Talk:Brabantian Dutch

Brabantine

Isn't Brabantine the right adjective? 84.195.78.97

Well, yes, it is the more common. But it is rare to use "Brabantine" as the noun for the dialect and if you use Brabantic or Brabantian anyway, it's more natural to let the adjective conform to it.--MWAK 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to create the term South Gueldrian - but as there is no factual entity corresponding to it, I'll resist the temptation. ;o)

--MWAK 06:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I recently corrected "Brabantic" with "Brabantian", which was quickly replaced with the old term. Maintaining the use of "Brabantic" will make it no less proper English than, say, using "Croatic" for "Croatian". Compare also the French translation: brabançon.

I believe that it is imperative that one use the proper English names and terms in the English pages. The language possesses many of its own variants for foreign names and terms, and this certainly includes those from the Netherlandic language as well.

Several examples of corrections of incorrect usage on this page and the page "Dutch Language": Brabants > Brabantian, Zeeland > Zealand 1, Zeeuws > Zealandic, Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 2 > Zealandic Flanders

1 The Danish Sjælland is also known in English as Zealand. 2 The proper Netherlandic orthography: the spelling is not modernized.

Just as we expect that an Hindi speaker uses "India" in place of "Bharat" in the English pages, let's be consistent in our own use of the appropriate language.

"azarya"

I certainly agree with you on the point of using English in the English papers. Indeed, I've replaced myself many a Dutch word in articles on Dutch subjects by an English one :o). There is no institution in the anglophone nations deciding these matters, so usage can be our only arbiter. Brabantic is then of course an English word. It is in fact used in scientific articles written in English. But it isn't the proper English word and Brabantian is. Brabantic has its origin in a mistaken analogy with ~landic. So I must admit Brabantian is the superior usage.

Again I agree that in principle English names for geographic entities should be used. However precisely because Sjæland is also known as Zealand, to avoid confusion it's perhaps best to use to modern Dutch names for the modern provinces. After all Zealand is hardly a common household name (whereas India very much is) so people simply don't understand what you are talking about anyway. Should we also use Gueldres instead of Gelderland? I personally have a penchant for pedantic archaisms (that's of course the reason I prefer Brabantic: it sounds like one ;o) but I know from experience this sometimes irritates people.

Are you sure the term Zealandic Flandres has any common usage? Obviously a part of Flandres now lying in Zealand would be a "Zealandic Flandres", but to use it as a name for the region, to me sounds suspiciously as an ad hoc translation. :o)

Anyway I'll change Brabantic to Brabantian in the article. (Sigh...)

--MWAK 17:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

To avoid some possible misunderstanding: there is a medieval Latin brabanticus, so Brabantic is justified (and indeed by far the more common scientific term I see, rummaging through my papers), but as Brabantian is the only normal adjective it's best to use it for the language also and not to make a distinction, though I suggested doing exactly that in my previous edit of the article.

--MWAK 06:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

In regards to "Zealand" vs. "Zeeland"; I personally think that if one had to choose between using "Zealand" for only one of the two Zealands, one would perhaps be more justified in using it for the Dutch province, as historically there was much interaction between England and Holland/Zealand, and Anglicized names such as "Scheldt" and "Flushing" were in common usage in England. I imagine that the ties with Sjælland were less intense, and speculate that the use of "Zealand" for the Danish island perhaps started later than for the Dutch province. Also, considering that an entire modern nation is named after the Dutch Zealand, I am afraid that using "Zealand" exclusively for Sjælland may result in a misconception that New Zealand is named after a Danish island!!! I appreciate the change to "Brabantian", but you did make a strong case for "Brabantic" by reminding me of the Latin "brabanticus".

 ;)

Well, the spelling Zealand was adopted because in the 17th century Zeeland would already have been pronounced as "Zieland", but Zealand was still pronounced as "Zayland", closer to the Dutch original. Perhaps an other argument to choose the modern Dutch spelling, now the old one has lost its function :o). And we Dutch are so modest, we simply don't mind if people think New Zealand was discovered by a Dane ;o) Relations between England and Zealand used to be very, very close indeed, but these days are long gone. Nevertheless I haven't the slightest objection to using Zealand; I just fear today it hasn't any functional usage anymore. My sister once told a French friend of hers to meet her in Bois-le-Duc telling her what highway to take; that poor girl drove past Amsterdam before she found out in Dutch the name is 's-Hertogenbosch!

On the use of Brabantic: I get the impression it's a purely linguistical term only. In architecture it's Brabantian Gothic etc. It occurred to me it's dangerous to use Brabantic because it suggests some difference in content (like between Italic and Italian) that simply isn't there.

--MWAK 11:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get into splitting hairs, but feel the need to respond though: not only the name "Zealand", but the bulk of English words underwent sound shifts... sorry, weak argument for abandoning the use of the English name. And... the statement that "we Dutch" are so modest as not to mind that Zealand's place in maritime history is forgotten can only come from someone who is himself not a Zealander! Ha ha!

Very true: I'm Brabantian myself. :o)--MWAK 13:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The use of the French "Flandres" in place of an anglicised version of Vlaams is guaranteed to get up the noses of the locals, surely? Firstly, the Dutch and Flemish are hardly on speaking terms these days, indeed there is a sufficiently marked difference between the accent and vocalisation of each as to rank as different languages. This is partly the religious vector in the 1830 Belgian Revolution persisting to this day, and partly the absolute origin of each, as it is clear from the Saxon use of Waals (="foreigner", the root of "Walloon") that the Francophones defeated in the First Battle of Cassel in 1071 already had fractious relations with their established Dutch neighbours. The result of that battle was Robert I's victorious Thuringian mercenaries settling as landholders in the conquered territories which would become Flanders, in other words the Flemish form a third population with its own habits quite distinct from the Saxon Dutch/Frieslanders. We then see pieces like the Brabantse Yeesten, the Chronology written in Antwerp in the 15th Century by the Town Clerk who hailed from a village south of Brussels, which are still recognisably close to the phraseology of Middle English, who were deeply involved in the area during the period of the establishment of this dialect. Similarly, the predominantly Francophone Dukes of Brabant influenced the tone with the muddier, basso Walloon accent (by comparison with French French, at least), epitomised in the Brusselaars dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Antwerp's accent/dialect

Where does it come from? Someone told me it came from early immigrants... or so. I don't remember the details, but i would like to... Does anyone know?--N33 (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Belgium

I read that Brabantian is native to Belgium. But it is also native to the Netherlands I think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.182.126.122 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)