DUTCH ORTHOGRAPHY

'Dutch orthography' uses the Latin alphabet according to a system which has evolved to suit the needs of the Dutch language. The regular relationship of graphemes to phonemes is listed in the article on Dutch language. This article will explain the present spelling system, and then trace the development of Dutch spelling as it has evolved from the Middle Ages through to the last two centuries when frequent government decrees sought to improve and simplify the system.

Regularity

Dutch orthography has the reputation of being particularly logical. For the foreign learner it is relatively easy as, once one knows the system, one can almost always deduce pronunciation from spelling, if proper names and foreign loan-words are discounted. For Dutch children learning to write, the system is not quite so kind, as the reverse operation, deducing spelling from pronunciation, is more complicated: can be spelled ‹c› or ‹k› in loan words for example, and ‹ou› and ‹au› sound the same, as well as ‹ij› and ‹ei› in the standard dialect. Critics also complain that even when the system is regular it is occasionally antiquated: the digraph ‹oe› is spelled in this way because it was once a diphthong, but now it is a simple vowel ; the combination ‹sch› for in the ending -isch is also historically conditioned. All in all, among the Western European languages however, Dutch is closer than average to a phonemic spelling.

The present spelling system

The spelling system of the Dutch language is issued by government decree and is compulsory for all government documentation and educational establishments.

Basic graphemes

{|table
| valign="top" |
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Dutch consonants
! rowspan="2" | spelling ||colspan="2"| IPA
|-
! initial || final
|-
| 'b'
| ||
|-
| 'ch'
| ||
|-
| 'd'
| ||
|-
| 'f'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'g'
| ||
|-
| 'h'
| || –
|-
| 'j'
| || –
|-
| 'k'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'l'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'm'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'n'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'ng'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'nj' || || –
|-
| 'p'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'qu'
| || –
|-
| 'r'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 's'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'sch'
| ||
|-
| 'sj'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 't'
| ||
|-
| 'tj'
| || –
|-
| 'tsj'
| || –
|-
| 'v'
| || –
|-
| 'w'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'x'
| ||
|-
| 'y'
| || –
|-
| 'z'
| || –
|-
|}
| || valign="top" |
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Dutch vowels and diphthongs
! rowspan="2" | spelling || colspan="2" | IPA
|-
! closed || open
|-
| 'a'
| || {{IPA|/a:/
|-
| 'aa'
| || –
|-
| 'aai'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'au'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'ay'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'e'
| ||
|-
| 'ee'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'eeuw'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'ei'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'eu'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'i'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'ie'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'ieuw'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'ij'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'o'
| ||
|-
| 'oe'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'oo'
| || –
|-
| 'ooi'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'ou'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'u'
| ||
|-
| 'ui'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'uu'
| || –
|-
| 'uw'
| colspan="2" |
|-
| 'y'
| colspan="2" |
|}
|}

Double vowels or consonants

Since Dutch has many more vowels than the Latin alphabet, a system has come into use indicating vowels by an intricate system of single and double vowels or consonants. The same letter is used to indicate a pair of vowels that are close to each other in the IPA vowel space. Depending on the particular phonological treatise, the members of each pair are given various names: sharp/dull, clear/dim, free/checked, tense/lax, open/closed, long/short. Although vowel length is generally ''not'' phonemic in Dutch, one of each pair is pronounced slightly longer by many speakers, so the naming long/short is traditionally used to explain the orthography system and will be used here as well, even though some of the other indications might be more accurate.

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"
|+ Basic notation of vowel phonemes
! Written letter || Long phoneme || Short phoneme
|-
! a
| ||
|-
! e
| ||
|-
! i
| ||
|-
! o
| ||
|-
! u
| ||
|}

Some linguists propose using instead of as a more precise rendition for the short ''u''. The length signs ː are somewhat arbitrary as they do not mark a phonemic difference and the actual length varies with stress and the speed of speech.
The spelling rules for ''a, e, o, u'' are very regular, apart from ''e'' also being used for the neutral schwa sound in unstressed syllables, thus giving it three possible interpretations. As the position of the stress in a polysyllabic word is not indicated in the spelling this may lead to some confusion.
The following basic rules are simple:

