That’s what a culture is, II
October 7, 2007Last year, one of my professors at university made some very clever remarks regarding the Dutch language. This professor, Chris McCully (from England) taught us about how languages change, and obviously focused his attention on English and Dutch. He had one specific train of thought that really stuck with me.
There’s quite a few people in The Netherlands who condemn the use of Anglicisms (English loan words). On top of that, we have a language institute, the Language Union (’Taal Unie’), who, every decade or so, revises our language - spelling, grammar, ‘ratifying’ new words, that sort of thing. These changes, summed up in the ‘Green Booklet’ (’Groene Boekje’) generally cause quite the stir. Newspapers, news programs, politicians; they are all filled with criticism and commentary. It’s the talk of the town, so to speak.
McCully said to us, take the above into account; put it together, and think about it. Now, try to answer the following question: does all the above mean that the Dutch are confident about their language, or uncertain? About its present-day use, its future? What does it mean? The answer is fairly obvious. No, we are not certain at all about our language, its present day use, and its future. We fear new words, we break out the torches and pitchforks over changes, and so on.
This does not count for me, by the way. I see loan words as an enrichment to our language; they allow use to designate things, to name things, that we couldn’t before. English loan words broaden our vocabulary, just like Latin, ancient Greek, French, and German have done over the centuries.
Interestingly, you can apply McCully’s thinking to the whole integration debate raging through my country. If we Dutch are certain about our culture, our identity, our past, our present, our future, then why are we so fearful of newcomers, of new ideas, of people with non-European backgrounds? If our culture is really as strong and well-defined as the (popular) right-wing extremists want us to believe, then we really shouldn’t have to fear any influences, now, do we?
And now you realise the truth. These people are not at all sure about the Dutch identity and culture, simply because they haven’t a clue as to what they ought to entail. And that is why they are afraid.
never looked at is this way; you might be right!
Comment by bouke — October 7, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
People that get all upset by a simple English loanword in Dutch ought to realise that if there is *one* language replete with loan words, it is English. And the British never seemed to bother.
By the way, frankly I do hate meaningless marketing speak full of Dunglish.
If we want Dutch to survive we might have to make it more suitable for poetry. Let’s adopt Afrikaans.
Comment by herman — October 10, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Hey, objecting to the misogyny imported from certain north African and west-asian countries is not analogous to objecting to loan words. Loan words only enrich peoples abilities to express themselves, which is good, genital mutilation and honor killings actually hurt people, as does the day to day misogyny that flows from certain religious doctrines.
I resent your attempt to equate the two.
Comment by rabid rightwinger — October 14, 2007 @ 3:39 am
Of course.. Your professor is correct. I’d like to continue on that note, too, please. These fears we speak of are deeply rooted into the human psyche. They originate in the fear of death. We are mortal and also we attach our identity onto temporary forms (ego). If these forms change, it reminds us of our own mortality. So what do some of us do? We can’t accept this truth so we resist it, internally. This internal struggle is then expressed outwardly.
This is the mind, the ego, at work. It believes that its greatest strength is its non-acceptance. It is, in fact, its greatest weakness. This egoic mind-state is expressed all around the world in countless ways.
Comment by jj — October 14, 2007 @ 6:07 am