• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread

Page 600 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Should we change the thread title?


  • Total voters
    117
Flemish people are in general better English speakers than Walloons, because Dutch is more related to it than French. And we suffer less from the accent. Also, Flemish people younger than, let's say 60 years, became better in English than French, due to a shift in pop cultural habits (TV, music, etc ...) and in more recent generations the influence of the world wide web. In a way, the same goes for Walloon people with English compared to Dutch.

Remco is a native Dutch speaker. He is very fluent in French because of living close to Brussels and playing football at Anderlecht, and fluent in English because it's a normal thing for a Flemish person nowadays. And of course, he's a pro athlete working with international people, that helps too. He probably knows some Spanish from living and training there, and will understand some German and Italian as well.
I don't think that's quite accurate. Dutch is not closer to English than French. The reason why we generally are better at English is because our language footprint is so small. Other than the Dutch (from the Netherlands), nobody in Europe speaks Dutch. Movies get subtitled, not overdubbed, simply because the market is too small. Most movies/series on TV are in English, so ever since we are small, we are exposed to the English language much more. In Wallonia and other French speaking parts, they simply get the French overdubbed movies and series. It's mainly a question of economics. It wasn't worth the trouble to hire actors to dub every movie and serie on TV, because Netherlands+Flanders is simply too small.
Furthermore, due to the same reason (small market), there is less money to make original content in our own language, and again our TV networks are forced to buy (mainly English) content to show on TV. The main exception has usually been childrens movies (like Disney etc).

Wallonia also gets a plethora of talkshows from French networks, but also a lot of other cultural influences, like French music. For us, considering the Netherlands is a much smaller country than France, that also is much less so.

And, when we visit another country, people there don't speak Dutch. They usually understand English or French. So the French speaking part, needs to resort to another language far less yet again, than Dutch speakers.
Well, since both Dutch and English are Germanic languages, they are much more related than French (which derives from Latin). So I find it sincerely weird that you deny them being closer. Although every European language is influenced by one another, of course.

Other than that, the points you make are valid and complement what I said about our habits.

It's an interesting case either way. I'm happy to have a certain feeling for multiple languages. Which is probably the upside of speaking a Western-European but small-based language like Dutch, and as a Flemish person having more Roman influences than a Dutchman.
 
It is. Anyone with a basic knowledge of linguistics can tell you this. It's not the main reason why Dutch speakers are better at English than Francophones though, you're right about that.
While English is seen as a German language, English is considered a bridge language between roman and german languages. About 60% of it's vocabulary heralds from French and Latin.
 
While English is seen as a German language, English is considered a bridge language between roman and german languages. About 60% of it's vocabulary heralds from French and Latin.

054162df3ffefbc00b6701e67650ad847de919-v5.jpg
 
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: SHAD0W93 and noob
I think this is from Britanica:


In the Middle Ages the language was called Dietsc, or Duutsc, historically equivalent to German Deutsch and meaning simply “language of the people,” as contrasted with Latin, which was the language of religion and learning. The form Duutsc was borrowed into English and gives modern “Dutch.” The official name of the language is Nederlands, or Netherlandic. In the Netherlands it is also called Hollands (Hollandish), reflecting the fact that the standard language is based largely on the dialect of the old province of Holland (now North Holland and South Holland).


The spoken language exists in a great many varieties. Standard Dutch (Standaardnederlands or Algemeen Nederlands) is used for public and official purposes, including instruction in schools and universities. A wide variety of local dialects are used in informal situations, such as among family, friends, and others from the same village (these exist in far more variety than does the English of North America). Standard Dutch is characterized grammatically by the loss of case endings in the noun.


In Belgium efforts were made to give Dutch equal status with French, which had assumed cultural predominance during the period of French rule (1795–1814). In 1938 Dutch was made the sole official language of the northern part of Belgium.


The use of Standard Dutch together with the local dialect is much more widespread among the people of the Netherlands than it is in Belgium. The dialects of the area bounded roughly by Amsterdam, The Hague, and Rotterdam are closer to Standard Dutch than are those of the other dialect areas.

Go Remco Go!!!...for the integrity of the thread
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Wvv and Sandisfan
Yes, I was born and grew up in the heart of Brussels. Plus in the schools English was just becoming a very interesting idea, but was not taught (at least not in my school). I had previously already learned English but not Flemish or more precisely Dutch. But you're right, Remco probably defends himself in Spanish as well...not sure about German.

Maybe he uses Brusseleir?
 
