| Revision as of 07:58, 11 March 2024 editSarcelles (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,118 edits →Legibility of this talk page: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:11, 28 November 2024 edit undoSarcelles (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,118 edits →Alternative classification as Middle/Central Franconian: Reply adding a centralized discussion on wikimedia commonsTag: Reply | ||
| (241 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 75K | |maxarchivesize = 75K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 6 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| |archive = Talk:Limburgish/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Limburgish/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|search=yes}} | |||
| == The number of speakers in the Netherlands Limburg == | |||
| gives the figure of about 750.000 active Limburgish speakers in the Netherlands who use their dialects in everyday life. Can we put that somewhere in the article? ] (]) 14:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == An important note to all involved with this article == | |||
| Hello everyone, I ({{User|Vlaemink}}) and I had hoped to use the next weeks to expand and improve this article in relative peace by use of an alias ({{User|RogerDE}}), but regrettably this was not meant to be and I'm writing this to avoid a spillover of a conflict that's currently active on Dutch language Misplaced Pages, where this article is currently protected and an extensive arbcom-case has been filed (full disclosure: by me) to resolve serious and structural problems concerning the reliability and objectivity of the article. | |||
| To immediately put any future accusations of sock-puppetry to bed: those with some knowledge of Belgian cycle sport will know that the username wasn't a ] and it was plainly stated from that start that this username was an alternative account. As such it was only ever an attempt to avoid the ] that has been taking place, if only for a short period of time. My main account and RogerDE (up until this post) do not intersect, save for one single edit as I edited this particular article some three years ago . | |||
| '''In a nutshell''': the problem concerns activist editing and source manipulation by two users who have recently started editing here as well: {{User|Briegelaer}} and {{User|De Wikischim}}, who have been trying to frame Limburgish as a separate language completely independent of either Dutch or German. This, of course, brings them in conflict with mainstream linguistic consensus which presents a much more nuanced and broader view of the linguistic landscape in which the Limburgish varieties feature. When their personal view is challenged by academic sources, these are either dismissed outright, "adapted" to fit their personal POV in such a way, that the source material is basically unrecognizable or they attempt to smear the messenger. | |||
| Briegelaer only edits the article on Limburgish (both on the Dutch and English language Misplaced Pages) whereas De Wikischim is mainly active on Dutch Misplaced Pages, where he has been the dominant editor of the Limburgish article for over a decade and has been blocked a total of forty times and is subjected to several arbcom infractions. | |||
| Now on any Misplaced Pages linguistic articles are going to be niche subjects edited by relatively few users, which makes them vulnerable to both POV-pushing and consensus-pushing; especially when the subject is relatively obscure, such as in this particular case. Thankfully, in my experience, the English language Misplaced Pages has a number of users which are not only interested but also proficient in subjects related to Germanic linguistics and views proper sourcing as critical. | |||
| I hope many of these users will find their way to this article (be it on their own initiative or after answering requests on the community pages) and prevent it from escalating into anything more than it needs to be: a question of ]. ] (]) 09:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I invite everyone to look at the absolute mayhem that Vlaemink has caused on the Dutch ] and ]. 10+ users have been severely disrupted through Vlaemink's heavily editing of articles to support his view and the burying of any opposition under belittling essays on the TP. He has resorted to misusing templates, circumventing consensus processes and has now entered the Anglosphere by creating a new account which is in violation of the ToS (as this was done to avoid scrutiny). | |||
| :The arbitration committee procedure is still ongoing, but as of yet he has not received a single voice of support (and neither has he in any of his disruptive edits within articles). ] (]) 10:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Vlaemink}} I'm aware that this is not proper place to discuss it, but "intersect" can also be understood in terms of related articles in a well-defined topic range. Considering that ], ] and ] are among the first 5 articles in your , it is mildly spoken naive to consider this kind of multiple use of accounts unproblematic. | |||
| :Apart from that, I will see what direction this discussion will take before actively taking part. –] (]) 11:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|User:Austronesier}} I, on my part, firmly believe (because of the striking similarities in the edit pattern) that here on the English WP, Vlaemink was earlier active as well with at least one account: ]. Note: this latter account has been blocked indefinitely on the Dutch WP because of sockpuppet abuse. And regarding that, ] which I submitted some months ago on the Dutch Misplaced Pages might be interesting to you as well (in case you don't understand everything in the discussions in Dutch, you could ask someone to translate, or maybe use a translation tool). I wish you good luck with this. Regards, ] (]) 12:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ping|Austronesier}} I understand where you are coming from, it's not ideal. With the regard to the direction this discussion will take, I would kindly advise you to ignore this particular section: if any other additions were to be made to it, these would most likely only consist of baseless accusations; as has already been demonstrated in just a very short time. | |||
| Instead I would ask you (and any other willing participants) to focus on the validity of the sources used in this article and take a critical look at the issues which are sure to be brought to this talk page concerning the edits and POV by the two users mentioned above (as well as my own edits of course) in the course of this month. Regards, ] (]) 12:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I would also like to personally ask (if time permits) {{Ping|Sarcelles}} to shine a light on the matters sure to be raised here. He is a colleague from the German Misplaced Pages (on which I am also active) and particularly familiar with the subject. Regards, ] (]) 12:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am obviously German. However, I have consulted many sources from both Belgium and the Netherlands on Limburgish. Furthermore, I am active on Dutch Misplaced Pages. Our work is based on sources. | |||
| ::Kind regards ] (]) 20:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hello Sarcelles, thanks. However, the main recurring question here (as well as on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, see ]) is: ''Should the variety called "Limburgish"/"East Low Franconian" be considered a main dialect of the Dutch language ''(which means it would have the same linguistic position as for example ]/] etc.)'', or a fully separate language which as such makes part of the West Germanic/Low Franconian branch ''(which actually would make it a ] of German, Dutch etc.)''?'' | |||
| :::It should be clear for everyone who reads along here that the opinions differ heavily on this, among linguists themselves as well. Could you if possible cite what your sources tell specifically about that? It could maybe help a lot to get out of the deadlock here. ] (]) 22:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == "South Low Franconian" and other terms == | |||
| An issue not yet raised here is the question of direct translations. | |||
| An example is the folllowing: :] literally translated is the same as ]. However, the latter is the German interwiki of '''this''' article, whereas the linked article in nl is not. ] (]) 20:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Not fully consistent indeed. The difference is subtle at any case, but ''South Low Franconian/Südniederfränkisch/Zuidnederfrankisch'' seems to be a little broader term than "Limburgish", including as well some dialects/varieties (]) spoken in Belgium (more precisely: the ]) which are by and large not considered "Limburgish", at least not in the most common sense of the latter term. See as well ], for those who understand Limburgish. ] (]) 22:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are other terms in Dutch/English/German, which possibly cannot be translated directly: | |||
| ::*Nederrijns Low Rhenish Niederrheinisch | |||
| ::*Rijnlands Rhinelandic Rheinisch | |||
| ::*Zuidoost-Limburgs Southeast Limburgish Südostlimburgisch | |||
| :::Furthermore, the article ] has two meanings of Rhinelandic varieties: dialectal and other ones. Kind regards ] (]) 18:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * South Low Franconian is an existing English term (not a made-up translation by Misplaced Pages). Some examples can be found at: . | |||
| * South Low Franconian is broader than Limburgish (the Netherlandic-Flemish part of South Low Franconian). Alternatively, Limburgish would have a broader and a stricter sense and be ambiguous. | |||
| ** Goossens, ''Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen'', 1965: "‚Südniederfränkisch‘ nennt man . Der niederländisch-flämische Teil dieses Gebietes ist unter dem Namen ‚Limburgisch‘ bekannt". I.e.: South Low Franconian includes Limburgish. | |||
| ** HSK 30.4, p. 528 (in chapter ''3.1.2.1. Das Südniederfränkische''): "Das Südniederfränkische ... Nach Westen hin setzt sich dieser Dialektraum in den Niederlanden und Belgien fort (Eupener Land, große Teile von Belgisch Limburg und Niederländisch Limburg). Hier ist die Bezeichnung ''Limburgisch'' üblich." I.e. in Limburg the term ''Limburgish'' is used. This could be understood in two different ways: The term is used for South Low Franconian in Limburg (i.e. only for a part of South LF), or the term is used in Limburg but for the complete South LF. As the term ''Limburgish'' is also used outside of Limburg (e.g. ), the first interpretation is more likely. | |||
| * There could be other translations, like: a) with ''Low'' or ''Lower'', ''Rhenish'' or ''Rhenian'', b) English ''Rhenish, Rhenian, Rhenic'' or German ''Rheinländisch''. mentions a "Reference Corpus Middle Low German/Low Rhenish (1200–1650) Referenzkorpus Mittelniederdeutsch/Niederrheinisch (1200–1650)." So here it's ''Low Rhenish = Niederrheinisch''. | |||
| :--20:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Basic outline for this article == | |||
| Hello everyone, | |||
| This article should ideally describe the language variety in all the facets that valid and reliable references permit. It shouldn't be a platform for language activism, personal extrapolations or "tweaking" referenced material in such a way, that it is no longer in line with the original wording and/or spiked with OR- or NPOV-claims. Regrettably, this is the case in certain portion of the article and has been a recurring issue with some users which are now involving themselves with this article. | |||
| Looking ahead to the improvement of this article over the coming weeks, I feel it is important to establish a basic consensus concerning what this article should entail. | |||
| I've therefore taken the initiative to formulate 10 basic points with the intent to form a "baseline consensus" for the article, intended as a common ground for future editing. | |||
| Some of these point are already represented within the article, others are partially alluded but a significant number are currently not part of the article. The points are non-controversial in that they represent the current scientific consensus and/or are in line with Misplaced Pages-guidelines concerning WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV. | |||
| These points are: | |||
| '''Concerning the relation of Limburgish and Dutch (and German):''' | |||
| * (1) The basic premise of this article should reflect and describe the linguistic consensus that the Limburgish varieties are one of main subdivisions of the ] branch of the West Germanic languages, rather than (suggest that it forms) a separate West Germanic language branch.<ref>Stegeman: ''Grote geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal, dat men binnen het Nederlands'' (2021).</ref><ref>Hinskens: ''Wijdvertakte wortels: over etnolectisch Nederland'' (2016) p.38.</ref><ref>Janssens: ''Het Nederlands vroeger en nu'' (2005) p.69.</ref><ref>Judo: ''De Zeven Woorden van de Lage Landen'' (2022) p. 63.</ref><ref>Hoppenbrouwers & Hoppenbrouwers 2001 - C. Hoppenbrouwers & G. Hoppenbrouwers, De indeling van de Nederlandse streektalen. Dialecten van 156 Dialecten van 156 steden en dorpen geklasseerd volgens de FFM. Assen, 2001.</ref> | |||
| * (2) The basic premise of this article should acknowledge and expand upon the practical reality and linguistic consensus that Standard Dutch forms the '']'' and/or '']'' of the dialects spoken in Dutch and Belgian Limburg, whereas Standard German fulfills a similar role for the closely related dialects in adjacent areas of Germany, rather than suggesting that Dutch/German and Limburgish are non-overlapping magisteria. Accordingly, the article should mention that fairly common definitions exist in which Limburgish/South Low Franconian varieties (at the very least socio-linguistically) are regarded as "Dutch" or "German" dialects.<ref>A.A. Weijnen: De Nieuwe Taalgids. Jaargang 63, 1970, pp. 158-159.</ref> | |||
| * (3) The article should explicitly acknowledge and describe the consensus within historical linguistics, in which the Limburgish varieties are included within and are considered an intrinsic part of ] and ], i.e. that concepts such as "Old Limburgish", "Middle Limburgish" and/or "Early Modern Limburgish" are not a part of mainstream linguistic discourse or literature.<ref>Hoppenbrouwers 2001</ref><ref>Rob Belemans 2004, p.21</ref><ref name="Van der Wal">Marijke van der Wal en Cor van Bree, ''Geschiedenis van het Nederlands'', Houten, 2008, p. 109.</ref><ref>Chris de Wulf: Klankatlas van het veertiende-eeuwse Middelnederlands, Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2019, p.40-42.</ref><ref name="Van der Wal" /> | |||
| * (4) The article should explicitly acknowledge and describe the immediate dialect continuum of which the Limburgish varieties are a part; that is, that they transition fluently into Brabantian and South Guelderish; and, albeit less fluently than was historically the case, that they are also linked to Ripuarian Franconian. The article should also describe the influence of the Dutch and German standard languages on the varieties. | |||
| '''Concerning the use and meaning of "Limburgish":''' | |||
| * (5) This article should acknowledge and describe that "Limburgish" itself is a term common in Dutch linguistic parlance, but is uncommon in German discourse. It should further make explicitly clear that "Limburgish" is not used as a descriptor by German speakers of these varieties and that Dutch and Belgian speakers of Limburgish varieties too, will generally define their dialect by the respective locality (village, town) where it is spoken. The article should describe the politics of regionalism which are intricately linked with "Limburgish" (and language identity) in the Netherlands and (to a lesser extent) Belgium, but which are absent in Germany.<ref>Jürgen Erich Schmidt: Historisches Westdeutsch/Rheinisch (Moselfränkisch, Ripuarisch, Südniederfränkisch). In: Sprache und Raum: Ein internationales Handbuch der Sprachvariation. Band 4: Deutsch, Berlin, 2019, p. 528.</ref> | |||
| * (6) This article should acknowledge and describe that "Limburgish" is not a monolithic, uniform language, but rather a varying group of unstandardized, closely related dialects. It should explicitly make clear, that linguistic opinion as to which particular dialects constitute this group may vary and explain why this is the case.<ref>Pierre Bakkes, Herman Crompvoets, Jan Notten & Frans Walraven: , pp. 8, {{ISBN|90-77457-02-X}}.</ref> | |||
| '''Concerning the use of sources when describing "Limburgish":''' | |||
| *(7) This article should refrain from giving examples of or make claims pertaining to grammar/vocabulary without valid references. When properly referenced, examples of grammar or vocabulary should ideally only be placed in the article if they represent a significant portion of the Limburgish varieties; if not, the examples belong in article concerning the specific dialect itself. The article should be careful to claim transitional varieties (such as ]) as definitely belonging to either category. | |||
| *(8) This article should include reliable data concerning both the number of speakers and their make up. | |||
| '''Concerning the political status of "Limburgish":''' | |||
| * (9a) The recognition of "Limburgish" in the Netherlands (specifically the Limburg province) under part II of the ] should of course be plainly stated, however its context should be thoroughly explored in the article. It should, for example, be made clear that the recognition process proved to be controversial and that the Dutch recognition explicitly pertains to the "dialects spoken in the Dutch province Limburg" and neither describes nor recognizes "Limburgish" as a "separate language". For example, the charter shouldn't be used to describe "Limburgish" as a language with "limited recognition" or in purposely vague formulations that suggest that the Netherlands have "recognized Limburgish" whereas Germany and/or Belgium have refused to do so.<ref name="Cornips2412">Cornips (2010), p. 241.</ref><ref name="Caluwe">Taalvariatie en taalbeleid, J. De Caluwe. pp. 112-113/127.</ref> | |||
| * (9b) Similarly, the Walloon/French Communities 1990 recognition of "all native Romance and Germanic languages" spoken on the territory of Wallonia and Brussels, should not be misconstrued into a recognition of "Limburgish" proper as this document too, does not refer to a "Limburgish language" or indeed mentions "Limburgish" at all. In other words: this article should avoid conflating politics and linguistics.<ref>A. Dassargues: La politique linguistique et culturelle des langues régionales en Belgique francophone de 1990 à 2018, in Synergies Pays Germanophones, 2018, pp. 49-62}}</ref> | |||
| '''Other:''' | |||
| * (10) The presence of/references to the concept of ] in the article should be critically reevaluated. This concept exists in linguistic literature, but its acceptance and currency is unclear. The section within this article has no references and the Misplaced Pages-article on Meuse-Rhenish itself has been somewhat of a mess since 2010. | |||
| The above points are representative of the broad consensus regarding these dialects, but should not be interpreted as excluding alternative points of view, as long as these are presented in the form of reliable and valid sources. | |||
