From what I know, the difference between Dutch and West Flemish is less like that between English English and North American English, and more like that between English and Scots proper, so that's not exactly comparable per se.
What is the closest language to English?
So they're distantly related dialects? Either way, they are both part of the massive dialect continuum that stretches from the North Sea down to Switzerland, over to Austria, and up to the Baltic, so wouldn't it just be considered a dialect of it's written language (Dutch), as Low Saxon is considered a dialect of German?
Extrait :
« Pour ce qui est du flamand (Vlaams) lui-même, on lui reconnaît trois variétés: le flamand de Zélande (le Zeeuws-Vlaams), le flamand occidental (le West-Vlaams) et le flamand oriental (le Oost-Vlaams). Le flamand de Zélande n’est parlé qu’aux Pays-Bas; le flamand occidental, en Flandre, aux Pays-Bas et dans le nord de la France; le flamand oriental, en Flandre et aux Pays-Bas. Précisons que les différences entre le flamand et le néerlandais sont tout de même assez importantes, notamment dans la prononciation, la grammaire et le vocabulaire. L’intercompréhension peut être difficile pour un locuteur du néerlandais par rapport aux dialectes flamands. Par comparaison, on pourrait dire que les différences entre le flamand et le néerlandais sont plus importantes qu’entre le français du Québec et celui de France, ou encore davantage entre l’espagnol du Mexique et celui de l’Espagne. »
Texte poétique en Vlaemsch avec adaptation en français :
LAND EN LUCHT
Me zyn ongelukkig a'me kyken in `t lucht
Zien vele ren die vaelt op 'n schamel man die vlucht
En droppels die vliegen lyk vliegen op een koe
De koe is onder 'n boom, z'is tuchtig en nooit moe.
Maer `t er is oek geluk a'me kyken in `t lucht
Zien de zunne straalen op nuuze vlamsche vrucht
Nuuze land is bevrucht lyk Marie in 'n Mei maend
Ze gaet inkopen in Oegst van schoone dikke graen.
Toen a' `n hemel is zwart en nuuze land is nat
T'is `t vael van `t blad en vul is nuuze land is nat
Vul wyn of vul waeter, vul bier in nuuze streke
Zo goed om te drinken, proevt e keer `t bier van Eecke !
En a' `n hemel is blauw me zyn van `n durst oek blauw
`N warme zomer is droef a `nuus vel isnog rauw
Goe were om niet te doen en rusten in de groene
En klagen lyk boeren die rusten nie van `t noene !
Jean-Noël Ternynck, `Van de Leie toet de Zee' 1998
ENTRE CIEL ET TERRE
Pendant la nuit blanche notre ciel s'est noirci
Paysan en prière invoque les esprits
Pense que quelque part `` Le malin '' se réveille
Et les bêtes au pré de l'orage s'effrayent.
Mais le paysan bénit le ciel qui s'éclaircit
Le soleil inonde les champs et les épis
La Terre si féconde en ce mois de Marie
Enfantera en août les blés pour notre mie.
Quand l'automne rageur inonde les vergers
Qu'il tonne et qu'il étonne au point de déborder
Le grain dans nos greniers dans nos tonneaux la bière
La Flandre fête encor ses rares houblonnières.
Mais quand le ciel est bleu l'Été frappe si fort
Que de soif on est bleu et puis que l'on s'endort,
Du temps à paresser à déjeûner sur l'herbe
En se plaignant du temps, du temps qui nous emm... !
