what the term "Germanic" really means (which beggars the question why you use the name "Rex Germanus"),

d) you have a enormous but very fragile ego that cannot process correction (which might answer why you chose the name "Rex Germanus"),

e) you do not possess the social skills to hear another out and respond in a diplomatic fashion (in which case I suggest you refrain from commenting until such time as you do attain such skills), or

f) you are simply an arrogant prick.

I wager it's a combination of all the above.

You don't like me?!?!?! Grow up already!!!!!!!

-The Zealandic-Canadian- 21 may 2006

I suggest you read this particular wikipedia article if you wish to continue editting wikipedia.

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 09:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

When you pooh-pooh everything I say, and want to get in the last word by distorting what I have said, you are most definitely provoking a response. You don't think what you said falls under personal attacks; well, try again! I have never before been provoked on the internet to spew my gall in this manner; that is the farthest thing from my character.

I attempted to revise what I had written to comply with the Wikipedia policy, and you place it back with a note of removal of "evidence"; this is going far beyond ridiculous! -ZC-

You should have read Wikipedia policy before posting what you attempted to "revise". Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 10:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Irredentiist claims in this article.

I removed the claim that Flemings and Dutch were seen as a single people until 1830, and an inplicit claim that they earlier formed one single people. This article, and several related articles, have been used to promote Greater Netherlands irredentism. Although this movement does exist, and should be described in Wikipedia, its claims should not be presented as fact.Paul111 10:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Go home and get some rest paul111, and leave hardworking wikipedians alone, and give them a break. Revisionism and ghosthunting isn't encouraged here.Rex 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Far-right websites as source

User:Rex Germanus added the website Roepstem as a source for the claim that the Dutch and Flemings were seen as one people. Roepstem is a right-wing website which also maintained a forum on the major neonazi forum site skadi.net. It was listed as a recommended site [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/verzameling-verwijzingen-30960.html] for white nationalists by Stormfront.org. Because it exists to promote irredentist ideals, Roepstem is not a reliable source on Dutch/Flemish/Belgian history.Paul111 11:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Roepstem IS NOT a far right website. Simply a site posing to promote Dutch?Afrikaans culture and language. Again you indirectly accuse people of nazism. I strongly advise you to stop it.Rex 14:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For further discussion of this issue, see the talk page of Dutch (ethnic group)Paul111 19:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

humble Dutch?

Nederduitsch (to be translated as 'humble Dutch', after -nederig)

The Dutch text is a play of worlds. The word "neder" in Nederduitsch reveres to the fact that the land is low, a delta region. Nederduitsch has the same meaning (in root words) as Germania Inferior. Just like Netherlands has the same meaning as Lower Countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiemow (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)