A Linguistic Enclave in Central Europe
culture.pl
culture.pl
http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/poland-was-shockingly...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benrath_line
Seems related, those isoglosses stretch from Belgium to Poland.
ny ołys ej gułd, wos zih fynklt, glanct oba łiöeht?
Niet alles is geld, wat zo fonkelt, glanst vol{?} licht
All that glitters is not gold
Fylón yr wełt an ganc ałłán
Verloren in de wereld en gans alleen
Lost in the world and quite alone
ząs ych óm mjer óf hóhym śtán;
zat ik aan zee op een hoge steen
I sat down by the sea on a high stone.
der mond kąm raus hyndróm gybjég,
de maan kwam van ginder om de berg
the moon came up behind the mountain
szłyfyt myjch áj, wi s kynt yr wig.
slaap-voerde mij af, als een kind in de wieg
he puts me to sleep like a child in a cradleverloren in der Welt, ganz allein
saß ich an der See, auf einem hohen Stein
der Mond kam hinter dem Berg hervor
wog mich in den Schlaf, wie ein Kind in der Wiege
Expressions like "ganz allein" seems more natural to German than "gans alleen" to Flemish.
But our language also evolved a lot, so probably this should be some study of the old language that was spoken here before they emigrated to Poland.
Interesting none the less.
On the other hand "mjer" was translated to "sea", which looks totally wrong from Flemish standpoint: zee=sea, meer=lake. If you say "mjer" to me, it sounds like "meer"(=lake), not "zee"(=sea).
der Mond kam raus hinterm Gebirg, schläfert mich ein, wie's Kind in der Wieg'.
(the latter being a rhyme in many Austro-Bavarian dialects)
why unnecessarily divert from original?
It's more about orthography/dialect than being a truly different language.
Die See instead of Meer just sounds more classy and poetic.
One fascinating feat of Yiddish is that you could often interpret words as either German or English (given two plausible mappings of their signs)
https://youtu.be/lfg3jHV1TzE?t=246 https://youtu.be/9bfgEgFKccw?t=3
E.g. "s’błimła (‘flower’)" - "s'Blüamle" (allemanic)
Obviously this comparison would benefit from using a phonetic scripture.
At first I thought it was related to yiddish...
Judging from the pronunciation, I would also put some "idioms" of this dialect in Dutch/Flemish regions (there is maybe a distinct polish influence in there that throws one off?).
As so often for me, the written word it seems is way more understandable than the spoken word. I had the same experience with Swedish. Weird how some languages kept similarities in writing longer than similar pronunciation.
2nd video: "Das sind die Sproech" "Da kann ich gehn, da kann ich meditieren, da kann ich alles machen" almost plain German. at 0:44 - 1:00
and many other German snippets
And I honestly think its not productive, in the sense that dialects are intentionally propagated in a fashion as to cause one "in-group" to have its detractors. It really seems to me that the forces driving us to create new, unintelligible dialects, are the same forces which allow us to justify heinous crimes against others - just at a different scale. Speaking in such a way as to differentiate oneself from others, I believe, is a root cause of so much of humanities stress.
But the quandary is, I also believe we should not let these odd languages die. As an Australian, I find it a terrible shame that we've lost 70,000 years of this factor, in the genocides against the Australian aborigines. But, on the other hand, I think Europeans have taken the tribalism just a little too far. Its a contradiction that I haven't quite resolved, although I've come close: perhaps the solution is to continue to encourage the creation of dialects, as long as there are tools such as the Internet around to assist with overcoming the confusion that results when two dialects clash...
Imagine a world where there's no TV, radio or internet and you could only travel by horse and most people use the language mainly in its spoken form (if they can even read at all). How long do you think the Australian language would remain unified in these conditions? One generation? Three? Ten?
So it's actually opposite to what mmjaa claims: Europeans didn't split their languages on purpose, while non-Europeans did.
The drive to create non-unique cultural identities: also a cause of war.
Its not as dialectic as you imply.
That said, I've seen it time and again: villagers with different dialects, arguing with each other because they can't understand each other or don't like the sound of each others ü's and ä's ...
And, I propose that the solution is to relax ones resistance against new language, by embracing all language and not just ones own.
What are examples of your cultural wars? Anecdote about some villagers? Appeal to human nature? Where and how did it manifest in the history concretely as a cause?
Upthread @lkubner links to interesting piece he wrote about multicultural history of Poland where there was no war over any of this for many centuries. 30-year war on the other hand had less to do with Germans fragmented into 200+ states than with enforcing religious homogenity.
The strife comes when there is no agreement. The Austrian dialects don't form on the basis of individual expressions of power - they form through consensus, the same mechanism by which wars are fought.
The point is, I believe that there is a balance between obsessively differentiating ones culture through new invention, and establishing the basis of cultural peace through common language.
You've correctly indicated the extremes - but within the scope of those boundaries, there is a means of peace, which is: always be as willing to learn a new word as you are in creating a new word. This is not so easy - there are definitely limits - but those limits are extended with every new word learned, and the contract with every strange word encountered.
What is fought about with Austrian dialects? What is the consensus mechanism, what does the notion of individual expression of power mean? You mean self-expression is a power structure? Did you just hereby invent this notion, or is it some echo of power structures inherent in language stereotypes passed as having anything to do with dialects?
What is obsessive about differentiating, what is "establishing basis of cultural peace". These make no sense to me at all.
I indicated nothing, just repeated concrete examples you choose to ignore for the second time. Then instead of giving your own you choose to muddy the waters with some incomprehensible original philosophy.
Wars are established collectively. Nobody fights a war as an individual - always as a group. Just like language and dialects are assumed at the individual level, through collective means.
The rights of cultural groups, composed of individuals, to compose their own language, is the basis of civilisation. It is also the basis of war and that is the quandary - because it is not as dialectic as you imply (black/white).
Its a balancing act - as you have indicated. Enforce cultural mechanisms (language) through violence - war - and you will encounter resistance.
But give people the opportunity, at the individual level, to assume whatever cultural positions they may, using language, and you attain peace.
I don't think that it's a drive, it just happens. Language is cultural exchange, and if the only entry point for a word is some stranger with a spelling mistake, you'll then build upon that spelling mistake and incorporate it into your own vocabulary. The languages and dialects formed in times when most people couldn't read or write.
We don't try to split the language into several, that is simply something that happens and surprises you when traveling.