German and Dutch ethnogenesis

[Albion]

This has always puzzled me, a few questions really:


How did the Germans form from groups speaking different languages (Low Saxon and High German + others)?
Are Low Saxon and High German actually languages or simply very strong dialects?
How did the German identity form when divided between Low Saxon and High German-speaking areas? To an English person this is pretty unusual since we formed with one language and usually different languages lead to divisions, how did the Germans put aside these divisions and unite as one? Was it due to the spread of High German into North Germany?
Why aren't Austrians or Swiss Germans universally regarded as Germans? Is it simply borders that separates you or actual ethnic divisions?
How did the Dutch emerge as a single ethnicity when there were three languages (Low Franconian, Netherlands Saxon and Frisian) in the country? Was it due to outside aggression or what else triggered the split of the Dutch from the North Germans?
Were Germans in the middle ages simply a collection of former Germanic tribes and ethnicities?

[Albion]

Ah, just got a answer to much of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachsprache#Dachsprache
but questions 1,4,5 and 6 I still don't know.

[Heimmacht]

If you'd be really interested in this you could have found the answers to your questions on the internet.

You should keep in mind that Germany and the Netherlands consisted of different tribes, and didn't the English language derive from German? (not as it is spoken right now but waaaaay back).

[Albion]

If you'd be really interested in this you could have found the answers to your questions on the internet.

Don't you think I've looked? And besides, evidence I have is that link I posted on the languages just a while ago.
Besides, this is the internet. ;)


You should keep in mind that Germany and the Netherlands consisted of different tribes,

Yes, as did England. The original tribes of England spoke dialects of Anglo-Frisian and so I suppose it was easy for that them to develop one rather unified language, Old English.
OE was still intelligible (with practice) with Old Danish, so when the Vikings settled there wasn't too much difficulty there either. But I did wonder about Low Saxon and High German, whether the case would be similar with those.

Look at this simplified diagram, Low Saxon and High German are even on separate branches (but then again Old English and Old English are too I suppose)

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/germaniclanguages.gif


and didn't the English language derive from German? (not as it is spoken right now but waaaaay back).

A lot of people say that, English developed (along with Frisian) from the Anglo-Frisian branch of Germanic, which in turn had developed from West Germanic, with German developing onto a separate branch and Low Saxon being on the same branch as Dutch (as shown above).
Maybe the Germanic languages didn't differ that much to be totally different.

[Libertas]

The few remains of Langobardic show a WEST Germanic language with High German features like Bavarian.

[Albion]

The few remains of Langobardic show a WEST Germanic language with High German features like Bavarian.

What does that have to do with this?

[Winterwolf]

This has always puzzled me, a few questions really:


How did the Germans form from groups speaking different languages (Low Saxon and High German + others)?
Are Low Saxon and High German actually languages or simply very strong dialects?
How did the German identity form when divided between Low Saxon and High German-speaking areas? To an English person this is pretty unusual since we formed with one language and usually different languages lead to divisions, how did the Germans put aside these divisions and unite as one? Was it due to the spread of High German into North Germany?
Why aren't Austrians or Swiss Germans universally regarded as Germans? Is it simply borders that separates you or actual ethnic divisions?
How did the Dutch emerge as a single ethnicity when there were three languages (Low Franconian, Netherlands Saxon and Frisian) in the country? Was it due to outside aggression or what else triggered the split of the Dutch from the North Germans?
Were Germans in the middle ages simply a collection of former Germanic tribes and ethnicities?



1. What you're looking for is the High German consonant shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_German_consonant_shift) which happened between the 3rd and 5th century AD and only affected High German.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Heutige_deutsche_Mundarten.PNG

2. Still Old Low German (or Saxon) in the beginning rather was a strong dialect than a separate language. Of course that changed as time moved on and spatial distance from each other grew, especially considering the Dutch and English language. But even today as a native German speaker you can read and understand Dutch rather well, allthough when spoken it's very hard to understand without having learned the language.

