Should there be a spelling reform ?

**The Lawspeaker** · 08-31-2011, 07:02 PM

Since the spelling reform of 2006 Dutch spelling has become a bit weird and maybe we should return to a more sensible orthography.

What are your ideas ?

Let's take a look at the latest works: the official Green Booklet.. and the White Booklet that is opposing it.

**The Lawspeaker** · 09-01-2011, 03:40 AM

Wikipedia: Naamvallen in het Nederlands (DUTCH)
Wikipedia: History of Dutch orthography

Wikipedia categorie: Nederlandse grammatica (DUTCH)

Wikipedia: Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse spelling (DUTCH)

De grondbeginselen der Nederlandsche spelling - ontwerp der spelling voor het aanstaande Nederlandsch woordenboek (L.A Te Winkel, 1863) --- (DUTCH)

Onze lastige spelling. Een voorstel tot vereenvoudiging (R.A Kollewijn, 1891) --- (DUTCH)
Groene Boekje (woordenlijst, 2005) -- (DUTCH)

**Absinthe** · 09-01-2011, 10:43 AM

What's the problem with Dutch spelling? I find it to be quite nice and intriguing

**The Lawspeaker** · 09-01-2011, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Absinthe

What's the problem with Dutch spelling? I find it to be quite nice and intriguing

The 2006 spelling doesn't make sense.

Just to throw in an example:

Names of population groups are now spelt with a capital letter, even if there is no geographical area connected with the name: Kelt (Celt), Azteek (Aztec), and Eskimo (Inuit) are capitalized. Exceptions are made for names which cover a number of different ethnic groups: indiaan (North American Indian, First Nations) and zigeuner (Gypsy)
Jood/jood (Jew) is a special case. When talking about the Jewish religion it has a small initial letter, but it is capitalized if it refers to the Jewish people. Thus: joden, christenen en moslims (Jews, Christians, and Muslims); BUT: Joden, Amerikanen en Europeanen (Jews, Americans, and Europeans).

Senseless. I don't see why we should start capitalising Joden (Jews) now while we have never done so before. And the same goes for the other groups like Kelten, Azteken, Eskimo's etc.

There are changes for new English compounds: online instead of on line, full colour instead of fullcolour.

Unnecessary Anglification. They should have kept the hyphen instead of ripping it apart.

A few rules for the hyphen have been changed: extreem-rechts (extreme right) is now spelt: extreemrechts, ikroman (novel written in first person) is now ik-roman and a few more.

It has made the language less clear and the spelling uglier. A terrible example would be wouldbeschrijver (I am not kidding you. The old spelling was would-be schrijver) and it doesn't make sense for several reasons one being that it could be read as wouldbeschrijver --- to beschrijven means to describe so it shows how senseless it is.

A few compounds which had still not acquired the n now conform: paddenstoel (toadstool), dronkenman and dronkenlap (drunkard).

This is new in Dutch. The extra N actually doesn't reflect the pronunciation and it is rather senseless.

**Absinthe** · 09-01-2011, 11:05 AM

I see... was this change aimed at simplifying the language, or what?

**The Lawspeaker** · 09-01-2011, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Absinthe

I see... was this change aimed at simplifying the language, or what?

Frankly.. I have no idea what they wanted to achieve because it became neither easier nor did any of the changes make sense.

**The Lawspeaker** · 08-02-2012, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Tuan Belanda

Onze lastige spelling. Een voorstel tot vereenvoudiging (R.A Kollewijn, 1891) --- (DUTCH)

I think that we should simplify our spelling (basing it, in part on the spelling reform advocated by Kollewijn and on what the South Africans have done) and maybe work together with the South Africans and the other partners of the Dutch Language Union and purge our language from certain remainders of the past. The grammar should be kept intact though: it's purely the spelling that should be simplified.

**Dandelion** · 08-02-2012, 10:59 PM

What I dislike about the Modern Dutch spelling is the disregard for the genitive in compounds. The -'s', rather than being a suffix, is used a cement to combine nouns (feminine nouns with an -s behind isn't right, i.g. the officially correct 'ontwenningskliniek', instead of 'ontwenningkliniek').

**The Lawspeaker** · 08-02-2012, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by Danielion

What I dislike about the Modern Dutch spelling is the disregard for the genitive in compounds. The -'s', rather than being a suffix, is used a cement to combine nouns (feminine nouns with an -s behind isn't right, i.g. the officially correct 'ontwenningskliniek', instead of 'ontwenningkliniek').

While it would be pronounced most of the time as ontwenningkliniek but that's just pronouncing it the wrong was as the proper pronunciation includes the s so you would still get ontwenningskliniek.

But I would start dumping the -sch and using -ies as a suffix. So instead of logisch it would be logies. And if one means people that are staying over it could become loĝies with the ĝ representing the ʤ sound as it is a foreign loanword.

**Dandelion** · 08-02-2012, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Tuan Belanda

While it would be pronounced most of the time as ontwenningkliniek but that's just pronouncing it the wrong was as the proper pronunciation includes the s so you would still get ontwenningskliniek.

Well, most people pronounce the 's' here and would think it weird without. I do think, however, it's a question of habituation. With the death of the case system such evolutions are probably inevitable.
Older grammar rules often make more sense, but are a product of the Renaissance and become obsolete and impractical for a 100% literate population.