The English word for "Germany"

>En Français si on dit "la Germanie", on penserait à un grand ensemble de pays de langue et de culture germanique. De même si on dit "la Romanie", on penserait aux pays de l'Europe latine. En Français, le pays "Roumanie" est quand à lui, un pays latin d'Europe de l'est. Il n'y a pas de confusion possible grâce au "u".
In Spanish this is expressed in the same way as in French. "Germania" express the notion of a group encompassing all the germanic peoples.

>Quand à l'allemagne, c'est un pays germanique parmis d'autres. au même titre que la Hollande, la Suede ou l'Angleterre.
Exactly the same in Spanish.

I agree with fab and LAA. I guess that Spanish took the word Alemania, via French "Allemagne", because this Allemanic tribes were much in contact with the French (even if France didn't existed as a Nation yet) than other Germanic tribes in some specific historical moment, and the word just was kept for describing all these Germanic tribes. This is just an assumption though. Anyone who can clarifying this or have other theory to share?

I think the english and the german word for Germany is better than Allemagne/Alemania or Saksa (is it Finnish?) because it reflects this nation as a whole, including all the major germanic tribes that took part in founding it.

«But on the dialect level there are surely many people who chat with each other across the Dutch-German border, across the Low-Franconian-High Franconian border and across the Franconian-Swabian border<< Frederik

«Sorry, thats not the case anymore. The German Dutch dialect continuum is dead. Sander»

Have you checked that personally, Sanders,? People can't understand eachother across the borders anymore? LOad of bull, if I may say so.
Where I am from ( North East Netherlands) and we speak a saxon dialect, not frankish, people do still understand each other across the border, I bet the same happens in Limburg. Frederik is quite right ( as always).

I honestly would not take Sander's word as is here, considering that he seems a wee bit too much of a Dutch nationalist to really have an unbiased opinion on the subject, unfortunately...

Germany = Alemania, Germania

I agree with Fred, although I personally like Alemania and Alemán as compared to Germania and Germán. Although, I wouldn't be opposed to Dutchlandia and Dutchlandés.

anne marie :

« Latin-Germania
Italian-Germania
Romanian-Germania

French-Allemagne
Spanish-Alemania
Portugues-Alemanha
Catalan-Alemanya

why Italian and Romanian is diferent, with the rest of the Latin langueges ? »


Plus :

gascon <Alemanha>
normand de Guernesey <Allemangne>
normand de Jersey <Allemogne>
occitan <Alemanha>
poitevin <Alemagne>
wallon <Almagne>

arabe <Almānīya>
breton <Alamagn>
gallois <yr Almaen>
turc <Almanya>

piedmontais <Germania> mais Pm <alman> <tedesch> = {allemand}

>> I honestly would not take Sander's word as is here, considering that he seems a wee bit too much of a Dutch nationalist to really have an unbiased opinion on the subject, unfortunately... <<

You don't have to call me a nationalist just because your information is outdated, Travis.

I guess we won't know for sure untill a local undertakes an empirical study on both sides of the border :-))

When I was doing a work experience in Aachen there were plenty of people coming over from Holland to do their banking, and though there were problems with the staff understanding them they still managed it.

That said, I would lean towards Sander's point that the continuum is dying, but not necessarily dead yet.

>>You don't have to call me a nationalist just because your information is outdated, Travis.<<

I'm calling you a nationalist because you go out of your way to insist on there being a sharp separation between Low Franconian-speaking areas and other Low German and High German-speaking areas which had fallen, at some point or another, within the Holy Roman Empire or which settled by High or Low German-speakers originally from parts of the Holy Roman Empire. You also seem to also emphasize almost a general hated of anything German by the Dutch that seems to be a bit much (okay, they stole your bicycles, but can you get over it already, and do all Dutch people really hate the Germans as much as you seem to make it out to be?).

