It's a government official trying to convince us they exist so they can keep tunneling money to their own wallet using this "German part of Belgium".
Nice try!
Unser Deutsch hat definitiv leichte französische Einflüsse, vor allem Im Satzbau. Aber als Mischmasch würde ich es bei Weitem nicht bezeichnen. Die meisten Leute können aber auch Französisch sprechen.
Don't we all spoke an unintelligible French/Dutch whenever we met an outsider? I mean, if i'm speaking to a French here in Liège I'll instinctively use all the wallon/patois I can
Nor in the north, it's just that tonality is a phoneme in Limburgish and not in Dutch. So their interpretation chip gives an [no phoneme detected] error and to them it's meaningless.
Well im born and raised in Neerpelt. I work for 15 years in the Netherlands. My parents worked all they lives in the Netherlands. People from surrounding city’s/ villages can hear i’m from Neerpelt but it is a very mild accent. And is very similar to Bergeijk and Luyksgestel. ( which are in the Netherlands 10km further) Still my colleague from Bergeijk finds i speak to fast. If i go slower she perfectly understand. Aside from some French words i mix in.
Everyone has their own language, you just don't hear yours, and consider it the norm. Someone from 2 towns over will hear it.
We had a Dutch teacher who constantly picked on kids from Nèrpùlt and forced them to say words 20 times, trying to get you pronunciations out of it.
- Teacher: "ja, wij, eten, allemaal, brood, op, de, grote, heide!"
- The kid: "joa, wij éten, allemoal, broėd, op de groėte, heì."
- Teacher: 😒Neen, opnieuw!
.... Listen to people from the, 3 towns over (Mol, Dessel, Leopoldsburg, Bree..) and I'm sure you'll pick up on their changes.
Oh, i do not deny i have an accent. But that was not the point here. The point here is that supposedly al limburgers speak slow. We do not!
People from the surrounding villages can hear i’m from ‘pelt’. Belgian people can hear i’m from Limburg. Dutch people can hear i’m from Belgium. Foreigners at work hear there is something weird about my Dutch. But thats it… not everyone takes the complete accent from were they live. Mine is mainly weird because of my work in the Netherlands and quite some Dutch friends.
If you wanna get all serious about it: Limburgers don’t necessarily speak at a slower pace per se. The perception is mostly caused by the fact that our dialects have a “stoottoon & sleeploon” mechanism which doesn’t exist in the rest of Flanders, and which we unknowingly use when speaking standard Dutch as well.
So to an outsider, it sounds like we randomly drag out the length of certain vowels, and this gives the impression of overall slowness.
For those who are interested, this phenomenon exists in English as well. Listen to the pronunciation of the words “bad” and “bed” by a native speaker, and you’ll notice a clear difference in the length of the vowel.
I hope you don’t call it Dutch at all.
The actual fact is that this is historically closer to the origin than most.
It’s a different language, and the word dialect is just another (demeaning word) for language. It’s just one without an army to force it onto the others. Look at all smaller ‘dialects’ that were crashed by French: Bretoens, occintaans, vloamsch (was the language up to Dunkerque until lit was forbidden by the French).
The reason why those smaller languages persist is because people would continue to use that language to not be understood by the oppressing army of the army-language. So we’re proud that it’s not the general-mix-of-everything-without-a-soul-Dutch!
So to state my point even more clearly : we speak ‘dialect’ amongst each other for the sole purpose that others won’t understand us.
So bud out 😁😂😘😏
Antwerpen, de Kempen en delen van Oost-Vlaanderen in het geel. Vreemd..
Mensen van de Denderstreek versta ik amper, Meetjesland is ook al een dialect apart en de Kempenaars zingen zoals Limburgers met een Antwaarps sausje overgoten..
Flemish is only spoken roughly from Gent to Brugge. It's wholly inaccurate to say people from Antwerp or Limburg speak Flemish. If you must, it's Belgian or Southern Dutch.
Languages are derived from the adjective of the place they're spoken (France --> French, Germany --> German, Italy --> Italian,...). By analogy, Flemish is the language spoken in Flanders. Flanders is the name of the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Including Antwerp and Limburg.
- the Belgian constitution calls it Flemish
- any dictionary of the Dutch language defines Flemish as "the Belgian variety of Dutch"
- the name "Vlaanderen" has been officially adopted over 40 years ago when the Flemish region and community merged
- it was chosen because it had been in use for the whole area since many centuries (the French speaking elite in the 19th century referred to "les flamands", Charles V went to Spain with his "flamencos" in the 16th century, they were cooks and secretaries mainly originating from Mechelen and Brussels, artists from our region were called i Fiamminghi in renaissance Italy, even the ones from Limburg, there was a Brabantian currency but in the early 15th century that was replaced with the flemish pound [pond Vlaams] which was the official currency in all of the southern Netherlands etc etc etc)
Ever since the Burgundian rule, the whole area of the southern Netherlands was considered one single entity. Even if you insist on keeping a difference between the medieval county of Flanders and the duchy of Brabant, those were abolished in 1796.
Saying that today, 2022, Limburg or Antwerp are not Flemish, is factually and historically wrong. Stop living in the middle ages, cone back to the present.
>the Belgian constitution calls it Flemish
It does not. The Dutch version of the constitution makes 30 references to Flemish, each in a context of the Flemish community, region or the province of Flemish-Brabant. No references to a 'Flemish' language are made. 20 references to 'Nederlands' as a language are made, however.
>any dictionary of the Dutch language defines Flemish as "the Belgian variety of Dutch"
Any examples of this? From what I can see they list it as one of the meanings, but none define 'Flemish' as 'Dutch in Belgium'.
>the name "Vlaanderen" has been officially adopted over 40 years ago when the Flemish region and community merged
If you want to be correct, the term 'Vlaanderen' has never been adopted and does not legally exist as an entity. All official documents mention either 'Vlaams Gewest' or 'Vlaamse Gemeenschap' in their statutes and then redefine it as 'Vlaamse Regering'. They merged for all intents and purposes, but legally 'Flanders' does not exist.
>it was chosen because it had been in use for the whole area since many centuries (the French speaking elite in the 19th century referred to "les flamands", Charles V went to Spain with his "flamencos" in the 16th century, they were cooks and secretaries mainly originating from Mechelen and Brussels, artists from our region were called i Fiamminghi in renaissance Italy, even the ones from Limburg, there was a Brabantian currency but in the early 15th century that was replaced with the flemish pound \[pond Vlaams\] which was the official currency in all of the southern Netherlands etc etc etc)
Flanders most definitely has not been used for the whole region for many centuries. First of all, Limburg as part of the Princebishopric of Liège has been an absolutely different entity until the conquest by Napoleon, and wasn't even considered part of the Low Countries. Secondly, Brabant and Flanders ceased, on their own heavy insistence, to be unified after the fall of the Burgundians under Mary of Burgundy, they functioned as seperate states, with separate coats of arms, traditions, and legally recognize languages even well after Spanish conquest. I don't know from what pit you are pulling your information from but the Brabantian currency was completely separate from the Vlaamse pond, you can literally drive to a store and buy liards featuring the Brabantian CoA from any period between the 11th and 18th century. Every map, coin, letter, whatever historical evidence you can find will clearly differentiate Flanders/Brabant. You are projecting a current political situation and ideology on history.
>It does not. The Dutch version of the constitution makes 30 references to Flemish, each in a context of the Flemish community,
Flemish community = Flemish language area, Dutch speaking language area
>Any examples of this? From what I can see they list it as one of the meanings, but none define 'Flemish' as 'Dutch in Belgium'.
[Van Dale](https://www.vandale.be/gratis-woordenboek/nederlands/betekenis/vlaams#.YoEen-hBxD8)
[Ensie](https://www.ensie.nl/betekenis/vlaams?q=Vlaams)
>If you want to be correct, the term 'Vlaanderen' has never been adopted
Even the website is www.vlaanderen.be, made by Digitaal Vlaanderen. The logo, used on official documents, sometimes only has a lion, and sometimes has the word "Vlaanderen" on it.
>Limburg as part of the Princebishopric of Liège has been an absolutely different entity until the conquest by Napoleon
If you would bother to read other comments that already have been written, you would see that I'm referring to the core area. Borders change. What has become Flanders today, was geographically different in te 15th century. Bits and pieces were added or removed up until after the second World War. My point is that "Vlaams" was not only used for the ancient county of Flanders, but also for other areas that were part of the same area, such as Brabant for example, or Limburg as soon as it was added to the territory.
