# Holland / Netherland [Netherlands]



## paddycarol

I got quite confused when referring to this country. I just wonder which word I should use, *Holland *or *Netherland*. Or is there any difference?


----------



## Dimcl

That is an excellent question, paddycarol, and one I've often wondered about myself.  When I send a letter to my friend who lives there, I address the envelope to "the Netherlands" but I still refer to it as "Holland".   Sorry I can't answer your question but I'm hoping someone else jumps in and clarifies this long-standing question in my mind.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


paddycarol said:


> I got quite confused when referring to this country. I just wonder which word I should use, *Holland *or *Netherland*. Or is there any difference?



Technically speaking, there is a difference: Holland is only a part of the country named '*The* Netherland*s*' in English ('Nederland' in Dutch). Historically speaking, it refers to the influential and economically important county Holland, these days there are the province*s *Noord-Holland and Zuid-Holland (resp. North and South Holland).
But 'Holland' is very often used as a kind of pars pro toto (Lit. part for the whole), and the context will make it perfectly clear whether one is talking about the county, the provinces or the country.
Also people from The Netherlands themselves often call their _country_ 'Holland' in stead of 'the Netherlands' (or Nederland). Think about the orange clad football supporters yelling 'Hup _Holland_ Hup'.
This mix up goes far back in time: if I am not wrong, the name for the country The Netherlands in quite some other languages is something as 'Holland'.

I hope this helps. And I hope this helps you to more or less decide which word to use in which context .

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Dimcl

So, I'm still safe in referring to my friends as living in Holland?  Sounds like that's okay...


----------



## paddycarol

According to my electronic dictionary, Holland is a former province of the Netherlands, so could I assume that it is similar to "England and Britain"


----------



## Brioche

For the majority of English speakers, the country is Holland.

The Netherlands Board of Tourism and Conventions recognises this fact, and uses the name Holland in information directed at tourists.
Its web site is www.holland.com


----------



## Nunty

I say "Holland", but my Dutch friend, when speaking English, says "the Netherlands".


----------



## natasha2000

KI think this question is interesting not only for English only forum, but for CD, too. Not only English language has two names for this country. As least in languages I speak, there are also two words...

Intersting info, Frank06. I didn't know this.


----------



## Outsider

I've started a thread about it at the Other Languages forum.


----------



## psicutrinius

In Spain we say both "Holanda" [Holland]and "Países Bajos" [The Low Countries], though the most used is by far the first one, and there is a possibility that someone would not understand the second, although most Spaniards would.

"Países Bajos" is, by the way, the exact (and litteral) translation of "Netherlands" (= Lowlands).

Mod Note: please remember that this is a monolingual forum.  Thanks.


----------



## invictaspirit

paddycarol said:


> According to my electronic dictionary, Holland is a former province of the Netherlands, so could I assume that it is similar to "England and Britain"


 
Unless my history is failing me, it is not really like calling Britain 'England'.

Calling all of the Netherlands 'Holland' might annoy some northern Dutch in Groningen for example, as it is not strictly accurate.  But the term doesn't cross what might be regarded as *nations*.  Calling the UK 'England' infuriates the Welsh and Scots.  It is not only inaccurate but denies/ignores the nationality of those countries.  Folks often forget that the UK is a state which is a confederation of 3 nations and an allied province.  If you get your terminology wrong, you risk deeply upsetting people.


----------



## gaer

invictaspirit said:


> Unless my history is failing me, it is not really like calling Britain 'England'.
> 
> Calling all of the Netherlands 'Holland' might annoy some northern Dutch in Groningen for example, as it is not strictly accurate. But the term doesn't cross what might be regarded as *nations*. Calling the UK 'England' infuriates the Welsh and Scots. It is not only inaccurate but denies/ignores the nationality of those countries. Folks often forget that the UK is a state which is a confederation of 3 nations and an allied province. If you get your terminology wrong, you risk deeply upsetting people.


In fact, that's the problem with talking about BE and AE. BE assumes that there is no difference in English in England, Scotland and Wales, which is not true.

I've never understood the difference between "Holland" and "The Netherlands" before, so this discussion has been very helpful to me.


----------



## invictaspirit

gaer said:


> In fact, that's the problem with talking about BE and AE. BE assumes that there is no difference in English in England, Scotland and Wales, which is not true.
> 
> I've never understood the difference between "Holland" and "The Netherlands" before, so this discussion has been very helpful to me.


 
You're bang on with that one, gaer.  Really, there is no such thing as BrE, although I guess it makes international language discussions easier.

It would be good to hear from any non-Holland Nederlanders who object to the term 'Holland' as a synonym for the Netherlands.  I've never been aware there were any, but would like to know.


----------



## gaer

invictaspirit said:


> You're bang on with that one, gaer. Really, there is no such thing as BrE, although I guess it makes international language discussions easier.


I would love to discuss the terms BE and AE, because they are used very imprecisely, but we need to open a new topic for that.


> It would be good to hear from any non-Holland Nederlanders who object to the term 'Holland' as a synonym for the Netherlands. I've never been aware there were any, but would like to know.


Personally, I would not listen to anyone except some from the Netherlands about usage, and Frank has already given us his opinion:


			
				Frank06 said:
			
		

> But 'Holland' is very often used as a kind of pars pro toto (Lit. part for the whole), and the context will make it perfectly clear whether one is talking about the county, the provinces or the country.


That's good enough for me!

Gaer


----------



## invictaspirit

Yeah, but Frank's from Belgium. It'd be good if a resident of the Netherlands found the thread to comment...specifically one from the parts of NL that are not called Holland.  (Not that there was anything wrong with Frank's perspective of course!)

I just wonder if someone from the, say, Limburg or Drenthe provinces (which are not part of the relatively small parts of NL that are correctly called Holland) objects to the umbrella-term for the whole country.


----------



## gaer

invictaspirit said:


> Yeah, but Frank's from Belgium.


Oops! You're right. I misread the country.

Never mind. 

Gaer


----------



## optimistique

invictaspirit said:


> Yeah, but Frank's from Belgium. It'd be good if a resident of the Netherlands found the thread to comment...specifically one from the parts of NL that are not called Holland.  (Not that there was anything wrong with Frank's perspective of course!)
> 
> I just wonder if someone from the, say, Limburg or Drenthe provinces (which are not part of the relatively small parts of NL that are correctly called Holland) objects to the umbrella-term for the whole country.



As you may see, I am from Limburg, and I don't like the country I live in to be called Holland, for I don't live in Holland. I do in the Netherlands. Dutch people from outside Limburg often call us foreigners, and in return Limburgian people have a ferocious dislike of Holland and its inhabitants. We feel like the forgotten province politically too (the government is in Holland), so the dislike is very deep for most people. It's a touchy thing. 

Interesting detail though, is that most people from Limburg refer to the Netherlands as Holland too. It's that country with those strange people far away that we're not a part of! 

I think people from Drenthe, Overijssel or Groningen for example would have a different story, for the relationship Limburg-Holland is quite typical.


----------



## invictaspirit

Well, you're not the forgotten province in MY mind.    I remember very well in 1990 my girlfriend and I were sitting around bored one day and had a silly idea to take advantage of an incredibly cheap ferry deal.  We decided to take the ferry, land in Calais and drive without a map until we felt like stopping, which brought us to Maastricht.  Brilliant weekend, very nice city.

(I have to confess to also liking people in the Randstad, though...sorry!)

So...do Limburgers avoid all the orange 'Hup, Holland, Hup!' stuff during international football tournaments?

I guess I should make a better effort to say 'The Netherlands'.  The English (like some others of your neighbours) are very quick to use the term Holland.  The press and TV always use the correct word, but in normal conversation, the name Holland is deeply embedded.


----------



## optimistique

invictaspirit said:


> Well, you're not the forgotten province in MY mind.    I remember very well in 1990 my girlfriend and I were sitting around bored one day and had a silly idea to take advantage of an incredibly cheap ferry deal.  We decided to take the ferry, land in Calais and drive without a map until we felt like stopping, which brought us to Maastricht.  Brilliant weekend, very nice city.
> 
> (I have to confess to also liking people in the Randstad, though...sorry!)
> 
> So...do Limburgers avoid all the orange 'Hup, Holland, Hup!' stuff during international football tournaments?
> 
> I guess I should make a better effort to say 'The Netherlands'.  The English (like some others of your neighbours) are very quick to use the term Holland.  The press and TV always use the correct word, but in normal conversation, the name Holland is deeply embedded.



The stupid thing is, that during events as football even Limburgers say 'Hup, Holland, Hup'. But it remains a thin line. I remember the Limburgian newspapers earlier this year that spoke disgrace of the national newspapers for calling our entry for the Eurovision Songfestival "from Limburg" (they were from Maastricht in fact), because we hadn't made the final. The local newspaper here said that if we would have won, they would have called them the Dutch entry.

Also, I'm afraid  I have to plead guilty for calling Britain England too, so I couldn't reproach you anything, though we speak of holidays to Scotland or Wales, so maybe that makes up for it


----------



## gaer

optimistique said:


> The stupid thing is, that during events as football even Limburgers say 'Hup, Holland, Hup'. But it remains a thin line. I remember the Limburgian newspapers earlier this year that spoke disgrace of the national newspapers for calling our entry for the Eurovision Songfestival "from Limburg" (they were from Maastricht in fact), because we hadn't made the final. The local newspaper here said that if we would have won, they would have called them the Dutch entry.
> 
> Also, I'm afraid I have to plead guilty for calling Britain England too, so I couldn't reproach you anything, though we speak of holidays to Scotland or Wales, so maybe that makes up for it


Well, I'm very glad you added you thoughts. I have always used the "Netherlands" because although I thought "Holland" was the same thing (I was wrong too), I never felt sure of myself.


----------



## paddycarol

invictaspirit said:


> Unless my history is failing me, it is not really like calling Britain 'England'.
> Calling the UK 'England' infuriates the Welsh and Scots. It is not only inaccurate but denies/ignores the nationality of those countries. Folks often forget that the UK is a state which is a confederation of 3 nations and an allied province. *If you get your terminology wrong, you risk deeply upsetting people.*


That's the very point I wanted to make. I know that people living in the other two parts of Great Britain would get angry at being referred to coming from England. Since Holland doesn't cover all the country, I guess it may have some similarities. 
p.s. Is it the case that Welsh or Scots would be proud of saying they are from Wales or Scotland rather than the UK?  (When I was learning Enlgish in primary school, I was also told English people are very proud of saying they are from England. Is that true?)I need you to tell me the truth.


----------



## gaer

paddycarol said:


> That's the very point I wanted to make. I know that people living in the other two parts of Great Britain would get angry at being referred to coming from England. Since Holland doesn't cover all the country, I guess it may have some similarities.
> p.s. Is it the case that Welsh or Scots would be proud of saying they are from Wales or Scotland rather than the UK?  (When I was learning Enlgish in primary school, I was also told English people are very proud of saying they are from England. Is that true?)I need you to tell me the truth.


Paddy, I don't know if this has been discussed before. My guess is that it has been. But wasn't your question about Holland/the Netherlands?

Rather than push this discussion totally off-topic, let me start a new thread. Maybe you will participate in it. If it works, a moderator may simply delete this message. 

New thread about AE/BE

Gaer


----------



## Brioche

psicutrinius said:


> In Spain we say both "Holanda" [Holland]and "Países Bajos" [The Low Countries],


 
The Low Countries in English is more a geographical expression - rather like Scandinavia - rather than a particular political entity.

The Low Countries included parts of modern day northern France, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg and north-west Germany.


----------



## foxfirebrand

My surname is Frisian, so this is a very pertinent thread to me.

The Netherlands (Nederland) is a nation comprised of provinces of different ethnicity, as is obvious from the posters of this thread.

The Frisians speak their own language-- it's not a dialect, and I understand it's not any "closer" to Dutch than it is to Danish.  There are enclaves of Frisians in both Denmark and Norway-- but the real complexity arises from the fact that the "nation" is split in half, with Freesland comprising the northern portion of the Netherlands, and Ostfriesland across the border with Germany, which considers it a province.  this was accomplished by the Prussians who annexed our country forcibly in the late 1860s, before "Deutschland" even existed.  My great-great grandfather packed up his family and emigrated to North America to avoid being a part of Prussian imperialism.

Well I almost said "but I digress," but I think my ethnic group illustrates the difficulty of categorizing both the territory (legal national boundaries) and ethnicity (language and mores) of many a tribe in that part of the world.

To tie this all in to the English language, we tend to call people from Nederland "Dutch," but in the AE of my father's and grandfathers' generations, that word is interchangeable with "German," not just _Hollaendisch._  "Pennsylvania Dutch" is a set phrase in AE, but it refers to people who are from various parts of (what is now) Germany.

Isn't part of "greater Luxemburg" in the Netherlands?  Or is that Belgium?   _That's_ a country we could delve into the English terminology about, in case "Holland/ Netherland" isn't complicated enough.
.
.


----------



## optimistique

It is certainly true that the people in the Netherlands do not form a unity, and linguistically also not. While Frisian and the Northern dialects have more Scandinavian aspects, Limburgs (which is a language too, not a dialect of Dutch) has some unique syntactical structures, which are found only partially in French. On a lot of levels, Limburgs  seems more related to German than to Dutch. We are often called German speaking Belgians (There is also a part of Limburg in Belgium; when the Southern Netherlands split off, Limburg did not want to be a part of the Northern part (including Holland), but stay with Belgium, in which we did obviously not succeed).



foxfirebrand said:


> To tie this all in to the English language, we tend to call people from Nederland "Dutch," but in the AE of my father's and grandfathers' generations, that word is interchangeable with "German," not just _Hollaendisch._  "Pennsylvania Dutch" is a set phrase in AE, but it refers to people who are from various parts of (what is now) Germany.



Pennsylvania Dutch is the language of the Amish, isn't it? I remember hearing it on television, and it is very understandable for me, even more than English.



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Isn't part of "greater Luxemburg" in the Netherlands?  Or is that Belgium?   _That's_ a country we could delve into the English terminology about, in case "Holland/ Netherland" isn't complicated enough.



No, Greater Luxemburg has no parts in the Netherlands. You have the country Luxemburg and the province Luxemburg in Belgium. There are three provinces that are both in Belgium and in the Netherlands: Flanders (Zeeuws-Flanders in NL, East & West Flanders in Belgium), Brabant & Limburg. But maybe we do arrive at a point where Frank could be helpful, since calling the Dutch part of Belgium Flanders, is the same as calling the Netherlands Holland: there are also Limburgers in Belgium, who do not speak Flamish, so Flamish does not equal Belgian Dutch.


----------



## DramaQueen101

Where I live, we tend to say The Netherlands or Holland, I don't think that it really matters!  Maybe I am wrong?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

I am glad that somebody from the Netherlands joined the discussion. Thanks for the clarifications. I already heard (well, read) people from Zeeland and Limburg (mildly and friendly) objecting against the _pars pro toto_ Holland, but I had no idea how widespread it is.



optimistique said:


> No, Greater Luxemburg has no parts in the Netherlands. You have the country Luxemburg and the province Luxemburg in Belgium. There are three provinces that are both in Belgium and in the Netherlands: Flanders (Zeeuws-Flanders in NL, East & West Flanders in Belgium), Brabant & Limburg. But maybe we do arrive at a point where Frank could be helpful, since calling the Dutch part of Belgium Flanders, is the same as calling the Netherlands Holland: there are also Limburgers in Belgium, who do not speak Flamish, so Flamish does not equal Belgian Dutch.



It all makes me think about about shouting in the mountains: people in the valleys hear an echo (let's say 'Dutch', 'Holland', 'Flanders'), while people on top of the mountain are already shouting something else . And something else and something else, creating a kind of lovely kakaphony of echoes in the valleys, which enable us to write messages on a message board .

I am afraid that 'Flanders' is a bit off topic here, but since it was mentioned, I'd like to ad a few words.
The Dutch speaking part of Belgium _is_ called Flanders *these days*, though *historically *it has another meaning, as Optimistique correctly pointed out. 
The problem is, I think, that the adjective 'Flemish' is both used to refer to 'from Flanders' (the political unit) as to the language. But when it refers to the language, it normally refers to the language spoken in the west of (modern days) Flanders, in French Flanders and some say in Zeeland, at least technically!!! 
Linguistic conclusion -- and I think this is a mere repetition of Optimistique's words: not all Flemish speak Flemish, not all speakers of Flemish live in Flanders. Final stop ;-).

People in modern Flanders all speak dialects which together with a lot of other dialects in the Netherlands can be said to form 'Dutch', 'Nederlands', or 'Netherlandic' if you want. The boundaries of those dialects and even the boundaries of 'Netherlandic' are so vague, because all those 'Netherlandic' variants are part of a dialect continuum that starts on the coasts of the North Sea and ends somewhere in the Swiss Alps (south east) and far in eastern Germany.

And I have the impression that it's a bit the same with 'Holland'. Apart from the problems Optimistique pointed out, 'Hollands' also refers to the language (or dialect) spoken in the provinces N-/Z-Holland, while people in Friesland, Zeeland, Gelderland and Limburg speak markedly different dialects/languages. 

Wikipedia is really not my favourite source, yet the series of articles about Holland, Flanders, Flemish, Dutch etc. look fairly well-informed and fairly decent.

Groetjes,

Frank


PS: For me a dialect is a language and a language is a dialect, even the standard language. I do not use the term 'language' in the sense of _Kultursprache_ (sorry, don't know the term in English, lit. 'Culture language', or +/- standard variant).


----------



## mjscott

Following is a reply from my daughter-in-law's parents (from that region):
The answer #3 is correct. The Netherlands is the
official name, and "Holland" is almost a colloquial
used by outsiders as well as natives, the western 2
most populated provinces are North ant South Holland,
and for a long time they were dominant interms of
commerce and trde as well as science and literature,
the big posts of Amsterdam and Rotterdam are in these
2 provinces, so those areas were more involved intrade
and international commerce. The other 9 provinces were
mostly agricultural in nature and did not catch much
international attention. The seat of the government ,
The Hague or  Den Haag as it is known locally is in
the province of South (Zuid)- Holland.


----------



## foxfirebrand

This is not nearly complicated enough!  So I'll point out that the part of France that borders Belgium is called _Flandre_-- well, they reorganized everything into _Départements_, but I'll bet the people that live there are still Flemish.

A toast to the Lowlanders of any ilk, who kept their nationhood from both French and Prussian imperial encroachment.  As the existence of _Flandre_ and _Ostfriesland_ attest, there were setbacks-- but maybe when the EU becomes a real entity these can be addressed, and the lines redrawn.

<< --- >>
.
.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

I don't understand very well what you mean with this:


foxfirebrand said:


> A toast to the Lowlanders of any ilk, *who kept their nationhood from both French and Prussian imperial encroachment*.


Could you please explain and tell us about which period you are precisely  talking about?



> *As the existence of Flandre and Ostfriesland attest*, there were setbacks-- but maybe when the EU becomes a real entity these can be addressed, and the lines redrawn.


Same problem. I fail to understand what you mean by 'the existence of _Flandre'_, and I don't know what you mean by 'setbacks'.

Could you please elaborate.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## foxfirebrand

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't understand very well what you mean with this:
> 
> Could you please explain and tell us about which period you are precisely  talking about?
> 
> _Okay, there were ups and downs-- I didn't bring Spain into the discussion for simplicity's sake.  But the Low Countries never got swallowed out of existence, like Poland was when Prussia and Russia kept "partitioning" it during the 18th century-- and notoriously (though the fact is touched on lightly by historians) again in 1939._
> 
> Same problem. I fail to understand what you mean by 'the existence of _Flandre'_, and I don't know what you mean by 'setbacks'.
> 
> _The French were Imperial expansionists under a succession of kings, culminating in Napoleon.  If they'd won the battle of "the Golden Spurs" in the 14th century, all of Flanders including the part that ended up in the Dutch Free State-- would've been a part of France, its sense of nationhood lost (as in the example of Alsace and Lorraine).
> 
> The fact that they did end up with *part* of Flanders was a setback, unless you favor French hegemony in that part of the world, or in North America-- or Indochina.
> _
> _Likewise, Prussian hegemonism managed to annex all sorts of smaller "Germanic" groups who didn't really want to be cannon fodder in Bismarck's ambition to vie with the British and the Frensh for an overseas empire.  The Frisians maintained their semi-nationhood, but only by half-- the eastern half being gobbled by a nation (Deutschland) of which it is still a part, its language and customs belittled and denied prestige-- or so I hear.  I also hear we fared somewhat better under the flag of the Netherlands, not that they weren't hegemonists in their own right during part of their history-- ask any Indonesian._



Since you asked.  This topic does feel as though it strays as we expand on it-- but we're still within the realm of drawing ethnic lines in the Netherlands, and exploring the complexities of trying to do that, right?  This all goes to illustrate the nigh-impossibility of fixing appropriate terms, and that, I believe, is still the _language issue_ being raised.

.
.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


foxfirebrand said:


> But the Low Countries never got swallowed out of existence, like Poland was when Prussia and Russia kept "partitioning" it during the 18th century-- and notoriously (though the fact is touched on lightly by historians) again in 1939.[...] The French were Imperial expansionists under a succession of kings, culminating in Napoleon. If they'd won the battle of "the Golden Spurs" in the 14th century, all of Flanders including the part that ended up in the Dutch Free State-- would've been a part of France, its sense of nationhood lost (as in the example of Alsace and Lorraine).


I'm terribly sorry, but when reading your post, I don't recognise the history of either Flanders or The Netherlands at all. I read quite a lot about it, but never did I come across such a revision of (local) history... I'm sorry, I don't want to sound rude...
I don't know where to start (yes, maybe 1548, Treaty of Augsburg), but I do know where to end: Flanders still isn't a 'nation', despite the efforts of local nationalists. But their Flanders (the modern political unit) has hardly anything to do with the historical county Flanders.

It's the enormously complicated history of Flanders and the Netherlands that is more than partially responsible for the 'confusion' what the names (in other languages) is concerned. I think we can agree upon that. 
But that history is quite different from your resumé...

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## foxfirebrand

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm terribly sorry, but when reading your post, I don't recognise the history of either Flanders or The Netherlands at all. I read quite a lot about it, but never did I come across such a revision of (local) history... I'm sorry, I don't want to sound rude...
> I don't know where to start (yes, maybe 1548, Treaty of Augsburg), but I do know where to end: Flanders still isn't a 'nation', despite the efforts of local nationalists. But their Flanders (the modern political unit) has hardly anything to do with the historical county Flanders.
> 
> It's the enormously complicated history of Flanders and the Netherlands that is more than partially responsible for the 'confusion' what the names (in other languages) is concerned. I think we can agree upon that.
> But that history is quite different from your resumé...



My point is really simple.  The Low Countries are a complex and confusing patchwork of ethnic enclaves.  I don't think I said any of them (specifically the Frisians, whom I *do* know something about) are a "nation."

What I did say is that this area of Flemish, Dutch, Frisian and other peoples *did not end up as part of the French or Prusso-German empires.*  You haven't addressed that point, much less refuted it.

Finally, I offered two examples of exceptions-- _Flandre_ in France and _Ostfriesland_ in Germany *did* end up as parts of those countries.

I didn't _offer_ any "history of Flanders or the Netherlands."  I saluted the fact that they exist at all (unlike Kurdistan, for example) and have not been swallowed up by powerful neighboring hegemonist States.
.
.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


foxfirebrand said:


> The Low Countries are a complex and confusing patchwork of ethnic enclaves.


*Ethnic enclaves?* Do you intend to balkanize the Low Lands? 

And on what is that ethnicity in the LLs based? Language? Religion? (or to modernise the situation: the lack of religion?).
I really have the impression that you're mixing up names denoting 'the speakers of language X' with some kind of 19th C Romantic and hypernationalistic notion of 'people', a 'taal is gansch het volk' kind of thing (lit. the language is the people).
Maybe I am completely wrong, but your posts (as far as I understand them!) reminds me of a certain kind of 19th C Romantic view, mixed with a dash of 'Blut und boden' theory...



