Hi Jeffrey Well that explanation of yours makes the reasons for why some of the ancestors put Dutch or German in the census when asked about their nationality, or origins... It is odd however, in the context of most of those I have identified having descended from William who had been dead since 1659 ! There must have been some word of mouth or family lore.... or more likely perhaps the kind of story that led to the great Chase/Townley estate landholdings scam that had so many of them all excited. Thanks for the background . Derek ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Chace" <j.b.chace@gmail.com> To: <CHASE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [CHASE-L] German Dutch conundrum > Hello Derek, > Having lived in the Netherlands for the last 8 years, I can assure you > that > there are indeed "Dutch" people. However, the word "Dutch," as is > correctly > stated in the excerpt you posted, is a bastardization of the word > "Deutsch" > meaning German. But, the "Dutch" (people from the Netherlands) don't refer > to themselves as Dutch but rather as "Nederlanders" or sometimes as > "Hollanders" even though Holland, made up of the two provinces of North > and > South Holland, is merely one part of the Netherlands. > While the claim made in the article accusing Anglo-Saxon peoples of being > less linguistically adept than others may be a fair statement today with > the > virtual dominance of English as the premier world language, at the time of > Peter Stuyvesant this was certainly not the case. As with any trading > nation > of people, which the English certainly were, the knowledge of other > languages and being able to speak them was of paramount importance. > Moreover, William the Conquerer was a French speaker and the official > legal > language of the courts of England was French until 1732. Additionally (and > very interesting in the context of our subject matter, the "Dutch,"), > William III, the King of England from 1689-1702, was a Dutchman and was > the > Prince of Holland known as William of Orange. > There were also many Nederlanders from Flanders (also known as the > Flemish) > who fled the harsh rule of Duke Alva of Spain in the 16th century and > emigrated to Colchester, England, and they were referred to even then as > the > "Dutch." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word "Dutch" as > incorporating all Germanic peoples or languages from the main continent of > Europe (excluding Scandanavia which is also Germanic). > Main Entry: *2Dutch* > Function: *noun* > *1 a* *archaic* (1) *:* any of the Germanic languages of Germany, Austria, > Switzerland, and the Low Countries (2) *: GERMAN > <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/german+>*3 *b* *:* the Germanic language of > the Netherlands > *2* *Dutch* *plural* *a* *archaic* *:* the Germanic peoples of Germany, > Austria, Switzerland, and the Low Countries *b* *: GERMANS > <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/germans+>*2a, b *c* *:* the people of the > Netherlands. > Furthermore, I would like to comment on a comment in the rest of the > article from which you posted the excerpt. The writer claims that Germanic > languages are "not the medium of communication suited to love, romance or > mysticism" and uses as his example the word for "butterfly" as proof. > However, the word for butterfly in Dutch is "vlinder" (pronounced > "flinder" > which a short "i" as in "hinder") which I find to be at least as > melifluous > as the French "papillon." > Also, I find it quite interesting that the author of this article does not > seem to realize that English itself is a Germanic language. So, I wouldn't > put too much stock in what he has written about the Dutch. > Cheers, > Jeffrey