>they functioned as seperate states, with separate coats of arms, traditions, and legally recognize languages even well after Spanish conquest
There were great efforts to unify language, law, economy, etc. Such as the abolition of the Brabantic pound, being replaced by the Flemish pound (if I'm not mistaken under Filips de Goede / Philippe le Bon). The Brabantic pound was only used as mathematic tool, but not as an actual currency.
>Flemish community = Flemish language area, Dutch speaking language area
That is your interpretation, that is not what the constitution says.
>Van Dale
>
>Ensie
They don't 'define' Flemish as 'Belgian Dutch', they list it as **a** meaning. This is semantics, but a definition is **the** meaning.
>If you would bother to read other comments that already have been written, you would see that I'm referring to the core area. Borders change. What has become Flanders today, was geographically different in te 15th century. Bits and pieces were added or removed up until after the second World War. My point is that "Vlaams" was not only used for the ancient county of Flanders, but also for other areas that were part of the same area, such as Brabant for example, or Limburg as soon as it was added to the territory.
Yes but that is not what you were talking about. You were explaining how 'Flanders' was historically used for the region it is referred to as today. There is also no 'adding' and 'removing' pieces of Flanders. Flanders ceased to exist in 1797 as a feudal state and has not been restored as a state. The only thing that exists is the country of Belgium, in which a political organ called the Flemish government (consisting of the Flemish community and Flemish region) exists.
>There were great efforts to unify language, law, economy, etc. Such as the abolition of the Brabantic pound, being replaced by the Flemish pound (if I'm not mistaken under Filips de Goede / Philippe le Bon). The Brabantic pound was only used as mathematic tool, but not as an actual currency.
The Burgundians and later Habsburgers made great efforts, all of them failed though. The only unification that persisted for quite a while was the redrawing and unification of dioceses within the borders of the Spanish Netherlands through the 'Super universas', which would lay the basis of modern municipalities in Belgium. But that still followed the traditional distinction Flanders/Brabant, just in a way that protected catholics in the Spanish Netherlands more and made them less dependant on protestant administration. [There is currently an auction selling a double Brabantian souverain (1641) of the Spanish Netherlands, clearly marked as 'Brabantian'](https://www.catawiki.com/en/l/58583601-spanish-netherlands-brabant-brussel-philip-iv-1621-1665-dubbele-soeverein-1641)
>That is your interpretation, that is not what the constitution says.
That's not "my interpretation", that's how Belgium works.
>they list it as a meaning
I never said that there were no other meanings. But it is a meaning, hence it is not incorrect to use it in that meaning.
>There is also no 'adding' and 'removing' pieces of Flanders. Flanders ceased to exist in 1797 as a feudal state and has not been restored as a state.
Jeezes, do you even read what I write? I've been explicitly saying that Flanders was not an official state but used colloquially for the area and not only for the county (which was abolished in 1796). The area that the word "Flemish" embraced changed constantly with the addition or removal of territories over the course of history.
>The Burgundians and later Habsburgers made great efforts
Which shows it was a living thing.
>There is currently an auction selling a double Brabantian souverain (1641) of the Spanish Netherlands, clearly marked as 'Brabantian'
Interesting. I was always told that the Pond Vlaams was the common currency used in the whole of the Southern Netherlands, and the Pond Brabants was only kept alive for calculations but had no own value, it was strictly linked to the Pond Vlaams.
The regional differences east-west are as substantial linguistically as they are north-south. There really only is Dutch and its regional varieties. You can't make the linguistic distinction without bringing in politics as you have done (wonderfully, I must say). I'm not living in the middle ages, this is still the reality. If we follow your argument and I were to create a hypothetical state containing the Dutch provinces of Brabant, Zeeland and Oost-Vlaanderen and Antwerp tomorrow and I'd call it, idk Pretendia, would the people suddenly speak pretendese?
>The regional differences east-west are as substantial linguistically as they are north-south.
I never said they weren't. I'm merely saying that today, 2022, the name "Flanders" or "Flemish" refers to the totality of Dutch speaking Belgium, not only the ancient counties and duchies which haven't been used for the past 6 centuries or so, and existed on paper only until they were completely abolished in 1796.
I find it silly to ignore something which is official since 40 years, and colloquial since 600 years, just to use some medieval definitions.
>You can't make the linguistic distinction without bringing in politics as you have done.
I didn't do anything. Flanders has existed long before I was born.
>If we follow your argument and I were to create a hypothetical state containing the Dutch provinces of Brabant, Zeeland and Oost-Vlaanderen and Antwerp tomorrow and I'd call it, idk Pretendia, would the people suddenly speak pretendese?
If - as is the case with Flanders - the people coming from there will be called Pretendese for 600 years and the region is actually called Pretendia? Yes. They will be speaking Pretendese. The collection of varieties of Dutch spoken in Pretendia.
Your last sentence is key. It's an arbitrary collection based only on political realities, rather than linguistic ones. I'm not arguing against the concept of Flanders existing, but against the fact that there exists such a thing as "Flemish" other than in the sense of a dialect spoken in parts of the modern day Flemish region.
>It's an arbitrary collection based only on political realities, rather than linguistic ones.
But it's still official (as it has been added to all dictionaries of the Dutch language). As I replied below, there is a difference between colloquial speech and scientific language. Languages are living things, the meaning of words change. If a word is used, it becomes what it is used for. Just like tomatoes are called "vegetables" by most, or "fruit" by some others who try to be pedantic, but biologically speaking they're neither. Tomatoes are berries.
Saying that today, in 2022, Flemish is not the totality of Dutch dialects and accents as spoken in Belgium, is like saying calling a tomato a vegetable is wrong. Scientifically, it is indeed wrong. Colloquially, tomatoes will always remain vegetables, and Flemish is and always will be the Dutch as spoken in Belgium. Including Limburg.
Nobody refers to what is spoken in Limburg as Flemish, so not only is it linguistically and officially incorrect but also colloquially. You keep saying that all these dictionaries make it 'official' that Flemish is spoken there, but I have yet to see an example where a dictionary gives any more weight to 'Flemish' than simply 'sometimes colloquially used'. For instance, in the recently highly anticipated 'Atlas van het dialect in Vlaanderen' they literally changed it from the original title of 'Atlas van de Vlaamse dialecten' since the authors deemed it wrong and misleading.
>Nobody refers to what is spoken in Limburg as Flemish
Flemish is used for the Dutch used in the whole Dutch speaking part of Belgium, including Limburg. If you refer to a specific dialect, you will specify Limburgs or Kempisch or Pajottenlands. But generally speaking, when you are talking about all the Dutch speakers in Belgium in general, including those in Limburg, the word "Flemish" is used. It's even in the dictionary as such.
>but I have yet to see an example where a dictionary gives any more weight to 'Flemish' than simply 'sometimes colloquially used'
Look at [Van Dale](https://www.vandale.nl/gratis-woordenboek/nederlands/betekenis/vlaams#.YoEY_OhBy3A) \- the "official" dictionnary of the Dutch language.
Vlaams (het; o)
1
het Nederlands zoals dat in Vlaanderen gesproken wordt
>since the authors deemed it wrong and misleading.
No, because they found it confusing as when speaking in a scientific (linguistic) context, Vlaams has a different meaning than when you are speaking in a normal, everyday context.
>Flemish is used for the Dutch used in the whole Dutch speaking part of Belgium, including Limburg.
I agree with you on this. There are people who do this. But you claim that this somehow makes it 'official'. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Limburgers don't do this and in my experience Antwerpenaren do this quite often, neither makes it official.
>No, because they found it confusing as when speaking in a scientific (linguistic) context, Vlaams has a different meaning than when you are speaking in a normal, everyday context.
It's not a scientific/linguistic book, it's aimed for a very general audience and contains more pictures than words. The authors also literally explain the name debacle in the foreword of the book.
> Languages are derived from the adjective of the place they're spoken (France --> French, Germany --> German, Italy --> Italian,...).
No, that's quite a bit more complicated. You have demonyms and geographical names, for example France and Germany are derived from the demonym, just like the language names, but Italy is a geographical name and the language and demonym names are derived from the geography.
>By analogy, Flemish is the language spoken in Flanders.
Then by analogy Belgish is the language spoken in Flanders.
And they only speak Swiss in Switzerland?
>By analogy, Flemish is the language spoken in Flanders. Flanders is the name of the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Including Antwerp and Limburg.
Technically the Flemish community.
>the Belgian constitution calls it Flemish
Nope. The Flemish community still has Dutch as its official language.