★ A vowel in an open syllable (one ending with the vowel) is long:

★
★ ''po'' ('chamber pot') has a long

★ A vowel in a closed syllable (one ending with a consonant) is short, unless the vowel is doubled to show its length:

★
★ ''pot'' ('pot') has a short

★
★ ''poot'' ('paw') has a long
More confusing for learners is the additional rule for polysyllabic words:

★ The first syllable is open if it is followed by a single consonant, since this consonant belongs to the following syllable. There have to be two consonants for one of them to be closing the first syllable. So:

★
★ ''poot'' has plural ''poten''; the "t" belongs to the second syllable so the syllables divide ''po-ten''. As the first syllable is open, a double "oo" is no longer required to mark the long vowel .

★
★ ''pot'' has plural ''potten''; the syllables divide ''pot-ten'', so the double "t" indicates the first syllable is now closed and has the short vowel .
Much confusion is caused by the many words that change their vowel in declensions. For example the plural of ''lot'' is ''loten'', not ''lotten'' as would be regular. So in fact:

★ ''lot'' to ''loten'' keeps the same spelling "o", but changes sound to (irregular)

★ ''poot'' to ''poten'' changes spelling "oo" to "o", but keeps the same sound (regular)
Similarly ''vat'' changes vowel to ''vaten'' and ''gebed'' to ''gebeden''.
''pad'' has two plurals according to the meaning:
''paden'' (paths) or ''padden'' (toads).
Rules for ''i'' are more complicated. In the past the language did indeed have a doubled ''ii''. To avoid confusion with a handwritten ''u'', it became customary to lengthen the second ''i'' to a letter ''j'', thus forming ''ij'', initially pronounced (as it still is in some dialects) as a long . In the standard language the sound shifted to a diphthong . In the modern language a long ''i'' is usually written as ''ie'', even in open syllables. In loanwords however, a single ''i'' is often used.
When vowels appear in front of an 'r', their value may be affected. Compare e.g:
:''bord'':
:''boord'': (instead of )
:''ver'':
:''veer'': (instead of )
The vowels and do not possess a long/short version.

The '' 't kofschip'' rule

Main articles: 't kofschip

Weak verbs form their past tenses by addition of a dental, ‹d› or ‹t›. Because final consonants are always devoiced, there is no difference in pronunciation between these in the participle. However, the orthography operates as though this devoicing did not take place.
The rule is that words ending in voiceless consonants take the voiceless -t-, voiced consonants the voiced d. Dutch children are taught the rule'' 't kofschip is met thee beladen'', ("the merchant ship is loaded with tea"), that is, if the verb stem in the 'infinitive' ends with the consonants of'' 't kofschip'' (-t, -k, -f, -s, -ch or -p), the past tense dental is a -t-; otherwise it is a -d-.

★ ''werken, ik werkte'' (to work)

★ ''krabben, ik krabde'' (to scratch)
English-speaking learners of Dutch can use the mnemonic phrase ''soft ketchup''.
See also T-rules.

The History of Dutch Spelling Reforms

Dutch spelling in the Middle Ages

The Dutch spoken between 1150 and 1500 is referred to as Middle Dutch. During this period there was no standardization of grammar. Authors generally wrote in their own dialects. Very often it is possible to tell from the language whether a text comes from Limburg, Brabant or Holland. There was a lot of variation in the spelling. Words were often written as they were pronounced: ''lant'' (land), ''hi vint'' (he finds). The sound determined the spelling, irrespective of the basic word. This is no longer the case with modern Dutch where ''land'', has a voiceless ‘d’, but is written thus because the infinitive is ''landen'', and ''hij vindt'' (he finds) has ''dt'' as it is 3rd person singular, thus stem (''vind'') +''t''
.
{| align="right" width="40%" style="background:#efefef; margin-left:10px; margin-top:10px" id="toc"
|-
! align="left" | Karel ende Elegast (lines 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 was alle gader sijn.
|-
|}
From the very start of its written history Dutch used the Latin alphabet. At first there were 23 letters: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, v, x, y, z. It was not until later that the j, u and w were added.
A problem with the Latin alphabet was that it was not easy to make a distinction between long and short vowels (''a'' - ''aa''). Various solutions were found. At the beginning of the thirteenth century the word ''jaar'' (year) was spelt ''jar'' but other variants soon appeared: ''jaer'' and ''jair'' and later ''jaar'' or even ''yaer'' and ''iaer''.
Another feature of Middle Dutch is that articles or prepositions were often joined on to the word they belonged to: ''tjaer'' (the year) and ''dlant'' (the land), as in the accompanying fragment from ''Karel ende Elegast''. The text translates: “I will tell you a marvellous story, and a true one. Listen! One evening Charles was sleeping in Ingelheim on the Rhine. All the land you could see was his.”
There were also regional differences. Thus a clerk in Amsterdam in the fourteenth century would usually write ''lant'', but in Utrecht he would write ''land''. The modern system of double consonants for shortening the vowels was also known: compare ''tellen'' (short ''e'') with ''slapen'' (long ''a'') in the extract.
The invention of printing led to a more standardized approach.