| I would like to ask all interested editors, to voice their opinion as to whether they consider these points to form an acceptable workable framework for future improvement and changes to this article. If an editor considered a specific point or part of it problematic, I kindly request them to voice their concerns here as well. If an editor believes that an additional point could prove beneficial to the improvement of the article, I would too request them to share this here. Regards, ] (]) 10:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 10:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| :* (1) and (10): No. German linguistics dissents and has an alternative definition from the Low Franconian classification common in Dutch linguistics called "Rheinmaasländisch" (example Deutsch: Sprache und Raum, 2019). | |||
| :* (2): No .That may be the reality in the Rhine region, but Dutch linguists explicitly reject Dutch as a Dachsprache. The cultural autonomy of Limburgish is one the reasons the Netherlands recognized it as a regional language under the European treaty. | |||
| :* (3): That is misleading, it is established that "Middle Dutch" and "Old Dutch" project current politics on the past (i.e. all languages spoken in the region where Dutch is currently an official language), see the standard work on Middle Dutch by Hogenhout-Mulder. Ties in to point (1), calling Low Franconian "Netherlandic" is simultaneously misleading. Old and Middle Limburgish are established terms in modern linguistics, example: | |||
| :* (4) Utter nonsense. Example: the Limburgish-Brabantian "border" which is typically the Gete line consists of 26 isophones, loss of tonality and umlautization. That is not "fluently". See "De grens tussen het Brabants en Limburgs in België" bij Pauwels and Morren. | |||
| :* (5): Agreed. | |||
| :* (6): The article does this sufficiently already | |||
| :* (7): We have this same discussion on the Dutch wikipedia, I disagree. Sources should be provided wherever possible, but unless an example isn't suspiciously false or provably wrong they serve as testimonies of a living language and are highly appropriate on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :* (8): Agreed, although the article currently does this. | |||
| :* (9): That is incorrect, the signing of the treaty does not come with a definition of Limburgish. Feel free to nuance the impact of the treaty, but you will have to do better than a single source from 2002 (the treaty is from 1997), considering that it is 2023. Consider for example the official adoption of the Veldeke spelling, creation of the Raod veur 't Limburgs (official organ for Limburgish) or the usage of Limburgish in schools and media. (9b): the French community's adoption of the "langues régionales endogènes" was in direct response to the inability of Belgium to sign the European treaty. They recognize Limburgish as a regional language, albeit only the part in the North-East of Liège that falls under their jurisdiction. | |||
| :] (]) 11:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll for now comment on point 4 only. Regarding '' the immediate dialect continuum of which the Limburgish varieties are a part ''; though this may indeed be true – at least to some extent – especially for Limburgish varieties spoken in and just above ], exactly the same can be stated for example about some language varieties spoken in ] and traditionally considered Low Saxon, while they actually make up a continuum with other varieties considered Low Franconian. This is well explained for example : '' Vermengde het Saksisch zich met het Frankisch tot het Zuidoost-Veluwsch'' (translation: "Saxon mingled with Franconian to become South-East Veluws"). --] (]) 14:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===Point 1, the mainstream categorization of Limburgish as part of Low Franconian & use of "Meuse Rhenish" === | |||
| To my surprise, the claim has been made by {{User|Briegelaer}} that the German linguistic field does not categorize the Limburgish varieties as Low Franconian and that there supposedly exist a dichotomy between mainstream German and Dutch linguists. He instead claims, again without mentioning any sources, that German linguists use an alternative definition "Meuse Rhenish" to classify the Limburgish varieties. | |||
| These two claims are both unsupported by references and incorrect: in Dutch, English and German publications, the Limburgish varieties are generally classified as being part of Low Franconian; and while alternative views exist and have existed (and should be given a place in the article), this is the consensus position and has been for quite some time. | |||
| The most common term in German linguistics today (and hence my surprise) for the varieties that are commonly included within the term "Limburgish" is ''Südniederfränkisch'' (as for example evidence by this article's German Misplaced Pages equivalent: ]), which means "South <u>Low Franconian</u>". The categorization of the varieties themselves as part of Low Franconian is exceedingly common and mainstream. This is not only (self-)evident by the corresponding Misplaced Pages article, but (and more importantly) by numerous publications; such as: | |||
| *], in his well known and extensively published linguistic atlas, in which Limburgish varieties are shown and described as part of Low Franconian, in both its 2007 and most recent (2011) publication. | |||
| * designed by ] (considered an expert on the dialects of the Lower Rhine) and published by the ], also using <u>South Low Franconian</u>. | |||
| *]: Strukturelle historische Dialektologie des Deutschen: strukturhistorische und strukturgeographische Studien zur Vokalentwicklung deutscher Dialekte, Olms Verlag, 2017, : which clearly describes that "South Low Franconian" (first used since 1908) and a lesser known term "''Nordripuarisch''" (North Ripuarian) have been used in German publications, but then goes on to specify in the footnotes that the the two publication using the term, explicitly state it being <u>part of Low Franconian</u>. | |||
| *]: Die deutsche Sprache: Ursprünge, Entwicklung und Wandel. Marix Verlag, 2017, : Speaks of <u>South Low Franconian</u> as the dialects between Uerdingen line and Benrath line; correctly noting that the Uerdingen line is a much younger (13th-15th century) development of the Benrath line. | |||
| This is a limited selection of course, but the authors are very reputable and their works clearly disprove any notion of a supposed terminological split along Dutch-German state lines. | |||
| Additionally, the second claim made by Briegelaer (that German linguists instead classify these dialects as Meuse Rhenish) can be dismissed even further, as "Meuse Rhenish", as introduced by the linguist Arend Mihm in 1992, refers to a written language used during the Late Middle Ages. The claim is further debunked by the following (German) authors: | |||
| *]: Deutsch: Sprache und Raum - Ein internationales Handbuch der Sprachvariation, De Gruyter, 2019, explicitly defines Meuse Rhenish as a category/further specification <u>within</u> Low Franconian. | |||
| *: Niederländische Sprachwissenschaft: Eine Einführung, Attempto Verlag, 2013, : explicitly states that Meuse Rhenish is to be understood as a medieval writing tradition <u>within</u> ]. | |||
| With this in mind it is hard to take Briegelaers claims very seriously, though I invite him to list his sources to the contrary if he wants to contest the observations above. | |||
| Moving forward, I think it is fair to say that most linguists worth their salt on the German-Dutch continuum (be they German or Dutch or Chinese) would agree that, regardless of which name it is given, South Low Franconian is a transitional area between Low Franconian and Ripuarian. After all, this is a part of the Rhenish fan, which is practically defined by its transitional nature and as such, any cutoff point is ultimately arbitrary. | |||
| However, this does not mean that sources or longstanding conventions no longer matter: Low South Franconian is conventionally/traditionally seen as part of the broader Low Franconian varieties and the article should reflect this. Not only is this in line with the majority of publications on the matter, it also aligns with South Low Franconian topologically being on the Low Franconian end of the spectrum (]: Strukturen im Sprachraum: Analysen zur arealtypologischen Komplexität der Dialekte in Deutschland, 2013, De Gruyter, ) and with the historio-linguistical reality that the South Low Franconian varieties derive from Old East Low Franconian. Kind regards, ] (]) 12:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, | |||
| :thank you all for the lively discussion. | |||
| :does it make sense to classify Limburgish and dialects north of it together? I have raised the issue of division and definition of Limburgish on the talk page of the Dutch article. | |||
| :Kind regards ] (]) 17:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Sarcelles}} In some contexts it does, in some it doesn't. For example, within the context of the Dutch recognition of "Limburgish" as a regional language in Limburg, it makes sense; as the recognition document takes "Limburgs" to mean "all dialects of Limburg", and I have seen it been done as well when using particular (i.e. self-reporting) methods of establishing dialect areas. When it comes to certain features or isoglosses (such as pitch accent or the consonant shift) it doesn't have to be so though. Kind regards, ] (]) 07:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :A problem with ''Rheinmaasländisch'' is that this term doesn't seem very common except among German philologists. In Dutch, the corresponding term ''Rijn-Maaslands'' exists as such. However it refers most of the time to the historical literal tradition of the region (see for example ), and isn't used as a dialectogical term, or hardly. | |||
| :In the past, the relevant article on Dutch WP (]) has been subject to a lot of discussion and doubt and raised some serious questions (as well because of the uncommon title, which apparently should have been "Rijn-Maaslands"). Anyway this shouldn't be discussed on this talk page further. ] (]) 20:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Point 2, Standard Dutch and Standard German as Dachsprachen/culture languages of the South Low Franconian / Limburgish varieties === | |||
| {{User|Briegelaer}} has disputed the role of Standard Dutch as the ] or culture language of the South Low Franconian / Limburgish varieties spoken in the Netherlands. He added two sources; which supposedly support his claim that "Dutch linguists explicitly reject Dutch as a Dachsprache ". | |||
| These sources shouldn't be taken at face value however, as even a short examination will reveal that they in fact do <u>not support</u> the above claim and are <u>not credible or useful</u> source materials. | |||
| *The first source provided, is published on a petition platform called petitie24.nl (a type of website similar to change.org). The petition in question does not speak of Dachsprachen or languages of culture; instead it attacks the ] (the Dutch and Belgian governmental institution for Dutch language issues) for not including "the Limburgish language" as an option in a survey which asked participants in which situations they used Dutch and in which situations they did not; instead using (for example) Frisian, English or a migrant language. The authors allege that the Taalunie did this purposely, to demean and ignore "the Limburgish language". Among the 58 Signees are several linguists, but also a rather wellknown concert violinist by the name of ] (and his wife), regional television presenters and "a Limburgish speaker from New Zealand". | |||
| :Clearly, this is not a valid, neutral or reliable source for the matter at hand. In fact, even if it had been the case that this online petition concerned the matter being discussed here, and even if it had been signed exclusively by linguists, it would still have constituted, ''at best'', a ]. | |||
| *The second source is published by the Dutch government in 2019. It too does not concern itself with Dachsprache/culture language. Instead it is a ] (and therefore a primary source) detailing the <u>non-legally binding</u> (section 3) in which the Dutch government hopes to preserve the Limburgish dialects in such a way, that it doesn't require the introduction of new or additional laws. | |||
| If Briegelaers is still of the opinion that these source are in fact valid, reliable and applicable within the frame work of ] I cordially invite him to do so. | |||
| However, if choosing to do so, I think it would be more than prudent to take into account the following sources (all secondary, linguistic literature) which explicitly state that Dutch, German and French are in fact the language of culture in the area in which the South Low Franconian / Limburgish varieties are spoken. These are: | |||
| *: Dutch. A linguistic history of Holland and Belgium, 1983, : in which the author states that " spoken along the Dutch-German border are regarded as either Dutch or German dialects according to which of those two languages the speakers of those dialects regard as their standard written language or cultuurtaal.". | |||
| *: ‘Limburgers worden Nederlanders? Over de vernederlandsing van het zuidoosten van Nederlands Limburg (1789-1935)’ in: Taalvariatie en groepsidentiteit, 2005, : which unequivocally and explicitly states that "At the moment three culture languages are spoken in the ]: Dutch, French and German." and in fact provides an excellent framework for describing the interplay between the Dutch, German and French culture languages in the wider Limburg-region from the 17th century up until the present-day. | |||
| In summary: like virtually all dialects of the Continental West Germanic continuum, the Low South Franconian / Limburgish varieties are not standardized and the majority of speakers use either Standard Dutch or Standard German as their standardized written language or culture language. Of course speakers of these varieties use they respective dialect in various situations, which is perfectly normal and undisputed, but the languages of the administrative and broader cultural realm are one of the three aforementioned standard languages and this should be (as already stated above) be clearly reflected in the article. Kind regards, ] (]) 08:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :For now, just regarding this last point: it's unclear to me this way why an article which is about a certain language variety/group of varieties, should pay excessive attention to the so-called "culture language" (by the way, I'd actually prefer to avoid that term because it seems to imply that some languages/language varieties are "superior" – i.e. representative of "the culture" – to other ones spoken in the same area, which from a linguistic point of view is utter nonsense, of course). ] (]) 12:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::None of the authors referenced here at any point claim or imply that culture languages are "better" than dialects, or even touch the concept of "superiority" at any given moment: it simply doesn't enter the conversation with them. | |||
| ::They discuss the culture languages, because these relate to both how a variety is perceived socio-linguistically and profoundly effects lexical borrowing and/or relexifying of preexisting vocabulary. In the case of the Low South Franconian / Limburgish varieties this is especially important to address as, unlike many other Dutch dialect groupings, these varieties show a (regionally varying) sustained influence of not one or two, but three (Dutch, French and German) culture languages. The culture language matters, for example when it comes to societal status, i.e. to clarify in which context a Low South Franconian / Limburgish variety was, is or can be used or isn't. For example, this section could elaborate how in 19th century southern Limburg German was more prominent in clerical spheres, whereas Dutch was the language of administration and how this influenced the various dialects and/or limited their sphere. Or it could be used to explain that regional language recognition has been largely symbolic up until now and, unlike for example Frisian speakers, the speakers of South Low Franconian-varieties are expected and required to address the courts or make their correspondences with local administration in Dutch. And so on and on. | |||
| ::So no, I very much disagree with both your claim that a concept of "superiority/inferiority" is a part of this particular matter and with the notion that this is a non-important facet of describing the socio-linguistic dimensions of these varieties; it very much is. Regards, ] (]) 16:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Point 3, the validity of terminology === | |||
| {{User|Briegelaer}} has alleged that terminology such as "Old Dutch" and "Middle Dutch" are misleading. He claims these terms are without meaning, while simultaneously claiming that terminology such as "Old Limburgish" and "Middle Limburgish" are established terms in modern linguistics. I'm not sure what his particular angle is here, but it might be an attempt to remove Limburgish from the Middle Dutch paradigm to further stress its separateness from "Dutch". | |||
| First and foremost it is important to absolutely stress that "Middle Dutch" is a long-established term within historical Germanic linguistics; found in all the standard works on this subject. Definitions vary, but Middle Dutch is commonly described as consisting of five main dialects: Hollandic, Flemish, Brabantian, Zealandic <u>and Limburgish</u>. Depending on the author and definition used, these five can be expanded with Middle East Dutch (essentially Dutch-influenced Western Low Saxon) or South Guelderish (Low Franconian varieties now spoken in Germany). | |||
| The view is in fact so common; that the author referenced by Briegelaer (Maaike Hogenhout-Mulder, in a 1983 coursebook meant for students) actually contradicts his claim. She writes: | |||
| :"The above already shows that doesn't exist. There is only a collection of dialects, which, predominantly based on later political developments, are viewed as forming a single unit, as Middle Dutch. Roughly speaking, one could say that Middle Dutch is the language of the texts that were written in the language of the people between 1100 and 1500, in the area which now comprises of the Netherlands (except Friesland) and the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. This demarcation isn't entirely accurate (in a part of Northwestern France) Dutch was also spoken, but it is workable." () | |||
| In other words, she warns readers not to view Middle Dutch as a monolithic modern standard language, but as a collection of dialects. <u>That's her point</u>; not that the predecessors of the South Low Franconian dialects should not be viewed as part of Middle Dutch, but that what we call Middle Dutch wasn't homogeneous in the way that standardized languages today are. | |||
| This is not unique to Middle Dutch however, it's common to all "languages" of historical linguistics. In fact Hogenhout-Mulder explicitly states this, when she writes: | |||
| :"<u>Just like within for example English and German</u>, three stages are distinguistished within Dutch: Old Dutch, Middle Dutch and New Dutch. This division is based on certain characteristics (mainly of a fonological and morphological nature) which the language in question would have shown in certain periods." () | |||
| Noted scholar ] does exactly the same (and goes on to list Middle Limburgish as a subset of Middle Dutch): "<u>Like Old, Middle and Modern English, terms like Middle Dutch are simply conventient labels and have little linguistic reality</u>. At no one point in time can we say that Middle Dutch finishes and Modern Dutch begins. What we are dealing with is a continuum. If it were possible to decide upon any sort of firm linguistic criteria, the result would be different dates for each regional dialect (i.e. Middle Brabantish, Middle Flemish, <u>Middle Limburgish</u>, etc.)" (Kate Burridge: Syntactic Change in Germanic: Aspects of Language Change in Germanic with Particular Reference to Middle Dutch, 1993, ()) | |||
