AN: Alomvattend Nederlands

Moderator: Aurinĭa

Het Algemeen Nederlands ...

... is prima zoals het nu is.
1
11%
... is niet volmaakt; en zal dat ook nooit worden.
4
44%
... moet nodig eens op de schop genomen worden.
4
44%
 
Total votes: 9

Grytolle
Posts: 1122
Joined: 2007-07-24, 18:00
Gender: male

Re: AN: Alomvattend Nederlands

Postby Grytolle » 2009-03-06, 18:27

Ook al was het geen vraag (ik kan ook puntjes maken(!)):

Alle schoolspecifieke termen! Hebt gellen het bijvoorbeeld over "den tweeden zit"?

Boes
Posts: 1252
Joined: 2008-06-21, 19:54
Real Name: Boes de Loper
Gender: male
Location: NL
Country: NL The Netherlands (Nederland)

Re: AN: Alomvattend Nederlands

Postby Boes » 2009-03-07, 9:29

Grytolle wrote:Ook al was het geen vraag (ik kan ook puntjes maken(!)):

Alle schoolspecifieke termen! Hebt gellen het bijvoorbeeld over "den tweeden zit"?


Ik heb het natuurlijk over dialect Grytolle. Tweede zit komt overigens ook in Zuid-West Nederland voor ...

Grytolle
Posts: 1122
Joined: 2007-07-24, 18:00
Gender: male

Re: AN: Alomvattend Nederlands

Postby Grytolle » 2009-03-07, 9:32

Dan moet ge 't zelf opzoeken :yep: !

Boes
Posts: 1252
Joined: 2008-06-21, 19:54
Real Name: Boes de Loper
Gender: male
Location: NL
Country: NL The Netherlands (Nederland)

Re: AN: Alomvattend Nederlands

Postby Boes » 2009-03-07, 9:35

Grytolle wrote:Dan moet ge 't zelf opzoeken :yep: !

Nee, ik weet namelijk al dat je stelling niet klopt. Maar jij beweert hier dat er verschillen in dialect zijn met hun diglossie op de rijksgrens; en dan vind ik dat als je zoiets zegt, dat je daar bewijs, of in ieder geval voorbeelden voor moet aandragen.

User avatar
TeneReef
Posts: 3073
Joined: 2010-04-17, 23:22
Gender: male
Location: Kampor
Country: HR Croatia (Hrvatska)

Re: AN: Alomvattend Nederlands

Postby TeneReef » 2011-04-28, 2:50

Nice find ;)

Belgian Dutch versus Netherlandic Dutch:
New patterns of divergence?
On pronouns of address and diminutives


http://www.cnts.ua.ac.be/papers/2005/ml05.pdf

More than half a
century of official language policy promoting the use of the northernbased
(Netherlandic) standard language could not prevent or suppress
this evolution, and appears to be increasingly unsuccessful in doing so.
Consequently, the attitudinal component will have to be a major point
of interest in future research on language use in northern Belgium in
order to reveal the ultimate causes for Belgian colloquial Dutch diverging
from Standard Dutch instead of converging with standard (Netherlandic)
Dutch, and, more particularly, in order to explain why, through
an ‘informal standardization process’, Dutch is increasingly becoming
an pluricentric language with two centres of standardization.
विकृतिः एवम्‌ प्रकृति
learning in 2019: (no-nn)

Grytolle
Posts: 1122
Joined: 2007-07-24, 18:00
Gender: male

Re: AN: Alomvattend Nederlands

Postby Grytolle » 2011-04-28, 8:16

:!:
Last edited by Grytolle on 2011-04-28, 17:21, edited 1 time in total.

