Print

Print


On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM, yuri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 16 December 2012 23:25, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> > Dutch?. Why do people always have to project their national language
> onto the
> > origins of English. Like Dutch, but also like High and Low German, and
> Frisian,
> > English is an offshoot of the West-Germanic branch of Germanic. They
> share
> > several common innovations such as WG gemination and loss of the masc.
> > nomonative ending /z/. Dutch is no more closely related to English than
> Frisian and
> > Low German.
> > Dan
>
> There are many instances where Dutch and German do things differently,
> and English follows the Dutch way.
> E.g. off the top of my head I can think of dozens of words where
> German has /s/ in the same position that Dutch and English both have
> /t/. (e.g. Fuss, voet, foot).
>
> Yuri de Groot
>

Oh, come on! I'm not a linguist, and not a native speaker of neither
English nor Dutch. I just happen to live in Lower Saxony, and used to live
on the North Rhine and read the old inscriptions. I've been to one of the
museums just yesterday: the XVI-century inscriptions all have "det" for
"das" and "heffet" for "hat". The fact that Dutch is a variant of
Niederdeutsch that was not touched by the *later* development in
Hochdeutsch that made "das" from "dat" and "zwei" from "twe" (and, for the
same reason, this hasn't occur in English) doesn't readily makes English a
variant of Dutch.