| Concerning his source Briegelaer also forgot to mention that in addition to this semi-political definition of Middle Dutch, the author went on (on the same page, mind you) to list the much used linguistic definition of Middle Dutch used by ], the preeminent scholar of Middle Dutch during the second half of the 20th century, explicitly noting that in his definition Middle Dutch and Middle Low German are separated by the ], while Middle Dutch and High German are divided along the ] -- a definition, which also includes South Low Franconian / Limburgish; and which consists of purely linguistic arguments. | |||
| I would now briefly like to address the second claim made by Briegelaer, namely that "Old Limburgish" and "Middle Limburgish" are established terms in modern linguistics. | |||
| The sources mentioned by me above have of course already shown that "Middle Limburgish" is indeed a term used in modern linguistics, to refer to a group of dialects included within the broader term "Middle Dutch". However, what Briegelaer seems to claim, is that terms like "Old Limburgish" and "Middle Limburgish" are supposedly used in a sense in which they exclude "Old Dutch" and or "Middle Dutch". In other words: that the medieval West Germanic languages are supposedly commonly divided into "Middle English, Middle Dutch, Middle High German, Middle Low German <u>and Middle Limburgish</u>". I have yet to see a single reliable source, which does that; let alone a source that does this and then explains the context/rationale for doing so; which would indicate that these terms are not part of the broader consensus which Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to represent. | |||
| To expand on the uncommonness, Ngram clearly shows that the term "Middle Limburgish" is virtually non-existent in either English or German: | |||
| *, clearly showing "Middle Dutch" as an established term in English; with "Middle Limburgish" not yielding any results. | |||
| *, clearly showing "Mittelniederländisch" as an established term in German; with "Mittellimburgisch" not yielding any results. | |||
| * A google.de-search on "" gave 0 results. | |||
| * A google.com-search on gave 0 results. | |||
| * A google.nl-search on gave 1 result, a false positive as the given page is about a surgeon having trouble learning the Central Limburgish language ("midden-Limburgse taal"). | |||
| Summarizing: I can't see how Briegelaer has in any way shown that Middle Dutch is considered an invalid linguistic category, nor that he has shown that the inclusion of the South Low Franconian /Limburgish varieties within "Middle Dutch" is in anyway controversial, let alone uncommon. The sources, widely available, show the opposite picture: Middle Dutch is a much used and uncontroversial term, subject to the same (near universal) caveats as other historical languages and includes the medieval Limburgish varieties together with the other historical Low Franconian and/or Dutch-influenced dialects of Low Saxon. | |||
| By comparison: the terms "Old Limburgish" and "Middle Limburgish" are not common and seem to lack any formal defining within the linguistic literature, aside from subcategories of Old Dutch and Middle Dutch. | |||
| I think the sources and figures listed above speak for themselves, though I again invite Briegelaer to list his sources to the contrary if he wants to contest the above. Kind regards, ] (]) 10:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Somewhere above (as a result of many new posts in a short period of time, it's become somewhat difficult to find it back easily), Briegelaer already gave . In the pdf (downloadable), the following can be found on page 252-253: ''However, accurately transcribed legal documents up to 1600 need to be evaluated by Middle Dutch <u>and Middle Limburgish</u> linguistic experts to ''. Elsewhere on the internet, some instances of ''Old Limburgish'' can be found as well (though the source is in some cases Misplaced Pages itself, unfortunately). Anyway I wouldn't state as bluntly as Vlaemink does above that the two terms are "virtually non-existent". | |||
| :By the way, by stating at the same time ''The sources mentioned by me above have of course already shown that "Middle Limburgish" is indeed a term used in modern linguistics '' (which, indeed, seems in conformity with the pdf I just cited from), Vlaemink actually seems to contradict himself. Otherwise, could this be explained better? ] (]) 23:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is nothing contradictory, you're simply missing the issue, which <u>isn't just about the occurrence of a particular word; but of a concept.</u> | |||
| ::This point concerns the use of regular, commonly accepted terminology for the historical phases of the South Low Franconian / Limburgish dialects. The scientific consensus (as clearly shown above) is that these dialects, as are all other Low Franconian dialects, are treated within the constructs of "Middle Dutch" and "Old Dutch". Within these two concepts, further delineation can be made; for example "Meuse Rhenish" for a relatively distinctive variant within the written corpus of Middle Dutch, or "Middle Limburgish" for texts that display the characteristics of this particular dialect or Old Dutch being divided int Old West Dutch and Old East Dutch. That's all firmly rooted in linguistic literature and should therefore be reflected in the article. | |||
| ::What isn't rooted in literature however, is the idea of a "Old Limburgish language" or "Middle Limburgish language" existing as a distinct entity at a tier equal to Old Dutch, Middle Dutch, Old High German and Middle High German. Sources are required for this, preferably by respected and established authors clearly explaining this; <u>which have not been provided.</u> | |||
| ::I really can't stress enough that the sources not only need to address this concept rather than just "drop a term" but that they also need to be <u>valid and reliable</u>. I'll "dissect" your link to show you what is meant: | |||
| ::'''Validity of the source''': The ; isn't about either Middle Dutch nor "Middle Limburgish", which explains why only mentions both terms once. Its subject is (as clearly stated by the author, pp. 148) "''To assesses the opportunities for successfully completing a contemporary Dutch-Limburgish legal dictionary.''". In other words, your source is completely unsuited (i.e. invalid) for this particular subject matter. | |||
| ::'''Reliability of the author''': This is clearly a linguistic subject, the author of your link however, Coen van Laer, is not a linguist. Instead he is a law and philosophy graduate, as is evidenced by both his Maastricht University profile and . In addition to that, he also appears to be the secretary for the "Limbörgse Academie" ; a somewhat activist, online platform, with a very limited presence in academia (the authoritative contains no references to it, neither does and contains three references, one of which published by the same author (Van Laer) as above) and which stated goal is apparently to "Preserve and further develop Limburgish and all its dialects" and to "Provide digital tools" to achieve this goal. Now to be perfectly clear, provided that the source itself is valid (which it of course isn't in this case) it shouldn't really matter if an author or the platform he or she represents is activist or has a atypical POV ; those sources can and should still have a place alongside the consensus view. However this depends on the validity of such an organisation (or an author) within the academic field, which in this case, appears to be entirely insufficient. | |||
| ::Summarizing: this point concerns <u>the validity of linguistic terminology</u>, it isn't merely about whether a word "exists": if you and Briegelaer want to have your POV next to the mainstream consensus on this matter, you will have to provide reliable and sources which deal with this particular subject matter. Regards, ] (]) 09:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===Point 4, fluent dialectal transitions === | |||
| ] (marking the western end of the Gete bundle) whereas the various dashed lines are all isoglosses of the bundle.]] | |||
| The notion that the Limburgish / South Low Franconian varieties fluently transition in other larger dialect groupings such as Brabantic and Kleverlandish was challenged by {{user|Briegelaer}} above. To quote him directly, he claimed this was "Utter nonsense" and then claimed that the "Limburgish-Brabantian border" was supposedly clearly defined by the Gete line, which consists of "26 isophones , loss of tonality and umlautization." | |||
| Again this objection surprised me as the idea, with the exception of areas bordering French-speakers, that Limburgish does not transition fluently into Brabantian and other neighboring dialect clusters; is completely against linguistic consensus. | |||
| Just as surprising is that the Gete line is given as "proving" Briegelaers point, as it does the exact opposite. Why? Because the "Gete line" is best described by its alternative name of "Gete bundle/cluster", as it isn't in any way a single line (as illustrated by the map on the right) but a series of isoglosses in which, viewed east to west, the typically Limburgish / South Low Franconian features steadily decrease. Or, in the wording of the definition given by the "dialect desk" of the ]: "a bundle/cluster of 26 isoglosses <u>marking the transitional area between the Brabantic and Limburgish dialects</u>.". | |||
| A quick google-books scan results in several additional unambiguous statements confirming the transitional nature of the area between Brabantic and Limburgish and/or the Dutch dialectal landscape as a whole; for example: | |||
| *Rob Belemans: Belgisch-Limburgs, Lannoo, 2004: "The dialects of Beringen, Eversel, Tervant, Paal, Beverlo, Oostham, Heppen and Korspel are <u>a true transitional zone</u>, containing dialects which are <u>half-Brabantic and half-Limburgish</u>. They are included within the Limburgish language area, <u>but as real borderline cases</u>." () | |||
| *Miet Ooms: Vlaams-Brabants en Antwerps, Lannoo, 2005: "The dialectal landscape in Dutch-speaking Belgium thus is a succession of core and transtional areas between West-Flemish, East-Flemish, Brabantic <u>and Limburgish</u>." () | |||
| *Johan Taeldeman & Marc van Oostendorp: De fonologie van de Nederlandse dialecten en fonologische theorievorming, 2002: "The dialect of Meijel can therefore be viewed as <u>a transition between the Limburgish and the Brabantic dialects</u>." () | |||
| With this in mind it is hard to take Briegelaers claims very seriously, though I invite him to list his sources to the contrary if he wants to contest the observations and sources above. Kind regards, ] (]) 08:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Analogously, there are some transitional dialects as well between Limburgish and ]. Why should the transitional Limburgish-Brabantian zone be stressed in particular? Another thing is that maybe Briegelaer meant "not fluently" in a somewhat different way (I hope Briegelaer can explain that themselves). ] (]) 09:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Vlaemink}} '' as the idea, with the exception of areas bordering French-speakers, that Limburgish transition fluently into Brabantian and other neighboring dialect clusters; is completely <u>against</u> linguistic consensus'' › I think you mean exactly the opposite of what you write here. (Or, if not, you've suddenly completely changed your mind on this subject.) ] (]) 09:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the "Basic outline for this article"-paragraph, I clearly and explicitly state that this article should stress the transitional nature of these dialects in all directions, including (in fact, explicitly) Ripuarian Franconian. Nowhere, do I at any point say that the transition between Brabantian and Limburgish / South Low Franconian "ought to be stressed in particular". The fact that I focussed on the fluent transition between Brabantic and Limburigsh in the above comment and listing of sources is simply and logically due to Briegelaer giving this as a particular example supposedly proving the opposite. | |||
| ::As for your additional comment concerning my supposed "complete change of mind on the subject" ... that was obviously a (now fixed) typo. I say obviously, as it clearly wouldn't be in line with any of my previous comments on this matter or any of the sources provided and, last but not least, because it would have had me implying that a Romantic language such as French, belonging to an entirely different branch of Indo-European, would have transitional dialects with a Germanic dialect group such as Limburgish -- which is absurd and ridiculous. Regards, ] (]) 10:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::(I presume you mean a ].) OK, thanks for clarifying anyway. ] (]) 10:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Regarding Belemans & Keulen (2004); though on one hand they classify the Limburgish dialects spoken in the province of Belgian Limburg on page 19 indeed as transitional, they also make a very strict demarcation between the so-called West Limburgish language area and the rest (more western part of) Belgian Limburg on page 27 (. ] (]) 12:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do not understand what point you´re trying to make: it is perfectly possible and extremely common to state that dialects are transitional while simultaneously using various isoglosses, or even a single isoglos, to differentiate between varieties. ] (]) 12:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that we should be consistent in classification. If ] is not Limburgish (but Brabantian) then ] should probably be classified as Ripuarian (see on German Misplaced Pages). Maybe we should merge that page with ] and make it into a redirect. ] is rather short and very poorly sourced. A list of books is still poor sourcing because the exact pages are not mentioned and there are hardly any inline citations. The article fails ] and ]. | |||
| :In the aforementioned discussion on German Misplaced Pages, a Wikipedian (]) says that {{tq|Die Einstufung der Dialekte am Dreiländereck rund um Aachen als eigene Dialektgruppe Südostlimburgisch ist sicher keine gängige Lehrmeinung. In der Fachliteratur habe ich diese Dialekte durchweg als ripuarisch eingestuft wahrgenommen.}} It shouldn't be hard to prove and then we'd get to expand and improve upon ] through the merger. | |||
| :"Southeast Limburgish" features the {{IPA|/ɣ/}} → {{IPA|/j/}} as well as the ]. The latter gives those dialects a very German (after all, this matches the consonant shifts found in Standard German), non-Dutch sound which starkly contrasts with the sound of Limburgish, with its consonantal phonology/phonotactics being much closer to Dutch (you still have {{IPA|/skV/}} → {{IPA|/ʃV/}} in Limburgish, which makes it sound a bit German but not to that extreme extent (the sentence ''Jód èse en drinke hilt lief en zieël tsezame'' neither looks nor sounds very Dutch to me). And {{IPA|/sC/}} → {{IPA|/ʃC/}} mirrors the development in Northern Dutch, where it is non-phonemic. ''Straat'' is basically ''sjtraat'' in those varieties of Dutch, or very close to that. I don't find Limburgish {{IPA|/ʃC/}} to be phonetically remarkable in any way, Belgians will obviously disagree with this though). This does not look like a fluent transition to me, but rather a hard border (with Eygelshoven speaking Limburgish and areas further south speaking Ripuarian, in the case of Kerkrade - so an either-or issue). | |||
| :This "Southeast Limburgish" also features the shortening of {{IPA|/øː/}} and {{IPA|/oː/}} (''good'' → ''jód'') found in Germany but, as far as I know, not in the Netherlands. Same with the historical {{IPA|/ɣ/}} after back vowels: it merges with {{IPA|/ʁ/}}, or almost so. ''Vroage'' is {{IPA|}}. This is typical Ripuarian. {{IPA|/x/}} is also uvular {{IPAblink|χ}} after back vowels - this, coupled with the palatal {{IPAblink|ç}} after front vowels, also sounds German (see above). I've always been puzzled as to why those dialects are lumped together with Maastrichtian or Zittesj. I get it, the speakers of Kirchröadsj or Völzer don't want to perceive themselves as German (the vast majority of Ripuarian speakers are German) - but that is not what this is about. The irony is that Kirchröadsj is also spoken by Germans, in ]. The dialect is exactly the same and even says this. I don't know whether the residents of Herzogenrath use any special name for it besides the generic ''Platt'' (''Kirchröadsj'' refers to ''Kirchroa'' (Kerkrade), the Dutch part of the city), but that's neither here nor there. The name or the wishes of the native speakers of any given language/dialect should not affect its linguistic classification (see ], ] etc.) This insistance on the term "Southeast Limburgish" by some looks like a kind of a misguided local patriotism ("because it is spoken in Limburg in the Netherlands, it must be called Limburgish"). This also seems to apply to the ]. | |||
| :, a Limburgish Wikipedian wrote that ''In Oche zaat mer dat 't beste Öcher plat jekalld weat i Vols.'' This means that they are perceived as one dialect that cannot be truly and reliably ascribed to one country or nation (unless it's already dead in Aachen - then it can. Maybe that's what the sentence means, after all. But Kirchröadsj cannot). | |||
| :And what about ]? ] (]) 21:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :There's one citation: {{tq|Within Central Franconian, Ripuarian is distinguished from Moselle Franconian/Westerwäldisch by the form ''Dorp'' (or ''Dörp''), which contrasts with ''Dorf'' ‘village’. '''It is further sub-divided into the Low Franconian/Ripuarian border dialect with ''maken'', and Aachen-Cologne Ripuarian with ''machen'' ‘make’. Within Aachen-Cologne comes the additional distinction West Rip. ''reit'', East Rip. ''rech(t)'' ‘right’.'''}} It is from "The Dialects of Modern German: A Linguistic survey" by Charles Russ, p. 200. I've got the digital version from 2006, if it makes a difference. It appears to me that his "West Ripuarian" is the same as our "Southeast Limburgish". Now comes the question of ], which concernes a common name in English-language sources (whenever there is such a thing). ] (]) 02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for this interesting and extensive explanation. I have just these comments for now: | |||
| ::Though I surely agree that the term "Limburgish" as it's used in ''Southeast Limburgish'' may be linguistically confusing/misleading since the dialects referred to (i.e. those of ], ] etc.) are as such actually varieties of Ripuarian, this term seems already to have become commonplace among dialectologists and therefore shouldn't be changed nor avoided here on Misplaced Pages (where, of course, only the relevant sources must be followed). Furthermore, I doubt whether this has anything do with "misguided local patriotism" (which seems a somewhat bold statement to me). | |||
| ::About the ], indeed this is actually a transitional dialect. It's most of the time basically considered "linguistically Limburgish", but with some striking Kleverlandish and/or Brabantian traits (such as the use of the first person pronoun ''ik'', instead of ''ich'' as in the varieties spoken in the more southern part of the Dutch province of Limburg). | |||
| ::Best, ] (]) 11:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::http://www.wjheeringa.nl/thesis/thesis09.pdf linked by me above uses Levenshtein distances and is quite convincing. However, there are other studies with other methods. | |||
| :::Which studies do exist? | |||