The Siegenbeek spelling (1804, the Netherlands)

The first official ruling for the spelling dates from 1804. With the spirit of the French Revolution pervading all areas of thought, attempts were made to unify spelling and grammar. Matthijs Siegenbeek, professor at Leiden was asked in 1801 to draw up a uniform spelling; the priest Petrus Weiland was asked to write a grammar book. A few years later Siegenbeek published his spelling in ''Verhandeling over de Nederduitsche spelling ter bevordering van de eenparigheid in dezelve'' (Treatise on Lower Dutch spelling to promote uniformity herein) (1804) and a ''Woordenboek voor de Nederduitsche spelling'' (Dictionary for the Dutch Spelling) (1805). The government of the Batavian Republic officially introduced Siegenbeek's spelling on 18 December 1804.
Siegenbeek thought that the spelling should reflect refined Dutch pronunciation, taking into account the uniformity, etymology and analogy. From the spelling-Siegenbeek we get the modern Dutch ''ij'' (called ''lange ij'' (''long y'') as distinct from the usually identically pronounced ''ei,'' called ''korte ei'' (short ''ei'')). The word for iron ''ijzer'' used to be written ''yzer''. Other spellings from Siegenbeek include: ''berigt'' (modern Dutch: ''bericht'' / report), ''blaauw'' (''blauw'' / blue), ''Dingsdag'' (''dinsdag'' / Tuesday), ''gooijen'' (''gooien'' / to throw), ''magt'' (''macht'' / power), ''kagchel'' (''kachel'' / stove), ''koningrijk'' (''koninkrijk'' /kingdom), ''muzijk'' (''muziek'' / music) and ''zamen'' (''samen'' / together).
Siegenbeek's spelling never achieved real popularity. In particular the poet Willem Bilderdijk fought against it, largely out of personal spite. He produced some of his own spellings which were popular in the 1830s and 1840s including the modern ''kachel'' (stove), ''plicht'' (instead of ''pligt'' /duty) and ''gooien'' (to throw). However, other spellings of his did not last: ''andwoord'' (''antwoord'' / answer), ''hair'' (''haar'' /hair/her), ''ontfangen'' (''ontvangen'' / to receive), ''thands'' (''thans'' / at present) and ''wareld'' (''wereld'' / world).

The Willems spelling (1844, Belgium)

In the Flemish speaking areas in the south of the Netherlands the Siegenbeek spelling was always unpopular. After Belgium declared independence in 1830 the spelling was denounced as “Hollandish” and “Protestant”. The spelling situation was quite chaotic with much discussion about whether to use ''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 the Belgian government offered a reward for a proposal for a new spelling. In the end the jury, headed by Jan Frans Willems, produced their own suggestion in 1839 which remained quite close to the Siegenbeek spelling in use in the Netherlands. They retained their own spelling of a few words such as ''kaes'' (cheese), ''ryden'' (to ride) and ''vuerig'' (fiery). The Willems spelling was given royal approval on January 9 1844.