Grytolle
Posts: 1122
Joined: 2007-07-24, 18:00
Gender: male

Re: AN: Alomvattend Nederlands

Postby Grytolle » 2011-04-28, 16:29

Another striking finding concerning the distribution of the pronoun, lies in the fact that the pronoun je in subject position is much better represented in enclitic position than in proclitic position. This implies that example (4) is less likely to occur in the corpus than examples (5) or (6):
(4) Je komt (‘You come’)
(5) Kom je (‘Do you come?’)
(6) Ik hoop dat je komt (‘I hope that you come’)
This might be explained both in terms of the dialect geography of northern Belgium and in terms of the je-pronoun being less conspicuous in enclitic position. However, we will not enlarge on this aspect here (cf. Vandekerckhove 2004)


That's a shame. It's also a shame that she doesn't differentiate properly between stressed and unstressed forms.. The first diagram shows jij/je and gij/ge bundled up, eventhough the combination "gij/je" is very common

Flemings increasingly use a supraregional language variety with strong Brabantic influence.

No. Brabantic people only use their intermediate variety more often than the people of the other regions use theirs, for which reason some people have the impression that the supraregional language would be "strongly Brabantic"... You won't hear anyone from another province with a Brabantic accent, and the grammar is basically the same everywhere.

It has often been called an ‘intermediate language variety’ because, from a structural perspective, it is situated in between the standard language and the Brabantic dialects

So that holds true for the Brabantic intermediate language variety. In Westflanders they use an intermediate variety situated between Westflemish dialects (which most of them have atleast a very strong passive knowledge of) and Belgian standard Dutch as it is taught in schools and on tv.

One of the indisputable exponents of this Flemish colloquial variety is the pronoun ge. It is an endogenous Brabantic pronoun, which is also present in the East-Flemish dialects and to a minor extent in the Limburg and West-Flemish dialects. The pronoun je however, is, to a smaller or greater degree, an endogenous pronoun in West-Flanders as well. This might explain the higher scores for the Standard Dutch pronoun in West-Flanders and consequently the outsider position of this province, to some extent. However, the peripheral position of the province, with East-Flanders functioning as a kind of buffer which separates WestFlanders from the Brabantic area, might be an explanatory factor aswell

Limburg: where doe is used in the singular, a dzj-/g- form is used in the plural, so that's hardly a vote for "jij"
West-Flanders: in its continental dialects ge is used except in enclitic position (after a verb or da), where je is used; in the coast dialects je is indeed used in all cases - but "jij" is always "gij" (~[hi:]) everywhere
East-Flanders: uses ge, but in enclitic position je after vowels and -de after consonants
Brabant/Antwerp: same as East-Flanders, but in the largest part of it je will have disappeared in favour of -de

So it's an interesting study, but it'd be of much greater value if the dialectal system(s) were taken as starting point, so that the influence of standard dutch could be tested properly. For example, a "bookish" form "zegt ge" is used instead of the dialectal forms "zegd e", "zegd je" or "zeg je". This was probably taught in schools in Belgium before the 1960's (see the paper for the exact time when the jij-campagin started)

As far as object prounouns are concerned it can be noted that "standard flemish" mostly used "u" for both "je" and "jou", while the dialects mostly have two (or 3: full, shortened, schwa) forms:

Coastal West Flemish: je, joun (/jun/)
Continental West Flemish: u (and sometimes "je"?)
East Flemish: ?? (definitely a u-form, but i dont know if its "ou" or "eu" or "ei" or anyting else, nor do I know for sure if it has two forms je vs jou)
Brabantic: oe /u/, ou (/ɑu/ /au/ /ɑ:/ etc)
Limburgish: forgot exactly, and their dialects are phonemically very different to standard dutch so its hard to find a good prototype anyway

The full object pronoun is used a lot more than in Hollandic (this holds true for "mij" vs. "me" and so on as well), which has lead to the somewhat funny situation that writing "me" is somewhat "formal" in Belgium, while Dutch people use "mij" more in writing than in speech. Most notably: the reduced form is hardly ever used after prepositions

note also the complete lack of j-forms in the compound plural pronoun, which is formed from the full form "gij": http://jazzjackrabbit.net/gry/gijle/gijle.html

the posessive prounoun always(?) has the same form as the object pronoun: with a -w- when a vowel (for example the inflection -e) follows

