Subject: Re: Some one got inspired....<br/>
Date: Nov 24, 2001 @ 05:46<br/>
Author: orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)<br/>
<a href="4188.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next&emsp;[<a href="topic4050.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="4646.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4648.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-176198441">--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., Anton Sherwood &lt;bronto@p...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; for me the really strange part about the word netherlands<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt;   tho not the country the netherlands<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; is the austrian netherlands<br/>
<br/>
&gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; I imagine that phrase came into use to distinguish those territories<br/>
<br/>
&gt; from the rest of Low Germany.<br/>
<br/>
&gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt;&gt; Further, why do they call a Netherlander a Dutchman??<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; i think only because they are anglo & confused about who the dutch are<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; & who the germans are<br/>
<br/>
&gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; It&#39;s because the word is older than the distinction.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>that is a very elegant observation<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; The Netherlands were just another part of the vaguely-defined German<br/>
<br/>
&gt; lands until about the fifteenth century.  The Flemish language is part<br/>
<br/>
&gt; of the Low German dialect continuum.  After Holland became a sea power,<br/>
<br/>
&gt; the English word `Dutch&#39; -- which previously covered both `Low Dutch&#39;<br/>
<br/>
&gt; and `High Dutch&#39; (see Gulliver&#39;s Travels for examples of that usage) --<br/>
<br/>
&gt; became specialized to mean only the nearest and (at the time) most<br/>
<br/>
&gt; important of the German nations.<br/>
<br/>
&gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; My familiarity with the Germanic languages and peoples is not nearly<br/>
<br/>
&gt; what I wish it were, so I hope better historians/linguists/ethnographers<br/>
<br/>
&gt; will clean up any gross distortions I&#39;ve made.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>how about if worse ones cleaned up any dozen of them<br/>
<br/>
& i ask in full cognizance & appreciation of your prowesses in these areas<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
it is just that history is at best only someones version of what happened & at worst the complete annals of crime & so of what objective value<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
language & linguism i can dig tho even there one shrinks from writing what one shrank from saying what one shrank from thinking in the first place<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& as for ethnography given half a chance i will always prefer & promote nature over culture for even race & blood itself is only history & has little bearing on the present & even less on the future<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
m</div>