Tuis » Algemeen » Koeitjies & kalfies » Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119339] |
Tue, 02 March 2010 17:16  |
Jan den Hollander
Boodskappe: 12
Geregistreer: October 2001
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
"Mbruno" wrote in message
news:7d43d641-66fe-4c43-bfbe-6892e46a6d87@15g2000yqi.googleg roups.com...
> On 19 jan, 02:19, Bob wrote:
>> "Dutch" or Low Franconian split into 16 different languages on the
>> basis of mutual intelligibility. Interesting take on the "Dutch
>> language."
>>
>> http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/a-reclassifica tion-of-t...
>
> How does the mutual intelligibility between standard Dutch and
> Afrikaans compare to the mutual intelligibility amongst the various
> Dutch dialects in the Netherlands and Belgium ?
wrong question. The issue being that "standard" Dutch is taught in schools
all over the Netherlands and Flemish Belgium. Meaning that "standard" Dutch
is widely understood everywhere, even in those regions where the the local
tongue is based on Lower Saxon, or Frisian, or Ripuarian.
Since "standard" Dutch is not taught in schools in South Africa there is no
such common vehicle between the Netherlands and South Africa
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119340 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119339] |
Tue, 02 March 2010 20:14  |
Jan den Hollander
Boodskappe: 12
Geregistreer: October 2001
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
"Jan den Hollander" skryf in boodskap news:hmjgf5$elt$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> "Mbruno" wrote in message
> news:7d43d641-66fe-4c43-bfbe-6892e46a6d87@15g2000yqi.googleg roups.com...
>> On 19 jan, 02:19, Bob wrote:
>>> "Dutch" or Low Franconian split into 16 different languages on the
>>> basis of mutual intelligibility. Interesting take on the "Dutch
>>> language."
>>>
>>>
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/a-reclassifica tion-of-t...
>>
>> How does the mutual intelligibility between standard Dutch and
>> Afrikaans compare to the mutual intelligibility amongst the various
>> Dutch dialects in the Netherlands and Belgium ?
>
> wrong question. The issue being that "standard" Dutch is taught in schools
> all over the Netherlands and Flemish Belgium. Meaning that "standard" Dutch
> is widely understood everywhere, even in those regions where the the local
> tongue is based on Lower Saxon, or Frisian, or Ripuarian.
> Since "standard" Dutch is not taught in schools in South Africa there is no
> such common vehicle between the Netherlands and South Africa
one more thing: OP is mistaken about calling "Dutch" Low-Franconian. It is
not. Dutch is an artificial language, that was constructed in de 17th
century by the translators of the Statenvertaling. It is a compomise, trying
to accomodate the different dialects that were spoken in different parts of
the Dutch Republic at that time, including Low Franconian, Lower Saxon, and
Frisian.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119341 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119339] |
Tue, 02 March 2010 20:39 |
Mbruno
Boodskappe: 1
Geregistreer: March 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
On 2 mar, 14:16, "Jan den Hollander" wrote:
> "Mbruno" wrote in message
>
> news:7d43d641-66fe-4c43-bfbe-6892e46a6d87@15g2000yqi.googleg roups.com...
>
>> On 19 jan, 02:19, Bob wrote:
>>> "Dutch" or Low Franconian split into 16 different languages on the
>>> basis of mutual intelligibility. Interesting take on the "Dutch
>>> language."
>
>>> http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/a-reclassifica tion-of-t...
>
>> How does the mutual intelligibility between standard Dutch and
>> Afrikaans compare to the mutual intelligibility amongst the various
>> Dutch dialects in the Netherlands and Belgium ?
>
> wrong question. The issue being that "standard" Dutch is taught in schools
> all over the Netherlands and Flemish Belgium. Meaning that "standard" Dutch
> is widely understood everywhere, even in those regions where the the local
> tongue is based on Lower Saxon, or Frisian, or Ripuarian.
> Since "standard" Dutch is not taught in schools in South Africa there is no
> such common vehicle between the Netherlands and South Africa.
Please read the question AGAIN. I actually asked how the mutual
intelligibility between Afrikaans and standard Dutch compares to the
mutual intelligibility between two different non-standard European
Dutch dialects.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119342 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119341] |
Tue, 02 March 2010 21:54 |
Jan den Hollander
Boodskappe: 12
Geregistreer: October 2001
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
"Mbruno" wrote in message
news:e59f32b4-0216-423f-8a31-965172bac4ad@t9g2000prh.googleg roups.com...