3. The divide wasn't that strong that people couldn't understand each other any more, so you should consider the division within West Germanic more as one of different dialects than different languages. Hence, the divisions between subfamilies within German are rarely precisely defined, as most form continuous clines, with adjacent dialects being mutually intelligible and more separated ones not.
High German began to dominate the German speaking lands in the Middle Age via literature. The southern German lands were more developed and had more monasteries and they gave away some of their copied scrolls to monasteries all over Germany. Most of those copied texts were in Latin of course, but some were in local High German and therefore influenced the record of the German language significantly.
Of course the common people in northern Germany still spoke their Low German dialect, but in written texts High German became dominant during the Middle Age and set the standards.

4. Well, Austrians are considered Germans, just with their own state. ;)
In the times of the Holy Roman Empire and even afterwards Austrians were always considered to be German.
The age of reformation however created a new north south divide in Germany, religious wars broke out and later favoured the rise of protestant Brandenburg-Prussia. Prussia challenged the traditional German hegemonial power Austria within the confederation of the German speaking lands. In the end Prussia won and unified Germany excluding Austria and its non-German speaking Habsburg possessions from it.
You can read more detailed about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleindeutsche_L%C3%B6sung).

But even after the Habsburg Empire was created leading to the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy the relations between Austria and Germany were very close and still are to this day. After all we've always fought side by side in the World Wars.
After WW2 there was a tendency in Austria to separate more from Germany and to pronounce the differences in an unhistorical way. But even despite these cultural separation campaigns most Austrians know that they’re Germans, just with a separate state, but our history is closely linked to each other.

The story with Switzerland is different because they broke away quite early from the Holy German Empire in the Late Middle Age already. So the cultural distance is more pronounced and Switzerland also got a significant Italian and French speaking population.

6. Yes, in the Dark Age and Early Middle Age the Germans consisted out of tribes, namely the Franks, the Alemanni, the Saxons, the Bavarians, the Thuringians and some minor ones. But with the establishment of the Frankish rule, the tribes were incorporated and later formed East Francia in the 9th century AD.

[Wulfhere]

Germany is an artificial union of at least two distinct language families.

[Winterwolf]

I guess those baseless claims of yours are nothing but trolling. It's not even funny, just silly. :crazy:

It’s time to go to bed and to stop wasting my time.

[The Lawspeaker]

Germany is an artificial union of at least two distinct language families.
Haven't you got any teenage girls to do squats for you ? Get out of here ! :rolleyes2:

[Albion]

Germany is an artificial union of at least two distinct language families.

What, Low Saxon and High German?
I wouldn't call them language families, that would be Germanic and Slavic but Germany is mostly Germanic apart from the Sorbs and some assimilated Slavs in the east.

[Agrippa]

Germany is an artificial union of at least two distinct language families.

Do you even know what "language families" are? You are talking about dialects, not even different languages and now you use "language families" as an argument, which is totally absurd.

Language family:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_family

[Wulfhere]

What, Low Saxon and High German?
I wouldn't call them language families, that would be Germanic and Slavic but Germany is mostly Germanic apart from the Sorbs and some assimilated Slavs in the east.

Branches of Germanic, then.

[Wulfhere]

Do you even know what "language families" are? You are talking about dialects, not even different languages and now you use "language families" as an argument, which is totally absurd.

Language family:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_family

They are different languages. And within each group, are different languages too, hence my use of the term language families.

[Agrippa]

They are different languages. And within each group, are different languages too, hence my use of the term language families.

That were just dialects, after all, even inside of the Low German or High German area, some dialects were VERY different from each other and hard to understand.

With the written German, things got just more standardised. Otherwise, in every greater unit of people you will come to a point at which tribes which spoke formerly the same language won't understand each other any longer.

The same would have been true for English or even more so for French as well.

Fact is, that is one people - actually the Dutch are Germans which split off too, but because this branch is now more or less established as an unit on its own, also because of the political reality, people accept it as being a different branch of West Germanic.

But otherwise, probably with the exceptions of the Frisians, nobody can deny that Germans are a naturally grown unit and not divided into different "languages" or even "language families".