The De Vries and Te Winkel spelling (1864, Belgium; 1883, The Netherlands)

The spelling used today both in the Netherlands and in Flanders (Dutch-speaking Belgium) is based on an orthography originally intended only for use in a dictionary. An ambitious project was proposed in 1851 at the Taal- en Letterkundig Congres (Linguistic and Literary Congress) in Brussels at which both the Netherlands and Flanders were represented. The project aimed to produce a large dictionary: Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT) (Dictionary of the Dutch Language), incorporating vocabulary of the past centuries.
There was a problem with this project: which spelling was to be used for the dictionary? There were three spelling systems in use at the time: the Willems spelling in Belgium, the Siegenbeek spelling in the Netherlands, and several variants of Bilderdijk’s system. It would have been unacceptable to have used a mixture of these systems. In addition, the Siegenbeek system did not address certain issues such as when compounds were to be written as one word or the interpolation of letters in between. It was proposed to create a special dictionary spelling.
This spelling was established by the linguists Matthias de Vries and L.A. te Winkel. In 1863 Te Winkel published the results in ''De grondbeginselen der Nederlandsche spelling. Ontwerp der spelling voor het aanstaande Nederlandsch Woordenboek'' (The foundations of Dutch spelling. Project for the spelling of the forthcoming Dutch Dictionary). The spelling of De Vries and Te Winkel combined elements of the three current systems, providing a much needed solution to the chaos. By 21 November royal decree in Belgium had accepted the decision. In 1866 De Vries and Te Winkel produced ''Woordenlijst voor de spelling der Nederlandsche taal'' (Vocabulary for the spelling of the Dutch language), which can be seen as a precursor of today’s Groene Boekje (Little Green Book).
The Netherlands were slower in accepting the De Vries and Te Winkel spelling. Schools continued to use the Siegenbeek spelling until 1870, and in government circles it was not until 1883 that the new spelling started to be used. The De Vries and Te Winkel spelling eventually led to a large degree of uniformity of spelling in the Netherlands and Belgium.

The Marchant spelling (1934, The Netherlands)

Teachers and linguists continued to object to certain features of the spelling. It was thought that too great an emphasis was being given to etymology. Why ''lezen'' (single vowel) but ''heeten'' (double vowel)? There were etymological reasons for this, but it was hard to teach as it did not reflect pronunciation. R.A. Kollewijn produced an article in 1891 ''Onze lastige spelling. Een voorstel tot vereenvoudiging'' (Our awkward spelling: a proposal for simplification). He emphasized the need for spelling to relate to pronunciation, therefore ''mensch'' (person/human) and ''Nederlandsch'' ought to become ''mens'' and ''Nederlands'', ''Russisch'' (Russian) he thought should be spelt ''Russies'' and ''moeilijk'' (difficult) ''moeilik''.
In 1916 a Dutch commission looked into the possibility of a compromise between De Vries and Te Winkel and the Kollewijn spelling. This gradually led to adaptations: on 1 september 1934 the minister for Education, Marchant, accepted most of Kollewijn’s proposals. The Netherlands and Belgium were starting to diverge once again.
The Marchant spelling included:

★ abolition of declension for cases (e.g. ''den heer'' for accusative form of “de heer” (the gentleman))

★ ''oo'' and ''ee'' at the end of open syllables (''zoo'' (so), ''heeten'' (to be called)) changed to ''zo'' and ''heten'', but ''ee'' at the end of a word remained (''zee'' (sea)).

★ unpronounced 'ch' in words like ''mensch'' (person/human) and ''visch'' (fish) disappeared.
The endings '-isch' (as in ''logisch'' (logical)) and '-lijk' (''mogelijk'' (possible)) remained unchanged. Kollewijns proposals '-ies' and '-lik' remain popular in some circles as a "progressive" spelling to the present day.

The spelling changes of 1946 (Flanders) and 1947 (The Netherlands)

During World War II the governments of the Netherlands and Flanders decided to look for a way to restore the unification of spelling based on De Vries and Te Winkel. This led to the introduction of a simplification of the Marchant spelling being introduced in Flanders in 1946 and in the Netherlands the following year. A Flemish-Dutch committee compiled a vocabulary which was published in 1954 in a green volume entitled “Woordenlijst van de Nederlandse taal” (Vocabulary of the Dutch language), which became known as “het Groene Boekje” (The Little Green Book).

