Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines | Help Search Members Calendar |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Pages: (5) « First ... 3 4 [5] ( Go to first unread post ) |
rcristi |
Posted: May 13, 2004 08:17 pm
|
||
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 47 Member No.: 177 Joined: January 03, 2004 |
Really??? That's quite an acomplishment if it's true, which I doubt. Can you please give me some sources that support your claim? Best regards Chris |
||
Najroda |
Posted: May 14, 2004 08:46 am
|
||
Fruntas Group: Banned Posts: 66 Member No.: 193 Joined: January 13, 2004 |
Because you brought up the Kosovo comparisson. BTW I did stress that the Maros Autonomous Hungarian Region was imperfect, but it certainly did not exist just "on paper", the situation of the Szekler Hungarians was undeniable better than in the next decades. |
||
Najroda |
Posted: May 14, 2004 09:39 am
|
||
Fruntas Group: Banned Posts: 66 Member No.: 193 Joined: January 13, 2004 |
Chris,
I will try to look up some detailed natioality data of France later when I have more time at had. In the mean time, read some excerpts of a paper by Dominique Breillat, University of Poitiers:
According to Encyclopedia Britannica (1982) France's (indeginous) nationality data: 80 000 Basque 500 000 Breton 260 000 Catalan 260 000 Corsican 90 000 Flemish 1 510 000 German (alsatian) 920 000 Occitan If you consider that Flemmish was once spoken in the whole northwest of France, roughly above the Abbeville-Cambrai line, a region with millions and millions of inhabitants today, but only 90.000 Flemmish speakers remain. In many cases only the names of towns and villages remind of the ancestral language of the region's inhabitants: Domvast, Roubaix (Roebeke), Dunkerque (Duinkerken), Hazebrouck etc., while others have been Frenchised beyond recognition: Lille (Rijssel), Calais (Kalis), Arras (Atrecht), Cambrai (Kamerijk) etc. Then add the regions where traditionaly the other regional languages were spoken (also much larger than today), not much more than central France remains, which is indeed where French was exclusively spoken untill a few centuries ago. But I'll get back to you as soon as I have retrieved some more exact data. |
||
rcristi |
Posted: May 14, 2004 12:55 pm
|
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 47 Member No.: 177 Joined: January 03, 2004 |
Thx for your fast reply. That's quite an amazing accomplishment for the French (no pun intended). We should open a new thread for this.
Cheers Chris |
Chandernagore |
Posted: May 14, 2004 01:19 pm
|
||||
Locotenent colonel Group: Banned Posts: 818 Member No.: 106 Joined: September 22, 2003 |
I see absolutely nothing exceptional in this, considering the period of history. With a full blown revolution closing or running there were some more serious political priorities at work than teaching dialects. Priorities like creating a republic in the middle of an absolutist continent which required as strong a national unity as possible (God knows there was enough internal division without even bringing in language). late 18th /early 19th century was not the time of enlightened minority policies or successfull balkanization.
At the same time what language was allowed in the British empire and taught in the schools of London ? How many official languages / dialects did the Dutch allow for administrative/scholar purpose in 1800 ? Oh, and yes : I think that even today dialects should better be kept at community level. When I'm learning Dutch hard, I hate it when I can't understand a single word spoken in an obscure Flemish dialect and the guy makes no effort to communicate in his own official language.
Once...mmm....When ? "Once", Latin was spoken in the whole region. And "once" Frankish dominated. Are you suggesting that wherever "once" Dutch was spoken should remain that way until the end of times ? The swirling storms of history have battered the region many times. There is no point in displaying sick chauvinistic nostalgia for any one carefully choosen period.
