Відео

@@Srabsi thanks!👍

@@Srabsi thanks!👍

Thanks Zach!😉

Interesting take. I think it's because English uses too many French and latitnized vocabulary. Dutch and German tend to stick more to the core Germanic roots even when they are constructing more difficult words for new concepts.

Yes for example a Dutch person goes to an “eye doctor” but the English goes to an ophthalmologist. It sounds as a decease of itself. So the are many more.

@@ArmArmAdvSecond I think it also I am not fond of Romance languages. Germanic languages or Gaelic sound much nicer in my ears.

Frisian and English are indeed the closest sister languages. I wonder, as a Frisian, do you notice more similarities between English and Frisian than between English and Dutch?

Zeer interessant. Heb je enige connectie met Nederland? Via familie of vrienden?

Interesting! What is your mother tongue if you don't mind me asking?

Dutch

@martinkullberg6718 Great! There must be lots of words in old Germanic language that correspond to modern Dutch. Well done!

Dankjewel Anja!🙏 Dat is echt aardig van je. Eerlijk gezegd begon ik die verbanden intuïtief te zien vanaf het begin. Voor een tijdtje dacht ik dat iedereen die connecties tussen Engels en Nederlands gewoon zo zag. Maar nu merk ik dat het blijkbaar niet zo voor de hand ligt, zelfs niet voor moedertaalsprekers van Engels en/of Nederlands. Zodra ik de basiswoorden in het Nederlands leerde, kon ik min of meer raden hoe een Engels woord zou klinken in het Nederlands, en andersom. Het is geen perfecte regel, maar het werkt meestal wel Bijvoorbeeld, zodra je beseft dat het "ch", "g"-geluid in het Nederlands klinkt als het "j"-geluid in het Engels, kun je nieuwe woorden raden, zoals 'eight' en 'acht,' 'night' en 'nacht,' 'soft' en 'zacht,' 'wacht' en 'wait.' Het is niet altijd 100% accuraat, je moet een beetje flexibel zijn met klanken en betekenissen. In sommige gevallen hebben cognaten tussel het Nederlands en Engels niet alleen verschillende uitspraken, maar ook verschillende betekenissen, valse vrienden maar niet helemaal. Met dit soort halfcognaten krijg je nog steeds het idee, zoals 'hond' en 'hound', waarbij 'hond' niet precies hetzelfde betekent als 'hound' in Engels, maar je begrijpt dat het over honden gaat. Ik zou zeggen dat van de nieuwe woorden die ik tegenkom in het Nederlands, ik zo'n 80% correct kan raden op gevoel, nog eens 10% raad ik verkeerd, en de laatste 10% kan ik geen cognaten met het Engels bedenken, of misschien hebben ze geen cognaten tussen hen. En in veel gevallen komen niet-Germaanse Nederlandse woorden uit het Frans en de Romaanse talen, wat vaak ook in het Engels gedeeld wordt! Ik vind etymologie en cognaten echt krachtige hulpmiddelen bij het leren van talen, en ik begrijp niet waarom ze niet populairder zijn.

You're absolutely right. Thankfully, it turns out the verb 'veren' and 'veer' are also cognates. The sense of "spring" originates from the capacity of feathers to regain their form after being bent. So, 'feathercraft' for 'veerkracht' can remain as it it.

And btw, the archaic word in Dutch is "veder", which brings it closer to English. It's an example where the "d" has been omitted. You might find the old word back in poems or perhaps in dialects. Another is the commonly used "broer" (brother), with the old word being "broeder". Broeder is still used for addressing monks.

@@giselavaleazar8768 indeed. There's also weder/weer, leder/leer, teder/teer (although the latter pair exists alongside each other).

Also populatie is a Dutch word mostly used as a more proper way of saying bevolking

Thank you very much, Ismael! Very illuminating comment!👌So, basically, 'superkracht' refers to superpower as superhuman abilities, like what Superman can do. Whereas, 'supermacht' is equivalent to the geopolitical superpower, where a nation like the US is considered a superpower. Interestingly, English doesn't have two separate words for these two concepts, and they're both just called superpower! Dutch seems to be more precise, having two distinct words for these two concepts. As for 'populatie,' that's interesting to note. I thought 'bevolking' and 'populatie' are interchangeable. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers!

@@ArmArmAdv you are welcome, as for the last part in essence the are interchangeable but there is a slight difference in it's use. You would be grammaticly correct (most of the times) using either yet it would sound strange to a native speakers, there isn't a rule for that just intuition.

@@ArmArmAdv I'd say "populatie" is a more technical word, used when talking about demographics, comparable to English "populace".

@kilianhekhuis Interesting! Thanks for clearing that up. Although, I just checked on Reverso, which is a context based dictionary. It gives 'populace' for 'bevolking' and 'populatie' for 'population'. Also, on Google Translate, it shows it that way.

Cheers! 👍

Bedankt!👍

Cheers Cathy!🙏☀️

Thanks Zach! I appreciate it!😉

Thanks for the clarification. You're correct. But while "veer" in this context is linked to the verb "veren," meaning to spring back in Dutch, it's not etymologically related to "spring" in Dutch or English. "Veer" and "feather" though are actual cognates originating from the same Proto-Germanic root (feþrō). The verb "veren" (to spring) and "de veer" (feather) are also cognates, denoting to the elastic nature of feathers (Feathers easily bounce back to their original form). So, "veren" (v) and "veer" (n) in Dutch, and "feather" in English are ultimately related. My approach emphasizes cognates for simplicity in memorizing Dutch words, especially for non-native speakers. If accuracy were the goal, "veerkracht" could be pseudo-translated as "springpower" in English. Feathercraft is not a good translation but has the crucial benefit of being construed from direct Germanic cognates. It's an interesting linguistic exploration! 👌

@@ArmArmAdv Okay, cool.

Thanks. Appreciate your positive vibes!

Thank you! Cheers!

Interesting take! I did think of "wake" too when I first heard "onverwacht." In fact, the English verb "to wait" is a direct cognate with Dutch and German "wachten." "To wake" in English is cognate with the Dutch "wekken" As for "stofzuiger," the Dutch "stof" is indeed cognate with the German "Staub," but the whole point of this exercise is to find cognates or even semi-cognates with English to facilitate learning Dutch for English speakers. It's not a hundred percent accurate linguistic recipe, but rather a way to make sense of Dutch words for learners who know English. "Stuff" is distantly related to the old Frankish "stuppon" or "stopfon." If you trace the ancestry of stof, stop, stoppen, stuff, staub, stofferen etc way back, they do share roots, but not directly, and in that way, you're right. These examples are not linguistically bulletproof; they're just in the ballpark to make learning a new language easier and a bit more fun for etymology lovers. Thanks for your comment!

You're right. Forbearer is the correct terminology. However, as I've explained before, these constructions are made up to facilitate learning Dutch for English speakers. In this case, I've mentioned 'fore-elder' since it sounds similar to the Dutch 'voorouder', and more importantly it shares similar origins (Voor=fore, elder=ouder). Interestingly, according to wiktionary 'fore-elder' is actually used in Scottish English.

Very interesting! Thanks👌

Indonesian also calqued Ziekenhuis into rumah sakit (lit. house sick)

Thanks for the clarification 👍 You're right. I need to work on my Dutch pronunciation, specially the v sound. To my ears, it sounds something between f and v in English. There are probably regional variations.

Well in English it seems that the original ‘g’ sound has gone through one of 2 changes (excluding the ‘ng’ combination): the first being it became a stop consonant like in ‘good’, whereas Dutch maintained some kind of fricative in ‘goed’. The second change is where it turned into a ‘y’ , so English may Dutch mag, E toy D tuig, E eye D oog and so on

@@christianstainazfischerG was /j/ before front vowels in Old English, and ɣ in between back vowels (not necessarily always) and that turned into a w/ow. Which is why Old English “Morgen” turned into “morrow.”

@@tfan2222 ah interesting, I have been wondering about the missing g for a while but never looked into the etymology

And _reënbog_ in Afrikaans. This is because Afrikaans dropped intervocalic double consonants, e.g. _zeggen_ > _sê,_ _hebben_ > _hê,_ _bruggen_ > _brûe_ or _oggen_ > _oë._ The circonflex means that the vowel sound is long.

You are correct that forsake and verzaken are not exactly the same, but they do share a common etymological root in Proto West-Germanic language (*fra- +‎ *sakan). While the translations I proposed may not be entirely accurate, as an L2 learner, my focus is on finding connections with my L1. Even false friends and distant cognates can be helpful in this regard. In the case of forsake and verzaken, while they may have slightly different meanings, both words in Dutch and English carry connotations of letting down, renouncing, abandoning, leaving, or betraying. So, even though they are not identical, they are related and can be helpful in building my language skills.

Ok, I’m just wondering how I should translate words into my mind correctly since I’ve got 2 L1’s and learning an L4 and everything is messing up since I’m only 14

@Swaceierat You're going to do great! Knowing and being exposed to four languages at such a young age is no small feat. On the plus side, you have the advantage of more brain plasticity, which means better language learning and retention. With the internet and resources like ChatGPT, there has never been a better time to learn a language. I wish you all the best!

The Dutch suffix -schap and the English suffix -ship both derive from the Proto-West Germanic suffix -skapi, which means "to shape or create." English shape, -ship, -scape and -shap in Dutch are all related and can ultimately be traced back to the Proto-Germanic skapjaną, which means "to create" or "make." While the focus here has not been on producing accurate translations, it is still important to note that etymology and cognates can help make connections between Dutch and English and aid in the memorization of Dutch words. However, it is essential to keep in mind that false friends and distant cognates may not always be reliable and should not be solely relied upon in language learning.

Also, are you also doing the ecolinguist channel? You sound like a person from those videos

You are correct that the Dutch word "stof" means "dust" rather than "stuff." It has the same root as the German word "Staub" also meaning dust. The Dutch word "stof" comes from the Proto-Germanic word "stuppo," which originally had the connotation of "fine matter," "powder," or "dust." While the word still retains this sense in Dutch, it has evolved to exclusively mean "dust" in modern usage. The English word "stuff" comes from the Old French word "estoffe," which originally meant "material" or "stuffing," and ultimately has a Frankish, thus Germanic root. The sense of "stuff" as "belongings" or "things" likely evolved from the original sense, as personal belongings and possessions were often made of stuffed or upholstered materials. The verb "to stuff" is likely related to the sense of "stopfōn" in Old High German, which meant "to stuff" or "to plug." While the Dutch "stof" and the English "stuff" are not straightforward cognates and do not have exactly the same meaning, they are distantly related through their shared Germanic roots. I personally find cognates a great tool to make language learning easier and more fun. By recognizing similarities between words in different languages, it can be easier to remember new vocabulary and understand the historical relationships between different languages. While cognates may not always provide accurate translations, they can be a useful tool to help build a foundation for learning a new language. I love the Ecolinguist channel. It has partly inspired this video 🙏