submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 202 points 2 years ago (4 children)

It's Afrikaans, not Dutch. It's close though. We can understand written Afrikaans.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    For non-speakers, it's kind of like reading Scots as a monolingual English speaker. https://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_leid

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Did they ever fix the issue that an American teen used a hilariously bad interpretation of the Scots language to write thousands of articles on the Scots wiki?

    https://slate.com/technology/2020/09/scots-wikipedia-language-american-teenager.html

    https://old.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/ig9jia/ive_discovered_that_almost_every_single_article/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago*

    Only partially, unfortunately. There aren't a lot of people who speak full on Scots, the majority of Scotland speaks a dialect of English with a handful of Scots vocabulary now. It's an endangered language.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That explains the neutral tone. It's something important far away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Also that newspaper is called "The Fatherland".

    It's a pretty good hint of where they stand in the whole Left-Right political spectrum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Which is super weird in it self. I mean, do South African white people call their colonist nation their "Fatherland"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    FYI- South Africa is kind of unique in that it was settled by a ruling class as opposed to the normal dregs like most other places.

    The maintained their close relationship to home and superior status to their slaves/servants much longer than other places.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Well, the Union of South Africa were participants in the war against Germany, so that's still a bit weird. Don't know about the affiliation of the magazine in question, but the support for joining the allies wasn't clear cut, but only a narrow majority among the ruling white class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    There was a strong pro-Nazi contingent amongst (mainly) Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. That's not to say by any stretch that Afrikaners were mostly pro-Nazi, though. Jan Smuts was an Afrikaner and was both a Field Marshal in the South African defence forces and the prime minister during WW2 - he wasn't exactly pro-British (he fought against them in the second Boer war), but he was very strongly anti-Nazi.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Would you translate the bold text below the subtitles?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Alright this is what I understand as a dutchie

    Hitler is dead and Dönitz is now the leader in Germany, a British newspaper writes today: "Never before in history has the perspective of peace been so ?? made a possibility of the long war"

    The sentence structure is pretty confusing to me and I don't know some words

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago*

    Crude translation, trying to keep the word order the same.

    Hitler's death and Dönitz 's acceptance of rule in Germany led a British paper to write: "Never before in the history has the prospect of peace so suddenly changed to the possibility of a protracted war."

  • source
  • parent