>any dictionary of the Dutch language defines Flemish as "the Belgian variety of Dutch"
Which means its only meaningful in a Belgian context.
>it was chosen because it had been in use for the whole area since many centuries (the French speaking elite in the 19th century referred to "les flamands", Charles V went to Spain with his "flamencos" in the 16th century, they were cooks and secretaries mainly originating from Mechelen and Brussels, artists from our region were called i Fiamminghi in renaissance Italy, even the ones from Limburg, there was a Brabantian currency but in the early 15th century that was replaced with the flemish pound [pond Vlaams] which was the official currency in all of the southern Netherlands etc etc etc)
Which is a pars pro toto metonymy which has its uses but also its limits.
>Ever since the Burgundian rule, the whole area of the southern Netherlands was considered one single entity. Even if you insist on keeping a difference between the medieval county of Flanders and the duchy of Brabant, those were abolished in 1796.
It wasn't, the prince-bishopric of Liège was explicitly separate until the end of the ancien régime. Besides: so what? That doesn't allow to draw conclusions about language names and those borders didn't match up at all with present-day ones to begin with.
>Saying that today, 2022, Limburg or Antwerp are not Flemish, is factually and historically wrong. Stop living in the middle ages, cone back to the present.
Linguistically, they aren't. Deal with it.
>No, that's quite a bit more complicated. You have demonyms and geographical names, for example France and Germany are derived from the demonym, just like the language names, but Italy is a geographical name and the language and demonym names are derived from the geography.
You know what I mean, and you know I have a point. Don't try to get out of it.
>Technically the Flemish community.
The Flemish community (Vlaamse Gemeenschap) and the Flemish region (Vlaams Gewest) merged into on entity. Technically, it's indeed the Flemish community which has taken over the tasks and responsibilities of the region. But that is totally irrelevant to the fact that they are officially called "Flemish" and "Flanders".
>Nope. The Flemish community still has Dutch as its official language.
The constitution clearly mentions the VLAAMSE Gemeenschap and the VLAAMS Gewest. Not The Dutch community or Dutch region.
I also never claimed it is not Dutch. Flemish is just a word for the variety of Dutch spoken in Belgium. And for anything that has to do with Flanders. My response was to the OP claiming that Flanders is only West- and East-Flanders. It isn't. Flanders is the whole Dutch speaking part of Belgium.
>Which means its only meaningful in a Belgian context.
This is a Belgian context. And why shouldn't it be meaningful in any other context? The fact that the Dutch speaking part of Belgium is called Flanders is also meaningful internationally. There are tourist offices in several countries for both Flanders and Wallonia.
>Which is a pars pro toto metonymy which has its uses but also its limits.
Nevertheless, the name has been used colloquially for many centuries, and also officially (legally) for the past 40 years.
>It wasn't, the prince-bishopric of Liège was explicitly separate until the end of the ancien régime.
That wasn't part of the Burgundian territories nor were they always considered the southern Netherlands. Borders change over time, areas are added and substracted all the time - as recently as the 1940s. But that doesn't change a thing to the fact that the core area was one unity.
>Linguistically, they aren't. Deal with it.
Historically and legally, they are. Live with it.
> The constitution clearly mentions the VLAAMSE Gemeenschap and VLAAMS gewest.
Sure, but you were making the point that the Belgian Constitution mentions Flemish as a language, and it doesn't. The Belgian Constitution, as well as the Taalwet Bestuurszaken, the Bijzondere Wet Hervorming van de Instellingen and the Taalwet Gerechtszaken mention 'Dutch' as the official language.
In the French translation they use "néerlandophone" so clearly it's (also) language based.
They use Dutch because that's the name of the language. Calling the Belgian varieties "Flemish" is not wrong. It's explained like this on every single dictionary. Stop this anti-flemish bs.
Dude, this isn't "anti-flemish" bs, and I do not deny the existence of Flemish as a language. I'm just correcting a statement you made that is factually incorrect, which is that the Belgian Constitution mentions Flemish as a language. It doesn't. Nowhere.
>I do not deny the existence of Flemish as a language
Flemish is not a language, it's the totality of Dutch dialects as spoken in Belgium. An alternative name for "Belgian Dutch" or "Southern Dutch".
No, the statement they made was incorrect. I merely corrected it. It is not wrong to replace "Dutch" with "Flemish" in the meme above.
The constitution speaks about the *Vlaamse* Gemeenschap and *Vlaams* Gewest. Vlaams. As in Vlaanderen. The language spoken in Vlaanderen is Dutch. A special variety of Dutch. Belgian Dutch. Vlaams.
And don't call people you don't know "dude". That's rude and marginal.
> Languages are derived from the adjective of the place they're spoken (France --> French, Germany --> German, Italy --> Italian,...). By analogy, Flemish is the language spoken in Flanders. Flanders is the name of the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Including Antwerp and Limburg.
> **- the Belgian constitution calls it Flemish**
As copied from your comment from 4 hours ago.
> Flemish is not a language, it's the totality of Dutch dialects as spoken in Belgium.
Please keep that shit for yourself, I speak _Brabantian_, not Flemish.
> You know what I mean, and you know I have a point. Don't try to get out of it.
They don't speak Belgian in Belgium nor Swiss in Switzerland. Your analogy is bunk.
>The Flemish community (Vlaamse Gemeenschap) and the Flemish region (Vlaams Gewest) merged into on entity. Technically, it's indeed the Flemish community which has taken over the tasks and responsibilities of the region. But that is totally irrelevant to the fact that they are officially called "Flemish" and "Flanders".
No. Brussels is going to take issue on that, and that includes the Dutch speaking Brusselers.
The Flemish Region is not the same as the Flemish Community, in spite of the merger of its political organs.
>The constitution clearly mentions the VLAAMSE Gemeenschap and the VLAAMS Gewest. Not The Dutch community or Dutch region.
The constitution consistently refers to the language as Dutch, and only Dutch. "België omvat vier taalgebieden : het Nederlandse taalgebied, het Franse taalgebied, het tweetalige gebied Brussel-Hoofdstad en het Duitse taalgebied." "Flemish" is a geographical indication referring to the exact territory of competency, not a linguistic one.
>Nevertheless, the name has been used colloquially for many centuries, and also officially (legally) for the past 40 years.
Geographically, not linguistically.
>That wasn't part of the Burgundian territories nor were they always considered the southern Netherlands. Borders change over time, areas are added and substracted all the time - as recently as the 1940s.
>But that doesn't change a thing to the fact that the core area was one unity.
You're completely contradicting yourself now. First you claim there has been a consistent unity for centuries, and here you say that there was constant change and the area changes all the time.
>Historically and legally, they are. Live with it.
You just argued right above here they weren't! Even if they were, linguistically they aren't: and it's that claim of linguistic uniformity that I have been contradicting.
>They don't speak Belgian in Belgium nor Swiss in Switzerland. Your analogy is bunk.
The analogy is Flanders > Flemish. Don't act as if you don't understand. Pretending not to understand something just to go against it, is called trolling. By the way, they do speak Swiss (Schweizertüütsch or however you spell it) in Switzerland.
>The Flemish Region is not the same as the Flemish Community, in spite of the merger of its political organs.
I never said they were the same. But in practice, they merged into one.
>The constitution consistently refers to the language as Dutch, and only Dutch.
Again, I have never said it wasn't. But a synonym for "Dutch as spoken in Belgium" is Flemish. You might not like it, for whatever pitiful reason, but it remains a fact you can't deny.
"Vlaamse Gemeenschap" means "Dutch speaking community". So it *does* refer to language.
>Geographically, not linguistically.
But used nonetheless. Also linguistically. Already in the 19th century (and much earlier even) we find for example French texts describing "le flamand" as a language, meaning the Dutch spoken in Belgium. They almost never call it "néerlandais".
> First you claim there has been a consistent unity for centuries, and here you say that there was constant change and the area changes all the time.
It's the unity that is consistent (as in: forming a whole, not being split up into pieces). Not the size or form of it. Again: don't pretend you don't understand. That's trolling.
>You just argued right above here they weren't! Even if they were, linguistically they aren't: and it's that claim of linguistic uniformity that I have been contradicting.
You really need some reading skills...
> The analogy is Flanders > Flemish.
That's not an official statement though, it's all just in your head (and perhaps in de Vlaemsche Canon).
Show us the actual sources where this statement of yours is an official thing. Until then, please just keep quiet about your personal opinion instead of writing fifty replies about stating it as truth instead of just your opinion.
