History of Dutch Spelling
This article is about the history of Dutch spelling . The Dutch spelling is officially used in the Netherlands , Flanders and Suriname . The use of official spelling is compulsory for the state and educational institutions. In a modified form, it is the so-called spelling of De Vries and Te Winkel . The spelling had previously been regulated several times.
Spelling in the Middle Ages
8th century to 1150
The spelling of Old Dutch can be seen in the oldest texts, for example the Utrecht baptismal vow , the Wachtendonck psalms , the Middle Franconian Reimbibel , the Leiden Willeram and the text Hebban olla vogala .
1150 to 14th century
Diversity of Middle Dutch
The Middle Dutch , which existed from 1150 to 1500, knew no fixed grammar. The spelling was not fixed; there were no fixed spelling rules as we know them today. The material that has come down to us is very varied because it was written in the dialect of the respective author. On the basis of the manuscript one can therefore often determine whether the text came from Limburg , Brabant , Flanders or Holland .
Nevertheless, there can be no talk of confusion; an author used the same spelling in a text and there were also certain regional preferences in the different writing centers that were created. As used, for example, the clerk in Amsterdam in the 14th century most lant , but in Utrecht country . The modern system of sound lengthening was also known at the time, e.g. B. tel-len and sla-pen in Karel ende Elegast .
Spelling and pronunciation
| Karel ende Elegast (Rules 1-6) | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Fraeye historie ende al waer Mach ic v tellen hoort naer Het was op enen auontstont Dat karel slapen begonde Tengelem op den rijn Dlant what all gader sijn. |
I can tell you a beautiful and true story , listen: It was one evening that Karl fell asleep in Ingelheim am Rhein. All the land was his. |
The spelling of this time was phonetically, so the sound determined the spelling of the word. So words were often written as they were pronounced. For example, one wrote lant and coninc on the one hand , but landen and coninghe on the other . The fact that two forms of one and the same word have different sounds is related to the so-called final hardening . The principle of analogy wasn't important either. One writes in modern Dutch hij wordt and hij brandt analogous to the d in been and t-ending for the 3rd person singular, as in hij loop t . In Central Dutch it was simply hi word and hi brant .
It is considered certain that the Central Dutch grapheme combination ij in the song by Mr. Halewijn was not spoken as a diphthong but as a long monophthong . It is also certain that there was no ie in the word niet . The Central Dutch grapheme oe represented the sounds [ø] , [u] , but also an [o] sound.
alphabet
The Dutch spelling was initially based on the Latin alphabet . The Dutch variant originally had 23 letters: a , b , c , d , e , f , g , h , i , k , l , m , n , o , p , q , r , s , t , v , x , y and z . The letters j , u and w were added later.
However, there was a problem with the Latin alphabet regarding the distinction between long and short vowels ( a / aa ). This has been solved in a number of ways. The word jaar, for example, was often rendered with the impractical jar in the 13th century , soon afterwards one wrote jaer or jair , even later also jaar . The variants yaer and iaer were also used.
Proklise / Enclise
Another characteristic of spelling was that klisis, like articles and prepositions , were often spelled together, e.g. B. tjaer and dlant , as in an excerpt from Karel ende Elegast below , and in all likelihood also pronounced so. One negative side effect was that certain shapes had multiple interpretations. For example, hoordi can be derived from hoort ghi , hoordet ghi and hoorde hi . These forms are the result of the various possible contractions of the finitive verb form with different pronouns such as hi (Dutch: hij ), ghi (Dutch: u / jullie ) or di (Dutch: jij ).
15th to 16th century
More uniformity came to spelling in the mid-15th century when letterpress printing came into use, through which a large audience could be reached. However, it was not until 1550 that the Ghent printer and teacher Joos Lambrecht wrote the first Dutch spelling treatise, in which he proposed a standard spelling based on both pronunciation and morphological principles, which, incidentally, did not apply as a uniform spelling for all variants of Dutch at the time.
