|
 |
Isn’t Flemish a dialect? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
| PeterMollenburg Senior Member AustraliaRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5473 days ago 821 posts - 1273 votes  Speaks: English* Studies: FrenchB1 | Message 17 of 19 30 May 2015 at 10:58am | IP Logged | |||||
|
In my understanding of the Flemish/Dutch difference one of the main drivers amplifying
the distinction of Flemish from other languages (dialects or otherwise) (and given previous posts Flemish dialects perhaps my comments here relate more about the official Flemish situation than the dialects) was not just that the southern lowlands sought independence from the northern lowlands with distinction of language representative of themselves as opposed to Dutch speakers from the Netherlands, but that post independence the Flemish found themselves as second class citizens with respect to French speakers (predominantly Walloons I would assume). Slowly the economic power shifted to Flanders and with it the Flemish gained more self respect/ self recognition/ autonomy? Thus they wished their language to be viewed with respect and distinction representative of themselves as opposed to the French Walloons (and the Dutch to a lesser degree? perhaps that depended on reigion and proximity to the other language). Brussels used to be predominantly a Flemish speaking city. Today it is a bit of a melting pot with French being the predominant language and I think even English speakers outnumbering Flemish speakers from recollection. Apparently this has been the result of many Flemish families themselves (this is fifty years, maybe even a century or so ago) discouraging the use of their mother-tongue with their children and instead encouraging the use of the more prestigous, potentially door-opening French language. I wouldn't 'blame' them though. Apparently during the time of French prestige coupled with the suppression of Flemish, if facing charges in a court in Belgium (or was it just Brussels?) and unable to defend yourself in French you had the book thrown at you (ie prison, hand cut off, whatever harsh penalty was in vogue at the time- even if innocent). I personally love the French language but having learned a decent amount of Dutch in the past and I have a soft spot for the Flemish and can see why with all the stalemates and government collapses in Belgium why many Flemish people feel that Brussels is theirs despite French being the main vernacular in use there nowadays. It shows in the old architecture who really built the place in more recent centuries at least. I remember crossing the border from northern France into Flanders with a French farmer I was woofing with for a couple of weeks (cultural/linguistic experience) after myself having just come from the Netherlands to northern France via Belgium. AT a war memorial there was a local service commemorating the ANZACS (particularly Australians for their efforts in the region in WWI) which btw had been held every week since WWI except for during WWII- that's how appreciative they were. Anyway afterwards I got talking to a Belgian couple. It was interesting speaking to them in my clearly Dutch (from the Netherlands) learned Dutch and their clearly Belgian Flemish. It was no hinderance to communication whatsoever but their accent was certainly very noticeable. Of course this is a lay person's attempt at stating that you'll have little trouble discerning Dutch and Flemish, but as pointed out by other posters the official Belgian Dutch probably varies little compared to ABN Dutch of the Netherlands. I'm sure such Belgian speakers would go into 'let's speak the best standard Dutch we can' for such quirky foreigners as myself. Amongst themselves i'm likely to follow little of what they would speak about, perhaps. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Luso Hexaglot Senior Member Portugal Joined 6058 days ago 819 posts - 1812 votes Speaks: Portuguese*, French, EnglishC2, GermanB1, Italian, Spanish Studies: Sanskrit, Arabic (classical) | Message 18 of 19 31 May 2015 at 2:12am | IP Logged | |||||
It is exceedingly rare. But breaking up one language in 10 versions is an arbitrary choice in itself. My Arabic language teacher is a scholar in linguistics. He loves literature and his language. In a better world he would be a good addition to this forum, but I'm afraid that's out of the question (I understand his French is quite good, but his English is not). One thing he taught me (I must have posted this once or twice already) is that many Arabic words we now think are dialectal are, in fact, pure Arabic. Why is that? Because the language is very rich in synonyms, over the centuries local populations chose one version over another. In spite of remarkable contacts, we couldn't expect a language spread so wide over a thousand years ago to keep every word accounted for. Not for want of trying, mind you: there are Arabic dictionaries of huge breadth compiled very long ago. For a few years, I took his word for it (I still do), as I couldn't either confirm or deny it. As a Westerner, I was not aware of the fact that there were languages that could have so many synonyms (we have that, but not to the same extent). Then I started learning Sanskrit. That can be even worse: you can have 10 or 20 words for a given concept, and many words have several possible meanings. Context, context, context. I won't deny that Arabic dialects are bound to have a lot of influx from other languages: Berber in North Africa, Persian in Asia, etc. But is it all dialect? Not really. Coming back to forum choices, why is Hassaniya on the list, and not Hejazi or Najdi (both with more speakers)? Just a choice. Participation in this forum is completely dependent on the mastery of the English language. A majority of its participants never ventured beyond the Latin alphabet, or Indo-European languages. That's more or less inevitable, but it also means that, for many significant languages, the forum lacks specialists. As a personal note, I've always thought that a few forum pundits were a bit too Anglocentric (this was more apparent a few years ago). I simply decided I could live with that, given the overall plurality of views. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Saim Pentaglot Senior Member AustraliaRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5080 days ago 124 posts - 215 votes Speaks: Serbo-Croatian, English*, Catalan, Spanish, Polish Studies: Dutch, Portuguese, Italian, Occitan, Punjabi, Urdu, Arabic (Maghribi), French, Modern Hebrew, Ukrainian, Slovenian | Message 19 of 19 03 June 2015 at 12:43pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Flemish is not a dialect. The word Flemish can refer to two very different sets of
language varities: 1. Low Franconian languages spoken in Belgium; that is to say, West Flemish, Brabantic (minus northern Brabantic) and Limburgish (minus norther Limburgish) dialects. All of these languages are also spoken in the Netherlands (where the speakers see themselves as Dutch) so this is a geographic/ethnographic term, not a genetic one. 2. The southern standard of the pluricentric Dutch language; i.e. Standard Belgian Dutch, which is very close to Standard Netherlands Dutch despite some limited influence from traditional Flemish vernaculars (West Flemish, Brabantic, Limburgish). Standard Dutch is mostly derived from Hollandic dialects of Low Franconian, although I have read there is some Brabantic influence as well. There are also intermediate forms in between these two called tusentaal ("between- language"), a kind of vernacular-influenced version of the standard that is steadily replacing the traditional vernaculars, especially in the case of Brabantic. Edited by Saim on 03 June 2015 at 12:53pm 2 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. |