> What I did say is that this area of Flemish, Dutch, Frisian and other peoples *did not end up as part of the French or Prusso-German empires.*


I'm curious as how you are going to define the Flemish people? And the Limburgians, and the Brabantians (whose 'territory' got 'split up' between two/three modern nations). How are you going to define 'the Dutch people'?



> I saluted the fact that they exist at all (unlike Kurdistan, for example) and have not been swallowed up by powerful neighboring hegemonist States.



I find your phrasing very peculiar. Maybe I still don't understand your point.



> Finally, I offered two examples of exceptions-- _Flandre_ in France and _Ostfriesland_ in Germany *did* end up as parts of those countries.


Yes, and?

I'm sorry, but all in all, I don't have the impression that you're talking about the region I live in. *But* it's more than possible that exactly the fact that I do live here, makes me blind for your remarks. Maybe I'm so close with my nose (and eyes) to these LLs, that I miss the broader picture you're describing. 

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Camlearner

Hi

Is *The Netherlands* and *Holland*.. the same, only 1 country or 2 different? I think they same, like Burma and Myanmar or Cambodia and Khmer or Thailand and Siam.. but I'm not sure very sure about Europ because never there.

Thanks.


----------



## arashgh1987

I think so. The usual English name for the Netherlands is Holland.


----------



## Camlearner

Thank you arashgh1987.


----------



## Spira

No. The English (and many others) mistakenly use the name Holland, which is a province, for the whole country, properly called the Netherlands. Holland is the largest and most important province of the Netherlands. Seat to the royal house of Orange.
As a parallel, many Europeans refer to the UK as England, much to the annoyance of Scots, Welsh or Irish.


----------



## arashgh1987

Yes , you're right


----------



## Camlearner

So the Netherlands is a country and Holland is a province of the Netherlands !!! 

Thank you Spira. 

We second speaker of language confuse this a lot.


----------



## Copyright

arashgh1987 said:


> Are you sure about that? I've just checked Longman and it didn't mention it.



It's a dictionary -- wrong tool for the job. Try this Wiki article which confirms Spira's explanation.


----------



## arashgh1987

No Longman has mentioned it too , it was my fault , sorry.


----------



## Igel

The same confusion as to the Netherlands and Holland exists in German (die Niederlande, Holland). I wonder how the two names are used in Dutch. Any Dutch speakers in this thread?


----------



## Spira

Igel said:


> The same confusion as to the Netherlands and Holland exists in German (die Niederlande, Holland). I wonder how the two names are used in Dutch. Any Dutch speakers in this thread?


 
Same in French, too. Curious, isn't it?


----------



## Igel

Spira said:


> Same in French, too. Curious, isn't it?



Maybe these terms have been translated from Dutch. Hope someone who speaks Dutch can tell us more about it.


----------



## LV4-26

Spira said:


> Same in French, too. Curious, isn't it?


Yes,  we tend to use both almost interchangeably, although The Netherlands (or its equivalent) is a bit more formal.
However, only _Holland_ is ever used to refer to the cheese. Go figure.


----------



## Spira

LV4-26 said:


> Yes, we tend to use both almost interchangeably, although The Netherlands (or its equivalent) is a bit more formal.
> However, only _Holland_ is ever used to refer to the cheese. Go figure.


 
What cheese? In most French supermarkets you always find the same three Dutch cheeses, labelled Mimolette, Gouda and Edam. None of them carries the word Holland.


----------



## LV4-26

Spira said:


> What cheese? In most French supermarkets you always find the same three Dutch cheeses, labelled Mimolette, Gouda and Edam. None of them carries the word Holland.


You're right, they don't. That's just what we say when we refer to them as a group, without naming any particular one.

Aren't we slightly off topic?


----------



## Cagey

Moderator's note:

This more recent thread has been merged with an earlier thread on the same topic.
Please read from the top.  The earlier thread has contributions from speakers of Dutch.


----------

