Grand Culture Mod : (Cultures I'd like to see instated)

[unmerged(42906)]

But dutch and flemish are the same language (or at least two different standard forms for one language). Flemish is just more distinct historically because it was contrasted with a romance language, and not a very closely related germanic language. It makes little sense to merge northern dutch with german, and still separate southern dutch (flemish).

 

[Semi-Lobster]

I'm not disputing that they are indeed the same language now but the roots of the Modern Dutch language are in the cities of Flanders and Brabant. The migration of these peoples to the Netherlands after 1585 hastened the differentiation of Dutch and German (which remained relatively close until WWII though)

 

[Calgacus]

Carrick - Saxon/English, Scottish/Gaelic or Nowegian/Norse...that is the question.

Scottish/Gaelic! This shouldn't even be up for contention ...

Cumberland and(??) Westmoreland - Welsh? Yes or no?

I really dunno. I'd prefer Cumberland to be Scottish or Welsh, but making Westmoreland Scottish might be pushing it. There were definitely English and/or Scandinavians there (it's very hard to tell the difference many times) ... Welsh, Scottish english or Scandinavian ... the arguments for Westmoreland are all equal.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

OK maybe the issue with the Dutch may be solved by renaming it to Flemish as the Dutch actually origianted in Flanders and even today Flemish dielct is much more "pure" then the other Dutch dialects and especially Dutch standard.

Anyway ok Carrick remins Scottish, Cumberland will be Welsh, westmoreland English/Saxon. Problem solved.

Oh and btw. I think I found the key for dividing the Arabian and Berber culture in Spain. After some extensive research I've read several times that when Moors(Arabs and Berbers) were invading Iberia they populated the lower plains with Arabs and left the mountains and hillsides for Berbers....this was also one of the reason for tensions between the two ethnic groups as Berbers considered it unfair...obviously.
So plains will be Arab along with Baleares and two plain provinces in North Africa. Everything else will be Berber. Oh and Kairouan will also be reverted to Arab as this city was in the hands of the Arabs from 1057 and was one of the bases for long and extensive "arabization" of the whole region.

Btw. I've looked into the matter of Foix and Narbonne being Catalan and came to the conclusio that although those provinces were and are Occitan, however since this was the place of the cultural Catalan-Occitan border the mutual influences are present. So although there is substantial Catalan influence on those regions it was in fact Occitan and should remain as such.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

OK maybe the issue with the Dutch may be solved by renaming it to Flemish as the Dutch actually origianted in Flanders and even today Flemish dielct is much more "pure" then the other Dutch dialects and especially Dutch standard.

But where would it go? Only in Flanders, Brabant, Artois, northern Hainaut and Northern Picardie?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

OK maybe the issue with the Dutch may be solved by renaming it to Flemish as the Dutch actually origianted in Flanders and even today Flemish dielct is much more "pure" then the other Dutch dialects and especially Dutch standard.
QUOTE]

Well you may use the dutch tag for flemish, and give this culture only to the counties of the duchy of Flanders and Brabant and some of Picardy and Artois.

But Zeeland, Holland, West-Friesland, Sticht, Gelre, Friesland, Loon and Breda should then receive german culture instead of flemish. Since the people in these counties neither had common history with Flanders nor did they ever refer to themselves or were referred to as flemish people.

Altough Zeeland is open for debate.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Well you may use the dutch tag for flemish, and give this culture only to the counties of the duchy of Flanders and Brabant and some of Picardy and Artois.

But Zeeland, Holland, West-Friesland, Sticht, Gelre, Friesland, Loon and Breda should then receive german culture instead of flemish. Since the people in these counties neither had common history with Flanders nor did they ever refer to themselves or were referred to as flemish people.

Altough Zeeland is open for debate.

Well what better place to debate then this? What's your position on Zeeland?

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Ok then nothing of Flemish.