[Wulfhere]

That were just dialects, after all, even inside of the Low German or High German area, some dialects were VERY different from each other and hard to understand.

With the written German, things got just more standardised. Otherwise, in every greater unit of people you will come to a point at which tribes which spoke formerly the same language won't understand each other any longer.

The same would have been true for English or even more so for French as well.

Fact is, that is one people - actually the Dutch are Germans which split off too, but because this branch is now more or less established as an unit on its own, also because of the political reality, people accept it as being a different branch of West Germanic.

But otherwise, probably with the exceptions of the Frisians, nobody can deny that Germans are a naturally grown unit and not divided into different "languages" or even "language families".

Low German and High German are different languages (each with their own very distinct dialects, too).

[Groenewolf]

How did the Dutch emerge as a single ethnicity when there were three languages (Low Franconian, Netherlands Saxon and Frisian) in the country? Was it due to outside aggression or what else triggered the split of the Dutch from the North Germans?


I will be doing this from my head. But I think the process of forming a separate ethnicity was begone in the Middle Ages. Probably around the time of the Burgundians, the later creating the Staten Generaal who would be part of the governing layer for the their lands in the present Northern and Southern Netherlands. This helped foster the idea of a singular identity of what was before more focused on once own region.

Now I think the separation was becoming complete when the lands fell in the hands of the house of Hapsburg and more specific the Spanish branch of the family when emperor Karel V died. The rest is know history between us and the Spanish.

[Wulfhere]

I will be doing this from my head. But I think the process of forming a separate ethnicity was begone in the Middle Ages. Probably around the time of the Burgundians, the later creating the Staten Generaal who would be part of the governing layer for the their lands in the present Northern and Southern Netherlands. This helped foster the idea of a singular identity of what was before more focused on once own region.

Now I think the separation was becoming complete when the lands fell in the hands of the house of Hapsburg and more specific the Spanish branch of the family when emperor Karel V died. The rest is know history between us and the Spanish.

Another very important factor is that there was no such thing as a "German" ethnicity at the time, so the Dutch weren't breaking away from anything. "German" was a collective word referring to many different peoples.

[Agrippa]

Another very important factor is that there was no such thing as a "German" ethnicity at the time, so the Dutch weren't breaking away from anything. "German" was a collective word referring to many different peoples.

Germans were minimum as real as the French. And no, when the Dutch broke away from the German Empire, it was noticed as a break up, not just with a structure, but also as a people, even then.

In the old sources you can often read about German (different terms used) people and distinction made based upon that ethnocultural category.

Different tribes and states, sure, but that is not the same as a truly different people, because there needs to be more than that and, one might add, there is no advantage in keeping up differences which just block related people from communicating effectively with each other.

[Wulfhere]

Germans were minimum as real as the French. And no, when the Dutch broke away from the German Empire, it was noticed as a break up, not just with a structure, but also as a people, even then.

In the old sources you can often read about German (different terms used) people and distinction made based upon that ethnocultural category.

Different tribes and states, sure, but that is not the same as a truly different people, because there needs to be more than that and, one might add, there is no advantage in keeping up differences which just block related people from communicating effectively with each other.

Yes, it was noticed as a break away from the Empire, which is different altogether.

The French weren't an ethnicity either, at the time. Southern France had it's own language, culture and identity.

[Agrippa]

Yes, it was noticed as a break away from the Empire, which is different altogether.

The Empire however was, despite other notions, considered a union of the German people too, to some degree at least.

The Dutch too emerged out of a political power structure and integrated different tribes by the way, most noteworthy the Frisians.

That the Dutch are no Germans now is the result of political incidents and wars, also the reformation and lack of unity after the respective disputes and wars.

Long story, but in any case they were essentially Germans which just split off and fostered their own dialect.

[Wulfhere]

The Empire however was, despite other notions, considered a union of the German people too, to some degree at least.

The Dutch too emerged out of a political power structure and integrated different tribes by the way, most noteworthy the Frisians.

