Jan-Kees eet koolsla op de slee.

[Crusader]

An interesting research project here researched similarities between English and Dutch. We're not talking about words that remain the same between the two languages, but how words changed from one another in each language, but kept the same meaning. Therefore, native English speakers should be able to understand the following sentence:

"Jan-Kees eet koolsla op de slee."

So let's put it to the test. what does this mean in English? People who know Dutch are excluded of course. And no cheating. Just type down what comes to mind.

[Hammerskjold]

"Jan-Kees eet koolsla op de slee."

So let's put it to the test. what does this mean in English? People who know Dutch are excluded of course. And no cheating. Just type down what comes to mind.

- Yankees eat coleslaw up the sleigh.

- Yawn kiss it koala obviously.

- John Keys and Kool Aid oopsie daisy.

[Jester]

The first part comes across as Yankees (do they seriously spell it that way in the Netherlands? Yikes... or, should I say, Jikes.) eat coleslaw. What exactly 'op de slee' means, I haven't the foggiest. "de" is probably "the", and "op" is some kind of indicator like "in" or "on" or something, but I don't know what. As for slee, I haven't a clue. The guess earlier in the thread of "sleigh" seems reasonable, but it didn't come to mind.

For disclosure, I know no language with germanic roots other than English, and have spend less than a week of my life in the Netherlands, during which time I certainly did not hear anything about Yankees or coleslaw.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

An interesting research project here researched similarities between English and Dutch. We're not talking about words that remain the same between the two languages, but how words changed from one another in each language, but kept the same meaning. Therefore, native English speakers should be able to understand the following sentence:

"Jan-Kees eet koolsla op de slee."

So let's put it to the test. what does this mean in English? People who know Dutch are excluded of course. And no cheating. Just type down what comes to mind.

Yankee's eat coleslaw on the sled? De Nederlandse schoenen zijn goed voor roomijs!

[Crusader]

Almost correct, and there's a funny twist!

"Jan-Kees eet koolsla op de slee."
"Jan-Kees eats coleslaw on the sleigh."

But what is Jan-Kees? It's a name. But it's also the funny twist. Back in the day a lot of Dutch settlers in what is now the USA had the name Jan or Kees, which are still common names this day. Dutch settlers were for that reason often called "JanKees" in a form of contempt. Over time, this changed to Yankees.:)

[--Pete]

Hi,

But what is Jan-Kees? It's a name. But it's also the funny twist. Back in the day a lot of Dutch settlers in what is now the USA had the name Jan or Kees, which are still common names this day. Dutch settlers were for that reason often called "JanKees" in a form of contempt. Over time, this changed to Yankees.:)

Thanks, neat story. I love these 'historical' tidbits, but I'm suspicious by nature. So I looked it up; nice to see that your version is one of the possibilities.:)

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,
Thanks, neat story. I love these 'historical' tidbits, but I'm suspicious by nature. So I looked it up; nice to see that your version is one of the possibilities.:)

--Pete

Because of New York 400 years the dutch have budgetted around 12 miljon euro's for a promotional campaign stressing the dutch/US relationships over the years. In New York there are of course many names dating back to when it was still new amsterdam (brooklyn, wall street, etc. http://homepage.mac.com/schuffelen/OldNewYork.html )
I am not sure all these things are 100% correct, but you get the feeling.
And of course we paid for having the empire state building bath in orange light for an evening (what does that cost??)

[Crusader]

Hi,
Thanks, neat story. I love these 'historical' tidbits, but I'm suspicious by nature. So I looked it up; nice to see that your version is one of the possibilities.:)

--Pete

You quote Wikipedia as a reliable source, which is always a bad idea. I had a professor back in university who would tear any essay apart when it cited wikipedia as a source. :lol: He's right though, Wikipedia isn't reliable.

[channel1]

You quote Wikipedia as a reliable source, which is always a bad idea. I had a professor back in university who would tear any essay apart when it cited wikipedia as a source. :lol: He's right though, Wikipedia isn't reliable.

