Holland's Influence on English Language and Literature

[p. 55]

Part II Holland's Influence on the English Language

Chapter VII The Close Relationship Between the Dutch and the English Languages

According to the genealogy of the Indo-Germanic languages as given in our sketch in the second chapter of the first Part, the Dutch and the English languages are seen to he most closely related to each other. They are as closely related to each other as two sisters in the genealogy of a large family and more closely related than even Dutch and modern German. ‘Although the pronunciation may differ very much,’ says De Hoog, ‘there is a greater similarity in words between the English and the Dutch even than between the Dutch and the German.’¹ The vulgar idea that the Dutch language is pretty nearly the same as the German, and that English and Dutch differ much more than German and Dutch, is good enough for those people who know these languages only by conversation but it cannot find favor with better informed philologists. The philologist knows that in the early middle ages Dutch and English were

1 W. de Hoog, Studien, First edition, I, p. 63; Second edition, I, p. 153. This author does not hesitate to make the statement that ‘we may freely say that of all the foreign languages none has so much similarity with the Dutch as the English,’ I, 154.

[p. 56]

much more alike than at present; that therein lies the reason why missionaries from the British isles could make themselves understood very easily among the tribes of the Low Countries; that even the language of Chaucer still shows a surprising similarity to the Dutch, and that still in the year 1600 a man like the great historian Van Meteren, during the glorious time of the Netherlands, when England was far behind in civilization, could call the English language ‘only a broken Dutch.’¹

The reason, however, why this close relationship between the English and the Dutch is not observed at first sight, is not only the difference in pronunciation, but the difference in the way in which the words in both languages are written.

But the main difference between Dutch and English is in the arrangement of words, and in the use of prepositions and conjunctions.²

And last but not least, since the predominance of the French language in England during more than three hundred years, from 1066 till 1400, the English has been mixed with such an overwhelming element of French words, and French expressions, that this makes the similarity of the original and pure English, to the Dutch still more obscure to the common reader.

Nevertheless, to be convinced of the close relationship, says de Hoog,³ it may suffice to look through any dictionary to find a list of words like this:

Eng. anchor, Dutch anker; cf. ankle, enkel; apple, appel; ash, asch; beacon, baken; bean, boon; bear, beer; beard, baard; beast, beest; bed, bed; beech,

1 Van Meteren, Historie, I, 489.

2 De Hoog, Second edition, I, 175.

3 Ibid, First edition, I, 63. In his second edition the author gives this list only till the word ewe, supposing that everybody easily can make a similar list. This is certainly true, but most readers will not do it and yet will find an interest in looking through his list..

[p. 57]

beuk; begin, beginnen; bell, bel; bind, binden; bitter, bitter; bleat, blaten; blind, blind; block, blok; blood, bloed; blossom, bloesem; blue, blauw; bosom, boezem; bottom, bodem; break, breken; bread, brood; breast, borst; breed, broeden; bride, bruid; bridge, grug; bridle, breidel; bring, brengen; broad, breed; breadth, breedte; brother, broeder; brown, bruin; buckwheat, boekweit; busy, bezig; butter, boter; to clatter, klateren; clay, klei; clear, klaar; clock, klok; dance, dansen; daughter, dochter; dead, dood; deaf, doof; dear, duur; dearth, duurte; deed, daad; deep, diep; devil, duivel; dike, dijk; door, deur; dough, deeg; dove, duif; dream, droomen; drench, drenken; drink, drinken; earnest, ernstig; ear, oor; earth, aarde; eat, eten; east, oost; elm, olm; etch, etsen; evil, euvel; ewe, ooi; give, geven; glass, glas; grave, graf; great, groot; greet, groeten; green, groen; guess, gissen; guest, gast; hail, hagel; hair, haar; hammer, hamer; haste, haast; haven, haven; heap, hoop; hear, hooren; heart, hart; hedge, hegge; heed, hoede; heel, hiel; hell, hel; helm, helm; help, helpen; herring, haring; hide, huid; hind, hinde; hire, huren; honey, honig; hope, hoop; hot, heet; house, huis; howl, huilen; hunger, honger; kiss, kussen; knead, kneden; knee, knie; kneel, knielen; ladder, ladder; lade, laden; lamb, lam; lamp, lamp; land, land; lane, laan; last, leest; late, laat; lead, leiden; lead, lood; leak, lekken; light, licht; lisp, lispelen; little, luttel; live, leven; liver, lever; loan, leen; long, lang; length, lengte; loose, los; make, maken; market, markt; mew, meeuw; might, macht; mildew, meeldauw; mill, molen; monk, monnik; mouse, muis; mustard, mosterd; nail, nagel; naked, naakt; name, naam; neck, neck; need, nood; needle, naald; nettle, netel; night, nacht; nightingale, nachtegaal; north, noord; oven, oven; oak, eik; open, open; oyster, oester; plank, plank; plant, plant; plaster, pleister; plough, ploeg; prince, prins; quarter, kwartier; radish, radijs; raven, raaf; reckon, rekenen; reed, riet; rich, rijk; ring, ring; rose, roos; sand, zand; saw, zaag; singe, sengen; sink, zinken; sister, zuster; sit, zitten; sketch, schets; slave, slaaf; sluice, sluis; smear, smeren; smith, smid; snow, sneeuw;