That the Dutch are no Germans now is the result of political incidents and wars, also the reformation and lack of unity after the respective disputes and wars.

Long story, but in any case they were essentially Germans which just split off and fostered their own dialect.

The Frisians have their own ethnicity, despite being in a political union.

[Svanhild]

Low German and High German are different languages (each with their own very distinct dialects, too).
I'm bugged by incessant false statements of Non-Germans to stir up dust and bickering. You're confounding Plattdütsch, which is a regional dialect, with Low German and Upper German dialects with Standard German. High German language is a blend of like 75% Upper German elements and 25% Lower German elements and now constitutes the written Standard language.

Another very important factor is that there was no such thing as a "German" ethnicity at the time, so the Dutch weren't breaking away from anything. "German" was a collective word referring to many different peoples.
Again, wrong. There was a feeling of common identity which is the base of the word Deutsch. Deutsch, Old High German thiodisk/diutschiu, means belonging to the folk/people. This word was used in oposition to welsh.

In 1090, following sentence was written as part of the Annolied at Siegburg monastery:

„Diutschin sprechin, Diutschin liute in Diutischemi lande"

In today's German: Deutsch sprechen deutsche Leute in deutschem Lande. You know what? Right: It means German people speak German in German lands. Wohoo! Hence even during 9th century people had the idea of German people belonging together in German lands.

Now spare me your inane crap and bugger off.

[The Lawspeaker]

Wulfhere. Ook wij Nederlanders zijn in principe Duitsers. Nederduytsch, Diets -- the mediaeval name of our Low German dialect - the names should be a clear indication.

Where else do you think the word "Dutch" comes from ?

[Groenewolf]

Haven't you got any teenage girls to do squats for you ? Get out of here ! :rolleyes2:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/group.php?groupid=116

[Wulfhere]

I'm bugged by incessant false statements of Non-Germans to stir up dust and bickering. You're confounding Plattdütsch, which is a regional dialect, with Low German and Upper German dialects with Standard German. High German language is a blend of like 75% Upper German elements and 25% Lower German elements and now constitutes the written Standard language.

Again, wrong. There was a feeling of common identity which is the base of the word Deutsch. Deutsch, Old High German thiodisk/diutschiu, means belonging to the folk/people. This word was used in oposition to welsh.

In 1090, following sentence was written as part of the Annolied at Siegburg monastery:

„Diutschin sprechin, Diutschin liute in Diutischemi lande"

In today's German: Deutsch sprechen deutsche Leute in deutschem Lande. You know what? Right: It means German people speak German in German lands. Wohoo! Hence even during 9th century people had the idea of German people belonging together in German lands.

Now spare me your inane crap and bugger off.

1090 is pretty late. The word has a cognate in Old English too, theod, which just means people. Theoden means leader of people, as in the Old English phrase: An folc, an ric, an theoden.

[Wulfhere]

Wulfhere. Ook wij Nederlanders zijn in principe Duitsers. Nederduytsch, Diets -- the mediaeval name of our Low German dialect - the names should be a clear indication.

Where else do you think the word "Dutch" comes from ?

I know exactly where it comes from.

[Svanhild]

. The word has a cognate in Old English too, theod, which just means people. Theoden means leader of people, as in the Old English phrase: An folc, an ric, an theoden.
Oh wonder, oh surprise, you've just recognized the fact that both languages have the same Germanic roots. Maybe next year you'll learn where the Angles and Saxons came from.

[The Lawspeaker]

The Frisians have their own ethnicity, despite being in a political union.
That's correct. But they are fine citizens of both the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany.

Dutch consider them to be a bit different but still Dutch.

[Albion]

The Frisians absorbed a lot of Saxons when much of Great Frisia was flooded. The distinction comes from the Anglo-Frisian languages and a few cultural differences.

[The Alchemist]

If you'd be really interested in this you could have found the answers to your questions on the internet.

You should keep in mind that Germany and the Netherlands consisted of different tribes, and didn't the English language derive from German? (not as it is spoken right now but waaaaay back).
Yes, me too i knew that english derives from the old language spoken in Saxony (i'm not sure if Saxony -where there's Dresden- or Low Saxony, which is very close to Holland). Anyway, english language should derive from germanic, not vice versa.