 

[Spruce]

hello - were are you guys going with this Dutch-Flemisch discussion?

basicly the "Nederdietsch or Nederdeutsch (or whatever o )" was a special dialect of the German speech. Originally - first time writing of this dialect was done by a Flemisch monk. But basicly all sorts of dialect where living all over Germany - and one "pool" of these dialects was going more or less its own way...

there's no justification to make a distinction between Flemisch and Dutch - where are you guys basing that on?

Flemisch is not correct (it only proves the Flemisch provinces spoke such a dialetc)

Dutch is also wrong - because Dutch is more the today "standard" to have linguistic rules. Best would be to call it NiederDeutsch, Dietsch, NederDietsch, LowGerman (whatever),

ps = I'm not a specialist on the matter,

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Ok then nothing of Flemish.

Huh?

Anyway did you read the website I gave you? I really don't think Galaz should be Bulgarian, I think making it Kipchak or Vlach would be more appropriate (from what I've read)

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Btw. regarding Frisian...we made it German but it seems wrong to me. Frisian was heavily influenced by Dutch/Nederlandic and is much closer to it then to other German dialects. So if anything it should be more Dutch then German.

Huh?

I meant nothing of renaming the Dutch to Flemish, it stays as it was. I will not bound Dutch only to Flanders and Brbant, that would be wrong as the language was not spoken in Flanders but in Holland and other low regions.

Anyway did you read the website I gave you? I really don't think Galaz should be Bulgarian, I think making it Kipchak or Vlach would be more appropriate (from what I've read)

Sorry didn't yet...will do later. However looking at it at this point it would make far more sense to make it Kipchak/Pecheneg then Vlach/Romanian.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

hello - were are you guys going with this Dutch-Flemisch discussion?

We're tryign to (I think) figure out what to do with 'Dutch', the concerpt of 'Dutch' didn't exist yet and remained pretty much Lower German for the entire Crusader Kings timeline. Flemish though had been showing signs of differentiating itself from Lower German during the CK time period.

basicly the "Nederdietsch or Nederdeutsch (or whatever o )" was a special dialect of the German speech. Originally this dialect was written by a monk (Flemisch monk) - but it stands for all sorts of Dialects,

there's no justification to make a distinction between Flemisch and Dutch - where are you guys basing that on?

That Dutch didn't exist as of 1066 and that the dialects of Flanders and Brabant had begun changing from Low German.

Flemisch is not correct (it only proves the Flemisch provinces spoke such a dialetc)

And we're trying to figure out if we should make it all German or if it was signicant enough for it's own culture tag.

Dutch is also wrong - because Dutch is more the today "standard" to have linguistic rules. Best would be to call it NiederDeutsch, Dietsch, NederDietsch, LowGerman (whatever),

Exactly, the problem is that if we did, we'd end up with a huge 'Lower German' culture that would split 'German' culture into two (or possibly three) and there have been many that stated this would not be a good idea.

 

[Spruce]

I meant nothing of renaming the Dutch to Flemish, it stays as it was. I will not bound Dutch only to Flanders and Brbant, that would be wrong as the language was not spoken in Flanders but in Holland and other low regions.
.

like I said above - your guys are wrong - it' just a matter of your perspective. In todays Flanders there was a study of dialects in one province - and that province holds about 5 to 6 different sorts of dialects - even today. So basicly back then there would have been hundreds of dialects.

The best thing to do is either to leave it as it is (Dutch just stands for a seperate German dialect - no problem) or find a better description for Dutch...and don't begin with introducing Flemisch ...

ps = I'm Flemisch,

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Well what better place to debate then this? What's your position on Zeeland?

Well I only know that there were a few wars between the counts of Holland and Vlaanderen (Duchy of Flanders in CK) about this area.

I just bought a book this week that deals with the wars the county of Holland fought between 1000 and 1375. So when I have read it I might know some more

But like a previous poster said. Flemish is the name of a dialect spoken in the Flemish (county of Flanders) regions. So making this the name for all the provinces with dutch culture looks rather unhistorical and unrealistic.