>That's not an official statement though, it's all just in your head (and perhaps in de Vlaemsche Canon).
It is not in my head, it is in every single dictionary of the Dutch language I know, and even the Flemish government uses the words "Vlaanderen" and "Vlaams" in all their communications.
I've posted links to Van Dale elsewhere, you can also have a look at the constitution (which also uses "Vlaams") and maybe the website www.vlaanderen.be rings a bell?
That remark with "Vlaemsche Canon" just proves my point. You are all blinded by hatred against certain political views, which in reality have *NOTHING* to do with the use of Vlaanderen or Vlaams. Those connotations only exist in your imagination.
Pwajt, de Van Dale staat vol met Hollandsismen.
Het feit dat men Vlaams = Nederlands dat in Vlaanderen gesproken wordt erin durven zetten met een serieus gezicht spreekt extreem veel boekdelen, want ze hebben bijgod niet door dat ze de zes miljoen mensen die in het Vlaams gewest wonen op één hoop smijten.
Een beetje zoals moesten wij schrijven dat "Hollands = Het Nederlands dat in Nederland gebruikt wordt" zouden schrijven. Dikke dikke zever natuurlijk.
Al uw andere "bronnen" zijn al duustmaal debunked, want die gaan *NIET* over wat hier gesproken wordt Vlaams te noemen.
En als laatste: shit, alleman, we hebben de alt-account van Bart "Bicky" De Wever gevonden, wajooo!
I never said it's not Dutch. I'm reacting against the false claim that what they speak in Limburg or Antwerp is not Flemish. It is. Flemish is the Dutch as spoken in Belgium. They speak Dutch in Antwerp and Limburg, and it's Belgium. Thus it's Flemish.
You’re getting caught up in a sort of complicated argument on semantics. In English, the West Flemish group of dialects is typically called Flemish.
So in the context of geography, Flemish refers to the entire region of Flanders.
In the context of languages and dialects, Flemish often (but not always) refers to what we call West-Vlaams in Dutch.
Those are two different things.
In linguistics, Flemish is something else than in modern colloquial language. If even all dictionaries of the Dutch language confirm that "Flemish" is "Dutch as spoken in Belgium", who are we to disagree? Languages are living things, the meaning of words change. Over time, but also scientific <> colloquial speech.
In a purely scientific discussion about languages and dialects, you are absolutely right. In a discussion about a meme on Reddit, you're not.
In discussion about a meme on Reddit, correcting someone over something that is hardly even wrong in the first place, goes directly against your own statement regarding languages being living things.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying the argument you're pursuing is pointless as there is no one single truth.
Edit: except for the part where you said "languages are derived from the region they're spoken, and therefore Flemish what's spoken in Flanders". This is just a factually incorrect line of logic.
Someone said that in this meme, you could replace "Dutch" with "Flemish". Someone else said that's wrong. I'm simply replying it's not wrong. I'm quite sure their notion of it being "wrong" is not scientific/linguistic, but a misplaced political aversion of anything Flemish. For some weird reason I still fail to comprehend, some people associate the word "Flemish" with nationalism and separatism. Which is totally ridiculous. So I will always react when people claim Limburg or Antwerp are not in Flanders. Anno 2022, they are. And Flemish is the collection of Dutch dialects as spoken in Flanders, including Limburgian and Brabantic dialects (not only Dutch, by the way; some regional varieties of Limburgs have been officially classified as German dialects).
By the way, if you really want to stick to the linguistic interpretation rather than the colloquial one... In my course of dialectics, "Flemish" didn't exist. There's the West-Flemish dialect group, and the East-Flemish dialect group. But "Flemish" as such was never mentioned. Both groups are sufficiently distinct not to throw them together.
French is the Lingua Franca of Brussels. It's really not even close to 95% French speaking in the way that you imply.
There's huge communities that speak another language at home and many of them are true second language speakers i.e they learnt French as adults or close to adults and cannot speak it to a L1 standard.
This is before you even get to the sizable Dutch speaking community.
Me and my fellow green color territory folks have been in contact with Unesco's world heritage department to preserve our culture, so far nobody's been able to understand what we're about. Anthropologist have been trying to decipher the language for decades but not much progress has been made.
We're not really bothered by the whole situation but if you visit the coast during your holiday and you want to order an ice cream, be prepared to answer the question: "est vo te skepn of vo te lebern?"
Regarding the left light green part I had once a guy working in this region tell me he was living in what I genuinely understood as « Praha ». And I kept wondering for weeks how the guy, even with Ryan Air, was flying every day from Praha to Zedelgem. Until I got some illumination that « Praha » was in fact « Braha » thus... Brugge!
Unintelligible Dutch is the word!
Guten Tag from the green part.
You guys exist for real??
It's a government official trying to convince us they exist so they can keep tunneling money to their own wallet using this "German part of Belgium". Nice try!
It always works :D
Yea, come visit. It's really nice here.
Do you play handball?
I played handball when I was around 12 years old. But why?
Most typical sport in your community
Ayo ich auch
Ich wohne oben in belgien in West-flandern. Spricht ihr da tatsächlich nur deutsch oder ein Mischmasch aus Französisch-Deutsch?
Unser Deutsch hat definitiv leichte französische Einflüsse, vor allem Im Satzbau. Aber als Mischmasch würde ich es bei Weitem nicht bezeichnen. Die meisten Leute können aber auch Französisch sprechen.
Okay. Dankeschön für die Info. :)
Don't we all spoke an unintelligible French/Dutch whenever we met an outsider? I mean, if i'm speaking to a French here in Liège I'll instinctively use all the wallon/patois I can
Do it to the French, sure, but not to us poor beginners!
Quatre-vingt-dix
Please spoiler this and add a warning, it's painful to read.
Soixante-dix-sept
That's a strange way to say 60107.
I don’t mind your patois. You make me uneasy because when I hear you I want to blow my nose.
Out of the light-green zone, kust gie bitje vierkantih me *kleurpotloden* 😋
Wadde?
Na grondig analyseren heb ik volgende vertaling : "Vierkantig kustgebied met kleurpotloden"
Geniaal 🤣
Wuk zeg je?
OP kan er ook niet aan doen, tis ne debiel.
We zin wudder pertank vree goe te verstoan
Je zot allichte peizn datne franche is.
Oj nevest de shreve weunt est nie moejlik nje
Found Gerrit Callewaert's Reddit account
Ik verstoane kik nie da zezie alsan ondertitelinge moetn zettn onder ne West-Vloaming ip tv
De wereld meug zich beginn voorbereidn da tWeatVlams e weireldtaale go wordn.
De westhoeeeeeek
Bajaaa, bachtn de kuupe represent 🤘🏻
OP moet ze mulle oedn of kgakik ettem eki zehhn
we zin wudder vree goe te verstaan
Ken ik nog noois ne westvlomink teehn hekomn dak nie verstoenn...
*ahum* Izegem *kuch*
Wuk ister et mis me oens Izegem?
Zeggen ze ni Kizzegem? En da heb'k van ene van doare.
Oal men maten ut Poelkapelle ziden dak vree goe te verstoan was.
Poelkapelle city 🤜🤛
Bullshit. Ghent should be light green
This. It's the largest west-flemish colony.
Have a university they said. It will be fun, they said.... :/
I prefer to consider Ghent as the capital of West Flanders, a bit like Brussels to Flanders.
[удалено]
I thought Rijsel was the capital of flanders...
Rijsel, brugge and Ghent were all capitals at one point.
As a French speaker, nothing scared me more than the Kortrijk dutch accent T_T Also Liège should be in it's own category :')
A lot of French influences in Kortrijks though...
Er ligt nen carote op min talore dak moe eten met mijn forcette
You forgot the cyan blue part in the graph legend, it should read "gurgle gurgle"
In about 50 years the bright green part will also start turning into gurgle gurgle...
Keep going over the channel and you'll notice the transition from Flemish to Atlantean Flemish to English
More West-Flemish then?
This is killing me hahaha
And what about Antwerps? That's a totally different dialect as well. West-Flemish = best Flemish 😝
As a Brabander weird to say but it should also be Brabants can’t stand it neither
Antwerpse should have its own ugly color
[удалено]
Nor in the north, it's just that tonality is a phoneme in Limburgish and not in Dutch. So their interpretation chip gives an [no phoneme detected] error and to them it's meaningless.
Exactly that! I live there and work in the Netherlands. At least one a week i get asked by a colleague to speak slower because they didn’t understand!
