Page 1 of 2

Time's are a-changing

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:33 pm
by Brazilian dude
These are some interesting things that I found in the February 2005 Time magazine issue that came to my hands today:
He wants to deport immigrants who break Belgian laws, and compel immigrants to learn Belgian language and culture.
:shock:
Some members of Belgium's Muslim community agree with Dewinter that certain aspects of Islam - like insisting women are veiled in public or condoning adultery - are incompatible with European values.
:roll:
...applicants must now declare themselves to immigration officials as soon as they enter Britain or be denied benefits.
:cry:

All in the same article. What do you guys think?

Brazilian dude

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:04 pm
by J_22_M
The first two seem to be problems with word choice. For the first, I would assume he/she meant "the/one of the Belgian languages". For the second, I don't know, poor English and poor editing. The third, what do you mean? Just the deletion of the "/"?

Sad, especially for a reputable news source such as the Times.

sigh,
-j

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:11 pm
by Brazilian dude
Ooops, the / was my blunder. Fixed it.

Brazilian dude

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:26 am
by Perry
BD,

It's all quite interesting, with one caveat. The soldierthread got onto the subject of what may have been the outcome of official language choices in the event of conquest. You seem to be quoting an article that deals with issues of immigration; and perhaps specifically isolationism among immigrants.

J. had a valid point regarding Belgium language. As the word Belgium was used, I assume that Flemish was intended, but there is no way to be certain. It is interesting that there is still a goodish deal of tension between the Flems and the Francophones in Belgium (and between the Anglophones and Francophones in Quebec).

We (the human race) seem to have become absolute experts in drawing lines in the sand.

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:53 am
by Brazilian dude
Nope, no relation. I don't discuss politics, only languages.

Brazilian dude

Re: Time's are a-changing

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:05 pm
by frank
He wants to deport immigrants who break Belgian laws, and compel immigrants to learn Belgian language and culture.
Who's 'he' in this part of the article? Is it Dewinter, the same guy mentioned in the second quote?
[if so, then it's quite a gaffe from the journalist, well, two gaffes: (1) Dewinter wants to get rid of Belgium, so he certainly is not going to force people to become 'Belgian' and (2) as noted by others, 'Belgian language' doesn't exist. Belgium has three official languages: Dutch (which is Nederlands, not 'Flemish', please), French and German.]
Some members of Belgium's Muslim community agree with Dewinter that certain aspects of Islam - like insisting women are veiled in public or condoning adultery - are incompatible with European values.
Just to give some background information: Dewinter is one of the leaders of the extreme right wing party "Vlaams Blok", which was recently condemned for racism. What happened next is typically Belgian: the same party, the same people could go on with the same political programme, the only thing they had to do was to change the name to "Vlaams Belang". The party still attracts most voters in Flanders...

Frank

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:27 pm
by Perry
Belgium has three official languages: Dutch (which is Nederlands, not 'Flemish', please), French and German.]
I stand corrected; although I was under the impression that the Dutch spoke in Belgium is a bit different than that of the Netherlands. Is this true or not?

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:38 pm
by anders
Belgium has three official languages: Dutch (which is Nederlands, not 'Flemish', please), French and German.]
I stand corrected; although I was under the impression that the Dutch spoke in Belgium is a bit different than that of the Netherlands. Is this true or not?
Trying to be forgiving, I read "Belgian language" as a collective: one or more of them.

German is IIRC a regional official language only.

The differences between northern and southern Dutch/Nederlands as She is Spoke or as they appear to me are small in vocabulary, sometimes noticeable but never troubling in pronunciation and miniscule in grammar (some cases of word order).

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:01 pm
by frank
German is IIRC a regional official language only.
German is an offical national language in Belgium.

F

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:38 pm
by tcward
Interesting that the site also has an English language portal...

-Tim

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:09 am
by frank
I stand corrected; although I was under the impression that the Dutch spoke in Belgium is a bit different than that of the Netherlands. Is this true or not?
Oh ja, there are quite some differences in the resp. versions of the standard language: pronunciation, lexical items. And the range of differences vary depending on the region, the dialect and sociolect. Normally, one phrase (even in the resp. standard version of Dutch) is enough to determine whether somebody is from the Netherlands or from Flanders.
As for writing, the Netherlands and Belgium (or rather Flanders) have the same spelling and we use the same reference grammar books.
Nevertheless, i noticed that in anglosaxon literature the distinction between Duth and Flemish is almost always made...

Groetjes,
F

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:00 pm
by tcward
I stand corrected; although I was under the impression that the Dutch spoke in Belgium is a bit different than that of the Netherlands. Is this true or not?
Oh ja, there are quite some differences in the resp. versions of the standard language: pronunciation, lexical items. And the range of differences vary depending on the region, the dialect and sociolect. Normally, one phrase (even in the resp. standard version of Dutch) is enough to determine whether somebody is from the Netherlands or from Flanders.
As for writing, the Netherlands and Belgium (or rather Flanders) have the same spelling and we use the same reference grammar books.
Nevertheless, i noticed that in anglosaxon literature the distinction between Duth and Flemish is almost always made...

Groetjes,
F
Frank, you seem to be supporting the fact that they should be distinguished, then... ODIM? (à la Perry's signature)

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:02 pm
by tcward
Oh, I think I get it... You were agreeing that, yes, the language spoken in Flanders is a measurably different dialect that that spoken in the Netherlands, but that the officially recognized language is Dutch, not Flemish...

Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:33 am
by frank
Frank, you seem to be supporting the fact that they should be distinguished, then... ODIM? (à la Perry's signature)
Tim, you're American, if i'm not mistaken... Do you speak 'American'? If not, why not?
Since i really do experience problems in finding a clear way to explain my point of view, maybe you guys can help me with explaining why people in the US do(n't) speak American. (American English still is English :-)...

I do realise that the labels we give to languages are very, very flexible, depending upon the context. But still, i don't see any linguistic reason to distinguish between 'Flemish' and 'Dutch', meaning 'In Flanders people speak 'Flemish' in the context of talking about the standard language.

I can come up with some sound historical (and contemporary) linguistic reasons to say that Flemish is only spoken south and west of the river De Schelde.

The only reasons for making the statement 'In Flanders people speak 'Flemish' i could come up with are some local, small scale political ones. But looking at the political context of the EU -- whether we like that EU or not -- it would be quite a (silly) disaster to split up Dutch in 'Dutch' and 'Flemish'.
But it would be quite funny too: an extra translator for Flemish, besides Dutch, the very idea :-).

Frank

Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:46 am
by Spiff
Tèn moetemmen op de langen dier nog vertoalers gon vinnn vèr alle dialectekes apart te doeng.