[p. 58]

soap, zeep; sole, zool; son, zoon; soul, ziel; soup, soep; sour, zuur; south, zuid; spade, spade; spare, sparen, spear, speer; speed, spoed; split, splijten; spring, springen; spread, spreiden; sprout, spruiten; staff, staf; star, ster; starve, sterven; state, staat; still, stil; stink, stinken; stone, steen; storm, storm; strand, strand; straw, stroo; stream, stroom; street, straat; strive, streven; study, studie; swallow, zwaluw; swarm, zwerm; swear, zweren; sweat, zweten; swell, zwellen; swim, zwemmen; swine, zwijn; table, tafel; tame, tam; tea, thee; thank, bedanken; thing, ding; token, teeken; tongue, tong; tread, treden; tumble, tuimelen; wade, waden; wain, wagen; warm, warm; wash, wasschen; water, water; wax, wassen; wealth, weelde; weapon, wapen; weasel, wezel; weather, weder; weave, weven; week, week; weigh, wegen; weigh, gewicht; welcome, welkom; what, wat; wild, wild; will, wil; willow, wilg; woe, wee; wolf, wolf; wonder, wonder; work, work; world, wereld; worm, worm; wring, wringen.

Not only the resemblance of a great number of words, but a comparison of the English and Dutch grammars and of both with the Gothic, shows that the whole structure and foundation of English and Dutch are the same. The regularity with which differences in vowels and consonants occur between English and Dutch words, shows their original similarity, while the different way in which they are written today finds its cause in a difference of pronunciation. So great is this regularity that long since a great number of rules have been discovered according to which these differences in vowels and consonants have been brought about. Is a verb strong in its conjugation in Dutch, it is also strong in English; is it weak in Dutch, it is also weak in English. And for the philologist, who is able to separate all the foreign elements, and to discover the original language of the Saxons who crossed the Channel, later called Anglo-

[p. 59]

Saxons, and the language of the Saxons who remained on the Continent and mixed with other Low Germanic tribes like the Frisians and the Franks, and formed the Dutch nation - for the philologist who studies both languages in their growth through so many centuries, English and Dutch appear clearly to be two sisters in the great family of the Indo-Germanic languages. To explain this more elaborately would lead us too far away from the main idea of this work, and it may suffice for more particulars to refer to such books as those of W. Skeat and W. de Hoog.

But another question which really belongs here is this: How can two languages which in their origin are like two sisters of one family, have exerted so much influence one on the other as to furnish each other with many words, and with words, which really are not foreign words to both, but belong indeed to one of them and are borrowed by the other? How could the English people borrow words from the Dutch; words which are really Dutch and not borrowed by the Dutch themselves from French or German or from any other language, if we presume that both the English and the Dutch nations sprang from tribes which spoke the same dialects or languages? This question is answered in the best way when we hold for a moment to the comparison of the two sisters. If, in one and the same family, there are two sisters who have received a very different education, then, although they speak the same language, the one, who developed more rapidly and got a broader knowledge of many things, will at last have a much larger and richer vocabulary than the other who secured only a poor education and a very limited knowledge. In the same way it was possible that the Dutch, who during several centuries had a

[p. 60]

regular, a never interrupted, and splendid development, in accordance with it acquired a large vocabulary, while the English during the same time only followed from afar. On the contrary, when during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the English nation developed enormously, while the Dutch was declining, it is very probable that during this time the English will gain the supremacy, will develop a rich vocabulary, while the Dutch become the people that follow and borrow names and new words for new things which were introduced from England.