The first problems (1770s–1790s) .1 The linguistic questions

A more detailed explanation of the Nederduitsche Taalgebruiken was presented to the Maatschappij in 1775 (van de Bilt 2009: 217). Now that the lexicological and lexicographical discussions of the preceding years had materialised in a con-crete plan of action, a new and related ambition was defined, viz. het opmaken van eene volledige Grammatica der Nederlandsche Tale ‘the creation a complete grammar of the Dutch language’ (Taalkundige vragen 1775: 1). Members of the Maatschappij contributing to the collection of lexical items were supposed to also be aware of interesting grammatical features. In order to facilitate the selection and collection of grammatical items, the authors of the Ontwerp offered a detailed list of Taalkundige vragen ‘Linguistic questions’. The list comprised 121 questions on 16 folios, preceded by four preliminary questions, the first three of which are particularly relevant here. The 121 questions mainly addressed familiar topics in contemporary metalinguistic discourse, including notorious issues such as the su-perfluity of the ‘foreign’ graphemes <c>, <q> and <x> (questions 18, 28 and 33), the inflected forms of the verb worden ‘become’ (question 50), the declension of foreign,

i.e. Latin proper nouns in accordance with Latin case forms (question 75), and the distribution of als ‘as’ and dan ‘than’ in comparative constructions (question 119).

The first three preliminary questions are the following:

1. Which are the best Dutch writings, in which the linguistic conventions should be observed and from which they should be collected?

2. Can the spoken language, as used in the various regions of our fatherland, also be considered in the observation and collection of linguistic conventions? And if so, to what extent?

3. To what extent should the compilation of the language rules be informed by ancient, and to what extent by contemporary linguistic conventions? And to what extent should genetically related languages and common sense be taken into account?⁴

These questions signal an attitude to language and to language variation and change that is contrary to the inclusive approach advocated in the dictionary plans. The extent to which the spoken language, regional varieties and older forms should be considered is open for discussion. The first question indicates not only that the mode is crucial, but also that, within the written mode, some texts are preferable to others. As this is a text on grammar, this approach fits in well with contemporary metalinguistic discourse (Chapter 4), whereas it deviates from the lexicological and lexicographical approach that it emerged from.

The list with linguistic questions was fairly long. One consequence was that the Maatschappij never produced a coherent set of answers to the questions, al-though individual members made an effort to contribute to the answers (Bergman 1851–1852: 233). When Weiland published volume 1 of his dictionary in 1799, he added a lengthy introduction, with an overview of the orthography and morphol-ogy of Dutch. On the final page, Weiland said that to those who were familiar with the publications of the Maatschappij, it must have been clear that his introduction provided an answer to the linguistic questions (Weiland 1799: 196; cf. van de Bilt 2009: 217; see Section 7.4).

4.  

1. Welke zijn de beste Nederduitsche Schriften, waaruit de Taalgebruiken moeten waarge-nomen en opgezameld worden?

2. Kan de Spreektaal, in de onderscheiden streken van ons Vaderland, mede in aanmerking komen, in het waarnemen en opzamelen der Taalgebruiken? En zoo ja: in hoe verre?

3. In hoe verre moet men zich, in het opmaken der Taalregels, houden aan de Oude? in hoe verre aan de hedendaagsche Taalgebruiken? En in hoe verre moet men de verwantschapte Dialecten en de gezonde reden daarin te hulpe nemen? (Taalkundige vragen 1775: 2).

Another consequence may have been that the work on the dictionary slowed down. After all, the grammar project emanated from the dictionary project, and from a strictly procedural point of view, the grammar question had to be resolved before work on the dictionary could begin, as the grammar project was part of the concise Ontwerp of 1774. Furthermore, developing two such grand projects at the same time may in itself have delayed both projects. Some of these things can only be speculated about, though it should be kept in mind that the Beredeneerd plan (1773) had already questioned the feasibility of the dictionary project.

The combination of an inclusive approach to the lexicon and a potentially ex-clusive approach to grammar was maintained at the stage of the linguistic questions.

These wholly divergent attitudes to different parts of the language system would remain topical well into the nineteenth century (Section 7.6).

7.3.2 A new plan

Quite a few members of the Maatschappij sent in word lists, from 1774 well into the 1790s (Bergman 1851–1852: 233). After a few years of gathering data, in 1783, the Maatschappij installed another committee, primarily to report on the progress, a request that was repeated in 1785 (Bergman 1851–1852: 237–238). At the annual meeting of 1786, the report was presented to the Maatschappij, its main finding being that there were absolutely not enough excerpts yet to justify a preliminary publication (Bergman 1851–1852: 239). While work on the dictionary continued, important members of the Maatschappij and the committee in particular passed away (Bergman 1851–1852: 239–241). At the annual meeting of 1789, it was de-cided that a new committee should be formed that was to report on the progress of the dictionary project, and on the measures that should be taken to finally finish and publish the dictionary. Van den Berg, Kluit and Hinlópen were among the members of this new committee (Bergman 1851–1852: 241). Hinlópen was asked to write up a draft report (Bergman 1851–1852: 241–242). At the annual meeting of 1790, it became clear that Hinlópen had not produced a text. At the annual meeting of 1791, Hinlópen did present his report, which had been approved by the other members of the committee (Bergman 1851–1852: 242).

