Vlaams en Nederlands in Proz

Margreet Logmans wrote:

I can easily give a list of words and expressions that are very different in the language spoken and written by Belgians or Dutch people. When reading a text, I can usually tell pretty soon whether the writer was from Belgium or the Netherlands.

Hester Eymers wrote:
Although we officially speak the same Dutch language in the Netherlands and in Belgium, there are so many differences that there even exists a Flemish-Dutch dictionary: Vlaams-Nederlands woordenboek (Standaard Uitgeverij/Het Spectrum; 2003).


[Edited at 2008-01-21 13:06]

Hester Eymers wrote:



Although we officially speak the same Dutch language in the Netherlands and in Belgium, there are so many differences that there even exists a Flemish-Dutch dictionary: Vlaams-Nederlands woordenboek (Standaard Uitgeverij/Het Spectrum; 2003).


[Edited at 2008-01-21 13:06]

Evert DELOOF-SYS wrote:

In English it should be - at best - Dutch (B) or Dutch (NL), and not Flemish and Dutch.
Just as much as English or French or German is not being named differently when referring to the languages spoken in England, America, Australia, France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, etc.

I think the point here is not whether Dutch and Flemish are different (which they are), but whether they should be separated in ProZ.com or not.

Margreet Logmans wrote:



As long as there are outsourcers asking me to translate into Dutch, only to indicate halfway through the negotiations that '...oh, yeah, it's for the Belgian market, that's not a problem, is it?', I think separation is useful. But it does not necessarily have to be called 'Flemish', as indeed, we do not call Belgian French 'Walloon' on ProZ either.

A little client education might do the trick as well.

Margreet Logmans wrote:
I can easily give a list of words and expressions that are very different in the language spoken and written by Belgians or Dutch people. When reading a text, I can usually tell pretty soon whether the writer was from Belgium or the Netherlands.

Margreet Logmans wrote:
The Taalunie-argument does not impress me as long as dictionaries add notes to indicate that some words and usages of words are 'Belgian' or 'Dutch'.

Macià Falgàs and Joaquim Palau wrote:

So:

Should we propose to Proz to change Dutch/Flemish into Dutch (Netherlands) / Dutch (Belgium,

...or should we propose a unified denomination (Dutch)?



In my opinion, for what I have read in this forum, a unified denomination would be the best choice because:

- It is more simple, and it avoids multiple names for one same language.
- It is what English, French, Spanish, German and Portuguese do, and it perfectly works for them.

Macià Falgàs and Joaquim Palau wrote:
Should we propose to Proz to change Dutch/Flemish into Dutch (Netherlands) / Dutch (Belgium,

...or should we propose a unified denomination (Dutch)?

Joeri Van Liefferinge (King Darling Communications) wrote:

IMHO, the most adequate solution would be:
Source languages: only "Dutch"
Target: "Dutch", "Dutch (BE)" and "Dutch (NL)"
I regularly get requests for translations to be published in both Belgium and the Netherlands, so I don't think we can really rule out "Dutch" as such.

NMR wrote:
Nobody here asks for separating Dutch (B) and Dutch (NL). It is perfect as it is. The grammar is the same, vocabulary is the same (we do recognize the differences), and the target group is already rather small, why divide?

Buck wrote:

A seasoned translator will immediately know whether a text he has received for translation was written in Flemish or Dutch. Legal texts are a good example. I speak fluent Dutch, but I often have to reach for the Dikke van Dale when translating a Flemish text. Idioms are often quite different as is legal terminology (with Flemish often borrowing from French or using words a Dutch native would not ordinarily use). Belgian friends also tell me the same is true of the French spoken in Belgium, not to mention French spoken in other countries besides France.