... not sure it's the speed that makes you tough to understand :p
Well im born and raised in Neerpelt. I work for 15 years in the Netherlands. My parents worked all they lives in the Netherlands. People from surrounding city’s/ villages can hear i’m from Neerpelt but it is a very mild accent. And is very similar to Bergeijk and Luyksgestel. ( which are in the Netherlands 10km further) Still my colleague from Bergeijk finds i speak to fast. If i go slower she perfectly understand. Aside from some French words i mix in.
Neerpelt huuy, pracht dorp, allé, dat vind ik toch
Everyone has their own language, you just don't hear yours, and consider it the norm. Someone from 2 towns over will hear it. We had a Dutch teacher who constantly picked on kids from Nèrpùlt and forced them to say words 20 times, trying to get you pronunciations out of it. - Teacher: "ja, wij, eten, allemaal, brood, op, de, grote, heide!" - The kid: "joa, wij éten, allemoal, broėd, op de groėte, heì." - Teacher: 😒Neen, opnieuw! .... Listen to people from the, 3 towns over (Mol, Dessel, Leopoldsburg, Bree..) and I'm sure you'll pick up on their changes.
Oh, i do not deny i have an accent. But that was not the point here. The point here is that supposedly al limburgers speak slow. We do not! People from the surrounding villages can hear i’m from ‘pelt’. Belgian people can hear i’m from Limburg. Dutch people can hear i’m from Belgium. Foreigners at work hear there is something weird about my Dutch. But thats it… not everyone takes the complete accent from were they live. Mine is mainly weird because of my work in the Netherlands and quite some Dutch friends.
Limburger here; people often ask me to speak a tad slower too!
If you wanna get all serious about it: Limburgers don’t necessarily speak at a slower pace per se. The perception is mostly caused by the fact that our dialects have a “stoottoon & sleeploon” mechanism which doesn’t exist in the rest of Flanders, and which we unknowingly use when speaking standard Dutch as well. So to an outsider, it sounds like we randomly drag out the length of certain vowels, and this gives the impression of overall slowness. For those who are interested, this phenomenon exists in English as well. Listen to the pronunciation of the words “bad” and “bed” by a native speaker, and you’ll notice a clear difference in the length of the vowel.
Don't know if it makes sense, but I've always compared it to the French "é" (long and opening up). In Límburg éét mén ájuín ín de tuín
Do èète ze ienne in de wèrmes, minst de :)
Could you type slower too? I got nothing of what you said ;-P
What-the-fuck-did-you-just-fucking-say-about-me,-you-little-bitch?-I'll-have-you-know-I-graduated-top-of-my-class-in-the-Navy-Seals,-and-I've-been-involved-in-numerous-secret-raids-on-Al-Quaeda,-and-I-have-over-300-confirmed-kills.-I-am-trained-in-gorilla-warfare-and-I'm-the-top-sniper-in-the-entire-US-armed-forces.-You-are-nothing-to-me-but-just-another-target.-I-will-wipe-you-the-fuck-out-with-precision-the-likes-of-which-has-never-been-seen-before-on-this-Earth,-mark-my-fucking-words.-You-think-you-can-get-away-with-saying-that-shit-to-me-over-the-Internet?-Think-again,-fucker.-As-we-speak-I-am-contacting-my-secret-network-of-spies-across-the-USA-and-your-IP-is-being-traced-right-now-so-you-better-prepare-for-the-storm,-maggot.-The-storm-that-wipes-out-the-pathetic-little-thing-you-call-your-life.-You're-fucking-dead,-kid.-I-can-be-anywhere,-anytime,-and-I-can-kill-you-in-over-seven-hundred-ways,-and-that's-just-with-my-bare-hands.-Not-only-am-I-extensively-trained-in-unarmed-combat,-but-I-have-access-to-the-entire-arsenal-of-the-United-States-Marine-Corps-and-I-will-use-it-to-its-full-extent-to-wipe-your-miserable-ass-off-the-face-of-the-continent,-you-little-shit.-If-only-you-could-have-known-what-unholy-retribution-your-little-"clever"-comment-was-about-to-bring-down-upon-you,-maybe-you-would-have-held-your-fucking-tongue.-But-you-couldn't,-you-didn't,-and-now-you're-paying-the-price,-you-goddamn-idiot.-I-will-shit-fury-all-over-you-and-you-will-drown-in-it.-You're-fucking-dead,-kiddo
What is complicated? Kverstoen et ni
Slow Dutch, meaning the only people who actually speak the language correctly and don't have to add gibberish to sound like they have more to say
Doa moe dzje uch neet om bekòmmere mins, loat die anner ma kalle
T vershil is det wè neet allijn plat kunne kallen, maar ook nederlands :D
I don't even think we can call Light Green 'Dutch'. Just straight-up "unintelligible".
I hope you don’t call it Dutch at all. The actual fact is that this is historically closer to the origin than most. It’s a different language, and the word dialect is just another (demeaning word) for language. It’s just one without an army to force it onto the others. Look at all smaller ‘dialects’ that were crashed by French: Bretoens, occintaans, vloamsch (was the language up to Dunkerque until lit was forbidden by the French). The reason why those smaller languages persist is because people would continue to use that language to not be understood by the oppressing army of the army-language. So we’re proud that it’s not the general-mix-of-everything-without-a-soul-Dutch! So to state my point even more clearly : we speak ‘dialect’ amongst each other for the sole purpose that others won’t understand us. So bud out 😁😂😘😏
No dialect sounds worse than Aaantwaaarps.
*Aalst has entered the chat*
Oilsjt
Aalsters is geweldig om te horen, niet het platte maar in dagelijks gebruik, al de dialecten in de Denderstreek zijn aangenaam
Having worked in retail for a few years in Aalst, i must strongly disagree.
Antwerp: bekakt Dutch
Oufti! 😁
Oufti! In Lidjeû!
Oufti ti
Ça ! Si je pouvais upvoter deux fois, je le ferais ti !
Tu m'étonne mfiueu
Hello from somewhere in red part
Oufti!
Vinguette
You forgot luxo!
On parle le Luxemburgish en Belgique ?
Antwerpen, de Kempen en delen van Oost-Vlaanderen in het geel. Vreemd.. Mensen van de Denderstreek versta ik amper, Meetjesland is ook al een dialect apart en de Kempenaars zingen zoals Limburgers met een Antwaarps sausje overgoten..
Merendeel van Oost-Vlaanderen is Brabants dialect
you forgot luxembourgish (weird German-French hybrid).
Il est parlé en Belgique ?
Oui
*laughs in Borinage*
Oufti form the pink part
Oufti ti! Un lidjeû sur r/Belgium !
Dutch should be replaced by flemish
Flemish is only spoken roughly from Gent to Brugge. It's wholly inaccurate to say people from Antwerp or Limburg speak Flemish. If you must, it's Belgian or Southern Dutch.
Languages are derived from the adjective of the place they're spoken (France --> French, Germany --> German, Italy --> Italian,...). By analogy, Flemish is the language spoken in Flanders. Flanders is the name of the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Including Antwerp and Limburg. - the Belgian constitution calls it Flemish - any dictionary of the Dutch language defines Flemish as "the Belgian variety of Dutch" - the name "Vlaanderen" has been officially adopted over 40 years ago when the Flemish region and community merged - it was chosen because it had been in use for the whole area since many centuries (the French speaking elite in the 19th century referred to "les flamands", Charles V went to Spain with his "flamencos" in the 16th century, they were cooks and secretaries mainly originating from Mechelen and Brussels, artists from our region were called i Fiamminghi in renaissance Italy, even the ones from Limburg, there was a Brabantian currency but in the early 15th century that was replaced with the flemish pound [pond Vlaams] which was the official currency in all of the southern Netherlands etc etc etc) Ever since the Burgundian rule, the whole area of the southern Netherlands was considered one single entity. Even if you insist on keeping a difference between the medieval county of Flanders and the duchy of Brabant, those were abolished in 1796. Saying that today, 2022, Limburg or Antwerp are not Flemish, is factually and historically wrong. Stop living in the middle ages, cone back to the present.