  • Love
Reactions: Andre
While English is seen as a German language, English is considered a bridge language between roman and german languages. About 60% of it's vocabulary heralds from French and Latin.
That's mostly because English has a huge vocabulary. Lots of words that were once used by Shakespeare and never again, and lots of scientific or biological terms, most of which were borrowed from French or Latin. But if we're talking about the actual grammar and structure of the language, and about function words that you use in everyday speech, English is a Germanic language... like Dutch.

In other words, the English that is used by Remco Evenepoel is closer to Dutch than to French :)
 
That's mostly because English has a huge vocabulary. Lots of words that were once used by Shakespeare and never again, and lots of scientific or biological terms, most of which were borrowed from French or Latin. But if we're talking about the actual grammar and structure of the language, and about function words that you use in everyday speech, English is a Germanic language... like Dutch.

In other words, the English that is used by Remco Evenepoel is closer to Dutch than to French :)
Again, it is not. In terms of understanding a language, in terms of being able to communicate, vocabulary is much more important than being able to use correct grammar. And that common vocabulary is definitely not obsolete as you claim. In fact, let's use that previous sentence as an example. The words "terms, language, communicate, important, correct, grammar" are all quite similar in both English and French. Disproving your claim.

Me go store buy bread. Although that sentence is grammatically wrong it makes your head spin, it is perfectly understandable. If however you lack the vocabulary, but are able use correct grammar, you will be able to make beautiful sentences but nobody will know what you mean. You might be able to say: "I need to go to the barbershop to deliver my child". But nobody will understand you need to go to the store to buy bread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Again, it is not. In terms of understanding a language, in terms of being able to communicate, vocabulary is much more important than being able to use correct grammar. And that common vocabulary is definitely not obsolete as you claim. In fact, let's use that previous sentence as an example. The words "terms, language, communicate, important, correct, grammar" are all quite similar in both English and French. Disproving your claim.
Wouldn't necessarily agree, I think your argument is a bit too simplistic.

A good exploration of the topic is presented in a video by Langfocus, for those interested:

View: https://youtu.be/2OynrY8JCDM
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
What this thread needs is more pointless arguments. Great stuff.

This the thread's 600th page so it gets it own special guest topic. This time it's Remo's linguistic skills and perhaps on the 700th page we'll analyse how much of his childhood diet was influenced by traditional Flandrian or Wallonian dishes and what effect that each has on a rider's performance. Here's to 100 more.
 
Again, it is not. In terms of understanding a language, in terms of being able to communicate, vocabulary is much more important than being able to use correct grammar. And that common vocabulary is definitely not obsolete as you claim. In fact, let's use that previous sentence as an example. The words "terms, language, communicate, important, correct, grammar" are all quite similar in both English and French. Disproving your claim.

Me go store buy bread. Although that sentence is grammatically wrong it makes your head spin, it is perfectly understandable. If however you lack the vocabulary, but are able use correct grammar, you will be able to make beautiful sentences but nobody will know what you mean. You might be able to say: "I need to go to the barbershop to deliver my child". But nobody will understand you need to go to the store to buy bread.
Look, it's all perfectly fine you want to contradict the entire scientific field of linguistics, but it's also funny if you then produce the most basic sentence you could come up with, 'me go store buy bread', without noticing the irony that it's a sentence containing no French or Latin words. That's the point: the basics of English are Germanic. Everything ornamental tends to be French or Latin. What's so difficult to understand about that?
 
Bet the 2023 Tour will have more minutes of ITT than the Vuelta Evenepoel won. Realistically I think the mountain stages of the 2023 Tour are actually better for him than those in most Tours. The Tour also hasn't had more than 60km of ITT since 2013, and only has had it twice since 2008.

I can only think of one Tour catering to a foreign rider and noone wants to see a 2012 route again.
2012: Guy in the stands shouts: "Steffi, will you marry me?" - Steffi: "how much money do you have?" And the guy named Sky had money...
 
If Evenepoel manages to win the Giro and do well in Liège there is a possibility of him having a current CQ score of over 4000 points which I believe would be a first.
He would need 1098 points from the Ardennes + Giro.
Probably the most realistic shot I have seen yet too. Note that Remco got 1020 points from last years' Vuelta.
(Of course he would probably immediately dip below 4000 after losing his 257 points from Tour of Norway but still)

Pogacar can theoretically reach 4000 after the Ardennes as well but he would need to pretty much win Dwars Door Vlaanderen, Ronde van Vlaanderen, Flèche Wallonne and Liège-Bastogne-Liège.
 
Last edited: