This paper argues that the Dutch sociolinguistic situation in the 17th and 18th centuries should be analyzed as diaglossic, that is, involving a wide spectrum of variation in between localized spoken dialects and the supposed written standard. In fact, multiple instances of norm selection for writing render this diaglossic situation even more complex. The paper shows that multiple norm selection even occurred in cases when a strict and simple norm was selected early on, that is, in the late 16th–early 17th century. The case study is based on the Letters as Loot Corpus comprising private letters from the 1660s–1670s and the 1770s–1780s and focuses on the object form of the 1st person singular personal pronoun, namely, mij or mijn. Despite the early selection of mij, some language users in the late 17th and 18th century adopted mijn in writing. The analysis shows a normative split in written Dutch of the time, with most language users either converging to or diverging from the supposed standard form mij.*

本文认为，应将 17 世纪和 18 世纪的荷兰社会语言状况分析为对话式的，即涉及本地化口语方言和假定的书面标准之间的广泛变化。事实上，写作规范选择的多个实例使这种对话式情况更加复杂。该论文表明，在早期选择严格而简单的规范的情况下，即在 16 世纪末至 17 世纪初，甚至会发生多重规范选择。该案例研究基于 Letters as Loot Corpus，其中包括 1660 年代至 1670 年代和 1770 年代至 1780 年代的私人信件，并侧重于第一人称单数人称代词的宾语形式，即mij或mijn。尽管很早就选择了mij，17 世纪末和 18 世纪的一些语言使用者在写作中采用了mijn。分析显示了当时书面荷兰语的规范分裂，大多数语言用户要么趋同或偏离假定的标准形式mij。*