schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
I suppose there's something to be said for courage in one's convictions.
This is why you don't go down the rabbit hole. Nothing beneficial ever comes about as a result of this line of dialogue. For either party.
I suppose there's something to be said for courage in one's convictions.
(...) Anna Bijns (c. 1494–1575) is an important figure who wrote in modern Dutch. The Reformation appeared in Dutch literature in a collection of Psalm translations in 1540 and in a 1566 New Testament translation in Dutch. The best-known of all Dutch writers is the Catholic playwright and poet Joost van den Vondel (1587–1679).
(...)
Before the 17th century, there was no unified standard language
1500–present Modern Dutch (Saw the creation of the Dutch standard language and includes contemporary Dutch)
Standard German originated not as a traditional dialect of a specific region, but as a written language, developed over a process of several hundred years, in which writers tried to write in a way that was understood in the largest area. Until about 1800, Standard German was almost entirely a written language. In this time, people in Northern Germany, who mainly spoke Low Saxon dialects very different from Standard German, learned it as a foreign language. However, later the Northern pronunciation (of Standard German) was considered standard and spread southward; in some regions (such as around Hanover) the local dialect has completely died out with the exception of small communities of Low German speakers. It is thus the spread of Standard German as a language taught at school that defines the German Sprachraum, i.e. a political decision rather than a direct consequence of dialect geography, allowing areas with dialects of very limited mutual comprehensibility to participate in the same cultural sphere
For the record, the answer to this question is "yes". Sometimes within a single poem. His work is kinda weird like that.In the same vein, did Burns write in English, a different language called Scots, or a dialect called Scots which is still part of the English language?
Traitorfish said:Yiddish-speaking Jews?
In Lviv, according to the Austrian census of 1910, which listed religion and language, 51% of the city's population were Roman Catholics, 28% Jews, and 19% belonged to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Linguistically, 86% of the city's population used the Polish language and 11% preferred the Ukrainian language.
Umgangssprache, die
1. (Sprachwissenschaft) Sprache, die im täglichen Umgang mit anderen Menschen verwendet wird; nicht der Standardsprache entsprechende, aber weitgehend akzeptierte, meist gesprochene überregionale Sprache
For the record, the answer to this question is "yes". Sometimes within a single poem. His work is kinda weird like that.
(...) War against the Aztec or Inca was, however quite limited. The other native societies offered more resistance. The Maya had no central government which if taken would lead to a total surrender as happened in Mexico or Peru. They had to be taken a village at a time. They were subdued by 1697.
Even minor civilizations were problematic: for instance, the Mapuche in Chile. They engaged the Spaniards and, in 1536, just after they arrived, torching the recently founded town of Santiago (which nowadays is the capital city of Chile). The Spaniards held firmly on and pushed the Mapuche south, into the Chilean Lake District. War raged on for years but the Spaniards managed to settle the Lake District in the 1560s, after defeating the native chief Caupolicán (1558) and impaling him.
The Araucanian or Arauco wars simmered on and the towns of Villarica, Osorno, Angol, La Imperial, were razed in 1598. The Spanish government retreated north and consolidated their frontier along the Bío Bío River. Native raids and uprisings led to a negotiation in the mid 1640s which concluded in an uneasy truce that lasted from 1665 to the 1860s.
Read Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies by Jared Diamond. It presents a very compelling explanation IMO for why the Native Americans of North America and the peoples of the Americas as a whole did not advance as quickly as the people of Eurasia and much of Africa.
What Native Americans are proposed in the original post? The Native Americans of the current lands of the USA were comprised of 10,000 tribes. Do you mean all of the Americans i.e. all of South America, Canada, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean?
Making a generic statement like the original post is rather like a blanket statement, "Why didn't the Africans produce more technology?" It's a silly incomprehensible statement. Surely the OP didn't mean that?
Some of the achievments early on in places within the Mayan culture or in Cahokia are rather spectacular when considering other places in Western Europe in those same time periods that seem backwards by comparison.
Why not try again and narrow it down some?
Would Cahokia really make Western Europe at the time seem backwards?
Tenochtitlan supposedly was larger than European cities of its day, possibly the equal of the Chinese cities."A big population" is more than it sounds like, though. It implies a complex social and economic structure which you couldn't achieve simply by piling nomadic bands into one place.
Considering many population estimates in Mesoamerica are gradually/continually considered to be higher than initial estimates as archaeologists and time do their work, it wouldn't surprise me if Mesoamerica was once more densely populated than China.