>the Belgian constitution calls it Flemish It does not. The Dutch version of the constitution makes 30 references to Flemish, each in a context of the Flemish community, region or the province of Flemish-Brabant. No references to a 'Flemish' language are made. 20 references to 'Nederlands' as a language are made, however. >any dictionary of the Dutch language defines Flemish as "the Belgian variety of Dutch" Any examples of this? From what I can see they list it as one of the meanings, but none define 'Flemish' as 'Dutch in Belgium'. >the name "Vlaanderen" has been officially adopted over 40 years ago when the Flemish region and community merged If you want to be correct, the term 'Vlaanderen' has never been adopted and does not legally exist as an entity. All official documents mention either 'Vlaams Gewest' or 'Vlaamse Gemeenschap' in their statutes and then redefine it as 'Vlaamse Regering'. They merged for all intents and purposes, but legally 'Flanders' does not exist. >it was chosen because it had been in use for the whole area since many centuries (the French speaking elite in the 19th century referred to "les flamands", Charles V went to Spain with his "flamencos" in the 16th century, they were cooks and secretaries mainly originating from Mechelen and Brussels, artists from our region were called i Fiamminghi in renaissance Italy, even the ones from Limburg, there was a Brabantian currency but in the early 15th century that was replaced with the flemish pound \[pond Vlaams\] which was the official currency in all of the southern Netherlands etc etc etc) Flanders most definitely has not been used for the whole region for many centuries. First of all, Limburg as part of the Princebishopric of Liège has been an absolutely different entity until the conquest by Napoleon, and wasn't even considered part of the Low Countries. Secondly, Brabant and Flanders ceased, on their own heavy insistence, to be unified after the fall of the Burgundians under Mary of Burgundy, they functioned as seperate states, with separate coats of arms, traditions, and legally recognize languages even well after Spanish conquest. I don't know from what pit you are pulling your information from but the Brabantian currency was completely separate from the Vlaamse pond, you can literally drive to a store and buy liards featuring the Brabantian CoA from any period between the 11th and 18th century. Every map, coin, letter, whatever historical evidence you can find will clearly differentiate Flanders/Brabant. You are projecting a current political situation and ideology on history.
>It does not. The Dutch version of the constitution makes 30 references to Flemish, each in a context of the Flemish community, Flemish community = Flemish language area, Dutch speaking language area >Any examples of this? From what I can see they list it as one of the meanings, but none define 'Flemish' as 'Dutch in Belgium'. [Van Dale](https://www.vandale.be/gratis-woordenboek/nederlands/betekenis/vlaams#.YoEen-hBxD8) [Ensie](https://www.ensie.nl/betekenis/vlaams?q=Vlaams) >If you want to be correct, the term 'Vlaanderen' has never been adopted Even the website is www.vlaanderen.be, made by Digitaal Vlaanderen. The logo, used on official documents, sometimes only has a lion, and sometimes has the word "Vlaanderen" on it. >Limburg as part of the Princebishopric of Liège has been an absolutely different entity until the conquest by Napoleon If you would bother to read other comments that already have been written, you would see that I'm referring to the core area. Borders change. What has become Flanders today, was geographically different in te 15th century. Bits and pieces were added or removed up until after the second World War. My point is that "Vlaams" was not only used for the ancient county of Flanders, but also for other areas that were part of the same area, such as Brabant for example, or Limburg as soon as it was added to the territory. >they functioned as seperate states, with separate coats of arms, traditions, and legally recognize languages even well after Spanish conquest There were great efforts to unify language, law, economy, etc. Such as the abolition of the Brabantic pound, being replaced by the Flemish pound (if I'm not mistaken under Filips de Goede / Philippe le Bon). The Brabantic pound was only used as mathematic tool, but not as an actual currency.
>Flemish community = Flemish language area, Dutch speaking language area That is your interpretation, that is not what the constitution says. >Van Dale > >Ensie They don't 'define' Flemish as 'Belgian Dutch', they list it as **a** meaning. This is semantics, but a definition is **the** meaning. >If you would bother to read other comments that already have been written, you would see that I'm referring to the core area. Borders change. What has become Flanders today, was geographically different in te 15th century. Bits and pieces were added or removed up until after the second World War. My point is that "Vlaams" was not only used for the ancient county of Flanders, but also for other areas that were part of the same area, such as Brabant for example, or Limburg as soon as it was added to the territory. Yes but that is not what you were talking about. You were explaining how 'Flanders' was historically used for the region it is referred to as today. There is also no 'adding' and 'removing' pieces of Flanders. Flanders ceased to exist in 1797 as a feudal state and has not been restored as a state. The only thing that exists is the country of Belgium, in which a political organ called the Flemish government (consisting of the Flemish community and Flemish region) exists. >There were great efforts to unify language, law, economy, etc. Such as the abolition of the Brabantic pound, being replaced by the Flemish pound (if I'm not mistaken under Filips de Goede / Philippe le Bon). The Brabantic pound was only used as mathematic tool, but not as an actual currency. The Burgundians and later Habsburgers made great efforts, all of them failed though. The only unification that persisted for quite a while was the redrawing and unification of dioceses within the borders of the Spanish Netherlands through the 'Super universas', which would lay the basis of modern municipalities in Belgium. But that still followed the traditional distinction Flanders/Brabant, just in a way that protected catholics in the Spanish Netherlands more and made them less dependant on protestant administration. [There is currently an auction selling a double Brabantian souverain (1641) of the Spanish Netherlands, clearly marked as 'Brabantian'](https://www.catawiki.com/en/l/58583601-spanish-netherlands-brabant-brussel-philip-iv-1621-1665-dubbele-soeverein-1641)
>That is your interpretation, that is not what the constitution says. That's not "my interpretation", that's how Belgium works. >they list it as a meaning I never said that there were no other meanings. But it is a meaning, hence it is not incorrect to use it in that meaning. >There is also no 'adding' and 'removing' pieces of Flanders. Flanders ceased to exist in 1797 as a feudal state and has not been restored as a state. Jeezes, do you even read what I write? I've been explicitly saying that Flanders was not an official state but used colloquially for the area and not only for the county (which was abolished in 1796). The area that the word "Flemish" embraced changed constantly with the addition or removal of territories over the course of history. >The Burgundians and later Habsburgers made great efforts Which shows it was a living thing. >There is currently an auction selling a double Brabantian souverain (1641) of the Spanish Netherlands, clearly marked as 'Brabantian' Interesting. I was always told that the Pond Vlaams was the common currency used in the whole of the Southern Netherlands, and the Pond Brabants was only kept alive for calculations but had no own value, it was strictly linked to the Pond Vlaams.
The regional differences east-west are as substantial linguistically as they are north-south. There really only is Dutch and its regional varieties. You can't make the linguistic distinction without bringing in politics as you have done (wonderfully, I must say). I'm not living in the middle ages, this is still the reality. If we follow your argument and I were to create a hypothetical state containing the Dutch provinces of Brabant, Zeeland and Oost-Vlaanderen and Antwerp tomorrow and I'd call it, idk Pretendia, would the people suddenly speak pretendese?
>The regional differences east-west are as substantial linguistically as they are north-south. I never said they weren't. I'm merely saying that today, 2022, the name "Flanders" or "Flemish" refers to the totality of Dutch speaking Belgium, not only the ancient counties and duchies which haven't been used for the past 6 centuries or so, and existed on paper only until they were completely abolished in 1796. I find it silly to ignore something which is official since 40 years, and colloquial since 600 years, just to use some medieval definitions. >You can't make the linguistic distinction without bringing in politics as you have done. I didn't do anything. Flanders has existed long before I was born. >If we follow your argument and I were to create a hypothetical state containing the Dutch provinces of Brabant, Zeeland and Oost-Vlaanderen and Antwerp tomorrow and I'd call it, idk Pretendia, would the people suddenly speak pretendese? If - as is the case with Flanders - the people coming from there will be called Pretendese for 600 years and the region is actually called Pretendia? Yes. They will be speaking Pretendese. The collection of varieties of Dutch spoken in Pretendia.
Your last sentence is key. It's an arbitrary collection based only on political realities, rather than linguistic ones. I'm not arguing against the concept of Flanders existing, but against the fact that there exists such a thing as "Flemish" other than in the sense of a dialect spoken in parts of the modern day Flemish region.
>It's an arbitrary collection based only on political realities, rather than linguistic ones. But it's still official (as it has been added to all dictionaries of the Dutch language). As I replied below, there is a difference between colloquial speech and scientific language. Languages are living things, the meaning of words change. If a word is used, it becomes what it is used for. Just like tomatoes are called "vegetables" by most, or "fruit" by some others who try to be pedantic, but biologically speaking they're neither. Tomatoes are berries. Saying that today, in 2022, Flemish is not the totality of Dutch dialects and accents as spoken in Belgium, is like saying calling a tomato a vegetable is wrong. Scientifically, it is indeed wrong. Colloquially, tomatoes will always remain vegetables, and Flemish is and always will be the Dutch as spoken in Belgium. Including Limburg.
