That doesn't mean much though. It's likely that the word appeared in Old Dutch, but wasn't written down for us to find. That it also appears in other dialects isn't really that surprising at all, considering it's a Germanic word and Old High German is very close to Old Dutch.
IMNSHO it's far more likely that there was no "Old Dutch" and your claim is just another example of Dutch language extremism: only by assuming an "Old Dutch" language, you could reach your etymology. (I can't preview, I can't see the history)
What you've done is essentially calling CodeCat an "extremist", which is a ridiculous statement when Old Dutch is accepted as a language in mainstream linguistics and by authorities like the ISO. Why don't you discuss the issue, instead of doubting a language's existence (I'd like to know what language you think all the texts mentioned at w:Old Dutch are in, if not Old Dutch itself).
Old Saxon probably. Except that Old Dutch lacks several of the innovations that characterise Old Saxon (Ingvaeonic nasal-spirant law, unified verb plural).
The subjunctive didn't have a unified verb plural, but it did lack the -t in the third-person plural. You also have to consider that Middle Dutch lost the -t in the indicative, so there's no reason why certain Old Dutch dialects weren't already in the process of losing it, too. It's not like the -t disappeared right at the moment we begin to call the language Middle Dutch, it could have been earlier or later.
Old Dutch didn't completely lack the nasal-spirant law, but it was carried through far less thoroughly than in Old Saxon or Old Frisian. Other examples are vijf and zacht. But note that 'Muiden' and related words all occur along the coast, an area which was historically Ingvaeonic-speaking, so it's natural that the influence of "Ingvaeonisms" was stronger there. The Frisians are known to have lived along the coast of most of Holland during the Roman age (in particular what is now still called Westfriesland), and only later did the Frankish tribes from the east move in. Old High German wasn't entirely free of Ingvaeonisms either, one still survives: Süd.
No comments about zacht, but vijf and Süd are somewhat irregular.
- foif#Alemannic German isn't really "North Sea Germanic", I suppose. Earlier Appendix:Proto-Germanic/fimf mentions "an irregular consonant change" from
- Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/pénkʷe, which gives
- I think Germanic:fimf, Celtic:pempe/pemp/pump, Italic:pompe/pumpe differ in a visibly obvious way from other Indo-European languages.
If it can be read like I called CodeCat an "extremist", I apologize to CodeCat. Let's examine the texts at w:Old_Dutch#Surviving texts (I only need to quote):
- Hebban olla vogala
- "Old Kentish"
- The Wachtendonck Psalms
- "Very little remains of them", it "contains a number of Old High German elements".
- The Leiden Willeram
- "Until recently" ... "is manuscript was believed by most scholars to be Middle Franconian, that is Old High German"
- The Rhinelandic Rhyming Bible
- "a mixed dialect containing Low German, Old Dutch and High German (Rhine-Franconian) elements"
I think they were written in Late Western Germanic. It may have had dialects, but
- the dialects mixed: see Rhinelandic Rhyming Bible and Wachtendonck Psalms above
- people who could write, almost certainly could speak several dialects
- the dialects of writers were not restricted by modern day borders; worldly rulers and monastic orders dispersed their representatives to avoid local independence movements, traders also trade across the border
"Show preview" still doesn't work
I don't understand the point this is supposed to make, though.
- "Hebban olla vogala" has features that are typically Flemish, and it doesn't really resemble Old English nearly as much. There are two features in that phrase that I can immediately point out as not English: the plural in -a, and the word "wat" lacking the h-. It's true that "nestas" does have the normal English -as ending, but that doesn't explain why they forgot the plural ending in one case.
- The Wachtendonk Psalms contains a number of Old High German elements? Which? What do you consider Old High German?
- "Until recently was believed" means that scholars no longer believe it. The text's vocabulary is Dutch, not Middle Franconian if I remember correctly. It's really Old Low Franconian (Old Dutch) written according to Middle Franconian phonology and spelling, presumably as part of a kind of translation.
- The Rhinelandic Rhyming Bible is thought to originate from the lower Rhine area, somewhere around the area of Nijmegen or Kleve maybe. Even today, the local dialects of that area show a mixture of Low German and Dutch features. So it's not surprising that an old text shows the same mixture.
As for Late Western Germanic... huh? Are you implying Old Dutch is not a late West Germanic dialect? I would think that everyone already agrees that it is.
- "it doesn't really resemble Old English": even my quote didn't say it was Old English, did it? If you want to bring hwat/wat, I can bring hic/ic, the latter is a hypercorrection according to all interpretations I know (but I don't know many). Someone writing Latin (and using the continental alphabet), trying to learn Old Kentish is an alternative. Http://lyrics.wikia.com gives many examples of people trying to write down the lyrics of songs in foreign languages, many of them include a(n attempt at) translation.
- "Wachtendonk Psalms": I only quoted en.wikipedia, but if you ask, I don't think "Old High German" did exist as a language either. Lack of w:High German consonant shift doesn't mean much, w:Attila did shift to Etzel in the w:Nibelungenlied. Some 40 years ago, I realized as a child that Limpurg (in e.g. w:Van Rechteren-Limpurg) is a bekakt pronunciation of Limburg. If kids speaking neighbouring dialects notice that, it doesn't distinguish languages, but sociolects.
- "Leiden Willeram", writing 'z' for a /t/ at some places doesn't look Old Dutch to me.
- "Rhinelandic Rhyming Bible", indeed, even today the local dialects have Brabantic and Low German features, which makes claiming a separate "Old Dutch" language a millennium ago somewhat farfetched.
I am implying that none of the Late Western Germanic dialects and jargots was Old Dutch (several of them had some of the features ascribed to Old Dutch, none of them had all) and that only after the rise of the Burgundians in the Southwestern Netherlands (and the subsequent w:Dutch Republic) the need to construct such a language arose.
- Old Kentish is a form of Old English, so yes you did imply that even if you weren't aware of it. As for hic/ic, that is the kind of hypercorrection you'd expect from a speaker who no longer pronounces the h- in other words. And it just happens that that is a feature typical of West Flemish, where h- was lost, and g- became h-. That feature is still apparent in West Flemish today. I don't see where Old English comes into that though, as it was ic there all the same.
- I didn't say the z did look Old Dutch. But scholars have realised that it's just a respelling of t following the Old High German norms. That much of it is OHG in origin, at least. However, as the Wikipedia article also mentions, there are words the text that, despite their High German-influenced spellings, are clearly Dutch words as they are foreign to Middle Central German but found in Middle Dutch texts.
- I don't understand what you mean by separate language, exactly. Nobody was claiming that Old Dutch is separate, as such. Continental West Germanic has always formed a dialect continuum and still forms one today, if you look past the standard languages. Linguists draw lines between the dialects according to certain defining features, but those definitions are arbitrary, just as the distinction between, say, Middle and Modern English is arbitrary. But that doesn't mean there isn't a definition of what Old Dutch is, or isn't. So I don't understand why you are arguing that no definitions exist, when they clearly do.
But if you really insist on arguing that Old High German, Old Dutch and Old Saxon aren't to be considered languages on Wiktionary, I invite you to nominate Category:Old High German language, Category:Old Dutch language and Category:Old Saxon language for deletion.
- The Cantware weren't Anglish. When you claim "still apparent in West Flemish today", I would appreciate some sources that West Flemish had h-deletion at the time, because it also happens that Kentish lost h-. Some of the dialects I speak, don't pronounce "h-" either, but I wouldn't write "hik" (unless for a hiccup). Considering ellærn#Old English and Holunder#German, some dialects of Old English had already dropped h- in some words.
- But why would one only write 'z' for 't' at some places? Especially when those places often coincide with the High German consonant shift, I would expect a High German speaker (or at least a High German writer). Nicoline van der Sijs says "Daarbij heeft hij sommige woorden in het Oudnederlands omgezet, andere in het Oudhoogduits laten staan", though she expects a spreaker of Dutch. That's not very solid ground on which to build the hypothesis of a separate language.
- Oh yes, there is a definition of Old Dutch, it's every piece of Late West Germanic which can't be proven to be another LWG dialect/language (een deel van de woorden is dat wel, of in ieder geval kan niet bewezen worden dat ze het niet zijn).
I admit that Old Dutch, Old Saxon and Old High German can be considered three languages, I just consider the distinction anachronistic. You seem to group dialects as a language based (too often, IMHO) on current political borders (like Old Dutch isn't Old German, but Old kentish is Old English). One can file "urov", "urowen", "uruwen", "urowen", "urowe" and "fruwe" as frouwa, but preferring the starting 'f' (over 'u'/'v') seems like rolling with a loaded dice to me.