I also think Dutch is quite an extreme Germanic language. I have often heard that it is the closest modern language to Ancient continental Germanic, is this true/possible?
Why is Dutch so different from all other Germanic languages?
That really only applies with respect to phonology, mind you, and then I myself would be much more inclined to give that title to some dialects of Low Saxon; however, though, Low Saxon is less well-known than Dutch, so it is commonly ignored overall.
@ Travis,
Modern Low Saxon is either dying or heavily High German influenced (often both) it is not the "pure" language it was in the early middle ages. I have once heard my elder neighbor talk about that his father would not have understood the 'platt' his sons speak. (I myself are not a native)
Modern Low Saxon is either dying or heavily High German influenced (often both) it is not the "pure" language it was in the early middle ages. I have once heard my elder neighbor talk about that his father would not have understood the 'platt' his sons speak. (I myself are not a native)
<<To me, Dutch doesn't seem to be set apart from the other Germanic languages. I can't see what would make it so unique. If anything, it's English which has pulled itself away from the rest of them. >>
As an English speaker, I see why you think so.
I bet a Dutch speaker would say just the same about his/her language.
I have a stepmother who is not a native English speaker, and who has learned both German (Hoch Deutsch and Sweitzer Deutsch) and English (among several other languages), and she says she sees nothing divergent about English as far as germanic languages are concerned. And she has a very objective viewpoint of English--her native language is a Slavic language. To her, English and German are no different than how you or I may regard Polish and Russian.
As an English speaker, I see why you think so.
I bet a Dutch speaker would say just the same about his/her language.
I have a stepmother who is not a native English speaker, and who has learned both German (Hoch Deutsch and Sweitzer Deutsch) and English (among several other languages), and she says she sees nothing divergent about English as far as germanic languages are concerned. And she has a very objective viewpoint of English--her native language is a Slavic language. To her, English and German are no different than how you or I may regard Polish and Russian.
It's funny you mention a slavic speaker... I know a person from Croatia who has learned German on a university level, and also speaks fairly fluent English... yet she's married to a Dutchman and living in Holland so she's had to learn Dutch as well ... she told me she struggles with the language every day for the last 7 years, despite being surrounded by Dutch people.
She said this: "Dutch is a language you speak "reasonably, never good or fluent".
She said this: "Dutch is a language you speak "reasonably, never good or fluent".
<<its a beautiful exotic language>>
Dutch is not beautiful and it's far from exotic. It's like a mixture of German, Klingon, and a head cold. There is no uglier language.
Dutch is not beautiful and it's far from exotic. It's like a mixture of German, Klingon, and a head cold. There is no uglier language.
If we are talking strictly vocabulary and lexical similarity comparison, then English (and by extension Scots) is the most divergent Germanic language, due to numerous sound shifts, the introduction of many Norse/French words during the Norman Invasion during middle English and the last 200 years of Romance borrowing from mainly French. While Dutch, German, and the Scandanavian languages have also had some of that influence, English has by far been the recipient of Romance borrowings to the extent that it has a fair amount of lexical similarity with French and Spanish (many perfect cognates even, with French, albeit very different pronunciation). English (and Scots) are most divergent from Germanic core. German and its low/high versions, Dutch, Afrikaans..about middle. The Scandanavian languages are somewhat conservative (at least in terms of vocabulary) and faroese/Icelandic..by FAR the most conservative, probably closest to proto-Germanic.
Well divergence from proto-germanic is really a whole other matter... what intrigues me is that though many Germanic languages have closely related sister language (German->Saxon) (English->Scots, Frisian) (all major Scandinavian languages) Dutch doesn't have such a language...
<<Dutch doesn't have such a language>>
Dutch, Flemish, Niedersachsen, Afrikaans, ...
sure it does. it's in a continuum with Limburgish, Niedesachsen, Platt, German, etc...
Dutch, Flemish, Niedersachsen, Afrikaans, ...
sure it does. it's in a continuum with Limburgish, Niedesachsen, Platt, German, etc...
<<If we are talking strictly vocabulary and lexical similarity comparison, then English (and by extension Scots) is the most divergent Germanic language>>
I know English speakers LOVE to think this is so, and hyperbole this somewhat (to an extent it is true), but Modern German lexicon doesn't resemble Proto-Germanic either, and I'm not referring to non-germanic borrowings. Even with respect to purely germanic words, German has gone out on its own.
Most of the time, German will prefer to fabricate a new word (with germanic elements) and forgo using a word inherited directly from the Proto-language.
In regards to sound changes, German and Danish are most divergent. English is extremely conservative. It all depends on how you *want* to look at it--what your agenda is.
If your a Latin-wannabe, then your gonna major on the ROmance borrowings...
I know English speakers LOVE to think this is so, and hyperbole this somewhat (to an extent it is true), but Modern German lexicon doesn't resemble Proto-Germanic either, and I'm not referring to non-germanic borrowings. Even with respect to purely germanic words, German has gone out on its own.
Most of the time, German will prefer to fabricate a new word (with germanic elements) and forgo using a word inherited directly from the Proto-language.
In regards to sound changes, German and Danish are most divergent. English is extremely conservative. It all depends on how you *want* to look at it--what your agenda is.
If your a Latin-wannabe, then your gonna major on the ROmance borrowings...
<<Most of the time, German will prefer to fabricate a new word (with germanic elements) and forgo using a word inherited directly from the Proto-language.
>>
Like "Fingerhut" (finger-hood/hat) for "thimble" [proto-germanic 'thumilaz']
>>
Like "Fingerhut" (finger-hood/hat) for "thimble" [proto-germanic 'thumilaz']
<<<<Most of the time, German will prefer to fabricate a new word (with germanic elements) and forgo using a word inherited directly from the Proto-language.
>>
Like "Fingerhut" (finger-hood/hat) for "thimble" [proto-germanic 'thumilaz'] >>
This kind of reminds me of German using words like "Handschuh" for "glove" [proto-Germanic 'galofo'] and "krank" for "sick" [proto-Germanic 'seukaz'].
>>
Like "Fingerhut" (finger-hood/hat) for "thimble" [proto-germanic 'thumilaz'] >>
This kind of reminds me of German using words like "Handschuh" for "glove" [proto-Germanic 'galofo'] and "krank" for "sick" [proto-Germanic 'seukaz'].
<<This kind of reminds me of German using words like "Handschuh" for "glove" [proto-Germanic 'galofo'] and "krank" for "sick" [proto-Germanic 'seukaz']. >>
exactly, although German does still preserve PG seukaz as 'siech' meaning 'infirm', 'afflicted'
exactly, although German does still preserve PG seukaz as 'siech' meaning 'infirm', 'afflicted'