4 ms·

like his mentioning 'Lord of the Netherlands' vs 'de Nederlanden/Nederland But Lord of the Netherlands was exactly the title used by Charles V in those days ("

by tremon 4y ago

like his mentioning 'Lord of the Netherlands' vs 'de Nederlanden/Nederland But Lord of the Netherlands was exactly the title used by Charles V in those days ("Landsheer van de Nederlanden"), and "de Nederlanden" was the customary name to refer to the region. What is it exactly that feels off to you? And the description of the Dutch Republic as "loosely modern Holland" seems placed to contrast it with the Flanders and Luxembourg areas -- it doesn't feel tone-deaf to me, other than that "Holland" itself in an antiquated term, but I'd think it permissible given that it's used in the context of the Dutch Golden Age (which is where that name gained prominence).

roel_v 4y ago
I guess my point on that was 'Landsheer van de Nederlanden' should today not be summarily translated as 'Lord of the Netherlands' since 'the Netherlands' has a current meaning, as opposed to in Dutch, where 'de Nederlanden' and 'Nederland' are immediately and obviously referring to political entities at different points in time, and with somewhat overlapping but still significantly different areas. Then again, I do know that Emperor Charles is referred to as 'Lord of the Netherlands' in English language history books, and I wouldn't easily know how to do it differently, but somehow there it's always more... padded in context? Likewise (although it may be the same issue underneath...), equating the area of the Dutch Republic with modern-day Netherlands (which I assume he's referring to but didn't want to use that because of confusion with the previous point?) is... rather simplistic. I mean, I guess it's something someone who's never left the Randstand wouldn't think twice about, but that doesn't make it true. But as I said, it's not like there are any factual errors I could find, and in any other writing I would have easily understood how difficult it is to convey all that nuance in a piece like this where, frankly, that nuance doesn't even matter. It's just that the combination of subtexts made the whole thing feel weird. To me. Maybe it didn't to you.
- jorgen123 4y ago
  I would agree with you. In the first sentence the writer puts Breda in southern Holland in stead of in Brabant. That is just wrong to somebody from Brabant. This is something that I think most people recognize when they see journalism about a subject they know much about. Journalism often seems really limited and dumbed down when you know a subject and the journalistic piece is short. But then when you don't know a subject, it seems really good and valuable and you learn a lot (ignoring that it must seem dumbed down to somebody else).

by tremon 4y ago

roel_v 4y ago

I guess my point on that was 'Landsheer van de Nederlanden' should today not be summarily translated as 'Lord of the Netherlands' since 'the Netherlands' has a current meaning, as opposed to in Dutch, where 'de Nederlanden' and 'Nederland' are immediately and obviously referring to political entities at different points in time, and with somewhat overlapping but still significantly different areas. Then again, I do know that Emperor Charles is referred to as 'Lord of the Netherlands' in English language history books, and I wouldn't easily know how to do it differently, but somehow there it's always more... padded in context? Likewise (although it may be the same issue underneath...), equating the area of the Dutch Republic with modern-day Netherlands (which I assume he's referring to but didn't want to use that because of confusion with the previous point?) is... rather simplistic. I mean, I guess it's something someone who's never left the Randstand wouldn't think twice about, but that doesn't make it true. But as I said, it's not like there are any factual errors I could find, and in any other writing I would have easily understood how difficult it is to convey all that nuance in a piece like this where, frankly, that nuance doesn't even matter. It's just that the combination of subtexts made the whole thing feel weird. To me. Maybe it didn't to you.

jorgen123 4y ago
I would agree with you. In the first sentence the writer puts Breda in southern Holland in stead of in Brabant. That is just wrong to somebody from Brabant. This is something that I think most people recognize when they see journalism about a subject they know much about. Journalism often seems really limited and dumbed down when you know a subject and the journalistic piece is short. But then when you don't know a subject, it seems really good and valuable and you learn a lot (ignoring that it must seem dumbed down to somebody else).