The spelling change of 1996 (The Netherlands and Flanders)

There was still dissatisfaction after 1954. Uncertainty arose about many words which had alternative spellings: one version was the preferred spelling (e.g. ''actie'' (action)), the other was the ''permissible'' or ''progressive'' spelling (e.g. ''aktie''). The Dutch generally used the former, the Belgians the latter. Another problem was the speed at which Dutch was developing new vocabulary for which the 1954 dictionary was of no help for spelling definition.
In 1994, after much discussion, the Committee of Ministers of the Nederlandse Taalunie which had been founded in 1980 issued a new spelling decree. In the new Groene Boekje which they published the alternative “progressive” spellings were abolished (it was now ''actie'') and there were new rules about the ''n'' linking the compounds of words (''pannekoek'' (pancake) became ''pannenkoek'' and ''bessesap'' (currant juice) became ''bessensap''). This came into force in 1996.

The spelling change of 2006 (The Netherlands and Flanders)

In 1994 it was agreed that the vocabulary of het Groene Boekje should be reviewed every ten years without changing the actual rules. On 15 October 2005 the first of these revisions appeared. Only one rule concerning exceptions was made (the so-called Dandelion Rule): ''paardebloem'' (dandelion) and ''vliegezwam'' (fly agaric) became ''paardenbloem'' and ''vliegenzwam'' in order to conform to other similar compounds, e.g. ''paardenstaart'' (horse-tail) and ''vliegenmepper'' (fly swatter). (Notice that these ‘n’s are not normally pronounced.)
Apart from this there are a few individual changes. Here are some of the most important ones:

★ Names of population groups are now spelt with a capital letter, even if there is no geographical area connected to the name: ''Kelt'', ''Azteek'' and ''Eskimo'' are capitalized. Exceptions are made to names which cover a number of different ethnic groups: ''indiaan'' (American Indian) and ''zigeuner'' (gypsy)

★ ''Jood/jood'' 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''; BUT: ''Joden, Amerikanen en Europeanen''.

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

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

★ A few compounds which had still not acquired the ''n'' now conform: ''paddenstoel'' (toadstool), ''dronkenman'' and ''dronkenlap'' (drunkard).
Although government and educational establishments have to conform, some newspapers and other publications in The Netherlands are refusing to use the new spelling and have released Het Witte Boekje as an alternative to the latest edition of Het Groene Boekje. This "white spelling" allows more than one spelling in several cases, like when it comes to linking ''n''s, hyphens and capitalisation. It has, in return, been accused of being even more inconsistent than Het Groene Boekje. In Flanders, the white spelling is not used by any large media.

External links

★ De grondbeginselen der Nederlandsche spelling. Ontwerp der spelling voor het aanstaande Nederlandsch Woordenboek (1863) van L.A. te Winkel

★ De woordenlijst der Nederlandse taal online (2005) door de Taalunie

★ De witte spelling (2006) door het Genootschap Onze Taal

★ "New Spelling" of the Dutch language

Bibliography

★ Marijke van der Wal, ''Geschiedenis van het Nederlands'', Utrecht: Het Spectrum, 1994.

★ Nicoline van der Sijs, ''Taal als mensenwerk. Het ontstaan van het ABN'', Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers, 2004.

★ G.C. Molewijk, ''Spellingverandering van zin naar onzin (1200-heden)'', Den Haag: Sdu Uitgeverij, 1992.

★ Ronald Willemyns, Wim Daniëls (red.), ''Het verhaal van het Vlaams. De geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden'', Antwerpen: Standaard Uitgeverij, 2003.

★ Onze Taal, juni 2005.

★ The History section in this article is a translation of the corresponding article from the Dutch Wikipedia.

This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.

psst.. try this: add to faves

	Pelican Executive Suites
	Time Out for Touring Inc.
	Travelonly - Allan Jenkins
	Temptation Resort Spa Cancun
	Temptation Resort Spa Los Cabos
	Marlin Travel - Yonge Street
	Bora Bora Lagoon Resort & Spa
	Travelonly - Dave Corless
	Destination Greece
	Heavenly Paradise Getaways