Jean-Noël Ternynck, `Van de Leie toet de Zee' 1998
« t WESTVLAMS IN DE MHEDIAH
Yow yuplahoi, t'es ter eindelik vhan gekommn, de radhiejoow 2 uutzhendinghe van de zeeevnesten januarie voalt ier nu onlaain te beluustern; Ajje giedere ekjee de stemmn achtre Erpel, Stekker, Hinprobleem, Puype of de Hinindioan wilt woorn, volgt toene mowuh zwoo rap meuglik deezne lienk. Me goan der trouwns nog meer media faailkes goan tuschn zettn, vwoa der nuzze nieuwe rubrik mhediah van te moakn. goande vhan tilivisjeuhuutzendingn ehn radjoohuutzendingn toet artiekels oovre Erpel in t parochieblad toe. »
« Pour ce qui est du flamand (Vlaams) lui-même, on lui reconnaît trois variétés: le flamand de Zélande (le Zeeuws-Vlaams), le flamand occidental (le West-Vlaams) et le flamand oriental (le Oost-Vlaams). Le flamand de Zélande n’est parlé qu’aux Pays-Bas; le flamand occidental, en Flandre, aux Pays-Bas et dans le nord de la France; le flamand oriental, en Flandre et aux Pays-Bas. Précisons que les différences entre le flamand et le néerlandais sont tout de même assez importantes, notamment dans la prononciation, la grammaire et le vocabulaire. L’intercompréhension peut être difficile pour un locuteur du néerlandais par rapport aux dialectes flamands. Par comparaison, on pourrait dire que les différences entre le flamand et le néerlandais sont plus importantes qu’entre le français du Québec et celui de France, ou encore davantage entre l’espagnol du Mexique et celui de l’Espagne. »
Texte poétique en Vlaemsch avec adaptation en français :
LAND EN LUCHT
Me zyn ongelukkig a'me kyken in `t lucht
Zien vele ren die vaelt op 'n schamel man die vlucht
En droppels die vliegen lyk vliegen op een koe
De koe is onder 'n boom, z'is tuchtig en nooit moe.
Maer `t er is oek geluk a'me kyken in `t lucht
Zien de zunne straalen op nuuze vlamsche vrucht
Nuuze land is bevrucht lyk Marie in 'n Mei maend
Ze gaet inkopen in Oegst van schoone dikke graen.
Toen a' `n hemel is zwart en nuuze land is nat
T'is `t vael van `t blad en vul is nuuze land is nat
Vul wyn of vul waeter, vul bier in nuuze streke
Zo goed om te drinken, proevt e keer `t bier van Eecke !
En a' `n hemel is blauw me zyn van `n durst oek blauw
`N warme zomer is droef a `nuus vel isnog rauw
Goe were om niet te doen en rusten in de groene
En klagen lyk boeren die rusten nie van `t noene !
Jean-Noël Ternynck, `Van de Leie toet de Zee' 1998
ENTRE CIEL ET TERRE
Pendant la nuit blanche notre ciel s'est noirci
Paysan en prière invoque les esprits
Pense que quelque part `` Le malin '' se réveille
Et les bêtes au pré de l'orage s'effrayent.
Mais le paysan bénit le ciel qui s'éclaircit
Le soleil inonde les champs et les épis
La Terre si féconde en ce mois de Marie
Enfantera en août les blés pour notre mie.
Quand l'automne rageur inonde les vergers
Qu'il tonne et qu'il étonne au point de déborder
Le grain dans nos greniers dans nos tonneaux la bière
La Flandre fête encor ses rares houblonnières.
Mais quand le ciel est bleu l'Été frappe si fort
Que de soif on est bleu et puis que l'on s'endort,
Du temps à paresser à déjeûner sur l'herbe
En se plaignant du temps, du temps qui nous emm... !
Jean-Noël Ternynck, `Van de Leie toet de Zee' 1998
« t WESTVLAMS IN DE MHEDIAH
Yow yuplahoi, t'es ter eindelik vhan gekommn, de radhiejoow 2 uutzhendinghe van de zeeevnesten januarie voalt ier nu onlaain te beluustern; Ajje giedere ekjee de stemmn achtre Erpel, Stekker, Hinprobleem, Puype of de Hinindioan wilt woorn, volgt toene mowuh zwoo rap meuglik deezne lienk. Me goan der trouwns nog meer media faailkes goan tuschn zettn, vwoa der nuzze nieuwe rubrik mhediah van te moakn. goande vhan tilivisjeuhuutzendingn ehn radjoohuutzendingn toet artiekels oovre Erpel in t parochieblad toe. »
Well, at least from everything I've seen, Scots (*not* Scottish English) is definitely a distinct language from English, albeit the closest language to English; that kind of relationship is what I was indicating by analogizing Dutch and West Flemish with English and Scots. As for Low Saxon, Low Saxon is unambiguously a separate language from both German and Dutch; even though it shares some things with German that they do not share with Dutch, there are many things which German and Dutch share which Low Saxon, and in particular Northern Low Saxon, does not share with them.
In general, Low Saxon has a more conservative phonology than German or Dutch, a few innovations such as reduction of certain consonant clusters, fronting of some back vowels, loss of many final schwas in roots, and in Northern Low Saxon the merger of /a:/ and /o:/ aside. In many was, the phonology of Low Saxon is actually closer to early Old High German and than it is to modern German, due to the phonology of it vowel-wise being very conservative, unlike German, which has had a number of vowel shifts, diphthongizations, and monophthongizations along the way, as well as some extra consonant changes besides the Second Germanic Sound Shift, especially with respect to sibilants.
At the same, grammatically, it is more analytic than German (but seemingly less so than Dutch), while having significant differences with both German and Dutch, especially in Northern Low Saxon. Its article paradigm is more like that of Dutch than that of German, as in the nominative case it uses "de" for masculine and feminine genders (but uses "dat" where Dutch uses "het" for neuter), but unlike in many Dutch dialects today, the masculine and feminine genders are still distinct in the common (merged accusative and dative) case, as well as in adjective conjugation.
On the other hand, the pronoun system of Low Saxon is closer to that of German than that of Dutch, besides the phonological differences between Low Saxon and German. In particular, Low Saxon has not had the changes in second person familar pronouns which have happened historically in Dutch, and has third person pronoun forms which are (mostly) more like those in German form-wise than those in Dutch. However, some notable differences are that most Low Saxon dialects have replaced the historical third person neuter singular pronoun "et" or "it" (cognate with German "es" and Dutch "het") with "dat", that Low Saxon *classically* used the second person plural ("ji") rather than third person plural ("se") for the second person formal, and that there is no final /r/ or /k/ (which would what German /x/ in said position would have been) on many pronouns (compare "wi" and "di" with German "wir" and "dich" or "dir").
Verbs differ from those in both German and Dutch in that there are no dental suffixes in preterites, which are for weak verbs distinguished from present tense forms solely by a few differences in agreement, in often only the third person singular. and if anywhere else, in the plural. Also, the preterite is used little in Low Saxon, and similarly the passive voice is used less in Low Saxon than in German or English. Furthermore, in Northern Low Saxon, there are no "ge"-like suffixes for past participles, and in other Low Saxon dialect groups, usually what was "ge" in Middle Low Saxon has been reduced to a single vowel such as "i".
Another area in which Low Saxon differs significantly from both German and Dutch is the formation of possessive constructions. While it lacks a genitive case like that of standard German (even though such also does not exist in many German dialects) and very formal Dutch, it has a *prefix* s-possessive clitic construction like that in English and the continental Scandinavian languages (whereas the use of genitive case in modern German and formal Dutch is postfix), along with a linking possessive determiner construction, which does not exist in German or Dutch (but which did notably exist in Middle English). Note that it will also use prepositional constructions for possessive constructs as well, like in German and Dutch. From all of the above, it is clear that there are very significant grammatical differences between Low Saxon and both German and Dutch, which in places are actually closer to each other grammatically than they are to Low Saxon.
One note is that even though I make many specific mentions of specifically Northern Low Saxon above, Northern Low Saxon is by far the most widespread form of Low Saxon, and also the most "pure" (ie uninfluenced by German and Dutch) form of Low Saxon. However, on the other hand, Northern Low Saxon contains more North Germanic and English influence than other forms of Low Saxon, due to both trade contacts and sheer proximity to North Germanic-speaking areas.
