Is "Dutch" 16 different languages?

Franco   Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:13 pm GMT
He has a Masters in Linguistics, right? Doesn't that make you a linguist?

I would take his "masters" with a grain of salt. He also says "I have very high IQ". Who on earth would say that of himself other than a fool?
Chris   Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:57 pm GMT
I wouldn't say Dutch is 16 different langauges but would agree with the fact that West- Flemish is indeed a different language. There are a few others that I would also classify as language rather than dialects.

Just because it's spoken in a Dutch speaking area of Flanders doesn't make it linguistically a Dutch dialect. The same with Frisian. It's spoken in the Netherlands but is not a Dutch dialect but a language in it's own right.

I think politics (which really SHOULDN'T play ANY role in whether a language is seen as seperate or not) is still in play here!!!

People STILL classify languages as dialects or seperate languages purely for POLITICAL reasons which is LINGUISTICALLY WRONG!! Hopefully in the future we can move away from Politics and look at the language as it is. It should be 100% linguistically and nothing else!!
Baldewin   Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:15 pm GMT
He also made a mistake that Flemish be insulted by Dutch. First: Flemish particularists are often provincial nationalists and are a marginal minority in Flanders. Second: Dutch people don't care about what Flemings do with their language.
Just a correction.
Baldewin   Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:21 pm GMT
<<People STILL classify languages as dialects or seperate languages purely for POLITICAL reasons which is LINGUISTICALLY WRONG!! Hopefully in the future we can move away from Politics and look at the language as it is. It should be 100% linguistically and nothing else!!>>

Indeed. Even the Flemish particularists use the same classic view on what defines a languages. They even want to wipe out the regional languages as West Flemish or Limburgish and replace it with 'Belgian Brabantian Dutch' (which is as good as entirely intelligible with Standard Dutch). They're a minority and not at all popular in Belgium (their website only gets visited by 60-100 people).
They are also extremely annoyed by the fact we use Standard Dutch everywhere, even though we are open to regional languages (which we sadly still call dialect). The classic thought of one-state-one-language is what they follow, which is very 'fascist' to be frank.

Ironically, the country that gets accused for its linguistic fascism, La France, is the one that has it right and call regional languages as they are since longtime. Of course, the fact still remain France doesn't respect them all, but they are at least realistic about the linguistic situation in their country. My kudos for them on that.
Baldewin   Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:26 pm GMT
We use Belgian Brabantian Dutch in our spoken language, and Standard Dutch in our written language. Two intelligible variants and thus dialects. Just a correction. there are also Flemings who speak clean Standard Dutch of course.
Baldewin   Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:38 pm GMT
Moreover, Belgian Brabantian Dutch is the same as Verkavelingsvlaams.
Heike   Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:06 am GMT
"Жуки любят безлюдные места. Они бродят по полу и ничего не думают, потому что они глупые. "

LOL wut
Qwaggmireland   Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:48 am GMT
Flemish IS Dutch, END OF.

Afrikaans and Surinaamsch IS Pidjin Dutch, END OF.
Franco   Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:05 am GMT
Then Dutch is a macro-language like Arabic. How many languages Arabic is? 1000?
Baldewin   Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:43 pm GMT
The difference here is that people speak more than one register and many of these hardcore dialects are spoken by a small group of people, though are tolerated nonetheless. It is true however, that often non-Dutch people (often Anglo-Saxon and French) think the majority wants a sepparate language (even though it is intelligible with Standard Dutch).

In truth, in its most hardcore form you can compare Brabantian Belgian Dutch or "Flemish" (as many like to call it, which isn't really correct) with Andaluzian.

Arabic is still WAY more of a macro language, so are German and Italian. ;-)

Also, Surinaams is no pidgin. Surinamers speak just Dutch with only a differences in pronunciation, expression and vocabulary. Their language is closest to Dutch from the Netherlands. In fact, Surinamers speak the clearest Dutch of them all. ;-)
Baldewin   Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:46 pm GMT
non-Dutch-speaking people I meant...
rep   Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:17 pm GMT
<<People STILL classify languages as dialects or seperate languages purely for POLITICAL reasons which is LINGUISTICALLY WRONG!! Hopefully in the future we can move away from Politics and look at the language as it is. It should be 100% linguistically and nothing else!!>>
What is your opinion about "German"? Or Standard Swedish with unitelligible Dalarna "dialect",Jamtska,Skaanska and Gutnish?
I agree,that Dutch Low Saxon -Low Franconian and German Low Saxon -Low Franconian dialects are separated for political reasons.
encore   Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:16 pm GMT
<<I wouldn't say Dutch is 16 different langauges but would agree with the fact that West- Flemish is indeed a different language. There are a few others that I would also classify as language rather than dialects.

Just because it's spoken in a Dutch speaking area of Flanders doesn't make it linguistically a Dutch dialect. The same with Frisian. It's spoken in the Netherlands but is not a Dutch dialect but a language in it's own right. >>
You write nonsense.
Look to this (from "kevin"'s post about Dutch and Afrikaans)-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fYB9s0Nyzk
man speaks Flemish Dutch and woman speaks Afrikaans. They talk in their own "languages" without problem of understanding each other. Afrikaans Dutch,Flemish are dialects of one language. First two are standardised dialects.
burnaurmel   Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:18 am GMT
"People STILL classify languages as dialects or seperate languages purely for POLITICAL reasons which is LINGUISTICALLY WRONG!! Hopefully in the future we can move away from Politics and look at the language as it is. It should be 100% linguistically and nothing else!!"

I *so* agree with this!

Why should, of all people, linguists, defer to politicians on this question? Why should linguists bail on the idea altogether by insisting that there is no possible way tell a dialect from a language and it's all political whether we call something language or dialect or a rabbit in a hat? Why should linguists say that there is no linguistic way to make this determination? Really, is that so? So there is no way linguistically to say that French, Spanish, English and German are languages and not dialects? They're only languages because some politicians got together and decided it that way?

Come up with a system. Lindsay has mutual intelligibility. It's not flawless, but it's better than nothing. Or you can use structural differences. At some structural divergence X, we split something off as a Dialect A of Language B and call it Language C instead. You could even invent really boss algorithms to measure this structural diversity. Anyway, lects that differ quite a bit structurally tend to be differ in terms in mutual intelligibility too, so the two are somewhat measuring the same thing.

Leaving this up to politics or sociology is NOT a solution. Politicians are lower than whale shit and sociology just means society. Society is just rabble that knows nothing about anything. Why leave the language/dialect question to sociopaths (political liars) and society (a bunch of damn fools)? Why not the adults step in and make the distinction on some scientific (linguistic) grounds? Better, no?
So   Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:18 pm GMT
West,North and Saterland Frisian are Frisian languages ,not dialects.Frisian languages are not intelligible.So,Frisian is 3 different languages.