The union of spelling and pronunciation was strongly promoted in 1581 by Pontus de Heuiter ; he already represented spellings such as mens instead of humans and wil instead of will . In 1584, Hendrik Laurenszoon Spiegel formulated a series of spelling rules published in Liefde Bloeiende to standardize and maintain tradition. B. the writing of a vowel in open syllables and the use of accents to represent differences in sound.
17th century
The Statenvertaling of 1618 was the first serious attempt to standardize Dutch spelling. The attempt was unsuccessful, however, probably because the translators could not always agree among themselves and sometimes allowed different spellings of the same word. Uniformity played little or no role; for example, hant and goet were also written, with -d in addition to the inflected forms of these words .
In 1624 Antonis de Hubert published his translation of the Psalms of David , in which he used morphologically more consistent spellings such as duegd (because of the plural with a d ), voll and veele . De Hubert's friend Samuel Ampzing largely agreed with him, but also pleaded for a more economical use of characters, for example with a single consonant in the final .
Siegenbeek spelling (1804, Netherlands)
The first official regulation of spelling in the Netherlands dates back to 1804. The French Revolution in the Batavian Republic saw an opportunity to achieve a uniform spelling and grammar. In 1801, the Leiden university professor Matthijs Siegenbeek was commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Education to write uniform spelling; the preacher Petrus Weiland was asked to establish a grammar.
A few years later Siegenbeek published his spelling in Verhandeling over de Nederduitsche spelling ter bevordering van de eenparigheid in dezelve (1804) and a Woordenboek voor de Nederduitsche spelling (1805). The state vibe of the Batavian Republic officially introduced the Siegenbeek spelling on December 18, 1804. Siegenbeek believed that the spelling should represent the sophisticated Dutch pronunciation of the word. The principles of uniformity, etymology and analogy should be taken into account. It is to this spelling that today's Dutch owes the spelling of ij as in ijzer , rather often spelled as yzer . Significant spellings of this spelling are e.g. B. berigt , blaauw , Dingsdag , gooijen , magt , kagchel , koningrijk , muzijk and zamen .
A good example of a more or less monumental book that appeared in Siegenbeek's spelling is the Crimineel Wetboek voor het Koningrijk Holland from 1809, the first penal code of the Netherlands introduced under King Louis Bonaparte , which was incorporated into the Netherlands until it was incorporated into the French French times and was then replaced by the (French-speaking) code pénal .
In the end, Siegenbeek's spelling did not become really popular either. Siegenbeek's spelling had to fight with criticism from the start, especially the poet Willem Bilderdijk resisted the spelling, partly out of personal enmity. In Bilderdijk's suggestion one should use the more modern words kachel , plicht and gooien , but also andwoord , hair , ontfangen , thands and wareld , which are spelled differently nowadays. The Bilderdijk writing system was very popular with some authors in the 1830s and 1840s.
Spelling by Willems (1844, Flanders)
In the southern Netherlands, the Siegenbeek spelling was used in the short period of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands . It was seen there as a kind of expression of loyalty to the government. However, this spelling never became very popular. When the Kingdom of Belgium was founded in 1830, Siegenbeek's spelling was rejected as "Dutch" and "Protestant". The spelling situation was rather confused and the subject of much debate: about a or ae , oo or oó , ee or eé , ei or ey , ui or uy , ambt or ampt , u or ue and about the spelling of verbs.
In 1836 a competition sponsored by the Belgian government was held for a new official spelling. The jury, chaired by Jan Frans Willems , came in 1839 with its own proposal. This proposal was based very closely on Siegenbeek's, but people still wrote kaes , ryden and vuerig . This alternative spelling - known as the Willems spelling or Commissiespelling - was definitively established in 1841. On January 9, 1844, it was officially introduced by royal decree.
