View previous topic | View next topic

Major Languages

Page 4 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

suze
236306.  Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:00 pm Reply with quote

And why ever not! I get the impression that the main reason for classifying your local dialect as a form of Dutch is geo-political, but that's often the way.

To say just how many languages the whole West Germanic group includes is never going to be an exact science; pretty much any number between four and 41 could be justified!

If it's four, they are English, Frisian, High German, and the other one. I say "the other one" because no one ever agrees what to call it - Netherlandic or Saxon are the least awkward.

Just to be confusing, Sater Frisian goes in that bracket rather than in the Frisian bracket. Otherwise, it divides into two, as noted. One is Dutch / Afrikaans / Vlaams - collectively known as Netherlandish or Low Franconian, although I'll confess that we are often sloppy and use "Dutch" to mean the whole lot. The other contains various Low Saxon languages / dialects.

And since your Drents language / dialect is of that group, I think it would have to be regarded as genetically closer to Low German than to Dutch.

 
AlmondFacialBar
236312.  Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:12 pm Reply with quote

well, that's what coconuts are for... ;-) low saxon dutch, hm? from my side of the border that would be regarded as a dialect of low saxon german, sorry... ;-)

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
bucken
236452.  Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:25 am Reply with quote

But that's because they're pretty much the same. Both sides of the border speak Nether German -Ned(d)erduuts. The only difference is the influence from the country's main language, for instance when something has fallen to pieces, the German side uses the word 'utenanner', after the High German 'aus einander', but the Dutch influence, 'uit elkaar' leads to 'uutmekoar'. Dialects, within a bigger dialect, you see?
But people from Emmen have no problem communicating with people from Nordhorn.
Especially if they go into platdüütsch mode, which is even closer to the original low saxon.
That's why wikipedia in Nether Saxon and wiki in platdüütsch both make sense to me :p

 
suze
236672.  Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:31 am Reply with quote

But hey bucken, you're Dutch and therefore congenitally brilliant at languages!

I'm sure the Dutch, English, French, German, Swahili and numerous other Wikis all make sense to you as well!

 
AlmondFacialBar
236824.  Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:15 pm Reply with quote

bucken wrote:
But that's because they're pretty much the same. Both sides of the border speak Nether German -Ned(d)erduuts. The only difference is the influence from the country's main language, for instance when something has fallen to pieces, the German side uses the word 'utenanner', after the High German 'aus einander', but the Dutch influence, 'uit elkaar' leads to 'uutmekoar'. Dialects, within a bigger dialect, you see?
But people from Emmen have no problem communicating with people from Nordhorn.
Especially if they go into platdüütsch mode, which is even closer to the original low saxon.
That's why wikipedia in Nether Saxon and wiki in platdüütsch both make sense to me :p


same here. i also used to do a lot of work for a dutch search engine, despite the fact that i don't actually speak the language. i understand it well enough - written down - to make perfect sense of what i'm reading. and people from emden don't have any problems communicating with people from groningen either, indeed, people in that corner of germany get quite annoyed at times because their neighbours from across the border keep winning the low german reading contests and similar. ;-) when i worked as a journalist in the oldenburg area i had quite a lot of dealings with a horsebreeder who had moved there from groningen and never bothered to learn german. we took about ten minutes to get used to each other in dialect terms and from then on communicated perfectly fine.

btw - how would you regard afrikaans etymologically? someone once told me that it actually derived from flemish rather than dutch, but between hearing communications in both languages, i've always found afrikaans a lot easier to understand.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
bucken
236862.  Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:49 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
But hey bucken, you're Dutch and therefore congenitally brilliant at languages!

I'm sure the Dutch, English, French, German, Swahili and numerous other Wikis all make sense to you as well!


Oh Suze, you flatter me...

As for the subject of Afrikaans, it's a direct descendant from Dutch, which was introduced to South Africa by the Dutch East India Company (VOC), only simplified. Much of the Afrikaans inwriting is written onomatopoeically, spelling words like they say it, and thereby stripping all French influences of their charms.
Flemish, by the way, is a dialect of Dutch. The official languages of Belgium are Dutch, French and German. Flemish people have a very pronounced accent to their Dutch because of the stronger French influences.