In general, Low Saxon has a more conservative phonology than German or Dutch, a few innovations such as reduction of certain consonant clusters, fronting of some back vowels, loss of many final schwas in roots, and in Northern Low Saxon the merger of /a:/ and /o:/ aside. In many was, the phonology of Low Saxon is actually closer to early Old High German and than it is to modern German, due to the phonology of it vowel-wise being very conservative, unlike German, which has had a number of vowel shifts, diphthongizations, and monophthongizations along the way, as well as some extra consonant changes besides the Second Germanic Sound Shift, especially with respect to sibilants.
At the same, grammatically, it is more analytic than German (but seemingly less so than Dutch), while having significant differences with both German and Dutch, especially in Northern Low Saxon. Its article paradigm is more like that of Dutch than that of German, as in the nominative case it uses "de" for masculine and feminine genders (but uses "dat" where Dutch uses "het" for neuter), but unlike in many Dutch dialects today, the masculine and feminine genders are still distinct in the common (merged accusative and dative) case, as well as in adjective conjugation.
On the other hand, the pronoun system of Low Saxon is closer to that of German than that of Dutch, besides the phonological differences between Low Saxon and German. In particular, Low Saxon has not had the changes in second person familar pronouns which have happened historically in Dutch, and has third person pronoun forms which are (mostly) more like those in German form-wise than those in Dutch. However, some notable differences are that most Low Saxon dialects have replaced the historical third person neuter singular pronoun "et" or "it" (cognate with German "es" and Dutch "het") with "dat", that Low Saxon *classically* used the second person plural ("ji") rather than third person plural ("se") for the second person formal, and that there is no final /r/ or /k/ (which would what German /x/ in said position would have been) on many pronouns (compare "wi" and "di" with German "wir" and "dich" or "dir").
Verbs differ from those in both German and Dutch in that there are no dental suffixes in preterites, which are for weak verbs distinguished from present tense forms solely by a few differences in agreement, in often only the third person singular. and if anywhere else, in the plural. Also, the preterite is used little in Low Saxon, and similarly the passive voice is used less in Low Saxon than in German or English. Furthermore, in Northern Low Saxon, there are no "ge"-like suffixes for past participles, and in other Low Saxon dialect groups, usually what was "ge" in Middle Low Saxon has been reduced to a single vowel such as "i".
Another area in which Low Saxon differs significantly from both German and Dutch is the formation of possessive constructions. While it lacks a genitive case like that of standard German (even though such also does not exist in many German dialects) and very formal Dutch, it has a *prefix* s-possessive clitic construction like that in English and the continental Scandinavian languages (whereas the use of genitive case in modern German and formal Dutch is postfix), along with a linking possessive determiner construction, which does not exist in German or Dutch (but which did notably exist in Middle English). Note that it will also use prepositional constructions for possessive constructs as well, like in German and Dutch. From all of the above, it is clear that there are very significant grammatical differences between Low Saxon and both German and Dutch, which in places are actually closer to each other grammatically than they are to Low Saxon.
One note is that even though I make many specific mentions of specifically Northern Low Saxon above, Northern Low Saxon is by far the most widespread form of Low Saxon, and also the most "pure" (ie uninfluenced by German and Dutch) form of Low Saxon. However, on the other hand, Northern Low Saxon contains more North Germanic and English influence than other forms of Low Saxon, due to both trade contacts and sheer proximity to North Germanic-speaking areas.
=>Besides, can West Flemish speakers understand Dutch ones? And vice versa? If the answer is yes, then they are the same language. <=
Yes they can, but this doesn't always mean it's another language (Scandanavians can understand eacthother but they all speak different languages....
Yes they can, but this doesn't always mean it's another language (Scandanavians can understand eacthother but they all speak different languages....
Ok, then another question: can Flemish speakers communicate better with Dutch ones , or Walloon ones?
Well, West Flemish speakers almost certainly can communicate better with Dutch-speakers, since West Flemish is still far, far closer to Dutch than it is to French and various assorted other Oïl languages (in particular Walloon), which are spoken in Wallonia.
As a native West-Flemish speaker, let me post a few words.