> On 2 mar, 14:16, "Jan den Hollander" wrote:
>> "Mbruno" wrote in message
>>
>> news:7d43d641-66fe-4c43-bfbe-6892e46a6d87@15g2000yqi.googleg roups.com...
>>
>>> On 19 jan, 02:19, Bob wrote:
>>>> "Dutch" or Low Franconian split into 16 different languages on the
>>>> basis of mutual intelligibility. Interesting take on the "Dutch
>>>> language."
>>
>>>
> http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/a-reclassifica tion-of-t...
>>
>>> How does the mutual intelligibility between standard Dutch and
>>> Afrikaans compare to the mutual intelligibility amongst the various
>>> Dutch dialects in the Netherlands and Belgium ?
>>
>> wrong question. The issue being that "standard" Dutch is taught in schools
>> all over the Netherlands and Flemish Belgium. Meaning that "standard" Dutch
>> is widely understood everywhere, even in those regions where the the local
>> tongue is based on Lower Saxon, or Frisian, or Ripuarian.
>> Since "standard" Dutch is not taught in schools in South Africa there is no
>> such common vehicle between the Netherlands and South Africa.
>
> Please read the question AGAIN. I actually asked how the mutual
> intelligibility between Afrikaans and standard Dutch compares to the
> mutual intelligibility between two different non-standard European
> Dutch dialects.
Same wrong question. The point is that people with different dialects will
NOT communicate in their respective dialects, but in "standard" Dutch
instead. What you and OP don't seem to understand is that "standard" Dutch
is understood by all natives of the Netherlands, regardless their native
dialect. It exists *next* to those local dialects, and people use both
"standard" Dutch as well as their native dialect.
It is like people from different tribal areas in South Africa I guess:
People who don't understand each others native language may communicate in
English instead
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119343 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119339] |
Tue, 02 March 2010 22:19 |
Fustigator
Boodskappe: 29
Geregistreer: October 2005
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Vitae forma vocatur Mbruno , die Tue, 2 Mar 2010
02:56:11 -0800 (PST), in littera
in
foro soc.culture.netherlands(et aliis) vere scripsit quod sequitur:
> On 19 jan, 02:19, Bob wrote:
>> "Dutch" or Low Franconian split into 16 different languages on the
>> basis of mutual intelligibility. Interesting take on the "Dutch
>> language."
>> http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/a-reclassifica tion-of-t...
>
> How does the mutual intelligibility between standard Dutch and
> Afrikaans compare to the mutual intelligibility amongst the various
> Dutch dialects in the Netherlands and Belgium ?
Depends from dialect to dialect.
Some Limburgian dialects and the West-Flemish dialect are at times
"further away" from standard Dutch than Afrikaans. The only difference
is that, due to a one and a half century old coercitive policy in
favour of standard Dutch in the schools, dialects have no own
spelling.
--
Fusti
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119344 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119343] |
Wed, 03 March 2010 04:18 |
Jan den Hollander
Boodskappe: 12
Geregistreer: October 2001
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Fustigator wrote:
> Vitae forma vocatur Mbruno , die Tue, 2 Mar 2010
> 02:56:11 -0800 (PST), in littera
> in
> foro soc.culture.netherlands(et aliis) vere scripsit quod sequitur:
>
>> On 19 jan, 02:19, Bob wrote:
>>> "Dutch" or Low Franconian split into 16 different languages on the
>>> basis of mutual intelligibility. Interesting take on the "Dutch
>>> language."
>
>>> http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/a-reclassifica tion-of-t...
>> How does the mutual intelligibility between standard Dutch and
>> Afrikaans compare to the mutual intelligibility amongst the various
>> Dutch dialects in the Netherlands and Belgium ?
>
> Depends from dialect to dialect.
> Some Limburgian dialects and the West-Flemish dialect are at times
> "further away" from standard Dutch than Afrikaans. The only difference
> is that, due to a one and a half century old coercitive policy in
> favour of standard Dutch in the schools, dialects have no own
> spelling.
In reality I can talk with Fustigator in "standard" Dutch without any
problem, even though he has a little bit of a funny accent. And I don't
have any problem whatsoever with Limburgers either, and Frisians I can
get along with just fine. They all speak perfectly good "standard"
Dutch, even though their accents are slightly different.