At the same time, you strongly insist on there being a strongly monolithic Dutch language by emphasizing on one hand the moribundness of Low Saxon in the Netherlands and on the other hand the "dialectness" of West Flemish. This also is very consistent with a strongly nationalist position, and is directly parallel to things such as the idea of "French is the language of the republic" in the case of French. And for some reason I do not find it all to coincidental that your view of Dutch is Hollandic-centric, as in your insistence that Algemeen Nederlands has [x] rather than [G] (while everything else that I've read on the subject has it having [G], with [x] being primarily a feature of areas with substratum influence from Frisian at some point in the past - and yes, Frisian was historically spoken in areas of Holland).

As for how any of this relates to the conversation at hand, it seems that this seems all to consistent with such a nationalist position with respect to the Dutch language. You seem to ignore clearly extant cases of a dialect continuum existing between Low Franconian dialects and other non-Anglo-Frisian dialects such as Limburgish, which is a smooth continuum between Low Franconian and West Middle German if anything. At the same time, somehow I doubt that Low Saxon is extinct (which you seem to treat it as being) quite yet even if the number of speakers has dwindled significantly, and even the High German spoken in historically Low Saxon-speaking areas still often incorporates non-negligible quantities of Low Saxon features even if it is not strictly grammatically Low Saxon per se. You yourself have also said that Low Saxon has become more Dutch-like in the Netherlands, which if anything would *support* there existing a continuum.

«Somehow I doubt that Low Saxon is extinct (which you seem to treat it as being) quite yet even if the number of speakers has dwindled significantly, and even the High German spoken in historically Low Saxon-speaking areas still often incorporates non-negligible quantities of Low Saxon features even if it is not strictly grammatically Low Saxon per se. You yourself have also said that Low Saxon has become more Dutch-like in the Netherlands, which if anything would *support* there existing a continuum. »

Low saxon isn't extinct, as I said somewhere before: in the provinces of Gelderland,Overijsel, Drente and Groningen a low saxon dialect is spoken.
The problem with Sanders is that he is from Brabant and would like to see Dutch explained the way he sees it. Beware if you don't agree with him: you 'll get an ear & mouth full.

Travis you really need to get your facts straight, I always spoke of a dieing dialect continuum, not a dead one. In various border towns there is no dialect continuum for people under 20, in some towns the age is below 40 and in some towns there is no continuum at all.

Just because you haven't read about this in Wisconsin doesn't mean I'm wrong. If I recall you were/are convinced that West Flemish was a separate language yet you've never even heard let alone have read linguistic papers on it. You need to get over your ego and passed the facts.

>>Travis you really need to get your facts straight, I always spoke of a dieing dialect continuum, not a dead one. In various border towns there is no dialect continuum for people under 20, in some towns the age is below 40 and in some towns there is no continuum at all.<<

From how you have spoken, it seemed as if you thought it was more like you *might* be able to dig up someone in their 80s who speaks Low Saxon, for example, in the Netherlands. It is hard to really speak of things almost being dead if something is still spoken as such by individuals in their 20s; maybe if they are in their 60s, but that's another matter.

>>Just because you haven't read about this in Wisconsin doesn't mean I'm wrong. If I recall you were/are convinced that West Flemish was a separate language yet you've never even heard let alone have read linguistic papers on it. You need to get over your ego and passed the facts.<<

I had the general impression that West Flemish's relationship with Dutch was like that of Scots with English, and that while one might be able to include such with the properly chosen criteria, such would still form a distinct dialect subgroup (just like how Scots would still be distinct from *all* other English dialects even if one called it "English"). My reason for favoring the separate language position is simply because I treat Scots as distinct from English (as the point of splitting really predates all other significant present dialect variation, with significant differences dating back to Early Middle English) and due to the relationship of West Flemish with Dutch being similar to that of Scots with English, I consequently have to treat West Flemish as being distinct from Dutch as well if I am to be consistent. Also remember that even with the position of West Flemish being separate from Dutch, West Flemish would probably still be the closest language to Dutch other than Afrikaans (which is a special case in this context), with Low Saxon being next closest after West Flemish.