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.