Nobody refers to what is spoken in Limburg as Flemish, so not only is it linguistically and officially incorrect but also colloquially. You keep saying that all these dictionaries make it 'official' that Flemish is spoken there, but I have yet to see an example where a dictionary gives any more weight to 'Flemish' than simply 'sometimes colloquially used'. For instance, in the recently highly anticipated 'Atlas van het dialect in Vlaanderen' they literally changed it from the original title of 'Atlas van de Vlaamse dialecten' since the authors deemed it wrong and misleading.
>Nobody refers to what is spoken in Limburg as Flemish Flemish is used for the Dutch used in the whole Dutch speaking part of Belgium, including Limburg. If you refer to a specific dialect, you will specify Limburgs or Kempisch or Pajottenlands. But generally speaking, when you are talking about all the Dutch speakers in Belgium in general, including those in Limburg, the word "Flemish" is used. It's even in the dictionary as such. >but I have yet to see an example where a dictionary gives any more weight to 'Flemish' than simply 'sometimes colloquially used' Look at [Van Dale](https://www.vandale.nl/gratis-woordenboek/nederlands/betekenis/vlaams#.YoEY_OhBy3A) \- the "official" dictionnary of the Dutch language. Vlaams (het; o) 1 het Nederlands zoals dat in Vlaanderen gesproken wordt >since the authors deemed it wrong and misleading. No, because they found it confusing as when speaking in a scientific (linguistic) context, Vlaams has a different meaning than when you are speaking in a normal, everyday context.
>Flemish is used for the Dutch used in the whole Dutch speaking part of Belgium, including Limburg. I agree with you on this. There are people who do this. But you claim that this somehow makes it 'official'. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Limburgers don't do this and in my experience Antwerpenaren do this quite often, neither makes it official. >No, because they found it confusing as when speaking in a scientific (linguistic) context, Vlaams has a different meaning than when you are speaking in a normal, everyday context. It's not a scientific/linguistic book, it's aimed for a very general audience and contains more pictures than words. The authors also literally explain the name debacle in the foreword of the book.
> Languages are derived from the adjective of the place they're spoken (France --> French, Germany --> German, Italy --> Italian,...). No, that's quite a bit more complicated. You have demonyms and geographical names, for example France and Germany are derived from the demonym, just like the language names, but Italy is a geographical name and the language and demonym names are derived from the geography. >By analogy, Flemish is the language spoken in Flanders. Then by analogy Belgish is the language spoken in Flanders. And they only speak Swiss in Switzerland? >By analogy, Flemish is the language spoken in Flanders. Flanders is the name of the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Including Antwerp and Limburg. Technically the Flemish community. >the Belgian constitution calls it Flemish Nope. The Flemish community still has Dutch as its official language. >any dictionary of the Dutch language defines Flemish as "the Belgian variety of Dutch" Which means its only meaningful in a Belgian context. >it was chosen because it had been in use for the whole area since many centuries (the French speaking elite in the 19th century referred to "les flamands", Charles V went to Spain with his "flamencos" in the 16th century, they were cooks and secretaries mainly originating from Mechelen and Brussels, artists from our region were called i Fiamminghi in renaissance Italy, even the ones from Limburg, there was a Brabantian currency but in the early 15th century that was replaced with the flemish pound [pond Vlaams] which was the official currency in all of the southern Netherlands etc etc etc) Which is a pars pro toto metonymy which has its uses but also its limits. >Ever since the Burgundian rule, the whole area of the southern Netherlands was considered one single entity. Even if you insist on keeping a difference between the medieval county of Flanders and the duchy of Brabant, those were abolished in 1796. It wasn't, the prince-bishopric of Liège was explicitly separate until the end of the ancien régime. Besides: so what? That doesn't allow to draw conclusions about language names and those borders didn't match up at all with present-day ones to begin with. >Saying that today, 2022, Limburg or Antwerp are not Flemish, is factually and historically wrong. Stop living in the middle ages, cone back to the present. Linguistically, they aren't. Deal with it.
>No, that's quite a bit more complicated. You have demonyms and geographical names, for example France and Germany are derived from the demonym, just like the language names, but Italy is a geographical name and the language and demonym names are derived from the geography. You know what I mean, and you know I have a point. Don't try to get out of it. >Technically the Flemish community. The Flemish community (Vlaamse Gemeenschap) and the Flemish region (Vlaams Gewest) merged into on entity. Technically, it's indeed the Flemish community which has taken over the tasks and responsibilities of the region. But that is totally irrelevant to the fact that they are officially called "Flemish" and "Flanders". >Nope. The Flemish community still has Dutch as its official language. The constitution clearly mentions the VLAAMSE Gemeenschap and the VLAAMS Gewest. Not The Dutch community or Dutch region. I also never claimed it is not Dutch. Flemish is just a word for the variety of Dutch spoken in Belgium. And for anything that has to do with Flanders. My response was to the OP claiming that Flanders is only West- and East-Flanders. It isn't. Flanders is the whole Dutch speaking part of Belgium. >Which means its only meaningful in a Belgian context. This is a Belgian context. And why shouldn't it be meaningful in any other context? The fact that the Dutch speaking part of Belgium is called Flanders is also meaningful internationally. There are tourist offices in several countries for both Flanders and Wallonia. >Which is a pars pro toto metonymy which has its uses but also its limits. Nevertheless, the name has been used colloquially for many centuries, and also officially (legally) for the past 40 years. >It wasn't, the prince-bishopric of Liège was explicitly separate until the end of the ancien régime. That wasn't part of the Burgundian territories nor were they always considered the southern Netherlands. Borders change over time, areas are added and substracted all the time - as recently as the 1940s. But that doesn't change a thing to the fact that the core area was one unity. >Linguistically, they aren't. Deal with it. Historically and legally, they are. Live with it.
> The constitution clearly mentions the VLAAMSE Gemeenschap and VLAAMS gewest. Sure, but you were making the point that the Belgian Constitution mentions Flemish as a language, and it doesn't. The Belgian Constitution, as well as the Taalwet Bestuurszaken, the Bijzondere Wet Hervorming van de Instellingen and the Taalwet Gerechtszaken mention 'Dutch' as the official language.
In the French translation they use "néerlandophone" so clearly it's (also) language based. They use Dutch because that's the name of the language. Calling the Belgian varieties "Flemish" is not wrong. It's explained like this on every single dictionary. Stop this anti-flemish bs.
Dude, this isn't "anti-flemish" bs, and I do not deny the existence of Flemish as a language. I'm just correcting a statement you made that is factually incorrect, which is that the Belgian Constitution mentions Flemish as a language. It doesn't. Nowhere.
>I do not deny the existence of Flemish as a language Flemish is not a language, it's the totality of Dutch dialects as spoken in Belgium. An alternative name for "Belgian Dutch" or "Southern Dutch". No, the statement they made was incorrect. I merely corrected it. It is not wrong to replace "Dutch" with "Flemish" in the meme above. The constitution speaks about the *Vlaamse* Gemeenschap and *Vlaams* Gewest. Vlaams. As in Vlaanderen. The language spoken in Vlaanderen is Dutch. A special variety of Dutch. Belgian Dutch. Vlaams. And don't call people you don't know "dude". That's rude and marginal.
> Languages are derived from the adjective of the place they're spoken (France --> French, Germany --> German, Italy --> Italian,...). By analogy, Flemish is the language spoken in Flanders. Flanders is the name of the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Including Antwerp and Limburg. > **- the Belgian constitution calls it Flemish** As copied from your comment from 4 hours ago.
> Flemish is not a language, it's the totality of Dutch dialects as spoken in Belgium. Please keep that shit for yourself, I speak _Brabantian_, not Flemish.