[Breedingvariety]

Yes, me too i knew that english derives from the old language spoken in Saxony (i'm not sure if Saxony -where there's Dresden- or Low Saxony, which is very close to Holland). Anyway, english language should derive from germanic, not vice versa.
English language is derived from North-West Germany. Saxony was populated/ assimilated by Saxons later.

[The Alchemist]

English language is derived from North-West Germany. Saxony was populated/ assimilated by Saxons later.

Ok....i thought Saxons were originally from Saxony of nowadays...i mean est-Germany. In fact, this history was told me by east-german people!!! :D

[Wulfhere]

The Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians were Ingaevones, or North Sea Germanic speakers, a linguistic group based around the North Sea coasts from the Netherlands to Denmark. So, it's not true to say that English is derived from German. Both English and German are Germanic, of course (a term I dislike, by the way, since it is apt to be confused with German), but evolved differently. In particular, the Ingaevone ecosphere was the sea, whereas Germans lived inland.

[Agrippa]

In particular, the Ingaevone ecosphere was the sea, whereas Germans lived inland.

That's not really true, as many Germans and other Germanics lived around the sea too.


a term I dislike, by the way, since it is apt to be confused with German

Some English just seem to have problems with the fact that they are Germanics - wanted to be part of the "Civilised world" rather or even a Christian Israel ;)

Those are all dialectal minor differences and fact is, the Anglos have their language and ethnic identity from Germanics, which were also part of the German ancestry.

And it is not the Germans fault that their real name Deutsche was not used by the English. In fact, they should have used Teutonic for deutsch and Germanic for germanisch, which would have been logical, but oh well, sometimes terms have a rather illogical history... :D

[Wulfhere]

That's not really true, as many Germans and other Germanics lived around the sea too.



Some English just seem to have problems with the fact that they are Germanics - wanted to be part of the "Civilised world" rather or even a Christian Israel ;)

Those are all dialectal minor differences and fact is, the Anglos have their language and ethnic identity from Germanics, which were also part of the German ancestry.

And it is not the Germans fault that their real name Deutsche was not used by the English. In fact, they should have used Teutonic for deutsch and Germanic for germanisch, which would have been logical, but oh well, sometimes terms have a rather illogical history... :D

Actually, Teutonic would be a much better term for "Germanic", and was indeed used in that way until pretty recently. It turns out that the Teutons may well have been the Angles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles#Angles_under_other_names

And the English did use Deutsche by the way, and still do - for the Dutch.

[Agrippa]

Actually, Teutonic would be a much better term for "Germanic", and was indeed used in that way until pretty recently. It turns out that the Teutons may well have been the Angles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles#Angles_under_other_names

And the English did use Deutsche by the way, and still do - for the Dutch.

Teutonic is stupid, because that was just a tribe and is even closer to Deutsch/Teutsch.

Germanic is correct and should be used.

With Dutch you are right though, which just proves the point made = Germans.

[The Lawspeaker]

The peoples of the Low Countries (particularly the Luxembourgers and Dutch) are indeed a kind of West Germans - part of the same German continuum.

But:

"We are with Germany, but not in it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.”

[Wulfhere]

Teutonic is stupid, because that was just a tribe and is even closer to Deutsch/Teutsch.

Germanic is correct and should be used.

With Dutch you are right though, which just proves the point made = Germans.

It's only "correct" because that's the word currently used. And my point is that this is a very poor choice of word, because it is so easily confused with "German".

[Osweo]

Long live the Theodish Brotherhood!

[Wulfhere]

Án folc, án rīce, án þeoden!

[Osweo]

Weorc maciath freo

[Albion]

Yes, me too i knew that english derives from the old language spoken in Saxony (i'm not sure if Saxony -where there's Dresden- or Low Saxony, which is very close to Holland). Anyway, english language should derive from germanic, not vice versa.