 
AlmondFacialBar
236873.  Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:04 pm Reply with quote

don't let a belgian read that... ;-) they're very adament about flemish being a language of its own in my experience, which brings us back to languages and politics of course...

thread intertextuality for suze here, btw, you'll probably get to see some of that in minsk. the pro-democracy movement there is largely oriented towards the west and very insistent that the belorussian people and their native language actually hail from lithuania. for all i've heard of the language (and judging by my surname, which, according to all the occurrences of it outside germany i've found and a belorussian linguist friend's judgement, is belorussian and sounds much more russian than baltic) they're talking bollocks, but here we go... that whole corner of the world being traditionally a bit of a cultural melting pot i wouldn't doubt there were baltic influences there, and belarus and lithuania were part of the same kingdom at some point, but still...

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
suze
236914.  Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:26 pm Reply with quote

Let's not get into the travails currently afflicting Belgium!

But I've just checked all three versions of the Belgian constitution, and in defining the official languages they all use a word meaning "Dutch" rather than a word which we'd translate as "Flemish".


The Belarusian language is undeniably Slavic - so not a great deal like Lithuanian. It's closer to Russian than to Polish, but a large part of that has to do with 20th century reforms from Moscow; write it in the Roman alphabet and fiddle around with a few spellings, and it starts to look a lot like Polish.

But certainly, most of what we now call Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland formed one nation until 1795.

 
AlmondFacialBar
236921.  Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:40 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Let's not get into the travails currently afflicting Belgium!


i shall endeavour to refrain from further communications on the subject, madam.

suze wrote:
But I've just checked all three versions of the Belgian constitution, and in defining the official languages they all use a word meaning "Dutch" rather than a word which we'd translate as "Flemish".


don't tell any of the flemish people i've ever met that, they'll probably end up trying to affect a constitutional change. ;-) (well, you did make it impossible to not get into their travails)

suze wrote:
The Belarusian language is undeniably Slavic - so not a great deal like Lithuanian. It's closer to Russian than to Polish, but a large part of that has to do with 20th century reforms from Moscow; write it in the Roman alphabet and fiddle around with a few spellings, and it starts to look a lot like Polish.


gosh, i didn't know that! makes sense, though. culturally belarus certainly seems closer to poland than to russia. it's also traditionally a catholic country, and not russian orthodox.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
suze
236936.  Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:59 pm Reply with quote

Hmm, I did rather ...

But yes, here's the first sentence of Title 1, Article 4 of the said document:

"België omvat vier taalgebieden: het Nederlandse taalgebied, het Franse taalgebied, het tweetalige gebied Brussel-Hoofdstad en het Duitse taalgebied."

http://www.senate.be/doc/const_nl.html


The more I hear about Belarus, the more interesting the country gets. I shall be sure to see as much as I can!

 
AlmondFacialBar
236937.  Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:16 pm Reply with quote

bit of wishful thinking there re brussels. it's supposed to be bilingual alright, but in reality french is taking over more and more. might have to do with the fact that while most of the flemish learn french, hardly any of the walloons bother with learning flemish. when we lived there i was able to muddle through with low german in an emergency in some neighbourhoods - low german and dutch/ flemish really being quite compatible, as we discussed earlier - but generally things demanded a standard of french i don't actually have. i always found it quite telling that our landlady had a flemish name but communicated far more compently in french.

belarus must indeed be fascinating. i want to go sometime, but the opportunity hasn't really arisen so far. getting an invitation would be easy enough i guess, but then the whole thing of actually getting there...

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
suze
237262.  Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:58 am Reply with quote

You're not wrong about Brussels - although it's slightly odd French that they speak. In particular, they count in a way that I never learned in school - my French teacher would have gotten apoplectic if I'd ever used "septante", "huitante" and "neufante".

But for sure, a lot of Walloons don't speak anything other than French - or at any rate, they won't admit to doing so. So much easier in Vlaanderen where most people are perfectly happy to speak to you in Dutch, English or German, and - although they aren't quite so happy about it - perfectly able to do it in French as well.