West-Flemish is not a seperate language, it's a Dutch dialect. But most people in the Dutch speaking area do not understand us, as we use a lot of words that are not used in other dialects. We also use a lot of French words (in another pronunciation). Some words are very similar to English, especially in the dialects spoken in the coastal area (butter=butter, bottel=bottle). A very awkward thing in West-Flemish: where the letter G is, we say some kind of H, where the letter H is, we say nothing. So a lot of people from West-Flandern have a lot of problems pronouncing H and G correct when speaking common Dutch (along with all of our vocals).
Flemish is not really a language, it's Dutch as people speak it in Flanders. 'Vlaams' (Flemish) is not the official name, 'Belgisch Nederlands' (Belgian Dutch) is.
There are quite some differences and we think Dutch in the Netherlands sounds very funny. Dutch people tend to find 'Flemish' amusing and juicy, but being a bit chauvinistic now, Belgian Dutch is much more looked after, Dutch in the Netherlands in my opinion is very negligent.
f.e. (I'm not saying every Dutchman speaks like this, but maybe some people know Willem Kieft, a footballplayer):
-->Hun heb gezegd (their has said literally)
-->Zij hebben gezegd (correct Dutch, they have said))
-->De koe, hij staat daar (The cow, he stands there)
-->De koe, zij staat daar (correct Dutch, 'the cow, she stands there', it differs from English, where it has to be it)
We can understand Walloons as well as we understand the French, so that means not at all (in case we haven't had French lessons). In fact, also in Wallonia, there are strong dialectic differences (Walloon, Picardic, Lorrain, Champenois and Letzebüergish (between French and German, I think)).
Let the commenting begin!
West-Flemish is not a seperate language, it's a Dutch dialect. But most people in the Dutch speaking area do not understand us, as we use a lot of words that are not used in other dialects. We also use a lot of French words (in another pronunciation). Some words are very similar to English, especially in the dialects spoken in the coastal area (butter=butter, bottel=bottle). A very awkward thing in West-Flemish: where the letter G is, we say some kind of H, where the letter H is, we say nothing. So a lot of people from West-Flandern have a lot of problems pronouncing H and G correct when speaking common Dutch (along with all of our vocals).
Flemish is not really a language, it's Dutch as people speak it in Flanders. 'Vlaams' (Flemish) is not the official name, 'Belgisch Nederlands' (Belgian Dutch) is.
There are quite some differences and we think Dutch in the Netherlands sounds very funny. Dutch people tend to find 'Flemish' amusing and juicy, but being a bit chauvinistic now, Belgian Dutch is much more looked after, Dutch in the Netherlands in my opinion is very negligent.
f.e. (I'm not saying every Dutchman speaks like this, but maybe some people know Willem Kieft, a footballplayer):
-->Hun heb gezegd (their has said literally)
-->Zij hebben gezegd (correct Dutch, they have said))
-->De koe, hij staat daar (The cow, he stands there)
-->De koe, zij staat daar (correct Dutch, 'the cow, she stands there', it differs from English, where it has to be it)
We can understand Walloons as well as we understand the French, so that means not at all (in case we haven't had French lessons). In fact, also in Wallonia, there are strong dialectic differences (Walloon, Picardic, Lorrain, Champenois and Letzebüergish (between French and German, I think)).
Let the commenting begin!
Björn,
I think you and I have the same vision!!! Other people here, who have never even heard or seen WF just shout it's separate but have nothing to back it up with (Travis :-)
I think you and I have the same vision!!! Other people here, who have never even heard or seen WF just shout it's separate but have nothing to back it up with (Travis :-)
That's true, because it is the truth. Who would know these things better than us native speakers?
By the way, where are you from? Ik veronderstel dat ik hier ook wel wat Nederlands mag spuien, dat is ook eens aangenaam, nietwaar?
By the way, where are you from? Ik veronderstel dat ik hier ook wel wat Nederlands mag spuien, dat is ook eens aangenaam, nietwaar?
Natuurlijk, sommige hier zijn er van overtuigd dat het een opzichzelfstaande taal is, jammer voor hen maar nee :-) het is , in sommige, gevallen een zeer gevorderd dialect maar vaak ook helemaal niet.