Spelling by De Vries and Te Winkel (1864, Flanders; 1883, Netherlands)
.png)
The spelling, which is used in modified form in the Netherlands and Flanders to this day, was originally only to be understood as being used in a dictionary. In 1851, during the Taal-en Letterkundige Congres in Brussels , where both the Netherlands and Flanders were represented, a major project was started: the compilation of the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal , a large dictionary that describes the Dutch vocabulary of the past centuries should.
However, this overall project ran into a problem: a compromise had to be found based on the spelling of Siegenbeek, Willems' and the variants of the spelling of Bilderdijk. A mixed use of these notations would lead to great annoyance for manufacturers and users. In addition, the Siegenbeek writing system is not suitable for disciplines such as the separate or combined writing of compound words and the fugues in compound words . So it was decided to write a special dictionary spelling.
This spelling was written by the language scholars Matthias de Vries and LA te Winkel . In 1863 Te Winkel published the results in De grondbeginselen der Nederlandsche spelling. Ontwerp the spelling voor het aanstaande Nederlandsch Woordenboek . This spelling combined elements of the three spelling systems common at the time. It covered the need: after some research by the Spellingscommissie , it was introduced in Belgium on November 21 by a royal decree for the state and educational institutions. For normal language participants, De Vries and Te Winkel published the forerunner of today's Groene Boekje , the Woordenlijst voor de spelling der Nederlandsche taal in 1866 .
De Vries and Te Winkel believed, among other things, that if a writer found that a word should be spelled differently from what it is in the dictionary, he should be able to easily rewrite it if he was able to discuss its transformation and to use them consistently.
In the Netherlands, adoption of De Vries and Te Winkel's spelling has been slower. In 1870, the requirement for schools to teach Siegenbeek spelling was abolished, paving the way for De Vries and Te Winkel spelling. The state only followed a few years later: in December 1882 it decided to use the spelling from January 1, 1883 in its documents. The Dutch Criminal Code of 1886 was checked for language and spelling by De Vries himself. Although the state decided to introduce it in the Netherlands, the Siegenbeek spelling was still used in some areas for a long time. The spelling of De Vries and Te Winkel led to an extensive standardization of Dutch spelling in the Netherlands and Belgium.
In 1905, the Vereenvoudigde Nederlandse Spelling , written by Roeland Anthonie Kollewijn , was introduced for the Dutch language in South Africa .
Spelling by Marchant (1934, Netherlands)
Although the spelling of De Vries and Te Winkel was found to be better than the previous spelling systems, it was felt that the spelling needed simplification. Teachers and linguists were of the opinion that the principle of etymology was applied too strictly. The difference between lezen and heeten was etymologically justifiable, but difficult to teach because it did not reflect the pronunciation of the majority of language participants. One of the most important opponents was RA Kollewijn, who in 1891 spelled the article Onze heavyweight. Een voorstel tot vereenvoudiging. published. He pushed for the simplification of spelling and the abolition of rules that are inconsistent with the real spoken language. Mensch and Nederlandsch should become mens and Nederlands , Russian should be written like Russies and moeilijk like moeilik .
In 1916 a Dutch commission dared to ask whether a compromise could be reached between the spelling of De Vries and Te Winkel and the spelling of Marchant. This slowly led to adjustments: on September 1, 1934, most of the proposals were introduced in the Dutch educational institutions by Education Minister Henri Marchant . This again led to a larger difference between the spellings of the Netherlands and Belgium.
Marchant's spelling included:
- Case declension (such as op den stoel ) has been abolished, except for words that exclusively indicate a man or a male animal (such as aan den heer and van den stier );
- He changed oo and ee at the end of open syllables ( zoo , heeten ) to o or e , except for ee at the end of a word ( zee );
- the postalveolar sound at the end of many words in -s , which had been dissolved from the colloquial language since the Middle Dutch period, disappeared (e.g. in vish and man ; a word equation from the German fish and the English fish );
- the th (without pronounced h ) sometimes stayed ( thans , theater , thee , kathiek ) and sometimes disappeared ( atleet , auteur , retoriek , panter );
- the endings - isch (as in logical ) and - lijk ( mogelijk ) remained unchanged.
