ELL: Re: Re: Flemish
Lucas Husgen
lhusgen at KIROGI.DEMON.NL
Mon Apr 1 17:04:55 UTC 2002
Not that I'm Flemish, not that I'm Belgian, but as I said, I'm originally from Dutch Limburg, and I do wonder if those from Belgian Limburg even like to be called Flemish...
Those Belgians that I know (in the literary field, that is) don't regard their language as Flemish, they only regard themselves as Flemish from a geographical and historical persepective. Furthermore, of course there are words in the Flemish vocabulary that have different meaning or different connotations than in netherlands, but the same goes for words and expressions within the Netherlands themselves. The Flemish government is right in maintaining that their language is Dutch, by this pinpointing that this is on principle not a question of dominance by the north. Those who believe that standard Dutch should only be regarded as Netherlands Dutch (and, admittedly, there are way too many) even simply forget that Netherlands Dutch, if taken to mean Holland Dutch, has been molded for a great deal by the Flemish protestant refugees after 1580. Joost van den Vondel, the classical Dutch poet and playwright, was even a born Antwerpian.
Lucas H.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Niels Wijnen" <niels at koekoek.cjb.net>
To: <endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 10:07 AM
Subject: ELL: Re: Flemish
> Gerd Jendraschek:
> > The difference between the varieties is always the same, because the
> > speakers' impression regarding them is located between two poles:
> >
> > b) When a speaker of variety A hears a speaker of variety B, he almost
> > immediately recognizes that he speaks a different variety, that they
> > don't speak the same way. The differences between A and B may cause
> > misunderstandings --> different languages.
>
> Yes, in the bussiness world there are often misunderstandings because of this.
> It is often more difficult to negotiate with a partner that doesn't speak
> Dutch, then between a Flemish and a Dutch companie. They think they speak the
> same language, but they forget that the value of some words are different in
> the both parts of the Dutch language area. And this creates misunderstandings.
>
> > Moreover, the sociolinguistic situation of both varieties is not the
> > same.
> ...
> > and this is why it is mentioned among the positive cases of language
> > revitalization: from an unofficial, stigmatized, fragmented dialect group to
> > an official, modernized, standardized language.
>
> Flemish was until the beginning of the 20th centurie just a collection of
> dialects. 'The Flemish people' didn't exist at all. In Belgium the official
> language was French, although more then 50% of the inhabitants spoke a Dutch
> dialect. Then they standarized the Dutch language also in Flanders by
> connecting it with the Dutch spoken in the Netherlands. From that point
> the 'Flemish nationality' start to grow (again). And now, since about 50 years,
> you can really speak (again) of the Flemish people (altough Flanders is now
> bigger then it was in the Middleages). 50 years ago the most people thought the
> (official) Dutch language was the only Dutch. Flemish didn't exist. Nowdays
> Flanders is a economical and cultural wealthy region, part of the FEDERAL state
> Belgium. The Flemish people really exist! And now there are more and more
> people who see Flemish as a real language, different than standard Dutch.
>
> Of course the scientific discussion is much more complicated, and goes beyond
> the 'feelings' that one has about the status of the language he/she speaks.
>
>
> William J Poser:
> > If I'm not mistaken there is a disparity between the official standard
> > for Flemish and the actual standard. That is, the position of the Belgian
> > government, at least in the past 15 or 20 years, has been that Flemish
> > is the same thing as Dutch. They even re-named it - the language is supposed
> > to be called "nederlands", not "vlaams". So, as I understand it, in theory
> > written standard Flemish should be the same as written standard Dutch.
>
> This was before the national country Beglium was transformed into a Federal
> state Belgium (in 1993). The Belgian Federal government doesn't says anything
> anymore about the status of the Flemish/Dutch, it isn't their bussiness anymore.
> But yes, in theory it should be the same. In theory.
>
> > However, in practice, there are some differences between Flemish and Dutch
> > that are always maintained, even by educated "standard" speakers. For example,
> > I don't think that any Flemish speaker would consider it proper to say
> > "mannetje" for "boy" rather than "mannika", even though standard Dutch
> > uses -tje for the diminutive rather than -ka. Is this not so?
>
> It is 'manneke'. And indeed, in Flanders 'manneke' is prefered
> above 'mannetje'. But I think that in Flanders the people would use 'ventje',
> which you certainly don't use in the Netherlands.
>
> > As a little aside on language attitudes, at one point the admissions
> > tickets for the Plantin Museum (the famous old print shop) said in
> > French "Ministry of Education and National Culture" but in Flemish
> > "Ministry of Education and Dutch Culture".
>
> Before the federalization of Belgium. Now it will be "the Flemish Ministry of
> Culture", or "the Ministry of Culture of the Flemish Community".
>
>
> Niels,
> ----
> Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
> Web pages http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
> Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
> ----
----
Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
Web pages http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
----
More information about the Endangered-languages-l
mailing list