 
AlmondFacialBar
237392.  Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:48 pm Reply with quote

what is it about those french speaking folks, hm? ;-) it's exactly the same in switzerland, the german swiss all speak french, and most of them speak english, but the french swiss who speak any of those are few and far between. i wonder has there ever been work done on that...

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
point
267723.  Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:19 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
And why ever not! I get the impression that the main reason for classifying your local dialect as a form of Dutch is geo-political, but that's often the way.

To say just how many languages the whole West Germanic group includes is never going to be an exact science; pretty much any number between four and 41 could be justified!

If it's four, they are English, Frisian, High German, and the other one. I say "the other one" because no one ever agrees what to call it - Netherlandic or Saxon are the least awkward.

Just to be confusing, Sater Frisian goes in that bracket rather than in the Frisian bracket. Otherwise, it divides into two, as noted. One is Dutch / Afrikaans / Vlaams - collectively known as Netherlandish or Low Franconian, although I'll confess that we are often sloppy and use "Dutch" to mean the whole lot. The other contains various Low Saxon languages / dialects.

And since your Drents language / dialect is of that group, I think it would have to be regarded as genetically closer to Low German than to Dutch.
I have to correct you in this. Sater Frisian actually is more Frisian than West (Lauwers) Frisian is. When you refuse to put Sater Frisian in the same language group as West (Lauwers) Frisian you have to put the western variety in another group, not the Sater Frisian variety. You would not have 3 language groups, but 5 which would not make any sence at all. I think that the confusion comes from the East Frisian variety of Low Saxon. Much people already know East Frisian Low Saxon is not Frisian, but Low Saxon (thank God), but much people still think that Sater Frisian has to be Low Saxon cause it's an East Frisian languages.

And the classification of English and Frisian also does not make any sense. Currently it's accepted to classify both languages as Anglo-Frisian (or Ingvaeonic), while Frisian almost completely extincted around 1000 years ago when the Frisian population quickly decreased. The unpopulated area, however, quickly was populated by Anglic and Saxon tribes. The Anglic and Saxon language were probably both mutual intelligible with Frisian at that time and slowly replaced the Frisian language. Old Frisian was already only around 20% Frisian. 80% of the language was Anglic, Saxon or another kind of West Germanic/Ingveaonic/Latin language. The only reason the Anglic and Saxon people called themselves Frisian was because the most notable persons were of Frisian descent. Old Frisian therefore is rather and Anglosaxon than an Anglo Frisian language.

Is that it? No, it actually is much more interesting. The Dutch language is a Franconian language, like French. Franconian is a language from the western part of of German or the north eastern part of France (probably this is even wrong and Franconian did not exist at all). Franconian was spread to the south and later on was pushed to the north by the Romans. In the south Franconian was Romanized (actually very few Franconian words survived in French or maybe even none at all), in the north it replaced the Old Frisian (Frisian did not exist anymore) language and pushed it to the norths. As you might know, languages are never replaced they always leave their traces on the new language and Franconian became heavily influenced with the Old Frisian language. The Dutch language was created when the bible was translated and a standard language was developed. The new standard language was a mix of all languages being spoken in the Netherlands at that time where it was mostly influenced by central western languages/dialects. Dutch probably has also been influenced a lot by German languages because of it's Franconian origin.

So Frisian is mainly (Frisian) Anglosaxon and Dutch is (Franconian) Anglosaxon.

What happened to English is a real miracle, it must have been a cultural melting pot for ages. Currently the Dutch language and the Frisian languages show more similarities with the Old English (also called Anglosaxon) than English does. "Hebban olla uogala nestas hagunnan, hinase wi tu. Hic un bidan wi nu?" which is taught to Dutch kids to be the oldest writing in Dutch actually isn't any Dutch at all, it's English, Old English or whatever you do want to call it, but not Dutch.

 
point
267726.  Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:21 pm Reply with quote

Apologise for the terrible gramatical and spelling mistakes. When I'm waken up tomorrow again I might try to improve it.

 

Page 4 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group