Dialects are something of a folklore; purists like Fustigator claim they
can speak the local dialect just fine (which isn't true of course, but
he will never admit that). In fact, very few people can still speak
local dialects; perhaps some older folks who have lived their entire
live in the village they were born. But younger people, who move around
a lot speak only the "standard" Dutch; they don't have any connection
with the local dialect at all, simply because they are hardly ever
exposed to it
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119345 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119344] |
Wed, 03 March 2010 04:56 |
M a r i o
Boodskappe: 1
Geregistreer: March 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
"Jan den Hollander" skryf in boodskap news:hmkntp$msr$2@speranza.aioe.org...
> Fustigator wrote:
>> Vitae forma vocatur Mbruno , die Tue, 2 Mar 2010
>> 02:56:11 -0800 (PST), in littera
>> in
>> foro soc.culture.netherlands(et aliis) vere scripsit quod sequitur:
>>> On 19 jan, 02:19, Bob wrote:
>>>> "Dutch" or Low Franconian split into 16 different languages on the
>>>> basis of mutual intelligibility. Interesting take on the "Dutch
>>>> language."
>>
>>>> http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/a-reclassifica tion-of-t...
>>> How does the mutual intelligibility between standard Dutch and
>>> Afrikaans compare to the mutual intelligibility amongst the various
>>> Dutch dialects in the Netherlands and Belgium ?
>> Depends from dialect to dialect.
>> Some Limburgian dialects and the West-Flemish dialect are at times
>> "further away" from standard Dutch than Afrikaans. The only difference
>> is that, due to a one and a half century old coercitive policy in
>> favour of standard Dutch in the schools, dialects have no own
>> spelling.
>
> In reality I can talk with Fustigator in "standard" Dutch without any
> problem, even though he has a little bit of a funny accent. And I don't
> have any problem whatsoever with Limburgers either, and Frisians I can get
> along with just fine. They all speak perfectly good "standard" Dutch, even
> though their accents are slightly different.
> Dialects are something of a folklore; purists like Fustigator claim they
> can speak the local dialect just fine (which isn't true of course, but he
> will never admit that). In fact, very few people can still speak local
> dialects; perhaps some older folks who have lived their entire live in the
> village they were born. But younger people, who move around a lot speak
> only the "standard" Dutch; they don't have any connection with the local
> dialect at all, simply because they are hardly ever exposed to it
Ja en? - wa moj no'w?
--
Mario... doa vul ow tog de bek van ope.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119354 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119344] |
Thu, 04 March 2010 17:29 |
Fustigator
Boodskappe: 29
Geregistreer: October 2005
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Vitae forma vocatur Jan den Hollander , die Tue, 02 Mar
2010 22:18:12 -0600, in littera in
foro soc.culture.netherlands(et aliis) vere scripsit quod sequitur:
> Fustigator wrote:
>> Vitae forma vocatur Mbruno , die Tue, 2 Mar 2010
>> 02:56:11 -0800 (PST), in littera
>> in
>> foro soc.culture.netherlands(et aliis) vere scripsit quod sequitur:
>>> On 19 jan, 02:19, Bob wrote:
>>>> "Dutch" or Low Franconian split into 16 different languages on the
>>>> basis of mutual intelligibility. Interesting take on the "Dutch
>>>> language."
>>
>>>> http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/a-reclassifica tion-of-t...
>>> How does the mutual intelligibility between standard Dutch and
>>> Afrikaans compare to the mutual intelligibility amongst the various
>>> Dutch dialects in the Netherlands and Belgium ?
>> Depends from dialect to dialect.
>> Some Limburgian dialects and the West-Flemish dialect are at times
>> "further away" from standard Dutch than Afrikaans. The only difference
>> is that, due to a one and a half century old coercitive policy in
>> favour of standard Dutch in the schools, dialects have no own
>> spelling.
>
> In reality I can talk with Fustigator in "standard" Dutch without any
> problem, even though he has a little bit of a funny accent. And I don't
> have any problem whatsoever with Limburgers either, and Frisians I can
> get along with just fine. They all speak perfectly good "standard"
> Dutch, even though their accents are slightly different.