Grytolle
Posts: 1122
Joined: 2007-07-24, 18:00
Gender: male

Re: AN: Alomvattend Nederlands

Postby Grytolle » 2011-04-28, 17:20

as far as the second part of the paper is concerned, it's no doubt true that -(t)je is used a lot in belgian spoken standard dutch, as proven by the data for east flanders where the dialects have -ke forms in all positions.. young people now use it even more, and it's in no way as stigmatized as je/jij/jouw is in the eastern provinces

it would have been interesting however if the occurances of -tʃə and -ʃə were weighed against those of -tjə/-ce(?) and -je. most dialects have the realistions with /tʃ/ so that realisation only needs to be taken into use in more contexts, whereas -tjə is a clear sign of (somewhat bookish) standard dutch. /ʃ/ instead of /j/ is typically West-Flemish, for example: boeksje.. whenever a clear /j/ is used, such as in "boompje" or "boekje", it's a standard dutch influence for sure

not even in Westflemish dialects you find the suffix -je: boomtsje, boeksje (assimilation of "boekstje") - you rarely do find -ieje (or so) however where standard dutch has -etje

so in conclusion, it would have been interesting to know
1) to what extent the no doubt netherlandic forms -je, -kje, -pje are used - compared to -(e)tje
2) to what extend -(e)tje remains realized as [tʃə]

excluding contexts where brabantic wouldnt have -ke as an option, as she did, seems like a good idea for analyzing brabantic and limburgish (which has the same distribution but with umlaut)..

So, although their dialect may persist to a major or minor extent, their supraregional speech certainly should also be interpreted in terms of a choice between either the use of Standard Dutch variants (which may or may not correspond to the variants they use in their native
dialect) or the adoption of Brabantic elements (which also may or may not correspond to the endogenous dialect variants).

I highly doubt this. West-Flemings either use dialectal forms or standard dutch forms. Because many (continental) West-Flemish dialects have k-forms, however, the fact that limburgish and brabantic people have the same system might encourage them to use k-forms. Because of the linguistic dynamic of West-Flanders as a whole, such forms could then potentially spread to coastal speakers (don't know if or to what extent that happens)

her analysis as a whole seems correct to me ("Generally speaking, the Standard Dutch diminutive suffix appears to..." until the begin of section 4)

the younger generation shows a significantly higher preference for the endogenous Belgian Dutch and more particularly Brabantic variants than the older one.

that might perhaps be true, but none of the variables in this paper are typically brabantic - the ones that were, namely the specific distribution of -ke vs. -tje, were filtered out. The use of "gij", "ge" and -ke are dialectally unmarked forms, in the sense that they are used (predominantly) everywhere except for in coastal West-Flanders.

this discussion however is of great importance:
This is even more striking in view of the fact that, first of all, all of these younger informants were required to speak Standard Dutch and that, secondly, all of them have a high level of education. The latter factor implies that their language choices cannot be ascribed to a limited command of the Standard Dutch paradigm. [...]


So to summarize once again:
-the finding that je is more common than jij/jouw/jou is both interesting and logical given the dialectal situation; weighing the jij-system vs. "the gij-system" however wasn't done with enough nuance - there are atleast 3 main systems that should be taken into consideration next to the propagated jij-system
1) "oldschool" (literally(!)) forms: gij zegt, ge zegt, zegt ge, dat ge
2) purely -e with preserved -d/-t verb ending: gij zegd/maakt, ge zegd/maakt, zegd e/maakt e/staad e, da' ge
--mixed system: gij zegd/maakt/sta(ad), ge zegd/maakt/sta(ad), zegde/maakte/sta je (comparable to rijden -> rijen?), da je (more to the west)/da' ge(more to the east)
3) with generalized je
3a) continental, with preserved -d/-t verb ending: gij zegd/maakt/sta(ad), ge zegd/maakt/sta(ad), zegdje/maaktje/sta je, da je
3b) coastal: gij zegd/maakt/sta(ad), je zegd/maakt/sta(ad), zeg je/maak je/sta je, da je

-the comparison between the pronouns and the diminutives seems correct in essence, especially since the differences can partly be explained by the dialectal situation, but the pronounciations j and ʃ could have been weighed to make things even more interesting

i hope these comments can be of any use to you, TeneReef :mrgreen:


Return to “Dutch (Nederlands)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest