Nevertheless, it’s OK for languages to call things (in this case a country) something that doesn’t make sense in another language, even the native language, isn’t it? I think the Netherlands/Holland thing in English has a touch of snobbery about it. We seem to be OK with calling Deutschland ‘Germany’ or ‘yr Almaen’, neither of which are remotely what the natives would call it.
2 Likes
yr ydwyf galloise
1 Like
A quick search gave me this … https://www.holland.com/global/tourism/information/netherlands-vs-holland.htm
I get what you’re saying but this seems to be two different things hence the different name.
1 Like
I like the symmetry of Iseldiroedd / IJsselmeer, myself…
1 Like
It is a bit like referring to the UK as England. Holland is two provinces (North and South Holland) out of a total of twelve
4 Likes
Ouch! I will never even remember the days of picture books with ‘Holland’ represented by a little girl in clogs wearing an apron and white hat! Naughty publisher of misinformation! Thank you very much for the truth at last!
1 Like
That’s my frustration with some (not @gruntius) is that people oppose Englishism but don’t realise “braf” is an Englishism, for example.
And trio is 400 years old
2 Likes
People say downio where I am for Machlud and that goes back to the 15th century, before the start of modern English!
1 Like
Where I see people being “lazy” is hearing them saying things like “dwi’n mynd i town i brynu meat o’r butcher’s.” That may be an extreme example but it happens.
1 Like
I do get what you mean. That is lazy.
On the whole I tend to hear most Englishism in a way that adds something (I’m not sure what it is) but things like “blwmin” - they don’t tend to be talking about flowers. Or exciting (not sure how to spell it phonetically in Welsh). I tend to hear cyffrous in sentences and then maybe “exciting” in response. Like,
“mae Rhieni yn dod i fyny ac maen nhw’n dod â’r ci newydd”
“exciting!”
Whereas;
sut oedd y gêm?
Oedd hi’n gyffrous iawn!
In those situations I don’t mind as much. “Dwi’n mynd i town” is frustrating though
2 Likes
As I’ve just said in my reply to Geraint in my “snaciau” thread in the Speaking Practice, it’s not really a right or wrong. If, like I do, you live in Wales and want to speak to people locally, if you speak too correctly, you may find that they don’t like chatting with you because you sound too “posh”. In that case you need to use the sort of words they use – within reason! – even I draw the line at “i’r town”!
Ideally you need to know both the formal “correct” vocabulary and the words used in colloquial Welsh and then you can use the correct register to suit the occasion. I mean, in your native language you’re not likely to use the same way of speaking everywhere. You don’t normally speak to your boss or a visiting dignitary in the same way you would speak to your mate down the pub. 
4 Likes
Someone said to me today that there favourite Welsh phrase was ‘Mae’n boncyrs’
2 Likes
It may be (as Rob Bruce implied) that, in England, common usage is Holland instead of The Netherlands. Even in Nederland itself you hear Holland used, mainly by Hollanders (a pejorative term in my area of The Netherlands 
)
1 Like
I saw “bali niwsans” somewhere – I think it was Bethan Gwanas writing in Golwg – and I’m afraid I thought it was delightful. Apologies to everyone who doesn’t!
1 Like
“Alota” without the “o” following, seems to be in fairly common use now. It feels more American English than British English, though.
1 Like
“Getting” seems to have inexorably crept into use in English conversation, again, more American than British.
I blame the T.V.
2 Likes
My pump ceiniog on the subject of anglicisms in Welsh:
On principle I certainly think that the claim of “laziness” for using an English word, when there is a perfectly good Welsh word, is rather strong. On the other hand, I suspect that crossing of vocabulary from one language to another is almost universal. And my key word here is “vocabulary”. It seems to me that language structures (grammar, syntax, etc.) do not change as a result of the language’s vocab being invaded by outsiders. And language is characterised by structure as much as by vocabulary. My point is that a language will not be weakened when it adopts foreign words. And all languages of course are highly dynamic.
I see the same phenomenon here in Israel, where modern Hebrew has absorbed a huge amount of English words where perfectly nice Hebrew equivalents already exist. But the grammar of the language is not at all influenced by this.
And a far more familiar example should be English. English is a Germanic language. It has adopted vast numbers of French words since the Norman invasion, evolved for hundreds of years whilst taking many, many more foreign words aboard, yet it retains a Germanic structure to this day. It could adopt ten times as many French words as it already has, yet it would be immediately recognisable as English and nothing else.
So yes, I think it’s good to try and stick to ‘pure’ Welsh vocabulary, and I certainly prefer, say, ‘hoffi’ to ‘licio’. But I’d have a heck of a hard time convincing myself that ‘licio’, ‘trio’ and so many other words aren’t actually pure contemporary Welsh. So good luck @gruntius, I do tend to agree with you here somewhat; just thought I’d look at the question from a different angle.
4 Likes
Although this and “gyrru” and “dreifio” do actually have a subtle difference.
Hoff is - fond, favourite and has quote strong connotations.
Licio - is more of a like.
Granted, in popular speech they’ve become interchangeable, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a subtle difference to the ear.
Gyrru - to drive, think about the history of driving stuff - was cattle or animal driven.
Dreifio - you can steer this one.
Not perfect definition because I’m not a linguist, but hopefully you get my drift.
Geraint’s example of “mynd i town” is a better example than the complexities of “stuff that sounds a bit English”.
Licio
Trio
Dreifio
They’re all at least 100 years old and two of them more than 400 years old.
3 Likes
and trio quite possibly of French origin…
3 Likes
I like this thread. The real danger to a language (whatever that means) is a loss of continuity in its community, that is to say, if the number of native learners (small children learning from their parents and community) becomes too small in relation to non-native learners (everyone else). If that happens, characteristic complexities in a language disappear, and the language loses its character, and what develops is a creole (some say that this has happened in Modern English). Does it matter? Who knows.
5 Likes