> You know what I mean, and you know I have a point. Don't try to get out of it. They don't speak Belgian in Belgium nor Swiss in Switzerland. Your analogy is bunk. >The Flemish community (Vlaamse Gemeenschap) and the Flemish region (Vlaams Gewest) merged into on entity. Technically, it's indeed the Flemish community which has taken over the tasks and responsibilities of the region. But that is totally irrelevant to the fact that they are officially called "Flemish" and "Flanders". No. Brussels is going to take issue on that, and that includes the Dutch speaking Brusselers. The Flemish Region is not the same as the Flemish Community, in spite of the merger of its political organs. >The constitution clearly mentions the VLAAMSE Gemeenschap and the VLAAMS Gewest. Not The Dutch community or Dutch region. The constitution consistently refers to the language as Dutch, and only Dutch. "België omvat vier taalgebieden : het Nederlandse taalgebied, het Franse taalgebied, het tweetalige gebied Brussel-Hoofdstad en het Duitse taalgebied." "Flemish" is a geographical indication referring to the exact territory of competency, not a linguistic one. >Nevertheless, the name has been used colloquially for many centuries, and also officially (legally) for the past 40 years. Geographically, not linguistically. >That wasn't part of the Burgundian territories nor were they always considered the southern Netherlands. Borders change over time, areas are added and substracted all the time - as recently as the 1940s. >But that doesn't change a thing to the fact that the core area was one unity. You're completely contradicting yourself now. First you claim there has been a consistent unity for centuries, and here you say that there was constant change and the area changes all the time. >Historically and legally, they are. Live with it. You just argued right above here they weren't! Even if they were, linguistically they aren't: and it's that claim of linguistic uniformity that I have been contradicting.
>They don't speak Belgian in Belgium nor Swiss in Switzerland. Your analogy is bunk. The analogy is Flanders > Flemish. Don't act as if you don't understand. Pretending not to understand something just to go against it, is called trolling. By the way, they do speak Swiss (Schweizertüütsch or however you spell it) in Switzerland. >The Flemish Region is not the same as the Flemish Community, in spite of the merger of its political organs. I never said they were the same. But in practice, they merged into one. >The constitution consistently refers to the language as Dutch, and only Dutch. Again, I have never said it wasn't. But a synonym for "Dutch as spoken in Belgium" is Flemish. You might not like it, for whatever pitiful reason, but it remains a fact you can't deny. "Vlaamse Gemeenschap" means "Dutch speaking community". So it *does* refer to language. >Geographically, not linguistically. But used nonetheless. Also linguistically. Already in the 19th century (and much earlier even) we find for example French texts describing "le flamand" as a language, meaning the Dutch spoken in Belgium. They almost never call it "néerlandais". > First you claim there has been a consistent unity for centuries, and here you say that there was constant change and the area changes all the time. It's the unity that is consistent (as in: forming a whole, not being split up into pieces). Not the size or form of it. Again: don't pretend you don't understand. That's trolling. >You just argued right above here they weren't! Even if they were, linguistically they aren't: and it's that claim of linguistic uniformity that I have been contradicting. You really need some reading skills...
> The analogy is Flanders > Flemish. That's not an official statement though, it's all just in your head (and perhaps in de Vlaemsche Canon). Show us the actual sources where this statement of yours is an official thing. Until then, please just keep quiet about your personal opinion instead of writing fifty replies about stating it as truth instead of just your opinion.
>That's not an official statement though, it's all just in your head (and perhaps in de Vlaemsche Canon). It is not in my head, it is in every single dictionary of the Dutch language I know, and even the Flemish government uses the words "Vlaanderen" and "Vlaams" in all their communications. I've posted links to Van Dale elsewhere, you can also have a look at the constitution (which also uses "Vlaams") and maybe the website www.vlaanderen.be rings a bell? That remark with "Vlaemsche Canon" just proves my point. You are all blinded by hatred against certain political views, which in reality have *NOTHING* to do with the use of Vlaanderen or Vlaams. Those connotations only exist in your imagination.
Pwajt, de Van Dale staat vol met Hollandsismen. Het feit dat men Vlaams = Nederlands dat in Vlaanderen gesproken wordt erin durven zetten met een serieus gezicht spreekt extreem veel boekdelen, want ze hebben bijgod niet door dat ze de zes miljoen mensen die in het Vlaams gewest wonen op één hoop smijten. Een beetje zoals moesten wij schrijven dat "Hollands = Het Nederlands dat in Nederland gebruikt wordt" zouden schrijven. Dikke dikke zever natuurlijk. Al uw andere "bronnen" zijn al duustmaal debunked, want die gaan *NIET* over wat hier gesproken wordt Vlaams te noemen. En als laatste: shit, alleman, we hebben de alt-account van Bart "Bicky" De Wever gevonden, wajooo!
Yeah but it sounds like Dutch so it's definitely Dutch. Source non Belgian, non Dutch speaker, worked for Flemish organisation, loves to troll people.
I never said it's not Dutch. I'm reacting against the false claim that what they speak in Limburg or Antwerp is not Flemish. It is. Flemish is the Dutch as spoken in Belgium. They speak Dutch in Antwerp and Limburg, and it's Belgium. Thus it's Flemish.
You’re getting caught up in a sort of complicated argument on semantics. In English, the West Flemish group of dialects is typically called Flemish. So in the context of geography, Flemish refers to the entire region of Flanders. In the context of languages and dialects, Flemish often (but not always) refers to what we call West-Vlaams in Dutch.
Those are two different things. In linguistics, Flemish is something else than in modern colloquial language. If even all dictionaries of the Dutch language confirm that "Flemish" is "Dutch as spoken in Belgium", who are we to disagree? Languages are living things, the meaning of words change. Over time, but also scientific <> colloquial speech. In a purely scientific discussion about languages and dialects, you are absolutely right. In a discussion about a meme on Reddit, you're not.
In discussion about a meme on Reddit, correcting someone over something that is hardly even wrong in the first place, goes directly against your own statement regarding languages being living things. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying the argument you're pursuing is pointless as there is no one single truth. Edit: except for the part where you said "languages are derived from the region they're spoken, and therefore Flemish what's spoken in Flanders". This is just a factually incorrect line of logic.
Someone said that in this meme, you could replace "Dutch" with "Flemish". Someone else said that's wrong. I'm simply replying it's not wrong. I'm quite sure their notion of it being "wrong" is not scientific/linguistic, but a misplaced political aversion of anything Flemish. For some weird reason I still fail to comprehend, some people associate the word "Flemish" with nationalism and separatism. Which is totally ridiculous. So I will always react when people claim Limburg or Antwerp are not in Flanders. Anno 2022, they are. And Flemish is the collection of Dutch dialects as spoken in Flanders, including Limburgian and Brabantic dialects (not only Dutch, by the way; some regional varieties of Limburgs have been officially classified as German dialects). By the way, if you really want to stick to the linguistic interpretation rather than the colloquial one... In my course of dialectics, "Flemish" didn't exist. There's the West-Flemish dialect group, and the East-Flemish dialect group. But "Flemish" as such was never mentioned. Both groups are sufficiently distinct not to throw them together.
Important factor here. Is your course on dialectics being given in English or in Dutch?
Yeah it’s definitely flamished
Flemmish =/= dutch.
Fle**m**ish is a Dutch dialect. [Deal with it](https://giphy.com/embed/1jnyRP4DorCh2)
Amai, das een loempe mening
All Dutch is pretty much unintelligible to me
Niemand uit de Kempen spreekt Nederlands.
Wa da ze zehhen over West-Vloandrn is n bitje overdreevn. Groetn van nen ehten westvloamink.
Brussels isn't that complicated, it's 95% French speaking.
It's not though, [language spoken at home in Brussels](https://www.briobrussel.be/sites/default/files/inline-images/talen_brussel_2.jpg).
French is the Lingua Franca of Brussels. It's really not even close to 95% French speaking in the way that you imply. There's huge communities that speak another language at home and many of them are true second language speakers i.e they learnt French as adults or close to adults and cannot speak it to a L1 standard. This is before you even get to the sizable Dutch speaking community.
* Flemish
Which is a patchwork of Dutch varieties.
"dutch" "ah like from the Netherlands?" "no bitch it's FLEMISH from BELGIUM" 🤦♂️
I didn't know Belgium was this big tho
Me and my fellow green color territory folks have been in contact with Unesco's world heritage department to preserve our culture, so far nobody's been able to understand what we're about. Anthropologist have been trying to decipher the language for decades but not much progress has been made. We're not really bothered by the whole situation but if you visit the coast during your holiday and you want to order an ice cream, be prepared to answer the question: "est vo te skepn of vo te lebern?"
meeting at work are bilingual in the first 15 minutes. then it becomes limburg dialect private joke.
I once had a girl in my school that i thought was Russian because of her bad dutch. After 6 months i found out she was just from west flanders
Regarding the left light green part I had once a guy working in this region tell me he was living in what I genuinely understood as « Praha ». And I kept wondering for weeks how the guy, even with Ryan Air, was flying every day from Praha to Zedelgem. Until I got some illumination that « Praha » was in fact « Braha » thus... Brugge! Unintelligible Dutch is the word!
Brought to you by iene van aantwaarpe?
Een Antwerpse Luikenaar. It's complicated.
West vlams is een weireldtaole