> Dialects are something of a folklore; purists like Fustigator claim they
> can speak the local dialect just fine (which isn't true of course, but
> he will never admit that). In fact, very few people can still speak
> local dialects; perhaps some older folks who have lived their entire
> live in the village they were born. But younger people, who move around
> a lot speak only the "standard" Dutch; they don't have any connection
> with the local dialect at all, simply because they are hardly ever
> exposed to it
I think that you pointed here quite an interesting point.
Indeed the "infection" of dialects by the standard language is
widespread, definitely in Duch speaking areas. This is easily to ben
explained by the influence of education (no school teaches in dialect)
and de media (radio-TV) where very little is done in dialects.
Dialects have no written language either.
This means that for instance in Westflanders , the overwhelming
majority of people speaks indeed dialect, but strongly infected by
standard Dutch.
But this makes the understanding by dutch-speaking people from ouside
not necessarily easier, because of the big difference in
pronunciation.
WestFlemish has the Frisian-Saxonic pronunciation while standard Dutch
and most dialects from central en west Netherlands end central and
east Belgium have the Franconic pronunciation. Saxonic -Frissian
pronunciation is to be found in Belgium only in WestFlanders(and a
small area in the utmost north of France) , while in the Netherlands
you have it in the provinces of Zeeland, Groningen, Drenthe, the
eastern half of Overijsel, and the "Achterhoek" in Gelderland.
In Frisia , they manage to have another language with a written
version as well which is different of Dutch language.
--
Fusti
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119355 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119354] |
Thu, 04 March 2010 19:34 |
Ruud Harmsen
Boodskappe: 31
Geregistreer: September 2002
Karma: 0
|
Volle Lid |
|
|
Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:29:44 +0100: Fustigator : in
nl.taal:
> WestFlemish has the Frisian-Saxonic pronunciation while standard Dutch
> and most dialects from central en west Netherlands end central and
> east Belgium have the Franconic pronunciation. Saxonic -Frissian
> pronunciation is to be found in Belgium only in WestFlanders(and a
> small area in the utmost north of France) , while in the Netherlands
> you have it in the provinces of Zeeland, Groningen, Drenthe, the
> eastern half of Overijsel, and the "Achterhoek" in Gelderland.
I think equating West-Flemish and Zeelandisch with Low-Saxon dialects
is a bizarre simplification, if not to say an Ingweonic myth.
The next statement will probably be that Afrikaans is derived from
Zeeland and West-Flemish dialects, and not from Holland dialects.
Simply untrue.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119358 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119354] |
Thu, 04 March 2010 20:59 |
Jan den Hollander
Boodskappe: 12
Geregistreer: October 2001
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
"Fustigator" skryf in boodskap news:2rdso5tfjd06p6usv1dmuh9g22hn4nfar5@4ax.com...
>> In reality I can talk with Fustigator in "standard" Dutch without any
>> problem, even though he has a little bit of a funny accent. And I don't
>> have any problem whatsoever with Limburgers either, and Frisians I can
>> get along with just fine. They all speak perfectly good "standard"
>> Dutch, even though their accents are slightly different.
>> Dialects are something of a folklore; purists like Fustigator claim they
>> can speak the local dialect just fine (which isn't true of course, but
>> he will never admit that). In fact, very few people can still speak
>> local dialects; perhaps some older folks who have lived their entire
>> live in the village they were born. But younger people, who move around
>> a lot speak only the "standard" Dutch; they don't have any connection
>> with the local dialect at all, simply because they are hardly ever
>> exposed to it
>
> I think that you pointed here quite an interesting point.
> Indeed the "infection" of dialects by the standard language is
> widespread, definitely in Duch speaking areas. This is easily to ben
> explained by the influence of education (no school teaches in dialect)
> and de media (radio-TV) where very little is done in dialects.
> Dialects have no written language either.
>
> This means that for instance in Westflanders , the overwhelming
> majority of people speaks indeed dialect, but strongly infected by
> standard Dutch.
>
> But this makes the understanding by dutch-speaking people from ouside
> not necessarily easier, because of the big difference in
> pronunciation.
>
> WestFlemish has the Frisian-Saxonic pronunciation while standard Dutch
> and most dialects from central en west Netherlands end central and
> east Belgium have the Franconic pronunciation.
The situation in western Netherlands is quite a bit more complicated than
that. The larger cities have their own accent, that probably derives from
the fact that there has been a large influx from elsewhere, now and in the
past. I once read somewhere that the Amsterdamese dialect of the 17th
century was more similar to 16th century Antwerps than 16th century
Amsterdamese, due to the large influx of refugees from Antwerp after 1585.
The coastal towns (Katwijk, Noordwijk and going north along the coast) have
some Frisian influence. My personal view is that the rural areas along the
Old Rhine river of South Holland has at least some Frisian influence as well
But once again, those differences in accent are fading because of schooling,
mass media, and increased mobility
> Saxonic -Frissian
> pronunciation is to be found in Belgium only in WestFlanders(and a
> small area in the utmost north of France) , while in the Netherlands
> you have it in the provinces of Zeeland, Groningen, Drenthe, the
> eastern half of Overijsel, and the "Achterhoek" in Gelderland.
>
> In Frisia , they manage to have another language with a written
> version as well which is different of Dutch language.
An important issue, I think, is whether or not there exists a literature in
those local tongues, as is indeed the case for Frisian. It that is not the
case there really is no defined entity; there are as many versions of
"local" dialect as there are speakers
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119369 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119358] |
Sat, 06 March 2010 12:17 |
Fustigator
Boodskappe: 29
Geregistreer: October 2005
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Vitae forma vocatur "Jan den Hollander" , die Thu, 4 Mar
2010 14:59:52 -0600, in littera in
foro soc.culture.belgium(et aliis) vere scripsit quod sequitur:
>
> "Fustigator" wrote in message
> news:2rdso5tfjd06p6usv1dmuh9g22hn4nfar5@4ax.com...
>
>>> In reality I can talk with Fustigator in "standard" Dutch without any
>>> problem, even though he has a little bit of a funny accent. And I don't
>>> have any problem whatsoever with Limburgers either, and Frisians I can
>>> get along with just fine. They all speak perfectly good "standard"
>>> Dutch, even though their accents are slightly different.
>>> Dialects are something of a folklore; purists like Fustigator claim they
>>> can speak the local dialect just fine (which isn't true of course, but
>>> he will never admit that). In fact, very few people can still speak
>>> local dialects; perhaps some older folks who have lived their entire
>>> live in the village they were born. But younger people, who move around
>>> a lot speak only the "standard" Dutch; they don't have any connection
>>> with the local dialect at all, simply because they are hardly ever
>>> exposed to it
>> I think that you pointed here quite an interesting point.
>> Indeed the "infection" of dialects by the standard language is
>> widespread, definitely in Duch speaking areas. This is easily to ben
>> explained by the influence of education (no school teaches in dialect)
>> and de media (radio-TV) where very little is done in dialects.
>> Dialects have no written language either.
>> This means that for instance in Westflanders , the overwhelming
>> majority of people speaks indeed dialect, but strongly infected by
>> standard Dutch.
>> But this makes the understanding by dutch-speaking people from ouside
>> not necessarily easier, because of the big difference in
>> pronunciation.
>> WestFlemish has the Frisian-Saxonic pronunciation while standard Dutch
>> and most dialects from central en west Netherlands end central and
>> east Belgium have the Franconic pronunciation.
>
> The situation in western Netherlands is quite a bit more complicated than
> that. The larger cities have their own accent, that probably derives from
> the fact that there has been a large influx from elsewhere, now and in the
> past.
I agree with that. You see the same in the greater flemish cities such
as Ghent and antwerp where de dialect is different from the
surrounding rural places.
> I once read somewhere that the Amsterdamese dialect of the 17th
> century was more similar to 16th century Antwerps than 16th century
> Amsterdamese, due to the large influx of refugees from Antwerp after 1585.
Do they pronounce the "ij" as a kind of "oa" (�) as they do in
Antwerp??
> The coastal towns (Katwijk, Noordwijk and going north along the coast) have
> some Frisian influence. My personal view is that the rural areas along the
> Old Rhine river of South Holland has at least some Frisian influence as well
> But once again, those differences in accent are fading because of schooling,
> mass media, and increased mobility
Agreed upon.
>
>> Saxonic -Frissian
>> pronunciation is to be found in Belgium only in WestFlanders(and a
>> small area in the utmost north of France) , while in the Netherlands
>> you have it in the provinces of Zeeland, Groningen, Drenthe, the
>> eastern half of Overijsel, and the "Achterhoek" in Gelderland.
>> In Frisia , they manage to have another language with a written
>> version as well which is different of Dutch language.
>
> An important issue, I think, is whether or not there exists a literature in
> those local tongues, as is indeed the case for Frisian. It that is not the
> case there really is no defined entity; there are as many versions of
> "local" dialect as there are speakers
There is in Westflanders some literature. The poet Guido Gezelle used
a language which is dutch but very strongly influenced by
west-flemish.
We now have singers who sing in dialect and even "rappers".
--
Fusti
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119370 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119355] |
Sat, 06 March 2010 12:17 |
Fustigator
Boodskappe: 29
Geregistreer: October 2005
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Vitae forma vocatur Ruud Harmsen , die Thu, 04 Mar 2010
20:34:50 +0100, in littera
in foro
soc.culture.belgium(et aliis) vere scripsit quod sequitur:
> Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:29:44 +0100: Fustigator : in
> nl.taal:
>
>> WestFlemish has the Frisian-Saxonic pronunciation while standard Dutch
>> and most dialects from central en west Netherlands end central and
>> east Belgium have the Franconic pronunciation. Saxonic -Frissian
>> pronunciation is to be found in Belgium only in WestFlanders(and a
>> small area in the utmost north of France) , while in the Netherlands
>> you have it in the provinces of Zeeland, Groningen, Drenthe, the
>> eastern half of Overijsel, and the "Achterhoek" in Gelderland.
>
> I think equating West-Flemish and Zeelandisch with Low-Saxon dialects
> is a bizarre simplification, if not to say an Ingweonic myth.
There are many similitudes between Westflemish and Low saxonic
dialects. I noticed that in the pronunciation but as well in the use
of definite words which are used in those dialects and not in
standaard dutch.
I went very often als a west-Flandrian in Twente, where i discovered
my wife who lived in Hengelo. I went often enough in pubs etc where
the local dialect was spoken and could better follow the conversations
than my father in law who was originated from North Brabant.
>
> The next statement will probably be that Afrikaans is derived from
> Zeeland and West-Flemish dialects, and not from Holland dialects.
> Simply untrue.
That is indeed untrue, in spite of the fact that some words could ben
derived from the westflemish dialect.But my knowledge of afrikaans is
too basic to be able to discuss about that language. .
--
Fusti
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119371 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119369] |
Sat, 06 March 2010 14:06 |
Jan den Hollander
Boodskappe: 12
Geregistreer: October 2001
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Fustigator wrote:
> Vitae forma vocatur "Jan den Hollander" , die Thu, 4 Mar
>> I once read somewhere that the Amsterdamese dialect of the 17th
>> century was more similar to 16th century Antwerps than 16th century
>> Amsterdamese, due to the large influx of refugees from Antwerp after 1585.
>
> Do they pronounce the "ij" as a kind of "oa" (�) as they do in
> Antwerp??
Some variation of that, but I should leave that one to the experts.
I was raised to pronounce the "ij" as "ai", but in school I was told
that that was very uncivilized.
The present day "civilized" pronunciation of the "ij" was apparently
introduced in the 17th century by refugees from the south (Hugenots)
Before that, the "ij" was a long "ii", as it still is in the lower Saxon
dialects
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119375 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119371] |
Sun, 07 March 2010 17:27 |
Fustigator
Boodskappe: 29
Geregistreer: October 2005
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Vitae forma vocatur Jan den Hollander , die Sat, 06 Mar
2010 08:06:32 -0600, in littera in
foro soc.culture.belgium(et aliis) vere scripsit quod sequitur:
> Fustigator wrote:
>> Vitae forma vocatur "Jan den Hollander" , die Thu, 4 Mar
>
>>> I once read somewhere that the Amsterdamese dialect of the 17th
>>> century was more similar to 16th century Antwerps than 16th century
>>> Amsterdamese, due to the large influx of refugees from Antwerp after 1585.
>> Do they pronounce the "ij" as a kind of "oa" (�) as they do in
>> Antwerp??
>
> Some variation of that, but I should leave that one to the experts.
> I was raised to pronounce the "ij" as "ai", but in school I was told
> that that was very uncivilized.
It is antwerpian.
> The present day "civilized" pronunciation of the "ij" was apparently
> introduced in the 17th century by refugees from the south (Hugenots)
> Before that, the "ij" was a long "ii", as it still is in the lower Saxon
> dialects
Exact.
