|
 |
Differences between NL and BE Dutch | ||
Tags: Dutch | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
| Mattvonparis Diglot Newbie France Joined 3924 days ago 3 posts - 5 votes Speaks: French*, EnglishC2 Studies: Spanish, Dutch | Message 1 of 5 14 March 2014 at 4:11pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Hi all,
I am currently studying Dutch quite intensively, with the help of an Assimil course and online resources. The Assimil course is entirely targeted at Dutch spoken in the Netherlands (Allgemeen Nederlands). As I am learning Dutch because I spend quite a lot of time in Flanders, Belgium, I am wondering what the differences are between standard Dutch and Dutch spoken in Belgium. I know the question is quite tricky because Dutch spoken in Belgium (Flemish) is in fact a set of local different dialects. But I read that Flemisch people tend to use a kind of common dialect when speaking to somebody not speaking the same dialect, which may be refered as Belgium standard Dutch (ABN) or Tussentaal (Did I get this right ?). At this point of my studying, I am more interested in differences between AN and ABN but would gladly welcome any input on differences with/between dialects. I am interested in any differences on vocabulary, spelling and pronunciation (especially about how the letter G is prononced in these different variants of Dutch). I searched on the internet but did not find any satisfactory answer. Thanks for your input, ideas, or help on this question. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7156 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes  20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 2 of 5 14 March 2014 at 4:23pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
See this thread. ReneeMona links to a word list in Dutch while blauw's explanation is quite clear on what can be meant by "Flemish" (i.e. it can refer to Standard Belgian Dutch or some non-standard form spoken in Flanders which is not fully mutually intelligible with any variant of Dutch)
1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| tarvos Super Polyglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member China likeapolyglot.wordpr Joined 4707 days ago 5310 posts - 9399 votes Speaks: Dutch*, English, Swedish, French, Russian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Afrikaans Studies: Greek, Modern Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Korean, Esperanto, Finnish | Message 3 of 5 14 March 2014 at 4:39pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Every Dutch-speaking person speaks local dialect first (unless they're from a mixed heritage). These dialects, however, are in the Netherlands often subsumed under Dutch because especially in the west, they closely mirror the standard (though people from different cities are easy to tell apart - you could give me 30 people and I could tell you the province easily, sometimes down to the city). In Belgium, the diglossia is more marked because the standard language is based mostly on Hollandic (and a bit on Brabantian dialects), but Flemish has nothing to do with Hollandic at all, and Brabantian dialects only form a part of the substrate of dialects in Flanders. Thus the difference between speaking and writing in Belgium is larger than in the Netherlands - but if you come across someone from Groningen, Friesland, Limburg, Twente or Brabant (and also Zeeland) then you will hear that they often deviate from the norm too. The general rule is that the degree of dialect is older with age - younger people speak a more streamlined Dutch. In Belgium, I am told this differs, and in Belgium younger people defend dialect more fiercely. Younger people tend to be easier to understand, although they will have a local accent. And I know younger people with very marked accents too. However, the problem arises when you start mixing people from different dialectal variants. In Flanders, someone from Bruges and from Genk speak entirely different variants which are hard to mix. Thus, there's a need for a common denominator, that's the standard language with local accent and in Belgium local vocabulary (there is a set of words that have equivalents in Belgium that are never used in the Netherlands. It's important to know these if you are in Flanders - for example a student dorm is called a kot in Belgium but a kamer in Dutch, and so on). Belgians usually speak this variant when they need to talk to someone that is not from their hometown, and even then the dialect tends to slip through somewhat.' The take-home message: Flemish people will probably speak dialect, but not to you as a foreigner, unless you're really in very informal private situations. And don't feel left out - they do this to countrymen with another dialect as well.
In writing, it's the same language, with exception to vocabulary items. The grammatical differences are minimal (Belgians insist on three genders, that IJ is two letters, and that you can use alternative forms for 2nd person pronouns - however the latter also exist in some Dutch variants. In speech the difference is huge.
G above the rivers is velar or even uvular. Compare it to the Ach-laut of German, the Chaf of Modern Hebrew, etc. Below the rivers, that is, in the Netherlands, below the Meuse and the Rhine, the g is soft (so also in Brabant, Limburg. Not necessarily in Zeeland). Soft means that the g is pulled more towards the front of your mouth. I think it's palatal, but opinions on where to place it differ. It certainly is not uvular and I doubt it is velar. Palato-velar maybe? You'll recognise the difference. In Zeeland and West-Flanders h and g get mixed up. Furthermore, in Flanders the r is almost exclusively rolled; some diphthongs have more monophthong-like qualities in Flanders - the sentence melody is different - vowels can get elongated (like saying tüssen for tussen, which in the Netherlands is a schwa), and there's some other stuff as well. Edited by tarvos on 14 March 2014 at 5:01pm 8 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6597 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 4 of 5 14 March 2014 at 6:32pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
How would you compare the h and g to Russian? (I assume you're familiar with the "Ukrainian" kind of it too since many Russians use it)
1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| tarvos Super Polyglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member China likeapolyglot.wordpr Joined 4707 days ago 5310 posts - 9399 votes Speaks: Dutch*, English, Swedish, French, Russian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Afrikaans Studies: Greek, Modern Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Korean, Esperanto, Finnish | Message 5 of 5 14 March 2014 at 7:22pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Yeah. Russian х is velar. That is the same as our "ch". h is a voiced English h in principle, but in many dialects voiced and voiceless tend to merge (except for the d/t and b/p pairs and sometimes v and z intervocalically), so often it resembles the English h. I think H in Dutch is the same as that of German. It definitely contrasts with g and has a fair amount of minimal pairs (hoed vs goed). Dutch g is, nominally, the Ukrainian/southern Russian /г/ (voiced variant of /x/), but in the Netherlands often realised as a uvular variant, merging with "ch" also becoming uvular. (The exact realization depends on the speaker). In the Netherlands g tends to merge with ch and become voiceless, except for the south. In Belgium, it is usually lighter than both, and palatal or palatal-velar (never exactly velar I think). Belgians maintain voiced/voiceless distinction as well, which is something Dutch people rarely do (except people from Brabant and Limburg). In Zealand and West Flanders they are the same thing and come down to a "h" (the city of Goes in Zealandic pronunciation is jokingly called Hoes). This is why /g/ in Russian transliteration is always realised with a г, never with a х, although the pronunciation х is usually closer (and in the Netherlands often even correct). For г you should assume that the г is as in Ukrainian/southern Russian when transcribing Dutch names and places. But /g/ contrasts with /ch/, never with k!!!!!! One thing is certain - whatever the realisation, /g/ is a fricative, NEVER a stop. One way to tell /g/ is historically voiced - the rules for past tense formation (as well as the participle) hinge on the last consonant of the verb stem - if it ends in g, you get a d (which is voiced). Edited by tarvos on 14 March 2014 at 7:35pm 4 persons have voted this message useful |
If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