That is a common misconception, the German we know today is mainly high German From Austria and Bavaria.
Low German was spoken in the North of Germany. But English is most closely related to the Frisian languages which would have once been spoken over a large area of the North Sea coast from Zeeland to Schelswig Holstein.

The Germanic languages have some degree of intelligibility which means the distinction between languages is not always clear, Dutch and German are both intelligible with Low German ("Low Saxon") which is said to fall somewhere between both languages.

In Scandinavia too Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are really one language with strong dialects.

English is today very distinct though even from Frisian. The Anglo-Saxons speaking Old English were able to understand the Danes and Frisians still, so it shows how much English has developed since.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/West_Germanic_languages_%28simplified%29.png


So, it's not true to say that English is derived from German.

:thumb001: Yeah, that is what kids are told when learning German so as not to confuse them... 'English descends from German...', the old myth.


Both English and German are Germanic, of course but evolved differently.

:thumb001:


(a term I dislike, by the way, since it is apt to be confused with German)

Yes, it can lead to that sometimes but there's nothing better as of yet.


Some English just seem to have problems with the fact that they are Germanics

:D Most English love the idea of the Anglo-Saxons, their ancestors having taken the country by conquest and having come by way of NW Europe.

You couldn't be more wrong, the English adore the idea of Germanic Peoples as was shown in recent past. WWI and II made it less popular but it soon bounced back.

Most English I think you'll find don't even consider the Celts in their history.

;)


Those are all dialectal minor differences and fact is, the Anglos have their language and ethnic identity from Germanics, which were also part of the German ancestry.

Indeed. Don't confuse Germanic with Germans though. Southern Sweden / Denmark were the Germanic urheimat, the term 'Germanic' only became popular because "Denmarkic" sounds crap. :tongue


And it is not the Germans fault that their real name Deutsche was not used by the English. In fact, they should have used Teutonic for deutsch and Germanic for germanisch, which would have been logical, but oh well, sometimes terms have a rather illogical history..

We should call you Wealisc to avoid any confusion... :thumb001:

[Albion]

The peoples of the Low Countries (particularly the Luxembourgers and Dutch) are indeed a kind of West Germans - part of the same German continuum.

But:

"We are with Germany, but not in it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.”

The Dutch have evolved their own identity since though as have the Allemanic Swiss and perhaps the Austrians.

I think there always would have been some differences between the Netherlands and the rest of Germania, your land is basically a huge delta which was formerly impassable.
Those conditions would have fostered the development of an early Dutch ethnicity.

But anyway, the Germanic peopled are pretty close though, especially those in Scandinavia and those in the "German"-speaking areas + Benelux.

England too formerly had huge wetland areas along it's rivers and low lying eastern areas, it wouldn't have been that much different from home to the Anglo-Saxons.

[The Lawspeaker]

Án folc, án rīce, án þeoden!
Fine with me. From now on you'll all be my subjects. :thumb001:

[Siginulfo]

If you'd be really interested in this you could have found the answers to your questions on the internet.

You should keep in mind that Germany and the Netherlands consisted of different tribes, and didn't the English language derive from German? (not as it is spoken right now but waaaaay back).

English is not derived from German, but from the Old English, which in turn derives from the Old Saxon spoken by the Saxons in northern Germany and East Netherland, as-well-as Holstein.

[Agrippa]

The Dutch have evolved their own identity since though as have the Allemanic Swiss and perhaps the Austrians.


I think you can't really compare those groups, because even if the Swiss have their own identity and some Austrians try to build up one since decades, both are still clearly German speakers in a rather understandable way and their standard language in particular is just German.

The Dutch-Flemish, that's the real difference, made their quite different dialect their new standard language. We Germans can understand something, but its just no longer the same language, goes beyond a simple dialect in my opinion - that's the largest difference in comparison, because even if some German groups have a hard time, there is nowhere a clear borderline, but just "the ends can't understand each other", inside of the spectrum, its all fluent between Germans, Austrians, Swiss.

But with the Dutch, because of their new standard language, it is a clear borderline NOW...