Real Dutch is spoken in Belgium
I live in Flanders too and, as already mentioned, Flemish is in Flanders itself never spoken of as if it were a language. However, one should be cautious: it IS a fact that the real Dutch is spoken in Belgium. It is the oldest, richest and the most correct Dutch. Also, the Dutch pronounciations, with English 'r's instead of Scottish 'r's is supposed to be wrong.
Sent by: David
Comments
Afrikaans does indeed contain French influences and words (Chirurgie comes to mind). It would be better to describe Flemish and Afrikaans as Dutch cousins - related, but different. Each language has its own character, literature and phonetic quirks.
As a scholar and student (long before Robert) at school and at the Rand Afrikaans University, our Afrikaans language courses included Dutch.
Interesting discussion about the origin of languages. Let's face the facts, Dutch is a dialect of German. "The real Dutch", always funny to see those words written. Even my neighbour speaks with a different accent than me, although we come from the same region. There is no real Dutch, like there is no real French, no real English or no real Swahilli.
I don't think so. Because Flemish is written at the same way as Dutch. But people does speak it with a different accent. Afrikaans is spoken at the same way, but it is written different(/easier).
So it's hard to say.
The reason why Flemish is not considered a seperate language from Dutch is political. Look at West Flemish ( a dialect of Dutch) and look at Afrikaans ( a separate language) and work out which one is closer to Dutch.
I think by real they mean the oldest recognisable form
It's true no language should be considered correct or incorrect, but I think you guys are confusing your terms
You puritans are interested in the oldest original form, and you universalists want recognition of all forms
Both are good views, so there shouldn't really be an argument about that.
I am an Afrikaans university student from South Africa. Part of our Afrikaans course at the university of Johannesburg is the study of the history of Afrikaans, which is also composed of a short study of the language progression in Europe. There is no 'correct' form of any language, not only as a language, its' semantic and the like, is constantly expanding, but mostly due to the fact that any 'standard' form of any language is an institutional creation, there are at most a degree of varying dialects.
I live in Belgium and I think I speak Flemish. There are even different kinds of Flemish, but they do not all have a name. That would be impossible to do. If we have problems understanding each other in Belgium, we switch to Dutch. Because every Belgian learns to speak Dutch in school. After all, it is our official language. Even though, I think it is great that we have so many different kinds of languages or dialects. It is really something unique.
The difference between West-Flemish and Dutch is bigger than between Afrikaans and Dutch. Afrikaans got his official status, where is ours. Just like Gaelic, people are trying to save whatever is left of it. Looking forward to Flemish Independence Day! We fought hard for our Flemish language. Scotland should follow our example.
Flemish is Dutch with some French influence added. The fact that quite a few Flemish words (I would even say the majority) are actually adapted, "dutched", French words, contradicts this "most correct Dutch" theory. The Dutch origins of Afrikaans are well-known - Dutch peasants who migrated to South-Africa hundreds of years ago. I can't find any French influences in Afrikaans. Maybe Afrikaans even comes closer to a "most correct Dutch" than Flemish ...
Lizelle is closer to the truth: Afrikaans is closer to the Dutch spoken during the Dutch Republic (1581-1795) as the Cape was colonised in 1652. Modern Dutch is syntactically very different and Afrikaans verbs are not conjugated.
Flag this comment