LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.04.21 (05) [E/Z]

Wed Apr 21 15:14:52 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 21.APR.2004 (05) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: marco [evenhuiscommunicatie] <marco at evenhuiscommunicatie.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.04.20 (07) [E]

Hi all!

Although I do think that Fred van Brederode has got a point in his 'essay'
about the close relationship between Dutch and Afrikaans, he did write a few
thinks that I believe are incorrect. Of course, the stuff I'd like to
comment on is related to my 'very own' regional language, Zeelandic.

Fred van Brederode wrote:

> The development of Standard Dutch started somewhere with the invention of
> book printing and gained importance in the 17th century en during the
> European nation building era of the 19th century. Any dialect in the realm
> of the Lower Countries contributed to it with a main influence of
> Hollandish.
(...)
> Zeelandic contributed to the standard language like other regional
> languages did.

As far as I know, quite a few dialects or regional languages did NOT
contibute to the development of standard Dutch. The main buildingstones are
Hollandish and Brabantish. The influence of other dialects/regional
languages is limited to just some specific vocabulary (names of plants,
animals, geographical features).
Even more, an important part of the reason why Frisian, Low Saxon and
Limburgish are recognized as official regional languages and Zeelandic has
asked for official recognition, is because they almost completely stood
aside when standard Dutch was 'constructed'.
I would really like to know what Fred believes is a Zeelandic contribution
tot standard Dutch. All linguistic works I know don't mention anything more
than a dozen words of supposedly Zeelandic origin.

> On the other hand, differences between these regional
> languages are not as large as you seem to suggest. The regions were no
> introvert independent nations with a regional cultural awareness.

No regional cultural awareness and no relative independency? Why do you
think the nation that freed itself from Spanish rule in the 17th century was
called the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands in the first place?
I don't know much about the other regions (or Netherlands), but Zeeland has
been politically, economically and culturally apart from Holland. OK, the
both counties were united in medieval times (there was only one County of
Holland and Zeeland). But Zeeland has always had problems with 'Hollandish
rule'. In the 17th century, Zeeland strongly opposed to the Munster Peace
Treaty (1648) where Holland and the other Netherlands signed the peace with
Spain. Zeeland then proclaimed the 'Souvereine en Indepedente Staat
Zeeland'. (see J.H. Kluiver, De Souvereine en independente Staat Zeeland,
Middelburg 1998).
Officially, Zeeland is still at war with Spain :-)

Then the cultural part. Again, I will only mention Zeelandic examples but
I'm sure there are loads of examples of regional cultural awareness in the
Netherlands of the 17th century.
When the famous Dutch writer Jacob Cats moved from Zeeland to Delft in
Holland in 1623, he wrote that untill then he only wrote in Zeelandis. From
1623 on, he wrote 'somtijds Zeeus en somtijds Hollands'.
In fact, it was Jacob Cats who firmly reacted against the arrogance and
supposed suprimacy of artists from Holland as opposed to artists from other
parts of the Netherlands. He compiled an impressive book with a selection of
poetry from Zeeland and in Zeelandic, De Zeevsche Nachtegael (The Hague,
1622). It can be read on the internet:
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_zee001zeeu01/
A shor quote from the preface: "Soo ghy dan Leser redelijck, en
cunst-gunstich zijt, strijckt dan voortaen een sachter vonnis over onse
Zeeusche Eylanden, en de inghesetenen van dien" (...) "men sal jae
t'eenigher tijdt, den selve de mate soo nae legghen, dat hy indien hy uyt de
mond niet spreecken wil, ten minsten binnen sich selven beter van onse
Zeeuvven sal ghevoelen; ofte yet tusschen de tanden mommelen. Wel aen dan,
ick besluyte dit met een vriendelijck dreyghement, dat is: by aldien de
Zeeusche verstanden by yder niet erkent werden, sal ick noch andermael mijn
uyterste vermoghen doen, om haer scharp, loffelijck vernuft door konst van
drucken wyder te doen verspreyen, in onse en buyten onse Landen".

In this light, Fred's remark seems a bit strange to me. He wrote about
regional cultural awarenss in the 17th century Netherlands:

> Nothing of
> the kind existed in those days and still the greater part of the
population
> is not so interested in issues of regional diversity.

He then continues:

> Zeeland and Holland are adjacent territories with vague boundaries. Still
> many people believe that the island of Goeree-Overflakkee is part of the
> province of Zeeland, where in fact it is officially a part of
Zuid-Holland.
> The provinces are both geographically not too large and they are endowed
> with good means of transport by water. Zeeuwen and Hollanders had been
> communicating with each other for ages and long before SA was discovered
or
> colonized.

Vague boundaries? The fact that some people believe the island of
Goeree-Overflakkee is part of Zeeland does not mean that the boundaries are
vague. Liguistically speaking, Zeeland has the most clear dialectboundaries
of all regional languages in the Netherlands and in northern Belgium.
Zeelandic is the most homogenous of all regional language varieties in this
part of Europe
This can very easily be seen at a map with isoglosses (on which the
boundaries of certain language features are shown). For instance, on
Weijnen's map in Nederlandse Dialectkunde (1966), between Holland and
Friesland one can count about four isoglosses. Between Holland and Zeeland
there are six and between Zeeland and Brabant there are even twelve
significant linguistic features that the language varieties of these regions
do not share.

Of course, Zeelanders and Hollanders have been communicating for centuries.
So have the English and the French. But my parents, who moved from Hilversum
in Holland to Souburg in Zeeland in 1978, could NOT understand are
neighbours when they were speaking Zeelandic amongst each other. So how
would that have been in the 17th century? My parents still have difficulty
with the small but important little details and finesses that can make
communication in another language a success or a failure.

> Merchants and craftsmen from the further away Antwerp moved to Amsterdam
in
> that century without much language problems.

The Brabantish (Antwerp) influx in Holland (especially Amsterdam) directly
led to a complete language shift in the biggest parts of North and South
Holland (uu became ui and ie became ij, to name only two of the most
important changes). I do not believe that is because the Antwerp/Brabantish
dialect of that time was so closely related to the Holland/Amsterdam
dialect.
In quit a number of famous plays that were written in that time, the
linguistic differences between characters from the north (Holland) and the
south (Brabant) play a very important role.

> What was the VOC's language?
> Standard Dutch hardly existed in the days of the founding of SA.
> Nevertheless many people did not have much trouble understanding each
other.
> The point is, they needed to understand each other. During time a standard
> language developed (and was imposed later on) and regional languages grew
> more and more together. Not in the least because of some sort of standard
> spelling and by the schooling system.
> For the Kaapkolonie, the VOC semi government from the very beginning
> strongly enforced the use of a standard Hollandish.

I agree that people needed to understand each other and that they made
linguistic 'sacrifices' in order to make themselves heard. But I do not
agreed that on board VOC ships, a sort of standard marine Dutch came into
development.
The VOC (the commercial company that exploited the Dutch possesions in the
east) was organized in chambers. There was one VOC-chamber in every major
harbourcity. There were six in total: five in Holland (Amsterdam, Delft,
Enkhuizen, Hoorn and Rotterdam) and one in Zeeland (Middelburg). They had
their own flag, ships, personnel, administration, warehouses and so on. The
recruitment of personnel was also one of their tasks. The Hollandish
chambers of course recruited in Holland, the Middelburg chamber recruited in
Zeeland. These recruits of course spoke the language of their region. Even
the administration of the Middelburg chamber always spoke Zeelandic. There's
a report about a Zeeland representative who complained about a soar throat
after having to speak Hollandish for two weeks while meeting VOC-members
from Holland in Amsterdam :-)

Zeeland was by far the most important contibutor to the WIC (West Indian
Company), which played about the same role as the VOC in the east. And in
that part of the world it is even more clear that the seafaring 'souvereine
en indepedente staat Zeeland' left significant linguistic traces. Three
creole languages based on Zeelandic and African languages developed there.
One or maybe two of them still survive to this day, although there are only
a handlful of speakers left.

I think the composition of the 'Dutch' part of Afrikaans, which as an almost
creole language cannot be anything else than native to Africa by the way, is
determined by the number of ships from each VOC-chamber that visited Cape
Town and (later) the number of people from each chamber/region/city that
were permanently stationed there.
I am not an expert, but most linguists conclude that most 'Dutch' features
in Afrikaans can also be found in the dialects of the most southern part of
South Holland (that's the island of Goeree-Overflakkee where a Zeelandic
dialect is spoken), Zeeland and northern West-Flanders (were roughly the
same dialect is spoken as in the western part of Zeeland Flanders).

Regards,

Marco Evenhuis

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================