The spelling reform of 1946 (Flanders) and 1947 (Netherlands)
During the Second World War , the governments of Belgium and the Netherlands reached agreement on an adapted version and a simplification of the Marchant spelling. It was ratified by law in Belgium in 1946 and passed in the Netherlands in 1947. The associated Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal was outstanding until 1954. Popularly, the dictionary is often called the Groene Boekje because of the color of its envelope . This dictionary was compiled by a joint Dutch-Flemish commission. The spelling of the ending -sch has been largely abolished ( human to mens , bosch to bos ). The incorporation of the connecting n has been left entirely blank in compound words ( intermediate n ). Therefore, many loanwords had a double spelling, although a preferred spelling was often given.
The 1955 spelling reform
In 1955 the spelling changes announced in 1946/1947 were made, the content of which was not new. The content of the Groene Boekje was the result of a previously appointed commission and has nothing to do with the changes proposed in 1946/1947.
In the following decades, the spelling variant with the preferred spellings made it possible to choose between a classical and a modern variant: accoord versus akkoord , but also conflict versus conflict (today's spelling: akkoord , conflict ). There were also alternative spellings that were seen as progressive. So the ending -isch was written as -ies .
The 1996 spelling reform (Netherlands and Flanders)
After years of discussions and various spelling commissions, the Committee of Ministers of the Nederlandse Taalunie, founded in 1980, started a new spelling in 1994 . This also led to a new edition of Groene Boekje .
A noticeable difference to the Groene Boekje of 1954 was a new regulation regarding the writing of the intermediate n in compound words. The rule of the “required plural” introduced in 1954 was omitted; instead, one should only pay attention to the plural form when determining the correct spelling. Very traditional Dutch spellings such as ruggegraat and pannekoek were suddenly changed to rugge n graat and panne n koek . This change has been generally regarded as desirable as the characters from the Germans as a composite of span and koek looks (in reality the German shows ladle , however, the old ending of the genitive singular, not the plural). Since the -n is not spoken in the plural pannen , it made sense to write panne n koek . The spelling of some botanical names remained unchanged, however - the so-called paardebloemregel - but disappeared, the intermediate-n in thought gear because of possible plural form imaginary .
There was an urgent need to get away from the double spelling that had been in place for certain words since 1946/1947: the so-called voorkeurspelling . In general, the preferred spelling has now been made the only officially permitted spelling: aktie has become actie , also in Flanders, where the k often appeared in spellings without preferred spellings.
The third major change was the replacement of the tremas used to separate vowels in compound words with a hyphen . So it was written zee-eend instead of zeeëend .
The proposed amendments came into force on August 1, 1996 in the Netherlands and September 1, 1996 in Flanders.
The 2006 spelling reform (Netherlands and Flanders)
In 1994 it was decided to revise the Groene Boekje dictionary every ten years, while keeping the rules. The first revision of the Groene Boekje appeared on October 15, 2005. This spelling officially came into force on August 1, 2006.
In this revision the paardebloem rule was abolished: paardebloem and vliegezwam became paardenbloem and vlegenzwam , so that the spelling of these words is better suited to e.g. B. Paardenstaart and viegenmepper connected.
Furthermore, there were mainly individual adjustments. The spelling of words has been adjusted without changing any rules. A brief overview of this:
- Names of population groups are capitalized , even if they are not linked to the word from which they are derived by any country or area name, e.g. E.g .: Kelt , Azteek and Eskimo . An umbrella term for an ethnic group was written with a minuscule : indiaan and gypsy .
- Jood / jood therefore became a special case: if it was a follower of Judaism , then one wrote jood . If it had to do with someone who belonged to the Jewish people, then you wrote Jood with a capitals. So joden , Christenen and Moslems versus Joden , Amerikanen and Europeanen .