--
Fusti
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119376 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119339] |
Sun, 07 March 2010 17:27 |
Fustigator
Boodskappe: 29
Geregistreer: October 2005
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Vitae forma vocatur Simon Brouwer , die Sat, 06
Mar 2010 16:09:55 +0100, in littera
in foro
soc.culture.belgium(et aliis) vere scripsit quod sequitur:
> Fustigator schreef:
>
>> I went very often als a west-Flandrian in Twente, where i discovered
>> my wife who lived in Hengelo.
>
> That sounds intriguing...
Is not at all intriguing, if you knew the local situations.
--
Fusti
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119377 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119375] |
Sun, 07 March 2010 17:47 |
Jan den Hollander
Boodskappe: 12
Geregistreer: October 2001
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Fustigator wrote:
> Vitae forma vocatur Jan den Hollander , die Sat, 06 Mar
> 2010 08:06:32 -0600, in littera in
> foro soc.culture.belgium(et aliis) vere scripsit quod sequitur:
>
>> Fustigator wrote:
>>> Vitae forma vocatur "Jan den Hollander" , die Thu, 4 Mar
>>>> I once read somewhere that the Amsterdamese dialect of the 17th
>>>> century was more similar to 16th century Antwerps than 16th century
>>>> Amsterdamese, due to the large influx of refugees from Antwerp after 1585.
>>> Do they pronounce the "ij" as a kind of "oa" (�) as they do in
>>> Antwerp??
>> Some variation of that, but I should leave that one to the experts.
>> I was raised to pronounce the "ij" as "ai", but in school I was told
>> that that was very uncivilized.
>
> It is antwerpian.
Actually, I believe it shows the connection between the Dutch dialects
and the English; that particular pronunciation is almost identical to
the English "I"
And it is making a comeback, "poldernederlands", see
http://cf.hum.uva.nl/poldernederlands/ Although it appears to me that
the "poldernederlands" pronunciation of the "ij" is longer than what I
was used to.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Is "Dutch" 16 different languages [boodskap #119378 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #119377] |
Sun, 07 March 2010 19:13 |
Fustigator
Boodskappe: 29
Geregistreer: October 2005
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Vitae forma vocatur Jan den Hollander , die Sun, 07 Mar
2010 11:47:19 -0600, in littera in
foro soc.culture.belgium(et aliis) vere scripsit quod sequitur:
> Fustigator wrote:
>> Vitae forma vocatur Jan den Hollander , die Sat, 06 Mar
>> 2010 08:06:32 -0600, in littera in
>> foro soc.culture.belgium(et aliis) vere scripsit quod sequitur:
>>> Fustigator wrote:
>>>> Vitae forma vocatur "Jan den Hollander" , die Thu, 4 Mar
>>>> > I once read somewhere that the Amsterdamese dialect of the 17th
>>>> > century was more similar to 16th century Antwerps than 16th century
>>>> > Amsterdamese, due to the large influx of refugees from Antwerp after 1585.
>>>> Do they pronounce the "ij" as a kind of "oa" (�) as they do in
>>>> Antwerp??
>>> Some variation of that, but I should leave that one to the experts.
>>> I was raised to pronounce the "ij" as "ai", but in school I was told
>>> that that was very uncivilized.
>> It is antwerpian.
>
> Actually, I believe it shows the connection between the Dutch dialects
> and the English; that particular pronunciation is almost identical to
> the English "I"
This seems to me that it comes from the brabant dialect, since it is
pronounced like that in Belgium only in the provinces of Antwerp and
flemish brabant.
> And it is making a comeback, "poldernederlands", see
> http://cf.hum.uva.nl/poldernederlands/ Although it appears to me that
> the "poldernederlands" pronunciation of the "ij" is longer than what I
> was used to.
It tends towards the Brabantian pronunciation.
Here I pronounce thet in dialect as "ee"(english orthograph) and
in standard Dutch as a shorter french "eille" and never as the
english "I" or similar
--
Fusti
|
|
|
|
| |
  |
Gaan na forum:
[ XML-voer ] [  ]
Tyd nou: Mon Dec 30 18:06:17 UTC 2024
|
Supertaal
Blog
Soek
Hulp
Lede
Registreer
Teken aan
Tuis