At least Wikipedia tries, and when additions are found that lack what ARE considered reliable citations they are challenged and often removed.

In the case of the part of the Wikipedia article that Pete mentioned, it does have citation, being the Oxford English Dictionary ("yankee, n and a" Oxford English Dictionary http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50288716 ). Is that a good enough source?

Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, but rather a source for -um- sources.

-rcv-+

[eppie]

At least Wikipedia tries, and when additions are found that lack what ARE considered reliable citations they are challenged and often removed.

In the case of the part of the Wikipedia article that Pete mentioned, it does have citation, being the Oxford English Dictionary ("yankee, n and a" Oxford English Dictionary http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50288716 ). Is that a good enough source?

Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, but rather a source for -um- sources.

-rcv-+

I think wikipedia gives people more an idea about how encyclopedia's are or might be made. History is always written by the winner....chances are that many of the things we learn in history class didn't happen as the books say they happened. At least with wikipedia you get a feeling for the discussion that might be going on around certain topics. Especially the more debated ones.

In that sense it isn't always true that an institute like the oxford dictionary would be more right. (of course in this case they are used as source....so they areboth equally right or wrong :unsure:)

[--Pete]

Hi,

You quote Wikipedia as a reliable source, which is always a bad idea. I had a professor back in university who would tear any essay apart when it cited wikipedia as a source. :lol: He's right though, Wikipedia isn't reliable.

I think *always* is a bit off. Wikipedia is a good source on many subjects. Much like open source software, Wikipedia articles are constantly under scrutiny. The particular article I referenced had a number of indicators that supported its credibility. For one thing, it gave multiple possible sources for the term, admitting that there was no definitive evidence for any of them. An admission of ignorance is often an indicator of truth. For another, the article had a number of references to other sources, some of which are the 'gold standard' in their field (in particular, the OED).

I think your professor was being a bit lazy. Any source, especially an unrefereed source on the internet, must be evaluated on its merits. And the amount of digging should depend more on the importance of the information (in this case quite trivial) than on the source used. A well developed, perhaps even hyper-developed, BS detector can often be a useful tool in getting to the 'truth'. However, in the final analysis, any digging leads to a regression to something claimed by others as either an idea or an observation. At some point, we need to accept something on faith or we'll never progress past that first question.

(Aside to eppie): The OED is a scholarly production that is the result of ongoing research by a number of experts in the English language. Its credibility is much greater than that of Wikipedia. A reference in Wikipedia to the OED is a strong indicator of truth.

--Pete

[weakwarrior]

You quote Wikipedia as a reliable source, which is always a bad idea. I had a professor back in university who would tear any essay apart when it cited wikipedia as a source. :lol: He's right though, Wikipedia isn't reliable.

For what it's worth there is a Nature article (438, 900) showing that wikipedia is only slightly worse than Britannica, at least on science topics.

[ShadowHM]

You quote Wikipedia as a reliable source, which is always a bad idea. I had a professor back in university who would tear any essay apart when it cited wikipedia as a source. :lol: He's right though, Wikipedia isn't reliable.

Sorry to pile on, Crusader. But... :P

I am quite willing to agree with your professor on the subject of Wikipedia as a reference for a scholarly essay. In that case, you should be referring to less general publications. In my day, we were stoutly warned against using the likes of the Encylopedia Britannica for much the same reasons. I would argue that the reliability of Wikipedia is not, on the whole, much less than a paper-based encyclopedia.

For the purpose of general discussion (such as we have here) Wikipedia is usually rather good as a starting place to get an overview of the topic. And, as Pete noted, any article is only as good as its references, which is where a scholarly paper should be starting anyway.

[Occhidiangela]

Because of New York

The Bedford Styvesant neighborhood, note the second half of that, a once important name in New Amsterdam, is hardly a bastion of Dutchophiles these days.

Spike Lee set his white versus black film "Do The Right THing" in Bed Stuy.

Occhi