- There have been changes in the spelling of compound English phrases, e.g. B. online instead of online , full color instead of full color , would-beschrijver instead beschrijver would- .
- Some hyphen rules have been changed: extreme right becomes extreme right . Furthermore ik-roman was written (earlier together) and a few others.
- Some petrified compounds have been "pitted", such as paddenstoel , dronkenman and dronkenlap (previously without intermediate n ).
- Some inconsistent words, which were given “incorrectly” in the Groene Boekje of 1995, have been corrected : appèl became appel (since no grave accent is written in the original French ), ideeënloos became ideeëloos (consistency with e.g. besluiteloos ).
As an associate member of the Taalunie (the association agreement was signed in December 2004), Suriname has indicated that it will comply with the Taalunie resolutions in the field of spelling.
Witte Boekje leaves official spelling (2006, Netherlands)
Shortly after the 2006 spelling change was published, some Dutch newspapers and magazines developed the Witte spelling , which they used together with the Genootschap Onze Taal for an alternative spelling. According to the Platform de Witte Spelling movement, this corresponds more to the feeling for language spoken by the Dutch language community.
This witte spelling is now used by part of the Dutch media, including some national newspapers. However, the Groene Boekje is used by the state authorities and taught in the Dutch school system. In Flanders and Suriname, witte spelling has hardly any fans.
See also
literature
- GC Molewijk: Spellingverandering van zin naar onzin (1200 – heden) . Sdu Uitgeverij, The Hague 1992.
- Nicoline van der Sijs: Taal as a mensenwerk. Het ontstaan van het ABN . Sdu Uitgevers, The Hague 2004.
- M. van der Wal: Geschiedenis van het Nederlands . Het Spectrum, Utrecht 1994.
- R. Willemyns: Het verhaal van het Vlaams. The divorced van het Nederlands in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden . Standaard Uitgeverij, Antwerp 2003.
- A. Neijt: De logica van de geschiedenis . In: Bon jours Neef, ghoeden dagh Cozyn! Nodus publications, 2003, p. 177-188 .
- WJH Caron: Klank en teken bij Erasmus en onze oudste grammatici . Wolters, Groningen 1947.
Web links
- Dutch through the ages at NiederlandeNet at the Westphalian Wilhelms University
- Spelling and pronunciation of Middle Dutch at NEON - Nederlands online at Freie Universität Berlin
- The official spelling of Dutch at NEON - Nederlands online at Freie Universität Berlin
Individual evidence
- ^ Matthijs Siegenbeek: Negotiating over de Nederduitsche spelling ter bevordering van de eenparigheid in dezelve . Blussé en van Braam, Dordrecht 1827.
- ^ LA te Winkel: De grondbeginselen der Nederlandsche spelling. Ontwerp the spelling voor het aanstaande Nederlandsch Woordenboek . D. Noothoven van Goor, Leiden 1863.
- ↑ Anneke Neijt: Onze-heavy spelling. Een voorstel tot vereenvoudiging . Foris Publications, Dordrecht 1991. p. 141.
- ^ Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal . Nederlandse Taalunie, 2005.
- ↑ Benamingen van plaatsen, windstreken, talen, volkeren . In: Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal. Nederlandse Taalunie, 2005. Rule 16.J.
- ↑ Engelse samenstellingen en woordgroepen aaneen of los . In: Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal. Nederlandse Taalunie, 2005. Rule 12.
- ↑ Samenstelling - bijzondere gevallen met koppelteken . In: Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal. Nederlandse Taalunie, 2005. Rule 6.I.
- ↑ Sampling met tussenletters - e - of - en - . In: Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal. Nederlandse Taalunie, 2005. Rule 8.
- ↑ Affleiding zonder tussen-n . In: Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal. Nederlandse Taalunie, 2005. Rule 9.A.
Remarks
- ↑ means Charlemagne
- ↑ Both after the Groene Boekje and after the great Van Dale , the spelling extreem on the right is correct, i.e. with spaces, since only the word extreem is listed in the dictionaries.