I'm sure you can write off central France too if you dig far enough in your history book. Are you telling us that France, the US, Canada, Germany, Russia etc... should not exist because the concept of modern nation with a limited number of official languages is immoral to you ? |
||||
Najroda |
Posted: May 17, 2004 07:38 am
|
Fruntas Group: Banned Posts: 66 Member No.: 193 Joined: January 13, 2004 |
[quote]I see absolutely nothing exceptional in this, considering the period of history. With a full blown revolution closing or running there were some more serious political priorities at work than teaching dialects.[/quote]
Since when are Breton, Alsatian, Basque and Flemmish dialects of French? :?: [quote]Priorities like creating a republic in the middle of an absolutist continent which required as strong a national unity as possible (God knows there was enough internal division without even bringing in language). late 18th /early 19th century was not the time of enlightened minority policies or successfull balkanization.[/quote] I never said it was. However it seems that some people still glorify this modell in the 21st century, yet they condemn the same policy when it concerns their wester neighbour, in the 2nd half of the 19th century, under similar circumstances as you described. Talking about hipocricy... [quote]At the same time what language was allowed in the British empire and taught in the schools of London ?[/quote] Indeed, Britain wasn't a hair better when it comes to the right of it's indigenous nationalities. Your point is ... ? [quote]How many official languages / dialects did the Dutch allow for administrative/scholar purpose in 1800 ?[/quote] See above... A propos French has been an officially language for many years. The last Dutch law, written in French was only replaced by a modern, Dutch text only a few years ago (!) and the subscript of the Dutch coat of arms is "Je maintiendrai" (!!!) [quote]Oh, and yes : I think that even today dialects should better be kept at community level. When I'm learning Dutch hard, I hate it when I can't understand a single word spoken in an obscure Flemish dialect and the guy makes no effort to communicate in his own official language.[/quote] Thank you for your opinion on dialects. What a shame that I was talking about regional languages, not dialects. I will try to express myself more clearly in the future [quote][quote]If you consider that Flemmish was once spoken in the whole northwest of France[/quote] Once...mmm....When ?[/quote] In the period we are discussing right now. 2-3 centuries ago. [quote]"Once", Latin was spoken in the whole region. And "once" Frankish dominated. Are you suggesting that wherever "once" Dutch was spoken should remain that way until the end of times ? The swirling storms of history have battered the region many times. There is no point in displaying sick chauvinistic nostalgia for any one carefully choosen period.[/quote] I don't recall I claimed any of this. The sole reason why I brought up the French national state and it's denationalizing character, because some glorify it as an example to follow in the 21st century and condemn it at the same, when it comes to others... [quote][quote]Then add the regions where traditionaly the other regional languages were spoken (also much larger than today), not much more than central France remains[/quote] I'm sure you can write off central France too if you dig far enough in your history book. Are you telling us that France, the US, Canada, Germany, Russia etc... should not exist because the concept of modern nation with a limited number of official languages is immoral to you ?[/quote] Again, I didn't say any of this. These conclusions are yours. I only stated historical facts. I don't intend to say the following to attack you, but I have witnessed some schizophreny when it comes to your opinion on this subject. At one hand you are eagerly defending minority rights (especially Hungarian) in contemporary Romania, at the other hand you are quite chauvinistic about the French/Francophone culture in Belgium and France, which are (were, in the case of Belgium) equally repressive against all other cultures. I am just curious how you can balance such seemingly contradicting positions, no harm intended. Personally, I disaprove repressive nationalism equaly, no matter if it concerns France since 1798, Hungary between 1867 and 1918 or Romania after 1918. |
Chandernagore |
Posted: May 17, 2004 08:06 am
|
||||||||
Locotenent colonel Group: Banned Posts: 818 Member No.: 106 Joined: September 22, 2003 |
I don't know. Where do you get this idea ? Since when are those languages forbidden in France ?
That you're throwing stones at France that you could throw at anybody else.
Indeed. Sometimes you speak about official languages, sometimes regional languages and at times dialects, not always in a coherent manner. Hard to follow you. "Alsacian" is well considered a dialect.
Gooblygook. You're the one painting France with such a broad brush that you would be offending mother nature itself with it. Your choice of vocabulary ("repressive", "schizophreny") is so excessive that you cannot hide your anger under a veil of historical interest. |
||||||||
dragos |
Posted: May 17, 2004 08:16 am
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 2397 Member No.: 2 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
Enough of personal remarks and attacks to various nations. Topic is closed.
|
Pages: (5) « First ... 3 4 [5] |