Hinlópen’s report, printed on 11 folio pages, was called Ontwerp tot het opstel-len en bewerken van een Nederduitsch omschryvend woordenboek (‘Plan for making and editing a Dutch descriptive dictionary’, 1791). Hinlópen confirmed the general goal and the principles of the new dictionary, outlined in the Beredeneerd plan and the Ontwerp, but paid more attention to the method required to turn the numer-ous excerpts and word lists into a dictionary (cf. Bergman 1851–1852: 243). The inclusive approach is endorsed at the beginning of this new plan, where reference is made to the previous plans:

Concerning the goal, we completely agree with the authors of that plan, and par-ticularly with Mr. A. van den Berg. It is absolutely certain, after all, that the spoken language is older than the written language; that the latter has become hardly anything other than a special dialect of the language; that we should shy away from modeling the language after this variety, which should itself be regulated in accordance with the language. But this is part of the grammar of the language rather than of its dictionary. This remark is of the utmost importance, however, to the extent that the affluence of the language should not be sought in the written language, nor in a certain region, much less so in a particular city nor among its most polite parts; instead, in the whole country, not excluding any hamlet, the words, expressions and sayings should be investigated closely, to find everything that can serve as material during the compilation of the dictionary.⁵

The dimensions of region and mode, in particular, are put forward as crucial ele-ments of the new dictionary.

As Hinlópen was requested to reflect upon the state of affairs, which had been steered by the previous plans, he also reflected upon the grammar. Hinlópen agreed that grammaticale waernemingen ‘grammatical observations’ were vital and should lead to a grammar of Dutch (Ontwerp 1791: 9). Interestingly, Hinlópen must have been aware of the tension implied by the inclusive approach to the lexicon, and the exclusive approach to grammar in normative discourse, which empirically tended to focus on literary writings of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, and theo-retically and descriptively relied on Latin and Greek grammar models. Hinlópen reconciled these wholly divergent attitudes to different parts of the language system, which had surfaced in the linguistic questions. His proposal did not involve the extension of the exclusive approach to the lexicon, which would be the solution in the nineteenth century (see Section 7.6). Instead, Hinlópen argued that the in-clusive approach should also be adopted in the case of grammar. He claimed that there were natural rules common to all languages, and that language use had led to different outcomes (Ontwerp 1791: 9). By implication, the traditional method of

5. “In het oogmerk zijn wy het volkomen eens met de opstellers van dat plan, en byzonder met den Heere A. van den Berg eens. Het is zeer zeker immers, dat de spreektale eeuwen ouder is dan de schrijftale; dat de laetste […] byna niets anders dan eene byzondere dialect van de tale geworden is; dat wel verre van de tale naer die spraekvorme te regelen, die spraekvorme door de tale zelf behoort geregeld te worden. Dan dit behoort meer tot de spraekkunst van de tale, dan tot derzelver woordenboek. In zoo verre echter is de opmerkinge van het uiterste aenbelang, dat men in opzichte van den rijkdom der tale, niet met de schrijftale, of de tale van ’t een of ander gewest, veel min van eenige stad, minder van het beschaefdste gedeelte derzelven, te rade gaen moet: maer door het gantsche land, geen gehuchtjen uitgezonderd, de woorden, spreekwyzen, uitsprake nader en nader na moet gaen, om alles op te zoeken, wat tot nadere bouwstoffe, onder het bewerken van het woordenboek, dienen kan” (Ontwerp 1791: 2).

describing the grammar of Dutch in classicist terms, with a strong focus on nominal and verbal inflection, was wrong (Ontwerp 1791: 9–10). He cried out: Hoe verkeerd is het dan de Nederduitsche tale naer die der Latynen en Grieken te willen buigen!

‘How wrong is it, then, to want to decline the Dutch language in accordance with the language of the Romans and the Greek!’ (Ontwerp 1791: 10). The conclusion of his brief reflection on the grammar of Dutch reads as the inclusive alternative of the dictionary plans:

We must move away completely from the track of our grammarians. We must deduce the grammar from our own languages, abandoning the grammars of other languages. We must not use as a basis the written language only, even less so the written language of a particular city, but the whole Dutch language everywhere where it is or has been spoken and written. Particularly from farmers a lot can be learnt.⁶

This revolutionary proposal did not materialise. Instead, new committees were installed by the Maatschappij, and again important members passed away, includ-ing Hinlópen in 1792 (Bergman 1851–1852: 243–246). Then, while it seemed the whole plan of a new dictionary was turning into a failure, Weiland announced at the annual meeting of 1796 that he intended to make a dictionary in accordance with the Beredeneerd plan, for which he wanted to obtain the materials already gathered by the Maatschappij (Bergman 1851–1852: 246–247). The Maatschappij happily granted this request (Bergman 1851–1852: 247).