Form: Mini Essay

Dutch and English are the closest of the west germanic languages. This is why it’s almost as difficult to tell the difference between some dutch and english genes as it is northern french and english genes. Dutch and English culture are similar in that it’s the pairing of the Dutch and English merchants across the channel-north sea that created the financial and commercial revolutions.

Additionally 93-95% of the Dutch population speaks English, so their tempo and intonation remains dutch. (and their education system is better than ours).

That said you’re likely detecting a flatter response.

So, yes, there are notable differences in speech rhythm between English and Dutch speakers. These differences can be attributed to several factors, including the structure of the languages, the placement of stress in words and sentences, and the use of intonation.

1. Syllable-timing vs. Stress-timing: Languages are often categorized as being syllable-timed or stress-timed. In syllable-timed languages, syllables tend to take up roughly equal amounts of time, whereas in stress-timed languages, the time between stressed syllables tends to be equal, making unstressed syllables shorter. Dutch is often classified as more syllable-timed, while English is typically considered stress-timed. However, this is a simplification, and the rhythm of a language can fall on a continuum between these two categories.

2. Stress Placement: English has variable stress, meaning that stress can fall on any syllable in a word, and this stress is crucial for understanding. Dutch, on the other hand, has more fixed stress patterns, typically on the first syllable of a word, and stress plays a less significant role in distinguishing word meanings.

3. Intonation: English and Dutch also differ in their use of intonation, or the melody of speech. English often uses a wider pitch range and more varied intonation patterns, while Dutch intonation might seem flatter to an English speaker’s ear.

4. Vowel Reduction: English frequently uses reduced, or “schwa,” vowels in unstressed syllables, contributing to its characteristic rhythm. Dutch also uses schwa vowels, but not as frequently as English.

These differences can affect the perceived rhythm when speakers of these languages talk. However, individual speaking styles, regional accents, and other factors can also influence speech rhythm.

Sources:

Goedemans, R., & van Zanten, E. (2007). Stress and accent in Indonesian. In V. J. van Heuven & E. van Zanten (Eds.), Prosody in Indonesian languages (pp. 35-62). LOT.
Grabe, E., & Low, E. L. (2002). Durational variability in speech and the rhythm class hypothesis. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 515-546). Mouton de Gruyter.

Reply addressees: @antigg860413

RACIAL REALITIES
Skin color will only not matter when skin color no longer matters. Skin color will no longer matter when race and ethnic differences no longer matter. We will only get to when race and ethnic differences no longer matter when kin preference no longer matters or exists. We will only get to a place where kin preference no longer matters when we are no longer marginally different in group properties affinities and utility. We will only get to the the place where group properties affinities and utility are no longer marginally different when we groups are marginally indiffierent in evolutionary neoteny, resulting domesticatin syndrome, in resulting rate and depth of maturity, and as such mirror one another’s personality and IQ distributions. That will only occur if we are all indistinguishably an admixture of white and east asian, with south eurasian (MENA+Central Asia+India) and african gene pools have been diluted out of gene expression.

Otherwise racially netural behavior except in cooperation between the upper classes is irrational and disadvantageous and devolutionary both politically and genetically. Interpersonal racisim is irrational (stupid really). But so is political anti-racism. Because we are always and everywhere dependent upon the ingroup because that is the greatest discount on cooperation. We can be anti-racist in markets. We can be anti-racist in personal interactions. We cannot be anti-racist in politics. And we never will be. Ever. And it’s a supernatural religous fraud to claim so.

There is no difference between this law of the universe and any other. If you don’t believe so you don’t grasp the first principle of the universe, and it’s expression at the physical, biological, social, and individual levels as the defeat of entropy by evolutionary computation of the greatest capture and transfer of entropy into order, and that order among humans is dependent upon neotenic evolution, which produces agency over impulse, and that the four generations (races, species) of man, are incremental leaps in neotenic evolution. Period. End of story.

Love one another. But do not lie to one another. DIversity is exceptional in creating markets between polities. But polities are as important as households, and the left is trying to destroy both just as the abrahamic religions tried to destroy politics, reason, and empiricism, and the western tradition of truth-before-face.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation/

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES CAN BE SOLVED
It’s easy to misunderstand my purpose when criticizing other cultures (I certainly criticize my own): it’s largely to point out that metaphysical (implied but unstated) cultural differences are anchored in ancient (very) group strategies, and that these differences produce different understandings of the world – so that cultures that deviate from the natural law are not aware that what they perceive as good (and might have been three to five thousand years ago) was only the best they could do, and no good then and certainly not now.

Do you think Yuval Harari has the intention to spread harm by his nonsense-history? Stephen J Gould in his denial of human differences? Freud and Boaz just ‘making it up’? Did Cantor, Bohr, and Einstein know that they were including pseudoscience? What about Ian McGilchrist trying to ‘fit’ Christianity into his neuro science? No. We all carry cultural logics with us and we are often

stuck with them until trained out of them.

Why? Because all logical consistency is eventually processed by our intuition. So we must train or re-train our intuition to correspond to the physical, natural, evolutionary, and formal laws. This is why some cultures produce no science, some pseudoscience, and some (very rarely) science.

Because what is science other than testimony to consistency with the four sets of laws of nature?

What if you’re wrong about the laws of nature? What if your culture is wrong about what’s ‘good’?