But then having dutch culture in 1066 is unhistorical in itself .

 

[Spruce]

Zeeland is just one hell of a warzone between counties of Flanders and Holland. Most of the time it was under Flanders influence...

but it's a huge mix of all sorts of dialects and I'm reluctant to draw lines.

And it's not due to Flemisch rule that the locals will start speaking Flemisch...

- I like the current CK setup (Dutch is perhaps an ahistorical word, but it suits as a description for seperate dialects).

ps = even today Flemisch people claim to hear another dialect when they travel about 10 - 20 km's ... don't try to invent the warm water here guys

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Perhaps there should be some Dutch melting pot event like in England....anyway seriously the game lasts until 1419. Even as late 1150 the Dutch dielects started to differentiate themsleves as separate language from other German(and Low German) dialects so removing Dutch would be unhistorical much more then having it.

Anyway I didn't knew this was such a controverse matter....interesting really.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Anyway I didn't knew this was such a controverse matter....interesting really.

Yes, you Balkanguys can learn something from us :rofl:

Just kidding.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Well our options are that we restore Dutch culture, or we make it German (and possibly add some kind of melting pot-esque event). Perhaps it would less controversial if we just kept everything the way it is there (Dutch culture). Perhaps somebody could come up with a better name then Dutch?

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Nederlandish?

@Veldmaarschalk - yes, yes...now tell me where did you get those nice and shiny trait icons.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Well our options are that we restore Dutch culture, or we make it German (and possibly add some kind of melting pot-esque event). Perhaps it would less controversial if we just kept everything the way it is there (Dutch culture). Perhaps somebody could come up with a better name then Dutch?

Maybe: Diets or Dietsch.

It isn't historically correct either, but it has a more medieval sound to it then dutch.

Dietsch (Diets in modern Dutch) is a term used to distinguish the southern dialects in the Middle Dutch language.

In linguistics usage, when distinguishing between southern and northern dialects in the Middle Dutch language, Diets meant southern language usage, whilst for northern features the term Duutsch was used. However, in other contexts these words were used as synonyms. They can stand equally well for Middle Dutch in general as for Germanic contrasted with Romance languages.

'Diets' came from the Middle Dutch word diet, which meant 'people'. It is related to the Gothic word 'thiuda' (with the same meaning).

'Diets' is often confused with 'Duits', the modern Dutch word for German, and indeed in the Dutch language of the 16th and 17th centuries 'duits' and 'diets' were variant spellings of the same word, which usually is translated as Dutch (of the Dutch people) in modern Dutch.

The forms 'duits' and 'diets' originated as follows: the oldest Dutch (and German) form of the word is 'diut'; this led to the variants 'diet' and 'duut', and the adjectives 'diets' and 'duuts'. The latter form in Dutch changed to 'Duits' (Dutch vowel shift: the 'u' became the diphthong 'ui'). 'Duits' is still used in Dutch to refer to the German people and language, but the word 'diets', as well as the use of 'Duits' to refer to the Dutch people and Dutch language has fallen out of use. The word can still be found however in the expression iemand iets diets maken, which means to explain (or make believe) somebody something (by explaining it in the common language, i.e. Diets and not Latin).

Another reason 'Diets' is no longer used in modern Dutch is that the term was abused by 20th century fascists of the NSB and other nationalists, usually in the terms 'Diets', 'Nederdiets', or 'Nederduits' to refer to the shared heritage of the Dutch and German people.

A historical remnant of the original meaning of 'Duits' to refer to the people of the Netherlands, rather than the people of Germany, can still be seen in first line of the Dutch National anthem:

"Wilhelmus van Nassauwe / Ben ik van Duitsen bloed" (William of Nassau / Am I of Dutch blood)

But, because William was born in the town of Nassau, it could very well referred to his German heritage.

'Diets' has also been used in modern times by Dutch and Flemish nationalists. For example see Dietsland.