Dutch surnames in French, and related issues.
Hi all,
Did you know, that in France over 1,3 million (that's 1.300.000 in full) people have a Dutch surname? On a population of roughly 58 million people that is a rather large percentage.
Even the last French icon in history, Charles de Gaulle, had a Dutch name.
His original Dutch family name was 'Van der walle' (city dweller) which was transformed to 'Vandewalle', then 'de Gualle' and then eventually 'de Gaulle'.
Linguists estimate that nearly all of the people with 'de' in their name, but with no royal ancestry to be found are of Dutch origin.
Dutch names still dominate the historically Dutch-speaking parts of France, such as Calais (derived from Dutch 'Kales') and Dunkerque/Dunkirk (derived from Dutch Duinkerke, meaning 'Dune Church') which were only acquired by France in the late early modern period.
Indeed, in north western France there are still people, about 20,000, who speak Dutch natively, and another 20,000 who can understand it. Despite notorious attempts by the French government to eradicate all other languages and dialects other than French.
Virtually the entire area North west of Paris has towns with Dutch origins, as do the people who live there. Fascinating isn't it?
Regards,
=+=
This makes me question some of the remarks made by French posters here, concerning their supposed superiority based on their Roman heritage, which they prefer to call "Latin heritage", probably for prestige reasons.
I mean consider this, if Normandy and Bretagne are supposably "Celtic/Nordic" based, and Alsace and north eastern France are German-based, the south western part is Basque-based and the north western part is (as illustrated above) of Dutch origin, then how (really ...) can you claim that you are "Latin"? As in 'all of you', because when you look at all above, it would seem French ethnicity in the first place could be hard to establish ...
<,Indeed, in north western France >.
<<Virtually the entire area North west of Paris>>
you mean "north eastern" and "North east"?
First, there is no such thing as a "Latin" ethnicity.
If the only qualifier is a speaker of a Romance language, then maybe.
If China decided to start speaking Latin, would they all of a sudden be a "Latin Nation"?
Latin is not an ethnicity. Most of Latin countries have Celtic ethnicity rather than Roman: Portugal, France, North and Western Spain, North Italy. Only Central and South Italy is Latin in the ethnic sense, since it was inhabited by the Latins and related tribes: Oscans, Umbrians, etc.
Latins and Romans are not the same people. The Romance speakers are of Romanic origin not Latin. Latium was conquered by Romans.
Italy, Spain, Portugal, Romania, France are Latin only linguistically, but those countries are Romanic, since were conquered by the Romans (and not the Latins)
People here confuse ROMANIC with LATIN. Latin is not an ethnicity indeed. The Romanians were named ROMANOI by the Greeks in the 4th century, and not Latins, also the language was called LINGUA ROMANICA. The confusion is generated by the americanism "LATINO" wrongly associated with ethnicity.
Are the English a Latin people as well? I have recently heard that they have predominantly Iberian blood...
There is no Latin people you idiot
it's great to see that on a linguistic forum people want to discuss made up (idiot-invented) terms like 'latins and romanics' more than the linguistic information on a language given in this topic.
sad
It's called "nationalistic pride", something which does still exist in Europe despite all the efforts of the PC-brigade to wipe it out.
It's called an inferiority complex expressed as an imaginary pan-movement. ('Pan-' in the English sense, though for once the Latin sense would apply too)
Long live to the Latin union.
Long live to the flying spaghetti monster.
Linguistics are connected to History and Culture, it's a chain reaction. You can't ignore that. A language is the product of culture and history.
Some Cultures are stronger than others. And lets don't forget we are using the Latin alphabet, that dominates the world. And the Norman French invasion literally wiped out the Old English. Modern English is some sort of Norman French with Latin words and with Germanic grammar.
Humans today store their material wealth as dogs store their extra food in the ground. The difference between a Human and an Animal is Culture. The most important thing in the world is C.U.L.T.U.R.E.
The Economy and material wealth of a country means nothing, it can collapse in 50 years, or it can boom in 50 years. You can create a successful wealthy country in 200 years from scratch (see Australia). But it takes 1000 years at least, to create a less than average Native Culture.
Only countries with poor Culture tend to minimise the role of Culture in the society, and boost the lack of Culture with nationalism or some Nazi ideologies.
>>Only countries with poor Culture tend to minimise the role of Culture in the society, and boost the lack of Culture with nationalism or some Nazi ideologies.<<
LONG LIFE THE LATIN BROTHERHOOD!
<<It's called "nationalistic pride", something which does still exist in Europe despite all the efforts of the PC-brigade to wipe it out. >>
There is no "Latin" nation or nationality.
There are more things to be proud of than natioanlity (which is kinda stupid), like GETTING A JOB
TAKING CARE OF YOUR KIDS
TELLING THE TRUTH
BEING FAITHFUL TO ONE WIFE
ETC
ETC
ETC
you can't control your nationality