| :::Kind regards ] (]) 12:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::You say that {{tq|this term seems already to have become commonplace among dialectologists}}. Can you name the sources? Are they only Dutch-language, or are there some English- or German-language (or French-language) ones? Do they deal with dialects spoken on both sides of the border, or just those in the Netherlands? ] says that ''Southeast Limburgish'' is a division used in Woordenboek van de Limburgse Dialecten (of course, not as ''Southeast Limburgish'' but as ''Zuidoost-Limburgs'' - i.e. a Dutch name. This too is important). | |||
| :::{{tq|and therefore shouldn't be changed nor avoided here on Misplaced Pages}} It shouldn't be entirely avoided but we should be mindful of ] dialectal classifications, especially those that are not linguistic but cultural or political. By the same token, we haven't replaced the terms "Bosnian", "Croatian", "Serbian" and "Montenegrin" with "Serbo-Croatian" in every article. You can still encounter them. Judging by what I've seen so far, the article ] should be made into a redirect. ] (]) 16:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sure, there's enough scientific literature to find at least in Dutch where the term is used. See for example . On the other hand, the term doesn't seem very common in German but you can still find some instances of it, . In English, you can only translate it literally as '']''; do you believe the title of that article should be changed? To be honest, I see no good reason. | |||
| ::::Furthermore, my suggestion is to discuss this further on ], if needed. This talk page is about Limburgish as such. ] (]) 10:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===Point 7, unsourced examples=== | |||
| I'm still following this discussion as a silent observer, but when it comes to point 7, I have to point out two ''unnegotiable'' pillars of enWP: ] and ]. Every descriptive claim needs a source, and this also holds for examples that illustrate key points of the grammar. Using primary sources (i.e. written published material in the language that is described) to illustrate an aspect of the grammar (which itself ''must'' be supported by a citation from a secondary reliable source) is to be avoided when descriptive sources have their own set of examples (but beware of ]!). Wikimedia sister projects might have other standards when it comes to ] and ], but these are irrelevant for ''this'' Wikimedia project. | |||
| {{ping|Briegelaer}} {{tq|...unless an example isn't suspiciously false or provably wrong they serve as testimonies of a living language and are highly appropriate on Misplaced Pages}}. Sorry, but this is the wrong approach. "Provably wrong" is definitely not the only criterion for revomal of content; add "unsupported by reliable source" and we're getting closer to how enWP works. If there's still doubt about this, please consult the noticeboard for original research: ]. | |||
| I won't chime in for the actual content dispute yet. Btw, I'm happy to see that the participants stick to the topic without drama and toxicity (I'm specialized in Austronesian languages of the Malay archipelago so my reading proficiency in Dutch is pretty good; my glimpse into the discussion surrounding this issue in nlWP was an unpleasant read, I can tell you). Cheers! –] (]) 20:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Ping|Austronesier}} Thank you for explicitly making the point that this is a foundational pillar of the project and is indeed non-negotiable. Judging from your username and activity of the German-language Misplaced Pages, am I correct to assume that you are also proficient in German? ] (]) 10:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Definition in the intro == | |||
| , the definition ''group of East Low Franconian varieties'' was changed to ''West Germanic language'' by an unknown IP. As a first step in working towards a more balanced article, the old definition could be restored, after which the different current visions on the exact linguistic position of Limburgish within the West-Germanic family can be explained in detail (and, of course, with reliable sources). | |||
| How about this suggestion? Thanks a lot in advance. ] (]) 11:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :"West Germanic language" is linguistically correct and much more understandable than "East Low Franconian varieties". The latter may be a narrower definition, but as pointed out above in French and German linguistics this classification is contested. It also more accurately reflects the sociolinguistic status of Limburgish (at least in the Netherlands and Belgium). | |||
| :IMHO, it is slightly arbitrary to use a classification in historical linguistics to open an article. East Low Franconian is a term invented to compensate for Limburgish varieties having gone through a High German consonant shift, while trying to retain the Low Franconian terminology that was used to (arbitrarily) differentiate Dutch from German in the early 20th century. Low Franconian is not in any way a coherent language or cluster of languages to which we can consistently trace modern languages to, it is just a classification. Unlike West Germanic, which is the root to which the isoglosses in modern Dutch and German are ascribed to. Many reconstructed proto-West Germanic versions exist and it is an established practice in contemporary linguistics to use this as a starting point for studying the variation of the modern West Germanic languages. "Low Franconian" or "East Low Franconian" are not used for these purposes in historical linguistics, and only serve as classification terminology. | |||
| :For reference, Luxembourgish, Scots, English, Dutch, German, Frisian follow the same "West Germanic language" style, likely for clarity. ] (]) 12:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Briegelaer, I don't believe there's anything wrong as such with the terminology ''East Low Franconian'' for Limburgish, provided it's used in the correct way, of course. My proposition was meant in the first place as a sort of provisional compromise on this very sensitive issue. Anyway thanks for your input. ] (]) 12:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| You make a very weird argument, first by stating that the established terminology is all "arbitrary and invented" — most linguistic classifications, including "West Germanic" are — and then by going on a strange tangent involving the supposed invalidity of Low Franconian as a language classification and the supposed nonexistence of any ancestral dialect groupings prior to the advent of "Proto-West Germanic" ... all without sources or references. | |||
| In reality, as demonstrated above, there is <u>nothing</u> controversial about classifying the Limburgish/South Low Franconian varieties as Low Franconian. In fact common practice and linguistic consensus. And as Low Franconian is one of the five subdivisions of the West Germanic languages, it unequivocally implies that the varieties concerned are West Germanic as well. | |||
| Your comparison with Dutch, German, English, Scots, Luxembourgish and Frisian is frankly ludicrous. Dutch, German,(West-)Frisian and English are all standardized languages based on multiple dialects, three of which, have served as languages of culture since at least the Early Modern Period and continue to do so till this very day. Contrary to what you've claimed, the Luxembourgish (the Luxembourgish language is standardized as well, by the way) and Scots language articles immediately specify their linguistic classification at the most appropriate level: Luxembourgish as a Moselle Franconian variety and Scots as belonging to the Anglic subbranch of Anglo-Frisian. Of course, this entire point is moot anyway because even if these Misplaced Pages pages would support your point (which they evidently do not) Misplaced Pages itself is not a valid source. | |||
| To summarize: these dialects are not standardized and are clearly part of a broader subdivision within modern West Germanic. There is no reason, whatsoever, to classify the South Low Franconian / Limburgish dialects with the 2nd tier of the entire Germanic language family — which is why it is extremely uncommon within the linguistic field to do so, i.e. non-consensus. | |||
| The only possible motivation for doing so, would be if a person would want to obscure the intimate ties between the Limburgish varieties and the Dutch, other Low Franconian and German (Central German, West German) languages; with the intent of, falsely, portraying the Limburgish dialects as standing apart from the continental West Germanic dialect continuum. Kind regards, ] (]) 15:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Please do not give distorted representations of others' views. First, of course, absolutely nobody here on this talk page would ever contest that Limburgish as such makes fully part of the so-called "continental West Germanic dialect continuum"; that wouldn't make any sense at all indeed. | |||
| :About the classification of Limburgish as one of the subvarieties of Low Franconian; overall, this seems indeed the most common way of ranking among linguists/dialectologists. On the other hand, some nuance can/should still be added here. There's for example (in Dutch) which ranks Limburgish rather as a kind of transition between Low and Middle Franconian, a view which apparently used to be more common among German dialectologists in the past. | |||
| :(Additional note: I already cited the aforementioned source some months ago on the Dutch WP and had even added it to the corresponding article ], but it has been deleted there again by you with no other argument than debunking it as obsolete/irrelevant). ] (]) 14:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::As has been thoroughly and explicitly made clear in the section above, it would be hard to find a linguist familiar with the matter who would ''deny'' that the South Low Franconian dialects are transitional and I think it would take quite some odd gymnastics to construe my words in such a way that I would challenge this particular view, which is simply consensus: these dialects ''are'' transitional, as are most if not all dialects included within the Continental West Germanic Dialect Continuum, at the very least historically -- there is no debate about this: a myriad of sources, not just those listed above, state that the Limburgish / South Low Franconian varieties are transitional varieties between Low Franconian and Central German. Historically too, this hasn't been disputed as evidenced by your utterly outdated (1892) Dutch source, which also clearly affirms the transitional quality of these varieties. | |||
| ::This particular transitional spectrum consists of multiple dialect groupings, among which the South Low Franconian varieties are positioned on the Low Franconian end and not on the Central German terminus (which of course makes perfect sense, even for most laymen, given that the South Low Franconian varieties are the final radiation of the Rhenish fan, as viewed from the (Upper German) south, and is evidenced in both the name "South <u>Low Franconian</u>" or (also common in Dutch) "East <u>Low Franconian</u>") and hence their common incorporation within <u>Low Franconian</u>. | |||
| ::Historically, there has been some definitional debate concerning the typological boundary of High German -- which could be mentioned in this article; basically whether the Benrath or the Uerdingen sideline marks its northern boundary. This however, has not been a debate between Dutch and German linguists, but rather one between German linguists themselves with current consensus favoring the Benrather line, and for quite some time; which Misplaced Pages should, of course, follow. | |||
| ::The South Low Franconian / East Low Franconian / Limburgish varieties are classified as Low Franconian, and should be presented as such -- in line with scientific literature. To use their transitionality as an excuse to suddenly <u>skip several tiers</u> and be classified as "West Germanic" or -- even weirder -- to suggest that it should be classified as nothing but "West Germanic" "due to arbitrariness of classifications" is not in line with linguistic literature or linguistic consensus, and, frankly, has no place here. Regards, ] (]) 12:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Use of templates etc. == | |||
| Apart from various other controversial edits/reverts which by and large deteriorated the overall state of the article, Vlaemink has inserted a lot of instances of ] throughout the text and put ] on top of the whole article without giving a good motivation here on the talk page thus far. Since you cannot make such radical edits without a very good motivation, I've undone all this for now. I hereby invite Vlaemink to explain his problems, which according to him would justify the use of the templates, one by one. ] (]) 13:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :The rationale for both the NPOV-template and the SOURCE-template have already been provided on this talk page (and will of course be further elaborated upon); the various individual tags speak for themselves. Misplaced Pages's code is very clear: if there is no consensus or resolution on the talkpage neither the NPOV Noticeboard or the SOURCE-template should be removed. Please follow those rules. Regards, ] (]) 19:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == South Guelderish / Kleverländisch == | |||
| Are South Guelderish and Kleverlandish mutually exclusive? ] (]) 20:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Sarcelles}} No, I would say that both terms refer to the same dialect grouping. ] (]) 07:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::] This map of Levenshtein distances (left) shows a major contrast between the Kleverlandish of Limburg and the South Guelderish of Gelderland. ] (]) 20:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::South Guelderish and Kleverlandish are to some degree related as language systems, but they're surely not the same. The difference is explained for example here , . "Kleverlandish" seems to be used rather as the broader term, including South Guelderish among other varieties. @Vlaemink: given the aforementioned, it's unclear what you mean with "same dialect grouping" in this specific context. ] (]) 22:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ping|Sarcelles}} (I moved your question because it didn't really relate to the issue raised with point 3) As you can see below, these dialect defitions vary by author and inevitably overlap. The map you showed is based on the work of Heeringa, which regrettably did not use samples from neighboring Germany; had he done so, it might have shown more cohesion. In essence though, it's a more or less coherent dialect area which can nevertheless be (and has been) carved up into different subdivisions according to varying criteria. Kind regards, ] (]) 07:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your answer. Germany is of course an issue. https://www.atlas-alltagssprache.de/dialekt-karte_neu/ has a Low Franconian-Ripuarian transition area including (nearly) all of Mönchengladbach and Straelen in Germany. The works by Daan and Goossens are not recent. As mentioned above, I have raised the issue on the talk page of the Dutch interwiki. | |||
| :Kind regards, ] (]) 18:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| <gallery class="left"> | |||
| File:Nederlands-kleverlands.png| "Kleverländisch" (Goossens) | |||
| File:Zuid-gelders.png| "South Guelderish" (Daan) | |||
| File:Noord-Limburgs Nederland.png | "Northern Limburgish" (Daan) | |||
| File:Zuidgelders jodaan.png| Varying definitions of Kleverländisch and South Guelderish | |||
| </gallery> | |||
| ==RfC (on hold)== | |||
| There's a series of ongoing disputes concerning the basic outline for this article; in essence, it's about what is consensus / traditional and what isn't. At his point in time, there are 5 active "sub discussions" taking place, and I would very much like to ask anyone familiar and/or interested in the area of Germanic linguistics to give their two cents on one or all of these matters. | |||
| These are: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Thank you all very much in advance. Kind regards, ] (]) 10:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I would love to help but this isn't structured as ] | |||
| :I would suggest that for each of the disputed areas an individual RfC is created outlining the question and providing a brief synopsis of each answer that the discussion has generated. If you haven't got it down to less than say four options the it's really too early for an RfC | |||
| :Good luck with it. ] (]) 12:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|Lukewarmbeer}} Thank you for the info, in that case I think I'm going to retract the RfC at this point and wait a little longer before reformulating and re-adding the template. Thanks again for your alertness! Kind regards, ] (]) 10:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sarcelles comment concerning classifications == | |||
| ::: === Divisions of Dutch varieties === | |||
| :::Source:<ref> wjheeringa.nl</ref> has the following varieties for the Netherlands and Belgium, some of those frequently classified among Southern Low German varieties: | |||
| :::* Frisian | |||
| :::* Frisian mixed varieties | |||
| :::* Groningen | |||
| :::* Overijssel | |||
| :::* Southwest Limburg | |||
| :::* Brabant | |||
| :::* Central Dutch varieties | |||
| :::* Urk | |||
| :::* East Flanders | |||
| :::* West Flanders | |||
| :::* Zeeland | |||
| :::* Limburg | |||
| :::* Northeast Luik | |||
| :::''Frisian'' comprises the ]. ''Frisian mixed varieties'' ('Stadfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs" ) is a mishmash of Frisian, Low Franconian and Low Saxon elements. ''Groningen'' seems to be ]. ''Overijssel'' includes large parts of Gelderland, Dutch Low Saxon without Gronings (maybe should be called "Zuid-Nedersaksisch"). ''Southwest Limburg'' is an area limited to Belgium. ''Brabant'' Brabant, also including most of the province of Antwerp ''Central Dutch varieties'' includes almost all of Holland and the province of Utrecht, as well as large parts of North Brabant and Gelderland Dutch, North Brabant, South Guelderish of Gelderland and West Veluwian. ''Urk'' is Urks ''East Flanders'' is East Flemish. ''West Flanders'' is West Flemish, also spoken in France. ''Zeeland'' is Zealandic. ''Limburg'' comprises very largely Dutch Limburg and a minority part of Belgian Limburg. The area designated as ''Limburg'' extends to very close to the northernmost point of Limburg. The adjacent areas in Germany are not included within the study. The area referred to as Limburg extends to very close to the northernmost point of Limburg. The dialect that is included under Limburg has a long border with Germany. Most of the places on the German side of the border are in the Limburgish dialect area. The northernmost third of the areas linguistically referred to here as Limburg borders on dialects in Germany being part of Kleverlandish/South Guelderish, which raises questions. So a more general term should be used, all of them belonging to Low Franconian. In Germany, the Limburgish dialect area in Germany is regarded as a transition area between the Low Franconian language forms (=Dutch) and Middle Franconian Ripuarian and is referred to differently: nearly the entire Limburgish area is referred to as Southern Low Franconian. Often in Germany, the Limburgish area is combined with Kleverlandish under the name "Niederrheinisch" ("Low Rhenish") and the entire Limburg and Southern Gelderland (continued Kleverlandish in the Netherlands) under the name "Rheinmaasländisch" (English Meuse-Rhenish, Dutch Maas-Rijnlands). | |||
| :::<ref>{{cite web |last1=Nerbonne |first1=John |title=De analyse van taalvariatie in het Nederlandse dialectgebied methoden en resultaten op basis van lexicon en uitspraak |url=https://www.academia.edu/3130916}}</ref> has the folllowing classification of vocabulary: | |||
| :::* ''Friesland, Stellingwerf'' | |||
| :::* ''Leeuwarden, Westerkwartier'' | |||
| :::* ''Zoutkamp'' | |||
| :::* ''Groningen, Noord-Drenthe'' | |||
| :::* ''Vriezenveen en omstreken'' (''Vriezenveen and surroundings'') | |||
| :::* ''Overijssel'' | |||
| :::* ''Doetinchem en omstreken'' ''Doetinchem and surroundings'' | |||
| :::* ''Veluwe'' | |||
| :::* ''Holland, Zeeland'' | |||
| :::* ''West-Vlaanderen'' | |||
| :::* ''Zuidoostelijke dialecten'' | |||
| :::Its classification of pronunciation: | |||
| :::* ''Friesland'' | |||
| :::* ''Friese mengdialecten'' ''Frisian dialects'' | |||
| :::* ''Noordoostelijke dialecten'' ''Northeastern dialects'' | |||
| :::* ''West-Limburg'' | |||
| :::* ''Centrale dialecten'' | |||
| :::* ''Urk'' | |||
| :::* ''Brabant en Antwerpen'' | |||
| :::* ''Oost-Vlaanderen'' | |||
| :::* ''West-Vlaanderen, Zeeland'' | |||
| :::* ''Oost-Limburg'' | |||
| :::* ''Noordoost-Luik'' | |||
| :::Its classification of vocabulary and pronunciation combined: | |||
| :::* ''Friesland'' | |||
| :::* ''Westerkwartier, Stellingwerf'' | |||
| :::* ''Groningen'' | |||
| :::* ''Overijssel'' | |||
| :::* ''Zuidwestelijke dialecten'' | |||
| :::* ''Zuidwest-Limburg'' | |||
| :::* ''Centraal zuidelijke dialecten'' (''Central-southern dialects'') | |||
| :::* ''Tienen<nowiki>''</nowiki>'' | |||
| :::* ''Centraal westelijke dialecten'' (''Central-western dialects'') | |||
| :::* ''Urk'' | |||
| :::* ''Oost-Limburg'' | |||
| :::However, it poses several questions. It does not include the German parts of Limburgish and South Guelderish. It has South Guelderish and Brabantian as ''Centraal zuidelijke dialecten''. | |||
| :::<ref>{{cite book |title=Driemaandelijkse bladen voor taal en volksleven in het oosten van Nederland |publisher=Nedersaksisch Instituut |year=2002 |editor1-last= |editor1-first= |language=}}, p. 133/134</ref> has the following phonetically based classification : | |||
| :::* 1. ''Nedersaksisch'' | |||
| :::* 1.1 ''Gronings en Noord-Drents, Midden-Drents en Westerwolds, Twents'' | |||
| :::* 1.2 ''Zuid-Drents en Noord-Overijssels, terassen naar de Twentse kern'' | |||
| :::* 2.1 ''Fries'' | |||
| :::* 2.1.1 ''De Friese dialecten'' | |||
| :::* 2.1.2 ''Stadfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs'' | |||
| :::* 2.2 ''Veluwse overgangsdialecten'' | |||
| :::* 3. ''Hollands, Noord-Brabants'' | |||
| :::* 3.1 ''Hollands'' | |||
| :::* 3.1.1 ''Noord-Hollands'' | |||
| :::* 3.1.2 ''Zuid-Hollands en Utrechts'' | |||
| :::* 3.2 ''Noord-Brabants'' | |||
| :::* 3.2.1 ''Oost-Brabants'' | |||
| :::* 3.2.2 ''Dialecten in het Gelders Rivierengebied, West-Brabants'' | |||
| :::* 4 ''Noord-Belgisch'' | |||
| :::* 4.1. ''Centraal-Brabants'' | |||
| :::* 4.2. ''Periferisch Brabants'' | |||
| :::* 4.2.1 ''Zeeuws'' | |||
| :::* 4.2.2. ''Brabants'' | |||
| :::* 4.3. ''Periferisch Vlaams'' | |||
| :::* 4.4. ''Centraal Vlaams'' | |||
| :::* 5. ''Limburgs'' | |||
| :::The two above lists with more than 10 entries include the varieties from the Netherlands, including the Frisian and Low Saxon ones there, as well as the Low Franconian ones from Belgium. Among the Low Franconian varieties spoken outside the Netherlands, at least the Surinamese and Caribbean ones as well as those being part of Afrikaans are missing. <ref name="auto">{{cite book |title=De indeling van de Nederlandse streektalen |publisher=Van Gorcum |year=2001 |editor1-last=Hoppenbrouwers |editor1-first=Cor |language=}}, p. 58</ref> for ''Gronings en Noord-Drents, Midden-Drents en Westerwolds, Twents'' ''Nedersaksisch kern'', for ''Zuid-Drents en Noord-Overijssels, terassen naar de Twentse kern'' ''Nedersaksisch rand'', for ''Stadfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs'' ''Mengtalen'' and for ''Zuid-Hollands en Utrechts'' ''Zuid-Hollands''. "Friesland" refers to Frisian as well as strongly Low Franconian-related varieties spoken in the area. The latter is "Stadfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs". If "varieties of Dutch" are meant, it would be correct to also consider Belgium. | |||
| :::The map based on different language characteristics on the penultimate page of <ref name="auto5">{{Cite journal |last=Nerbonne |first=John |title=De analyse van taalvariatie in het Nederlandse dialectgebied methoden en resultaten op basis van lexicon en uitspraak |url=https://www.academia.edu/3130916 |via=www.academia.edu}}</ref> is quite comprehensive. However, it poses several questions. It does not include the German parts of Limburgish and South Guelderish, but the German-speaking part of Belgium. It has the municipality of Venlo as ''North Limburg''. It has South Guelderish and Brabantian as ''Centraal zuidelijke dialecten''. There is also ''Southwest Limburg'', only in Belgian Limburg. A large part of Belgian Limburg belongs to the ''Central southern dialects''.<ref name="auto5" /> but not to Germany. The map has ''East Limburg'' and ''Southwest Limburg'' The 6 groups of an upper echelon of the classification there are ''Friesland/Westerkwartier, Stellingwerf'', ''Groningen/Overijssel'', ''zuidwestelijke dialecten'', ''Zuidwest-Limburg/Centraal zuidelijke dialecten/Tienen'', ''Centraal westelijke dialecten/Urk'' and ''Oost-Limburg''. ] and Vaals often are not classed as Limburgish. The dialectal diversity within the Dutch province of Limburg is great. The varieties spoken in North Limburg, such as Venloos and Venrays (which linguistically does not belong to Limburg but to Kleverlands), have much in common with the Brabant and South Gelderland dialects and differ strongly from the (geographical) South Limburgish dialects (such as Maastrichts and Sittards) and also from the (geographical) Central Limburgish (such as Weerts and Roermonds). These two last-mentioned groups, partly considered to be Central Limburgish and partly East Limburgish in dialects, occupy a special position within the Dutch dialects because of their phonology (including, as indicated above, tone as a distinguishing feature) and other Rhenish dialects. elements. The Kerkrade and Vaals dialects are even classified under Middle Franconian Ripuarian. | |||
| :::<ref>{{Cite journal |last=van der Sijs |first=Nicoline |title=Dialectgeografie van het Nederlands |url=https://www.academia.edu/5169751 |via=www.academia.edu}}</ref> shows a study from the year 1941, where noordelijk-centrale dialecten, noordweste-lijke dialecten, de zuidelijk-centrale dialecten, zuidwestelijke dialecten, noord-oostelijke dialecten and zuidoostelijke dialecten are the groups of dialects into which the Dutch dialects are classified. <ref name="auto" /> has higher-level groupings, which can be summed up as follows: | |||
| :::* Low Saxon | |||
| :::* Frisian | |||
| :::* Hollandic/Brabantic | |||
| :::* Flemish/Zealandic | |||
| :::* Limburgish | |||
| ::: ==== A negative example: An obsolete grouping of ''Low Franconian languages'' ==== | |||
| :::]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] |group3 = ]/ | |||
| :::] |list3 = ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| :::Kind regards ] (]) 19:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi Sarcelles, thanks for this interesting overview. With regards to the study/thesis dating from 1941 (so from almost a century ago): it should well be noted that linguistic/dialectological views have changed a lot since then, especially with regards to the Dutch language/dialects of Dutch and related languages/varieties. Of course reliable old sources can be used, but this should always be done with some caution. | |||
| ::::With regards to source (which can be found back as well for example); I see ''Maaslands'' is indeed used there in the text, but not ''Maas-Rijnlands'' (though this latter term is the title of a Dutch Misplaced Pages article, it seems to be unusual as such in Dutch, or even to exist hardly; ''Rijn-Maaslands'' seems a little more common as the Dutch equivalent of ''Rheinmaasländisch'') Another thing: their thesis is about the ''Nederlandse dialectgebied'' (= Dutch dialectal area), but without specifying whether this should be interpreted as "areas where dialects of Dutch are spoken" or "dialects (either of Dutch or of another language) spoken within the borders of the Netherlands". I'm strongly inclined to think the last, since the paper treats for example Frisian dialects as well. ] (]) 21:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)<small>A small correction was made later</small> | |||
| :::::Hi, | |||
| :::::thank you very much for your answer. Heeringa in his study mentioned by me above covers neither the parts of Germany bordering to Limburg nor to Gelderland. Furthermore, his ''Limburg'' category mainly is in the Netherlands and including nearly all of Dutch Limburg. South Gelderland is grouped in the same study with Hollandic inter alia as Central Dutch. https://www.academia.edu/30823402 is a study, which has ''Westdeutsch'' running as far as to include parts of Saarland. To further complicate the issue, it has an roughly area correspondig to German Limburgish facing Dutch Limburg as ''Niederfränkisch'' (''Low Franconian'') and the remainder of that area as ''Mittelfränkisch'' (''Central Franconian'') culminating in the issue, whether the entire are includes Bottrop which I couldn't figure out according to the map given. | |||
| :::::Kind regards, ] (]) 19:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for the new explanation. Do I understand well from this that the varieties of the Limburgish language spoken beyond the German border are actually classified as ''Central'' Franconian? This isn't common practice for the varieties of Limburgish spoken within The Netherlands and Belgium; those are usually classified as (South East) Low Franconian. If this is correct, that would make a new significant difference compared to the classification mainly used by Dutch dialectologists, apart from the more common use in Germany of ''Rheinmaasländisch'' as a linguistic/dialectological term (about that latter, I found yesterday which seems to confirm that the most common Dutch translation is ''Rijn-Maaslands''). ] (]) 09:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thank you for you answer. The study mentioned has the dialects roughly South of the border of Limburgsh in Germany as Central Franconian. However, a drawback of this study not mentioned yet is that it only covers Germany. For example, Central Franconian runs into Saarland, but stops there at the border to France. Many studies are limited to or excluding Germany. https://www.goethe-museum.de/de/veranstaltung/das-duesseldorfer-rheinisch says ''Düsseldorfer Mundart'' (''Düsseldorf dialec''t) and ''Düsseldorfer Rheinisch'' (''Düsseldorf Rhenish'', a regiolect) are the same. Nüsser Platt is the quite similar dialect of Neuss bordering to Düsseldorf. However, both cities are said to be Limburgish speaking at least in the respective center due to being between Uerdingen and Benrath lines, while also having a <nowiki>''</nowiki>dialect<nowiki>''</nowiki> similar to Ripuarian. Another issue is the recognition of varieties in Germany. In North Rhine-Westphalia, the division beween Kleverlandish/Limburgish and Low German inexactly coincides with the border of North Rhine and Westphalia. It frequently wrongly is claimed in Germany, that the first varieties also are Low German. Are East Low Franconian, Low Rhenish and Meuse-Rhenish identical? ] (]) 15:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Hi Sarcelles, there's surely much overlap but the three terms are not fully identical. In broad lines, they refer to the same language varieties historically spoken in what are now the Dutch and Belgian provinces of Limburg and Gelderland as well as in parts of contemporary Westphalia, with ''Low Rhenish'' being used especially to refer to the varieties spoken in Germany. Nowadays they're most of the time considered to have been part of ], though it seems especially German linguists don't agree on this either. The meaning of ''Oostnederfrankisch'' (= Old East Low Franconian) is well explained for example . On the other hand, "Limburgish" as a linguistic term is far more restrictive and does not include for example Kleverlandish. | |||
| ::::::::The difference is by and large explained for example here ], though of course you shouldn't rely too much on the Misplaced Pages article as this has some serious issues (the same is the case for example on Misplaced Pages-nl, where the corresponding article has been contested even stronger, especially because of the title). ] (]) 22:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::There also are the following studies: | |||
| :::::::::* | |||
| :::::::::* | |||
| :::::::::* | |||
| :::::::::Figure 5 is a map on syntactic variation in the Netherlands, Belgium and French Flanders. | |||
| :::::::::* | |||
| :::::::::* | |||
| :::::::::* | |||
| :::::::::* | |||
| :::::::::* | |||
| :::::::::* | |||
| :::::::::Ripuarian-Low Franconian transitional area ends with Rhenish accentuation. It runs North of Geldern, Issum, Rheinberg, Orsoy, Duisburg, Oberhausen, East of Mülheim/Ruhr ]: ''Phonetisch-phonologische Untersuchungen zur Vokalentwicklung in den deutschen Dialekten.'' volume 2. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1970 (Studia Linguistica Germanica 2).p. 331/332 In general, on the left bank of the Rhine the phonological differences end at the line dividing ''öch'' and ''ou'' for German ''euch'' runs North of Kempen, North of Krefeld, North of Uerdingen. ]: ''Phonetisch-phonologische Untersuchungen zur Vokalentwicklung in den deutschen Dialekten.'' volume 2. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1970 (Studia Linguistica Germanica 2).p. 332 The latter is, according to the same page more important than Uerdingen Line. ] (]) 20:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Many of the maps in the article including Germany run as far as about the city area of <nowiki>]</nowiki>. However, the following map by Wiesinger | |||
| ::::::::::https://www.atlas-alltagssprache.de/dialekt-karte_neu/ has nothing of the city area of Gummersbach within Ripuarian-Low Franconian transitional area. Its southeastern corner is at a minor distance West of the city centre of <nowiki>]</nowiki>. | |||
| ::::::::::Which other sources do exist? | |||
| ::::::::::Kind regards ] (]) 16:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| :Many of the references above are cited incompletely (lacking author, year or page) or incorrectly (only providing one and hence lacking the other one of two authors). | |||
| :* ''De analyse van taalvariatie in het Nederlandse dialectgebied: methoden en resultaten op basis van lexicon en uitspraak'' (2006) was not only authored by Nerbonne but also by Heeringa (cp. his ) | |||
| :* ''De indeling van de Nederlandse streektalen: Dialecten van 156 steden en dorpen geklasseerd volgens de FFM'' was authored by both Cor Hoppenbrouwers and Geer Hoppenbrouwers. | |||
| :Additionally, many of the sources are primary research papers (e.g. is his doctor's thesis) and not secondary sources, cp. ]. | |||
| :Furthermore, many of the above sources (like Heeringa 2004, Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006) only cover Benelux and not Germany. That means: a) They are rather sources for ] than for ]. b) It's similar to ]: "Furthermore, it does not include Limburgish of Germany. Other studies have different classifications." | |||
| :--16:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Contradictory or confusing text w.r.t. (non-)lexicality of push tone == | |||
| The current article contains what seem to be contradictory statements. | |||
| While one paragraph says: | |||
| * “The dragging tone is lexical while the push tone is not.” | |||
| the next one says: | |||
| * “An example of a lexical difference caused by dragging tone is the word bièwhich is articulated with a push tone and means "bee", forming a tonal minimal pair with biẽ, which is articulated with a dragging tone and means "at".” | |||
| I suppose the statement saying that the push tone is not lexical is false, since in contrast with the dragging tone it is shown to create (at least one) minimal pair(s). | |||
| What was the intended message?] (]) 02:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree with this. In terms of phonology, a (in this case, tonal) minimal pair automatically implies there are two lexical items. Moreover, in the example {{IPA|}}, the push tone seems to act as a plural morpheme. Apparently the article should be corrected here. ] (]) 10:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Edits by 93.221.40.167 == | == Edits by 93.221.40.167 == | ||
| Line 496: | Line 19: | ||
| I would like to quote this IP | I would like to quote this IP | ||
| Article |
Article ]: ''(closely related to ]).'' removed. This isn't even wrong. | ||
| ]: | |||
| ''Once in the article:'' | |||
| : "] .. is the easternmost dialect of ]" | |||
| * Jan Goossens, ''Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen'', in: ''Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter. Jahrgang 30 1965'', Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, Bonn, 1965, p. 79-94, esp. p. 79: | |||
| *: ‚Südniederfränkisch‘ nennt man die Mundarten, die in einem Raum gesprochen werden, der sich beiderseits der Grenze zwischen dem Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen und der niederländischen Kultursprache über drei Staaten, Deutschland, die Niederlande und Belgien, in einem Dreieck Tienen-Remscheid-Eupen erstreckt. Als Seiten des Dreiecks kann man die ''ik/ich''-Linie (Tienen-Remscheid), die ''maken/machen''-Linie (Remscheid-Eupen) und die romanische Sprachgrenze (Eupen-Tienen) betrachten. Der niederländisch-flämische Teil dieses Gebietes ist unter dem Namen ‚Limburgisch‘ bekannt . | |||
| *:: That is: South Low Franconian lies between Ürdingen and Benrath line (has ''ich'' and ''maken''). Limburgish is the Netherlandic-Flemish part of it. | |||
| * ] is variously defined, see<br/> Peter Wiesinger, ''Strukturgeographische und strukturhistorische Untersuchungen zur Stellung der bergischen Mundarten zwischen Ripuarisch, Niederfränkisch und Westfälisch'', in: Peter Wiesinger, edited by Franz Patocka, ''Strukturelle historische Dialektologie des Deutschen: Strukturhistorische und strukturgeographische Studien zur Vokalentwicklung deutscher Dialekte'', Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim / Zürich / New York, 2017, p. 341–437 | |||
| *: p. 349f.: "1967 Erich MENGEL 1. Südbergische Mundarten (südlich der Benrather Linie)" | |||
| *:: I.e. Mengel's Bergish includes some Ripuarian, which is not South Low Franconian. | |||
| *: p. 422 (map): Elberfeld and Barmen lie north of the Ürdingen line (have ''ik''). | |||
| *: p. 437 (map): Elberfeld and Barmen lie in the area of "Randbergisch" which is part of "Bergisch". | |||
| *:: Hence some of Wiesinger's Bergish lies north of the Ürdingen line and isn't South Low Franconian (south of the Ürdingen line). | |||
| article |
article ] | ||
| ''] used the term {{lang|de|Niederfränkisch}} (Low Franconian) more in the sense of ]. Cp.:'' | |||
| * Georg Wenker, ''Das rheinische Platt. – Den Lehrern des Rheinlandes gewidmet'', 2nd ed., im Selbstverlage des Verfassers, Düsseldorf, 1877 | |||
| ** p. 13: "Davon abgesehen aber ist ''Köln'' der eigentliche Mittelpunkt einer großen, die ganze Mitte der Rheinprovinz einnehmenden Mundart. Diese hat man die ''niederfränkische'' genannt, und unter dem Namen wollen wir sie uns denn auch merken. Nach Norden ist die ''Benrather'' Linie ihre Grenze, " | |||
| ** p. 14: "Wir haben nun noch zu sehen, wie das ''Niederfränkische'', also die Mundart um ''Köln'' herum, sich nach Süden hin begrenzt. Welches sind nun die beiden Mundarten, die sich hier vermengen? Die nördliche ist die ''niederfränfische'' um Köln, wie wir schon wissen, die südliche aber ist der ''Moseldialect'' auf dem linken Rheinufer zu beiden Seiten der Mosel und der ''Westerwälder'' Dialect auf der rechten Rheinseite im Westerwald. Diese beiden, der ''Mosel''dialect und der ''Westerwälder'' Dialect, sind fast ganz gleich und man nennt sie auch zusammen das ''Mittelfränkische'' (und zwar die ''nördlichste'' Mundart des Mittelfränkischen, denn ). | |||
| * Jürgen Lang, ''Sprache im Raum: Zu den theoretischen Grundlagen der Mundartforschung. Unter Berücksichtigung des Rätoromanischen und Leonesischen'', series: ''Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. Band 185'', Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, p. 195 | |||
| </ref> Most dialects and languages included within this category are spoken in the ], northern ] (]), in the ] department of France, in western Germany (]), as well as in ], ] and ]. | |||
| <nowiki>''</nowiki> | |||
| and | and | ||
| ''North and South Low Franconian, classified like this:''<ref>], Robert Möller, ''Historisches Westdeutsch/Rheinisch (Moselfränkisch, Ripuarisch, Südniederfränkisch)''; in: ''Sprache und Raum: Ein internationales Handbuch der Sprachvariation. Band 4: Deutsch. Herausgegeben von Joachim Herrgen, Jürgen Erich Schmidt. Unter Mitarbeit von Hanna Fischer und Birgitte Ganswindt.'' Volume 30.4 of ''Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft <small>(Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science / Manuels de linguistique et des sciences de communication)</small>'' (HSK). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2019, p. 515ff., here p. 528.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |editor=LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte |title=Dialekte im Rheinland |url=https://rheinische-landeskunde.lvr.de/de/sprache/sprache_themen/dialekte_beitrag.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221207124330/https://rheinische-landeskunde.lvr.de/de/sprache/sprache_themen/dialekte_beitrag.html |archive-date=7 December 2022 |access-date=21 July 2023}}</ref>. Compare also: | |||
| * <nowiki>{{Cite web |editor=LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte |title=Dialekte im Rheinland |url=https://dat-portal.lvr.de/orte/dialektkarten/dialekte-im-rheinland<!-- |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221005113117/https://dat-portal.lvr.de/orte/dialektkarten/dialekte-im-rheinland |archive-date=2022-10-05 --> |access-date=21 July 2023}}</nowiki> | |||
| <nowiki>''</nowiki> | |||
| Article <nowiki>]</nowiki>: | |||
| <nowiki>''</nowiki>Gossens (1965) distinguished the following sub-dialects:<nowiki><ref>Jan Goossens, ''Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen'', in: ''Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter. Jahrgang 30 &nbsp;1965'', Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, Bonn, 1965, p. 79-94, esp. ''Karte 2''</ref></nowiki> | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> <nowiki>{{lang|de|ostlimburgisch-ribuarisches Übergangsgebiet}}</nowiki> (<nowiki>''</nowiki>East Limburgish - Ripuarian transitional area<nowiki>''</nowiki>; Ürdingen, Düsseldorf, Solingen, Remscheid, Mönchen-Gladbach, Eupen) | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> <nowiki>{{lang|de|Ostlimburgisch}}</nowiki> (<nowiki>''</nowiki>East Limburgish<nowiki>''</nowiki>; Panningen, Krefeld, Dülken, Sittard) | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> <nowiki>{{lang|de|Zentrallimburgisch}}</nowiki> (<nowiki>''</nowiki>Central Limburgish<nowiki>''</nowiki>; Maastricht, Vroenhoven) | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> <nowiki>{{lang|de|westlimburgisch-zentrallimburgisches Übergangsgebiet}}</nowiki> (<nowiki>''</nowiki>West Limburgish - Central Limburgish transitional area<nowiki>''</nowiki>; around and southern of Genk) | |||
| ** <nowiki>{{lang|de|Tongerländisch}}</nowiki> (Tongeren) | |||
| ** <nowiki>{{lang|de|Bilzerländisch}}</nowiki> (Genk, Bilzen) | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> <nowiki>{{lang|de|Westlimburgisch}}</nowiki> (<nowiki>''</nowiki>West Limburgish<nowiki>''</nowiki>; Veldeke, Hasselt, St.-Truiden, Loon) | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> <nowiki>{{lang|de|südbrabantisch-westlimburgisches Übergangsbiet}}</nowiki> (<nowiki>''</nowiki>South Brabantian - West Limburgish transitional area<nowiki>''</nowiki>) | |||
| ** <nowiki>{{lang|de|Ostgeteländisch}}</nowiki> (Beringen) | |||
| <nowiki>**</nowiki> <nowiki>{{lang|de|Westgeteländisch}}</nowiki> (Tienen)<nowiki>''</nowiki> | |||
| From <nowiki>]</nowiki> | |||
| <nowiki>== Goossens ==</nowiki> | |||
| From the article: | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> and Jan Goossens (Kleverlandish) have Liemers dialect as part of their respective group. | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> Goossens published a study in 1970, in which he used rigid single isoglosses as a basis. Goossens justifies his classification by a few words.<nowiki><ref>Jan Goossens, 1965, Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen, in: Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter, 30: 79-94</ref></nowiki> | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> Goossens published a study in 1970 in which he used rigid single isoglosses as a basis. | |||
| <nowiki>:</nowiki><nowiki><references/></nowiki> | |||
| <nowiki>----</nowiki> | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> That mentions a study by Goossens from 1970, but references a work from 1965. | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> That work from 1965 is about South Low Franconian (<nowiki>{{lang|de|Südniederfränkisch}}</nowiki>).<nowiki><br/></nowiki> What can be seen it is (<nowiki>''</nowiki>Karte 2<nowiki>''</nowiki> and p. 90ff.): Südbrabantisch (South Brabantian), Nordostbrabantisch (North-East Brabantian), Kleverländisch (Kleverlandish) and Westfälisch (Westphalian) are north of the Ürdingen line; Ribuarisch (Ripuarian) is south of the Benrath line; South Low Franconian with it's subdialects is between Ürdingen and Benrath line. Through the area of Kleverländisch runs the <nowiki>''</nowiki>euch<nowiki>''</nowiki>-line (the area around Venlo is south of this line and north of the Ürdingen line).<nowiki><br/></nowiki> What can not be seen it: the complete area and boundaries of Kleverländisch. | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> <nowiki></nowiki> mentions two works by Goossens from 1970:<nowiki><br/></nowiki> 1. <nowiki>''</nowiki>Inleiding tot de Nederlandse dialectologie<nowiki>''</nowiki>, in: Bulletin de la Commission Royale de Toponymie et Dialectologie vol. 44 (1970) p. 105-<nowiki><br/></nowiki> 2. <nowiki>''</nowiki>Niederländische Mundarten - vom Deutschen aus geselren<nowiki>''</nowiki> , in: Niederdeutsches Wort vol. 10 (1970) p. 61-80<nowiki><br/></nowiki> The 2nd is: <nowiki>''</nowiki>Niederländische Mundarten – vom Deutschen aus gesehen (mit 11 Karten im Text und einer Faltkarte)<nowiki>''</nowiki>, in: <nowiki>''</nowiki>Niederdeutsches Wort: Kleine Beiträge zur niederdeutschen Mundart- und Namenkunde<nowiki>''</nowiki>, vol. 10, Verlag Aschendorff, Münster, 1970 (<nowiki></nowiki>)<nowiki><br/></nowiki> So which study from 1970 should be the "right" one? | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> Do you notice, how the 3rd point above from the article only duplicates the 2nd? | |||
| --07:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| <nowiki>== Giebers ==</nowiki> | |||
| From the article: | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> Giebers 2008 also has Kleverlandish running into South Gelderland. | |||
| To add: <nowiki>{{who?}}</nowiki><nowiki>{{where?}}</nowiki><nowiki><br/></nowiki> | |||
| That's possibly: | |||
| <nowiki>:</nowiki> Charlotte (Hendrina Elisabeth) Giesbers, <nowiki>''</nowiki>Dialecten op de grens van twee talen: een dialectologisch en sociolinguïstisch onderzoek in het Kleverlands dialectgebied<nowiki>''</nowiki>, 2008 (<nowiki></nowiki>→<nowiki></nowiki>; <nowiki></nowiki>) | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> On p. 6 there's "Figuur 1.2: Het Kleverlands dialectcontinuüm", a map of "Kleverlands" on which it reads: "ontwerp: Georg Cornelissen". It's similar to <nowiki></nowiki> (where it reads: "Kleverändisch/Kleverlands", "Entwurf: Georg Conelissen"). | |||
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> On p. 23 some places are mentioned, including Goch which can be found in the above map too; similar on p. 31 where also Gennep, Kleve and Pfalzdorf are present. | |||
| So without further information, this seems to be redundant to Cornelissen and his map/classification. | |||
| --08:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| <nowiki>== South Gelderish or Kleverlandish as part of Central Dutch? ==</nowiki> | |||
| Which source states that South Gelderish or Kleverlandish is part of Central Dutch?<nowiki><br/></nowiki> | |||
| Heeringa's thesis, chap. 9, p. 231 has the area around Venlo and north of it – which is part of Goossens' Kleverlandish (which extents into western Germany) – as <nowiki>''</nowiki>Limburg<nowiki>''</nowiki> and not as part of <nowiki>''</nowiki>Central Dutch varieties<nowiki>''</nowiki>.<nowiki><br/></nowiki> | |||
| Jo Daan is mentioned at <nowiki></nowiki>; it has among others "Südholländisch" (as part of the "nördlich-zentralen Dialekte") and "Südgelderländisch" (as part of the "südlich-zentralen Dialekte"). Part of the area of Daan's <nowiki>''</nowiki>Südgelderländisch<nowiki>''</nowiki> is part of Heeringa's area of <nowiki>''</nowiki>Central Dutch varieties<nowiki>''</nowiki>. But that doesn't mean that Südgelderländisch is part of Central Dutch: | |||
| * {{Cite web |editor=LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte |title=Dialekte im Rheinland |url=https://dat-portal.lvr.de/orte/dialektkarten/dialekte-im-rheinland<!-- |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221005113117/https://dat-portal.lvr.de/orte/dialektkarten/dialekte-im-rheinland |archive-date=2022-10-05 --> |access-date=21 July 2023}} | |||
| <nowiki>:</nowiki> a) Only some part of Daan's <nowiki>''</nowiki>Südgelderländisch<nowiki>''</nowiki> is included in Heeringa's <nowiki>''</nowiki>Central Dutch<nowiki>''</nowiki>, some other part isn't (so none is included in the other, but both overlap). | |||
| Article ]: | |||
| <nowiki>:</nowiki> b) There can be different and contradictory classifications, which can't be combined, like there's Wiesinger's 1975 <nowiki>]</nowiki> and LVR's modern <nowiki>]</nowiki>. | |||
| ''Gossens (1965) distinguished the following sub-dialects:''<ref>Jan Goossens, ''Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen'', in: ''Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter. Jahrgang 30 &nbsp;1965'', Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, Bonn, 1965, p. 79-94, esp. ''Karte 2''</ref> | |||
| Hence, Kleverlandish seems similar off-topic like the following sentence from the article: | |||
| * {{lang|de|ostlimburgisch-ribuarisches Übergangsgebiet}} (''East Limburgish - Ripuarian transitional area''; Ürdingen, Düsseldorf, Solingen, Remscheid, Mönchen-Gladbach, Eupen) | |||
| <nowiki>:</nowiki> Both <nowiki>]</nowiki> and <nowiki>]</nowiki> are classified as <nowiki>]</nowiki> and not as Low Franconian. | |||
| * {{lang|de|Ostlimburgisch}} (''East Limburgish''; Panningen, Krefeld, Dülken, Sittard) | |||
| That's correct, but as stated they aren't Low Franconian, and: they aren't part of Central Dutch. ] (]) 17:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * {{lang|de|Zentrallimburgisch}} (''Central Limburgish''; Maastricht, Vroenhoven) | |||
| :???<br/> I don't think it makes sense to mix various separate discussions into a big, fuzzy, confusing one. And I don't think the above is readable.<br/> Why not e.g. comment on '']''? The first point there was, it wasn't referenced properly (author's name, title of work, year, page(s)) as only the author's last name and a year was provided. So it's much harder to find the work and a possible source for the statement in Misplaced Pages. The second point was, that it was presented like there were (new) insights from Giebers. But instead she referred to Conelissen, who was already present in the article.<br/> You're quoting e.g. ''"<nowiki>''Article ]: ''Gossens (1965) distinguished the following sub-dialects</nowiki>"'' with reference and classification. Why? What's the point? The statement is sourced, the source was even quoted. Do you think that the reference lacks information (e.g. editor)? Or do you think the sub-classification is off-topic? Or that there are other views/classifications? That maybe Gossens is dated? --19:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :From ] article: ''(Bredeney, Heisingen, Kupferdreh) to '']'' per Wiesinger 1975,<ref>Peter Wiesinger, ''Strukturgeographische und strukturhistorische Untersuchungen zur Stellung der bergischen Mundarten zwischen Ripuarisch, Niederfränkisch und Westfälisch'', in: Peter Wiesinger, edited by Franz Patocka, ''Strukturelle historische Dialektologie des Deutschen: Strukturhistorische und strukturgeographische Studien zur Vokalentwicklung deutscher Dialekte'', Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim / Zürich / New York, 2017, p. 341–437, here p. 437. This paper by Wiesinger was originally published in: ''Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie. Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet'', 1975, p. 17–82.</ref> and are also classified as '']'' which is part of ]<ref>{{Cite web |editor=LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte |title=Dialekte im Rheinland |url=https://rheinische-landeskunde.lvr.de/de/sprache/sprache_themen/dialekte_beitrag.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221207124330/https://rheinische-landeskunde.lvr.de/de/sprache/sprache_themen/dialekte_beitrag.html |archive-date=7 December 2022 |access-date=21 July 2023}}</ref> (they have ''i'''k''''' and not ''i'''ch''''' for ''I'' and ''ma'''k'''en'' and not ''ma'''ch'''en'' for ''(to) make'')<ref>Peter Wiesinger, ''Strukturgeographische und strukturhistorische Untersuchungen zur Stellung der bergischen Mundarten zwischen Ripuarisch, Niederfränkisch und Westfälisch'', in: Peter Wiesinger, edited by Franz Patocka, ''Strukturelle historische Dialektologie des Deutschen: Strukturhistorische und strukturgeographische Studien zur Vokalentwicklung deutscher Dialekte'', Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim / Zürich / New York, 2017, p. 341–437, here p. 422. This paper by Wiesinger was originally published in: ''Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie. Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet'', 1975, p. 17–82.</ref>'' | |||
| This is absolutely refuted by the sources used by me in ]. | |||
| The article ] now states: | |||
| ''The political status of ] (or East Dutch: South Guelderish (narrow sense), North Limburgish and Kleverlandish) dialects, including South Guelderish, has long differed greatly between the Netherlands and Germany.'' | |||
| * {{lang|de|westlimburgisch-zentrallimburgisches Übergangsgebiet}} (''West Limburgish - Central Limburgish transitional area''; around and southern of Genk) | |||
| The only thing I have to admit, is that I didn't get the format right. How should it be done best? | |||
| ] (]) 21:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :<references/> | |||
| ** {{lang|de|Tongerländisch}} (Tongeren) | |||
| ::* Re ] and "refuted by the sources .. in ]":<br/> The sources on that talk page are Wiesinger 1975 who is used in the article '']'', and Wiesinger 1983 who doesn't reject his old classification. Additionally, Cornelissen/LVR is used in the article. Yes, he gives another classification than Wiesinger. But Wiesinger doesn't 'refute' him: Cornelissen/LVR is younger (and also a scientific, linguistic source), Wiesinger doesn't show that Cornelissen/LVR is wrong (instead he also gives for the example the Ürdingen line in the Bergish region which supports Cornelissen), and both have and can have a different classification (e.g. emphasize different isoglosses).<br/> | |||
| ::* Earlier in it was: | |||
| ::*# "It is arguably more appropriate to group South Guelderish (narrow sense), North Limburgish and Cleverlandish into one dialect group—East Dutch." | |||
| ::*# "The political status of ] (or East Dutch) dialects, including South Guelderish, has long differed greatly between the Netherlands and Germany." | |||
| ::*: The first sentence is unourced, and sounds like speculation/conjecture/OR ("arguably" - does anybody argue this way? Who, where, when? Maybe compare ] and ]). Without the first sentence, the 2nd lacks a definition of "East Dutch" which was simply moved from the first one. | |||
| ::--] (]) 03:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Into the article <nowiki>]</nowiki> you added the following: | |||
| :::'''Driemaandelijkse bladen<nowiki>''</nowiki> (2002, p.<nowiki>&</nowiki>nbsp;133/134) is phonetically based and has the following divisions inter alia:<nowiki><ref>Wilbert (Jan) Heeringa, ''Over de indeling van de Nederlandse streektalen. Een nieuwe methode getoetst'', in: ''Driemaandelijkse bladen'', jaargang 54, 2002 or ''Driemaandelijkse bladen voor taal en volksleven in het oosten van Nederland'', vol. 54, nr. 1-4, 2002, pp. 111–148, here p. 133f. (Heeringa: → cp. ). In this paper, Heeringa refers to: Cor & Geer Hoppenbrouwers, ''De indeling van de Nederlandse streektalen: Dialecten van 156 steden en dorpen geklasseerd volgens de FFM'' , 2001</ref></nowiki>'' | |||
| :::''* '' | |||
| :::''** 2.2 Veluws transitional dialects (<nowiki>{{lang|nl|Veluwse overgangsdialecten}}</nowiki>, underneath "2. <nowiki>{{lang|nl|Fries}}</nowiki>")'' | |||
| :::''* 3. Hollandic, North Brabantian'' | |||
| :::''** 3.1 Hollandic (<nowiki>{{lang|nl|Hollands}}</nowiki>)'' | |||
| :::''*** 3.1.1 North Hollandic'' | |||
| :::''*** 3.1.2 South Hollandic and Utrechts'' | |||
| :::''** 3.2 North Brabantian (<nowiki>{{lang|nl|Noord-Brabants}}</nowiki>)'' | |||
| :::''*** 3.2.1 <nowiki>{{Smallcaps|East Brabantian}}</nowiki>'' | |||
| :::''*** 3.2.2 Dialects in the <nowiki>''</nowiki>Gelders Rivierengebied<nowiki>''</nowiki> (<nowiki>{{lang|nl|dialecten in het Gelders Rivierengebied}}</nowiki>), West Brabantian'' | |||
| :::''* 4. North Belgian (<nowiki>{{lang|nl|Noord-Belgisch}}</nowiki>)'' | |||
| :::''** 4.1. <nowiki>{{Smallcaps|Central Brabantian}}</nowiki>'' | |||
| :::''** 4.2. Peripheral Brabantian'' | |||
| :::''*** 4.2.1 Zeelandic (<nowiki>{{lang|nl|Zeeuws}}</nowiki>)'' | |||
| :::''*** 4.2.2. Brabantian (<nowiki>{{lang|nl|Brabants}}</nowiki>)'' | |||
| :::''** 4.3. Peripheral Flemish'' | |||
| :::''** '' | |||
| :::''* '' ] (]) 07:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ** {{lang|de|Bilzerländisch}} (Genk, Bilzen) | |||
| :::: That's not correct. Large parts of that were already present in the . : | |||
| ::::* The source was expanded, e.g. an author was provided. | |||
| ::::* Some Dutch terms were provided and some Dutch translated ("dialecten in het" = "dialects in the"). | |||
| ::::* The translation of "{{lang|nl|Hollands, Noord-Brabants}}" as "Hollandic, North Hollandic" was corrected into "Hollandic, North Brabantian" (3.). | |||
| ::::* Some context for 2.2 was provided: per source, it's "Fries" (literally ''Frisian'') and not Central Dutch, Hollandic or Brabantian. | |||
| :::: However, the article '']'' has nothing to do with '']''. So the above is off-topic for this article (similar how these comments are OT: , ). --] (]) 09:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Frankly, folks, I cannot parse the commenst/arguments of either of you, since the formating makes it ''impenetrable'' to disentangle what you criticize and what you propose instead. | |||
| * {{lang|de|Westlimburgisch}} (''West Limburgish''; Veldeke, Hasselt, St.-Truiden, Loon) | |||
| What is clear to me though is that "Subdivisions of Limburgish" does a terrible job. It is over large parts unsourced, makes exaggerated and often wrong claims about conflicting classification traditions in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. It is repetitive when presenting Goossens widely cited and accepted cross-border classification under the header "South Low Franconian" as if it were something totally different. Heck, it isn't: you find Goossens' map in various publications about Low Franconian dialectology, and it is adapted both by Limburgish language activists as well as by Dutch traditionalists that consider Limburgish just another dialect of Dutch. It is also not quite correct to present Goossens as if he made a six-partite split. He actually outlines three broad divisions, with one internal and two external transitional areas. (The two transitional areas flanking on both sides of West Limburgish are confined to limited fan-like areas close to the Germanic-Romance language border. In the northern half, the West Limburgish area is sharply divided from Brabantian and Central Limburgish on both sides.) | |||
| * {{lang|de|südbrabantisch-westlimburgisches Übergangsbiet}} (''South Brabantian - West Limburgish transitional area'') | |||
| Also, the concept of Meuse-Rhenish doesn't have to be discussed here in detail. It adds little to the understanding of the internal divisions of Limburgish from a dialectological perspective. | |||
| ** {{lang|de|Ostgeteländisch}} (Beringen) | |||
| Finally, we should always remind our readers that the scope of the dialectologist definition of Limburgish (= East Low Franconian = South Low Franconian) does not fully correspond to the sociolinguistic and language-political definition, instead of mixing up these two things with sometimes quite silly results (such as labelling the Ripuarian variety of Aachen "Southeast Limburgish"—which latter is of course a perfectly meaningful term if used in the correct context, as explained on a different occasion by @De Wikischim). –] (]) 12:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ** {{lang|de|Westgeteländisch}} (Tienen) | |||
| :https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_multilingual_countries_and_regions&diff=prev&oldid=1174400427 removed ''] is recognized in ].'' | |||
| :<nowiki>]</nowiki> was made a redirect. ''South Bergish (German: {{lang|de|südbergische Mundarten}}) or '''Upper Bergish''' (German: {{lang|de|oberbergische Dialekte}}) is a group of German dialects of the ] region East of the ] and approximately south of the ] and north of the ]. These dialects are part of the ] and thus are also called East Ripuarian. Ripuarian dialects are also spoken west of the Rhine up to the German border, and in some small areas next to the respective borders in ] and in the ]. Ripuarian Bergish dialects belong to the ] group, and thus are varieties of ], where they belong to the northmost ones.'' | |||
| : ''In popular view, rather than scientific, South Bergish dialects are often referred to as ] by locals, or as ] by outsiders.'' | |||
| :] | |||
| :* ''Bergish ({{lang|de|Bergisch}})'' | |||
| :** ''Central Bergish ({{lang|de|Zentralbergisch}})'' | |||
| :*** ''western Central Bergish ({{lang|de|westliches Zentralbergisch}}; Breitscheid, Ratingen, ], Mettmann, ])'' | |||
| :*** ''eastern Central Bergish ({{lang|de|östliches Zentralbergisch}}; Velbert, Vohwinkel)'' | |||
| :** ''Border Bergish ({{lang|de|Randbergisch}})'' | |||
| :*** ''in the north (Oberhausen, ], Dümpten, Heißen, Bredeney, ], Heisingen, Kupferdreh)'' | |||
| :*** ''in the west (Mündelheim)'' | |||
| :*** ''in the south (], Haan, Wald, Ohligs, ], Hörscheid)'' | |||
| :*** ''in the east (], ], ], ], ])'' | |||
| :* ''not Bergish but surrounding Bergish:'' | |||
| :** ''] ({{lang|de|Niederrheinisch}}; ], Sterkrade, ], ])'' | |||
| :** ''] (Bottrop, Essen, Gelsenkirchen, Bochum, Hattingen, Gevelsberg, Schwelm)'' | |||
| :*** ''influenced by Bergish (], ], ], ])'' | |||
| :** ''] (Benrath, Leichlingen, Dhünn, Wipperfeld, Kürten, Schlebusch): separated from Bergish by the ].'' | |||
| :*** ''influenced by Bergish (])'' | |||
| :** ''Duisburg, Ürdingen, Düssekdorf, Gerresheim'' | |||
| :Article <nowiki>]</nowiki>: | |||
| :Jan Goossens, ''Die gerundeten Palatalvokale im niederländischen Sprachraum'', in: Ludwig Erich Schmitt (ed.), ''Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung'', XXIX. Jahrgang 1962, Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1962, p. 312–328, here p. 313 | |||
| :] used the term {{lang|de|Niederfränkisch}} (Low Franconian) more in the sense of ]. Cp.: | |||
| :* Georg Wenker, ''Das rheinische Platt. – Den Lehrern des Rheinlandes gewidmet'', 2nd ed., im Selbstverlage des Verfassers, Düsseldorf, 1877 | |||
| :** p. 13: "Davon abgesehen aber ist ''Köln'' der eigentliche Mittelpunkt einer großen, die ganze Mitte der Rheinprovinz einnehmenden Mundart. Diese hat man die ''niederfränkische'' genannt, und unter dem Namen wollen wir sie uns denn auch merken. Nach Norden ist die ''Benrather'' Linie ihre Grenze, " | |||
| :** p. 14: "Wir haben nun noch zu sehen, wie das ''Niederfränkische'', also die Mundart um ''Köln'' herum, sich nach Süden hin begrenzt. Welches sind nun die beiden Mundarten, die sich hier vermengen? Die nördliche ist die ''niederfränfische'' um Köln, wie wir schon wissen, die südliche aber ist der ''Moseldialect'' auf dem linken Rheinufer zu beiden Seiten der Mosel und der ''Westerwälder'' Dialect auf der rechten Rheinseite im Westerwald. Diese beiden, der ''Mosel''dialect und der ''Westerwälder'' Dialect, sind fast ganz gleich und man nennt sie auch zusammen das ''Mittelfränkische'' (und zwar die ''nördlichste'' Mundart des Mittelfränkischen, denn ). | |||
| :Article ]: | |||
| :]:'' 1 North Low Franconian 2 South Low Franconian '']:'' 3 Ripuarian Franconian 4 & 5 Mosel Franconian 6 Rhenish Franconian]] | |||
| :{| class="wikitable" | |||
| | colspan="3" |'''Dialects and isoglosses of the Rhenish fan'''<small>''(Arranged from north to south: dialects in dark fields, isoglosses in light fields)''</small><ref group="n">That is, it's arranged like this: | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| ! colspan="3" scope="col" |northern dialect | |||
| |- | |||
| | scope="col" |Isogloss | |||
| | scope="col" |''northern form'' | |||
| | scope="col" |''southern form'' | |||
| |- | |||
| ! colspan="3" scope="col" |southern dialect | |||
| |}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |editor=LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte |title=Dialekte im Rheinland |url=https://rheinische-landeskunde.lvr.de/de/sprache/sprache_themen/dialekte_beitrag.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221207124330/https://rheinische-landeskunde.lvr.de/de/sprache/sprache_themen/dialekte_beitrag.html |archive-date=7 December 2022 |access-date=21 July 2023}}. Compare also: | |||
| From ] | |||
| * {{Cite web |editor=LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte |title=Dialekte im Rheinland |url=https://dat-portal.lvr.de/orte/dialektkarten/dialekte-im-rheinland<!-- |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221005113117/https://dat-portal.lvr.de/orte/dialektkarten/dialekte-im-rheinland |archive-date=2022-10-05 --> |access-date=21 July 2023}} | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| == Text parts added to/removed from the lead == | |||
| * {{Cite web |editor=LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte |title=Kleverländisch/ Kleverlands |url=https://dat-portal.lvr.de/orte/dialektkarten/einteilungskarten/kleverlaendisch-kleverlands<!-- |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221126113542/https://dat-portal.lvr.de/orte/dialektkarten/einteilungskarten/kleverlaendisch-kleverlands |archive-date=2022-11-26 --> |access-date=11 September 2023}} | |||
| Until yesterday, this was still part of the definition in : '' spoken in Dutch Limburg, Belgian Limburg, '' (the latter part seems rather the somewhat broader definition of ]; maybe this essential distinction should be re-added as well to the lead in a different form, to distinguish better and immediately between Limburgish and SLF). The current version only defines the territory where Limburgish is spoken, very vaguely and not in any detail, as ''... Belgium and the Netherlands.. ''. So this new version seems very incomplete, unlike the previous version. Therefore I think at least this is no improvement at all. | |||
| Another striking issue with the new lead is the emphasis which is now immediately laid on the relation of Limburgish to Standard Dutch (with Bakker (1997) as the only source used). My suggestion is to move this part to the section "Classification and history" (or maybe "Characteristics", not existing in the current article version), | |||
| * {{Cite web |editor=LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte |title=Südniederfränkisch/ Zuidnederfrankisch |url=https://dat-portal.lvr.de/orte/dialektkarten/einteilungskarten/suedniederfraenkisch-zuidnederfrankisch<!-- |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221126133436/https://dat-portal.lvr.de/orte/dialektkarten/einteilungskarten/suedniederfraenkisch-zuidnederfrankisch |archive-date=2022-11-26 --> |access-date=11 September 2023}}Map also printed in: Winfried Dolderer, ''Overmaas – „jenseits der Maas“: Eine historische Annäherung'', in: Sebastian Bischoff, Christoph Jahr, Tatjana Mrowka, Jens Thiel (eds.), ''„Mit Belgien ist das so eine Sache ...“: Resultate und Perspektiven der Historischen Belgienforschung'' (series: ''Historische Belgienforschung'', Bd. 9), Waxmann, Münster / New York, 2021, p. 15ff., here p. 18. | |||
| </ref><ref>Johannes Venema, ''Zum Stand der zweiten Lautverschiebung im Rheinland: diatopische, diachrone und diastratische Untersuchungen am Beispiel der dentalen Tenuis (voralthochdeutsch /t/)'', Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997, p. 10–12.</ref> | |||
| |- | |||
| ! colspan="3" |''North ] (Kleverlandish, East Bergish)'' / ] | |||
| |- | |||
| |''']''' (]) | |||
| ({{lang|de|Ürdinger Linie}}) | |||
| |''ik/ick'' | |||
| |''ich'' | |||
| |- | |||
| ! colspan="3" |''South ] (])'' | |||
| |- | |||
| |''']'''({{lang|de|Benrather Linie}}) | |||
| (Boundary: Low German — Central German) | |||
| |''maken'' | |||
| |''machen'' | |||
| |- | |||
| ! colspan="3" |''] (], ], ])'' | |||
| |- | |||
| |(''Dorp/Dorf''-Linie or {{lang|de|Eifel-Schranke}}/{{lang|de|Eifelschranke}}) | |||
| (State border ]–]) | |||
| |''Dorp'' | |||
| |''Dorf'' | |||
| |- | |||
| ! colspan="3" |''Northern ] (], Trier)'' | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |''up'' | |||
| |''uf'' | |||
| |- | |||
| ! colspan="3" |''Southern ] ({{lang|de|Koblenz, Saarland|italic=unset}})'' | |||
| |- | |||
| |'''Bacharach line''' (]) | |||
| (''dat/das''-Linie or {{lang|de|]-Schranke}}/{{lang|de|Hunsrückschranke}} or {{lang|de|Bacharacher Linie}}) | |||
| |''dat, wat'' | |||
| |''das, was'' | |||
| |- | |||
| ! colspan="3" |''] ({{lang|de|Pfälzisch|italic=unset}}, Frankfurt)'' | |||
| |- | |||
| |''']''' (]) | |||
| ({{lang|de|Speyrer Linie}}) | |||
| (Boundary: Central German — Upper German) | |||
| |''Appel'' | |||
| |''Apfel'' | |||
| |- | |||
| |'''Germersheim line''' (]) | |||
| ({{lang|de|Germersheimer Linie}}) | |||
| (Boundary: Central German — Upper German) | |||
| |''Pund'' | |||
| |''Pfund'' | |||
| |- | |||
| ! colspan="3" |''Upper German'' | |||
| |} | |||
| :<nowiki>]</nowiki>: | |||
| : == ''Old Low Franconian in a western sense or West Frankish'' == | |||
| :''From the article:'' | |||
| :: ''Some linguists use the terms Old Low Franconian or West Frankish to specifically refer to the (very sparsely attested) varieties of Old Dutch spoken prior to its assimilation in the coastal dialect.<ref>Guy Janssens: Het Nederlands vroeger en nu, ACCO, 2005, p. 47-50.</ref>'' | |||
| :: | |||
| <references /> | |||
| :''The sources doesn't seem to support the statement - or on what page exactly? That are four pages, while it's only a short information, hence it should be possible to give a more concrete page. The pages include:'' | |||
| :* ''beginning and some part of chapter "2. Oudnederlands" (p. 47-50.)'' | |||
| :** ''intro (p. 47): "Oudnederlands ... vanaf de 8ste eeuw ... midden van de 12de eeuw"'' | |||
| :** ''"2.1 De Volksverhuizingen en het Frankische Rijk" (p. 47f.)'' | |||
| :** ''"2.1.1 Ingweonen of Kustgermanen" (p. 49): "Ingweoonse kustdialect"'' | |||
| :** ''"2.1.2 Franken" (p. 49f.): mentioning Sidonius Apollinaris and "Nederzettingssituatie in de 7de eeuw" (of Franken, Saksen, Friezen)'' | |||
| :''Also:'' | |||
| :* ''The source is given incorrectly and improperly: it lacks the other author Ann Marynissen and that 2005 is the 2nd ed. (1st ed. 2003).'' | |||
| :* ''On p. 54f. Janssens & Marynissen mention Old East Low Franconian ({{lang|nl|Oudoostnederfrankisch}}; e.g. in the Wachtendonckse psalmen) and Old West Low Franconian ({{lang|nl|Oudwestnederfrankisch}}), but that's something different.'' | |||
| :* ''Following Sonderegger (Stefan Sonderegger, Grundzüge deutscher Sprachgeschichte, vol. I, 1979, p. 165 & 198), West Franconian/Frankish ({{lang|de|Westfränkisch}}) is not part of Old Low Franconian (OLF; {{lang|de|Altniederfränkisch}}) but like OLF and e.g. ] ({{lang|de|Mittelfränkisch}}) another daughter language of Old Franconian/Frankish ({{lang|de|Altfränkisch}}).'' | |||
| :''--] (]) 23:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)'' | |||
| :] article has as synonymous: | |||
| :''Rhine-Weser-Germanic, Istvaeonic, Istveonic, Franconian<ref>Stefan Müller, ''Germanic syntax: A constraint-based view'', series: ''Textbooks in Language Sciences'' 12, Language Science Press, Berlin, 2023, p. 3</ref>'' | |||
| :Article ]: | |||
| :''gradually evolved into Old Low Franconian (]) and Old High Franconian <ref>Stefan Müller, ''Germanic syntax: A constraint-based view'', series: ''Textbooks in Language Sciences'' 12, Language Science Press, Berlin, 2023, p. 3</ref><ref>Graeme Davis, ''Comparative Syntax of Old English and Old Icelandic: Linguistic, Literary and Historical Implications'', series: ''Studies in Historical Linguistics'' vol. 1, Peter Lang, Oxford / Bern / Berlin / Bruxelles / Frankfurt am Main / New York / Wien, 2006, p. 93f.</ref>'' | |||
| :From the article ] | |||
| :''In Driemaandelijkse bladen (2002) the following phonetically based division of dialects in the Netherlands is given:<ref>Wilbert (Jan) Heeringa, ''Over de indeling van de Nederlandse streektalen. Een nieuwe methode getoetst'', in: ''Driemaandelijkse bladen'', jaargang 54, 2002 or ''Driemaandelijkse bladen voor taal en volksleven in het oosten van Nederland'', vol. 54, nr. 1-4, 2002, pp. 111–148, here p. 133f. (Heeringa: → cp. ). In this paper, Heeringa refers to: Cor & Geer Hoppenbrouwers, ''De indeling van de Nederlandse streektalen: Dialecten van 156 steden en dorpen geklasseerd volgens de FFM'' , 2001</ref>'' | |||
| :# ''{{lang|nl|Nedersaksisch}}'' | |||
| :## ''{{Smallcaps|], North Drents, Middle or Central Drents and Westerwolds, ]}} ({{lang|nl|{{Smallcaps|Gronings en Noord-Drents, Midden-Drents en Westerwolds, Twents}}}})'' | |||
| :## ''{{lang|nl|Zuid-Drents en Noord-Overijssels, Terrassen naar de Twentse kern}}'' | |||
| :# ''Frisian ({{lang|nl|Fries}})'' | |||
| :## ''Frisian ({{lang|nl|Fries}})'' | |||
| :### ''] ({{lang|nl|de Friese dialecten}})'' | |||
| :### ''], Kollumerlands, ], ] ({{lang|nl|Stadfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs}})'' | |||
| :## ''Veluws transitional dialects ({{lang|nl|Veluwse overgangsdialecten}})'' | |||
| :# ''Hollandic, North Brabantian ({{lang|nl|Hollands, Noord-Brabants}})'' | |||
| :## ''Hollandic ({{lang|nl|Hollands}})'' | |||
| :### ''North Hollandic ({{lang|nl|Noord-Hollands}})'' | |||
| :### ''South Hollandic and Utrechts ({{lang|nl|Zuid-Hollands en Utrechts}})'' | |||
| :## ''North Brabantian ({{lang|nl|Noord-Brabants}})'' | |||
| :### ''{{Smallcaps|East Brabantian}} ({{lang|nl|{{Smallcaps|Oost-Brabants}}}})'' | |||
| :### ''dialects in the Gelders Rivierengebied, West Brabantian ({{lang|nl|dialecten in het Gelders Rivierengebied, West-Brabants}}),'' | |||
| :# ''North Belgian ({{lang|nl|Noord-Belgisch}})'' | |||
| :## ''{{Smallcaps|Central Brabantian}} ({{lang|nl|{{Smallcaps|Centraal Brabants}}}})'' | |||
| :## ''Peripheral Brabantian ({{lang|nl|Periferisch Brabants}})'' | |||
| :### ''Zeelandic ({{lang|nl|Zeeuws}})'' | |||
| :### ''Brabantian ({{lang|nl|Brabants}})'' | |||
| :## ''Peripheral Flemish ({{lang|nl|Periferisch Vlaams}})'' | |||
| :## ''{{Smallcaps|Central Vlaams}} ({{lang|nl|{{Smallcaps|Centraal Vlaams}}}})'' | |||
| :# ''Limburgish ({{lang|nl|Limburgs}})'' | |||
| : ''Heeringa (2004) distinguished (names as in Heeringa):<ref>Wilbert (Jan) Heeringa, ''Chapter 9: Measuring Dutch dialect distances'', of the doctor's thesis: ''Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences using Levenshtein Distance'', series: ''Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics (GRODIL)'' 46, 2004, (esp.) p. 231, 215 & 230 (, , )</ref>'' ] (]) 19:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::article <nowiki>]</nowiki>: ''In a finer classification there are:<ref>Adolphe van Loey, ''Altniederländisch und Mittelniederländisch'', in: Ludwig Erich Schmitt (ed.), ''Kurzer Grundriß der germanischen Philologie bis 1500: Band 1: Sprachgeschichte'', Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1970, p. 253ff., here p. 255f.</ref>'' | |||
| ::* ''Flemish<!-- ({{lang|de|Flämisch}}) -->'' | |||
| ::** ''West Flemish<!-- ({{lang|de|Westflämisch}}) -->'' | |||
| ::** ''East Flemish<!-- ({{lang|de|Ostflämisch}}) -->'' | |||
| ::* ''Brabantic<!-- ({{lang|de|Brabantisch}}) -->'' | |||
| ::** ''West Brabantic<!-- ({{lang|de|Westbrabantisch}}) -->'' | |||
| ::** ''East Brabantic<!-- ({{lang|de|Ostbrabantisch}}) -->'' | |||
| ::* ''Hollandic<!-- ({{lang|de|Holländisch}}) -->'' | |||
| ::* ''Utrechts<!-- ({{lang|de|Utrechtisch}}) -->'' | |||
| ::* ''Limburgic<!-- ({{lang|de|Limburgisch}}) -->'' | |||
| ::] (]) 23:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::http://www.wjheeringa.nl/thesis/thesis09.pdf It has the following groups of relevance to this article: | |||
| :::*''Southwest Limburg'', Belgium only | |||
| :::*''Limburg'', also nearly all of North Limburg. This part of North Limburg has a long border with Germany. For the most part, the places on the German side of this part of the border are in the Kleverlandish dialect area. The term | |||
| :::''Limburgish'' would therefore be too narrow. I therefore suggest using the term Meuse-Rhenish. | |||
| :::*''Northeast Luik'', including Kerkrade and Eupen, could also be given as Southeast | |||
| :::Limburgish. | |||
| :::Wiesinger, Peter. 1983b. "Die Einteilung der deutschen Dialekte". In Besch, Werner (ed.), Dialektologie: Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung, p. 859. Berlin, New York: Berlin/New York: de Gruyter has | |||
| :::*''Ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet ohne nordbergischen Raum'' (''Ripuarian-Low Franconian transition area without the North Bergish area'') | |||
| :::*''Nordbergischer Raum'' (''North Bergish area'') | |||
| :::https://www.academia.edu/3130916/De_analyse_van_taalvariatie_in_het_Nederlandse_dialectgebied_methoden_en_resultaten_op_basis_van_lexicon_en_uitspraaken has much of the respective Northern part of both Limburgs as part of ''centraal zuidelijke dialecten'' (''central southern dialects''). ''Zuidwest-Limburg'' (''Southwest Limburg'') merely is Southern Dutch Limburg. The remainder, including Kerkrade and even a small area of Belgium outside Limburg including Eupen is classified as ''Oost-Limburg'' (''East Limburg''). | |||
| :::References to works by Georg Cornelissen or Jan Goossens currently are frequently entered as references in various Wikimedia projects. | |||
| :::The question is: Which one or ones should we use for the article? | |||
| :::] (]) 07:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course all of them. And don't forget Hermans (2013) and many other old and modern good sources (like the series of articles by Bakker and his supervisor van Hout). We shouldn't fall for the illusion that there might be ''the'' one ultimate authorative source that trumps all others. My personal preference is to have this article focus on Limburgish in the two most commonly used senses: a) all Low Franconian varieties in Dutch and Belgian Limburg; b) South Low Franconian varieties spoken in Dutch and Belgian Limburg. We could then broaden the scope by explicitly devoting one section to the South Low Franconian varieties spoken Germany and the Eupen area; alternatively, we could have a separate general article about South Low Franconian (= Limburgish in Goossens's wider sense = Wiesinger's "Ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet") where we can go into all necessary detail about the minute differences among various authors in defining the western, northern and eastern borders of this dialect area. Luckily, at least the Benrath line as southern border is undisputed. –] (]) 21:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you for you further source. Which other sources do exist? What is the method of the respective source? | |||
| :::::I will put in further work within the next few weeks. I'm also active at ]. ] (]) 13:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <references/> | |||
| What do others (preferably I'd like to see especially non-involved editors here) think about these points? ] (]) 09:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Southeast or South East Limburgish, and Aachens == | |||
| :"Characterized by their distance to, and limited participation in the formation of, Standard Dutch" is a very inapt and cherry-picked classifier for what Limburgish ''is'' (and to "refers to"). For the most part since late the 19th century, "Limburgish" is the Dutch/Belgian term for the southeasternmost group of Low Franconian varieties spoken on the territory of the Low Countries (in other words: South Low Franconian minus its dialects in Germany and eastern Luik). With the emergence of the Limburgs language movement, it has come to designate the collective of all basilects in Limburg that has attained regional language status in NL. Since this is English WP, we don't really need a Dutch POV-based fork about a transnational dialect area, so this article can safely focus on the sociolinguistic/politcal aspect of Limburgish, which is best mirrored in the lede by identifying it as a regional language spoken in spoken in Dutch Limburg and Belgian Limburg (and obviously not in Germany) AND in the next sentence mention its second meaning. | |||
| From the article: | |||
| :We should take care not to equate ''Limburgs'' with "Limburgish". In B/NL scholarship, ''Limburgs'' has a strong connotational baggage as a dialect group, but in common international parlance, "Limburgish" doesn't (or at least does to a much lesser extent). Go to Ngram Viewer and you'll find that "Limburgish" is almost entirely confined to 21th century discourse. A thorough unbiased survey of these source will tell if the topic of this article should be about "a group of Dutch dialects spoken in the southern Netherlands and Belgium" (''Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe'', 2008) or an "official regional language in the Netherlands" (''Multilingualism in European Language Education'', 2019). –] (]) 09:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ::Thanks. I think especially this should be an essential part of the definition: ''With the emergence of the Limburgs language movement, it has come to designate the collective of <u>all basilects in Limburg that has attained regional language status in NL</u>'', now missing in the lead, at least in this form. | |||
| ] (''{{lang|nl|Zuidoost-Limburgs}}'') is spoken in and around ], ], ] and ] in the ],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kgv.nl/index.php?title=Dialect |title=Dialect - KGV |language=nl |publisher=kgv.nl |date=2010-08-16 |access-date=2012-06-25}}</ref> ]{{citation needed|date=January 2023}} in ] and ] and ] in ]. Especially in ] these dialects are usually considered as variants of ],{{citation needed|date=January 2023}} not of Limburgish. | |||
| ::About the (supposed) " distance of Limburgish to Standard Dutch", I already pointed out (see above) that this info may be better at its place elsewhere within this article (the "Classification" section, for example). | |||
| ::Apart from that, I'm a little in doubt as well about the use of the article by Frens Bakker (1997) as a primary source for ''this''. Bakker's article is very well usable as such for this subject, but focuses mainly on other relevant aspects of the Limburgish language (''those'' aspects seem by and large absent from the article right now). ] (]) 09:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| {{Ping|Austronesier}} While Bakker (1997) could be criticized for being having somewhat of a ″popular linguistic″ vibe to it, I really don't see how repeating his remark that Limburgish dialects are characterized by their distance to, and limited participation in the formation of, Standard Dutch can be qualified as either ″cherry picked″ or ″inapt″, as it's one of the defining characteristics mentioned by Bakker. | |||
| And I would agree with this, as it seems that Standard Dutch is essential with regards to defining Limburgish, which would prove very difficult if not impossible to classify ″Limburgish″ as something other than South Low Franconian, without factoring in Standard Dutch; for example as a Dachsprache or as a major factor in dialectal decline. Defining ″Limburgish″ by isoglosses alone is not possible, as there is no isogloss separating it from South Low Franconian in Germany, and defining it by political status is not possible either, as there is no recognition in Belgium and the Dutch recognition is not specific to South Low Franconian. Defining ″Limburgish″ as ″South Low Franconian with Dutch as its Dachsprache″ seems very workable to me. It's not 100% watertight, but I don't see a better or more practical one. | |||
| Jan Goossens defines the northwest boundary of South East Limburgish at the ''lijk-lich'' isogloss.{{citation needed|date=September 2023}} The area between this line and the ] is called Ripuarian-Limburgish.{{citation needed|date=September 2023}} The area between the Benrath line and the ''aat-alt'' isogloss is then called Aachens or Limburgish-Ripuarian.{{citation needed|date=September 2023}} | |||
| :<references/> | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| (a) That's largely unsourced. The single source is now at: = . It has a map with: | |||
| * {{lang|nl|Limburgse Dialecten}} = Limburgish dialects, i.e. dialects in the Netherlandic ] | |||
| ** {{lang|nl|Kleverlands}} (incl. Mook, Venroj) = Kleverlandish | |||
| ** {{lang|nl|Mich-kwartier}} (incl. Venlo) = ''mich''-area | |||
| ** {{lang|nl|Centraal-Limburgs}} (incl. Wieërt) = Central Limburgish | |||
| ** {{lang|nl|Ost-Limburgs}} (incl. Remunj, Zittert, ], Èèsjde) = East Limburgish | |||
| ** {{lang|nl|Ripuarische overgangsdialecten}} (incl. Heële) = Ripuarian transitional dialects | |||
| ** {{lang|nl|Ripuarisch}} (incl. ]) = Ripuarian | |||
| It doesn't have: | |||
| * ] ({{lang|nl|Zuidoost-Limburgs}}) or ''Aachens'' which were mentioned in the article. | |||
| * West Limburgish ({{lang|nl|West-Limburgs}}) which would be a logical opposite to East Limburgish. | |||
| So it doesn't (seem to) support the statement. Additionally, how reliable is the source? It doesn't seem to mention any linguist or linguistic source, and the new name includes ''Wiki''.<br/> | |||
| (b) "Jan Goossens" without any year, title of a work etc. isn't helpful. Jan Goosens 1965 (''Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen'') classifies South Low Franconian and not Limburgish. He states (p. 79): | |||
| :"Der niederländisch-flämische Teil dieses Gebietes ist unter dem Namen ‚Limburgisch‘ bekannt", i.e. Limburgish is the Dutch-Flemish part of South Low Franconian. | |||
| His terminology (''Karte 2'') resembles that of KerkradeWiki: | |||
| * {{lang|nl|Kleverlands}} = {{lang|de|Kleverländisch}} | |||
| * {{lang|nl|Centraal-Limburgs}} = {{lang|de|Zentrallimburgisch}} (incl. Maastricht) | |||
| * {{lang|nl|Ost-Limburgs}} = {{lang|de|Ostlimburgisch}} | |||
| * {{lang|nl|Ripuarische overgangsdialecten}} = {{lang|de|ostlimburgisch-ribuarisches Übergangsgebiet}} (incl. Eupen) | |||
| * {{lang|nl|Ripuarisch}} = {{lang|de|Ribuarisch}} (incl. Aachen) | |||
| However, Goossens (1965) doesn't have Southeast Limburgish, Aachens or Limburgish-Ripuarian, he also has West Limburgish ({{lang|de|Westlimburgisch}}), and by his definition ''ostlimburgisch-ribuarisches Übergangsgebiet'' is part of South Low Franconian while Ripuarian isn't (p. 79): | |||
| :"‚Südniederfränkisch‘ nennt man die Mundarten, die in einem Raum gesprochen werden, der sich beiderseits der Grenze zwischen dem Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen und der niederländischen Kultursprache über drei Staaten, Deutschland, die Niederlande und Belgien, in einem Dreieck Tienen-Remscheid-Eupen erstreckt. Als Seiten des Dreiecks kann man die ''ik/ich''-Linie (Tienen-Remscheid), die ''maken/machen''-Linie (Remscheid-Eupen) und die romanische Sprachgrenze (Eupen-Tienen) betrachten." I.e. South Low Franconian are the dialects in the triangle Tienen-Remscheid-Eupen, and the sides of the triangle are the ], the ] and the Romance language border. | |||
| --] (]) 12:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| As for using the term ″Limburgish language movement″, this is problematic as ″Limburgse taalbeweging″ gives a total of three results in Dutch, while ″Limburgish language movement″ has a grand total of zero] results in English. In addition to it not being term used, literature on this subject that the impetus for the regional language recognition wasn't at all a ], but rather a mainly conservatory effort mixed with a nation-wide resurgence of ]. | |||
| :You both like the old works by Jan Goossens published in Germany. The clinging on isoglosses by Goossens concerning any country is methodically doubtful, http://www.wjheeringa.nl/thesis/thesis09.pdf apparently is methodically better. What concerns Georg Cornelissen, if have read several of his books. He also uses the approach by Jan Goossens. One of his books writes of the areas <nowiki>''</nowiki>Ruhr area<nowiki>''</nowiki> and <nowiki>''</nowiki>Westphalia<nowiki>''</nowiki>, though they coincide geographically to a signifcant extent. This chimes in with the fact, that I have heard negative opinions about the LVR, a regional authority. I say this <nowiki>''</nowiki>not in spite of being German<nowiki>''</nowiki>, but because I have a good overiew of the sources of Germany and othe countries. You seem to have acted under the IP adress <nowiki>]</nowiki> recently. This is discussed in a section above. You have used this IP adress not only in several Wikipedias, but also other projects. As I have said, we should discuss these issues here and on the talk page of the Dutch article before adding or changing content in articles of this ilk or even using other talkpages. Removals of content or adding templates is fine. ] (]) 10:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| In order to work, this article needs to clear up what it's really about. For me personally, all the grammar/phonology/vocabulary and much of the linguistic history should (once properly sourced) be moved to ], where it belongs; whereas this article should primarily focus on sociolinguistics and political status. ] (]) 11:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Re : | |||
| :Nobody criticizes Bakker. De Wikischim and I just don't think that this is a primary characteristic of "Limburgish". For virtually every not entirely counterfactual statement you will find a reliable source, whether you do a Google search to prove a point, or you provide one single source in order to apply so much weight to a statement based on it so that we simply ''must'' have it as a descriptor in the ''opening'' sentence of lede. "Distance" might be a secondary characteristic (and one that is often emphasized and exaggerated by language advocates) and can mentioned in the lede but not in the defining sentence, while "limited participation in the formation of Standard Dutch" is true (as for all varieties in the eastern part of the Low Countries) but not ledeworthy. | |||
| ::** It only covers the area of Benelux, not of Germany. | |||
| :"Limburgish language movement" is a phrase something I have used out of hand, so we shouldn't use it literally. But with some genuine goodwill to listen and to accomodate constructive contributions by fellow editors like De Wikischim we can easily rephrase it to "efforts to gain official recognition as regional language". It's ironic that these efforts have run counter the agenda of a manifest secessionist language movement in a neighboring country (with known results). -–] (]) 12:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::** It is a primary source, please see ]. | |||
| ::I find it nonconstructive that you suggest that I purposely only provided a single source in order to push trough a particular POV, going on to compare this with doing a Google search to prove a point. That's not at all the case here. There's (at the moment) a single source stating this, yes, but the idea that the amount of sources is intentionally limited and aimed at pushing through a particular POV, is complete nonsense. In addition to this, you're misrepresenting my position, because I'm not at all hellbent on keeping this particular characteristic in the lead. However, I do feel there have to be, at the very least, several reputable sources who omit this characteristic in their definition or defining of ″Limburgish″ to support leaving it out. The fact that ''you'' think it isn't primary characteristic, is not enough, you have to argue for it based on literature.] (]) 13:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::** {{tq|"methodically better"}}: With different methods, one gets different classifications, like Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006 (younger than Heringa 2004) giving three different ones in one paper.<ref>Wilbert Heeringa, John Nerbonne, ''De analyse van taalvariatie in het Nederlandse dialectgebied: methoden en resultaten op basis van lexicon en uitspraak'', 2006 (<!-- Heeringa's papers -->, )</ref> | |||
| :::Not at all do I suggest that you "purposely only provided a single source". I merely stated that you only provide one single source. Call it "not a strong case", that's all. (For a piece of text you have added and then re-added three times. That looks quite hellbent when good practice suggests ].) It is impossible to continue this discussion when one bad-faith assumption flies after another. –] (]) 13:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Re {{tq|"methodically better", "I have heard negative opinions about the LVR", "but because I have a good overiew"}}:<br/> That aren't sources, but opinions/OR, please see ], ] (no OR), ] (NPOV). | |||
| ::::In your comment, you suggest that I've ″cherry picked″ a characteristic from one single source with the intention to apply so much weight to this as to force its inclusion in the lead. If that was not your intention, then you could have said this without further implying bad faith on my part. ] (]) 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Re {{tq|"You both like the old works by Jan Goossens published"}}:<br/> It's not about liking or not liking it. It's a matter of sourcing, no OR, NPOV.<br/> The classification of Heeringa 2004 for example could be given as well (ch. 9, p. 231):<br/> "Limburg" is most of the area of ] (incl. Venlo; excl. Kerkrade), a greater part of ] (incl. Overpelt) and a small part of southern and eastern ], and there's also "Southwest Limburg" in Limburg (Beglium).<br/> But then there are also for example 3 different classifications by Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006 (younger). And both Heeringa and Heeringa & Nerbonne could rather belong into ] as their papers are about Dutch dialects in general and not specifically about Limburgish.<br/> The tables below (they become better with JavaScript enabled) shall illustrate some overlappings and differences between (a) varieties and regions/areas and (b) different classifications: | |||
| :::::P. 109: "Wat voor de politieke erkenning de doorslag gegeven heeft, is dat...." Bakker's statement does not serve to answer the question "Wat is Limburgs?", but explains the government's rationale to recognize Low Saxon and Limburgs as regional languages. Bakker describes in the first place that Limburgish simply ''exists'' as something recognizable for the collective of its speakers: "Hoewel ze de dialectverschillen goed horen, hebben Limburgers toch het gevoel dat ze allemaal ‘Limburgs’ spreken. ‘Hét Limburgs’ bestaat dus niet, maar ‘Limburgs’ kennelijk wel." (But NB in his dissertation he presents other observations which show that the northernmost (=Kleverlandish) dialects fair somewhat differently under the "you speak your dialect and I speak mine"-test.) –] (]) 16:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
| ::::::And the quote is preceded by ''Net als taalkundigen vindt de politiek een eenheidstaal kennelijk geen absolute voorwaarde'' (translation: "Just like linguists, politicians believe that the presence of a uniform language is not a strict precondition "). ] (]) 17:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ! Variety (Heeringa 2004) !! Region/Area | |||
| {{od}} {{Ping|Austronesier}} I used Bakker (1997) to support the claim that a defining characteristic of Limburgish is that these dialects differ strongly from Standard Dutch and contributed little to its development. Whether this was or wasn't an argument for the Dutch government to support regional language status isn't relevant; it's a characteristic that Bakker clearly and explicitly ascribes to Limburgish. Do you you disagree with this reading? If so, why? ] (]) 20:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| | Central Dutch varieties || | |||
| |- | |||
| | Central Dutch varieties || ] | |||
| |- | |||
| | Brabant || | |||
| |- | |||
| | Brabant || ] (western part) | |||
| |- | |||
| | Southwest Limburg || ] (central part) | |||
| |- | |||
| | Northeast Luik || ] | |||
| |- | |||
| | Limburg || ] (incl. Venlo; excl. Kerkrade) | |||
| |- | |||
| | Limburg || ] (a greater part, incl. Overpelt) | |||
| |- | |||
| | Limburg || ] (a small part in the south and east) | |||
| |} | |||
| ::{| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
| ! Variety (Heeringa 2004) !! Variety (Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006, 3rd classification) | |||
| |- | |||
| | Southwest Limburg || Centraal zuidelijke dialecten | |||
| |- | |||
| | Southwest Limburg || Zuidwest−Limburg | |||
| |- | |||
| | Limburg || Oost−Limburg | |||
| |- | |||
| | Northeast Luik || Oost−Limburg | |||
| |- | |||
| | Brabant || Zuidwest−Limburg | |||
| |- | |||
| | Brabant || Tienen | |||
| |- | |||
| | Brabant || Centraal zuidelijke dialecten | |||
| |} | |||
| ::* Re {{tq|"or even using other talkpages"}}:<br/> Different topics have different talk pages. Using this talk page to talk about e.g. ] makes no sense, is off-topic, only clutters this page, makes the talk-page hard to read. | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| ::--] (]) 11:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seconding this. It is not about "liking" Goossens (btw, should I mention in return the infallibility that I <u>constantly</u> see ascribed to Wiesinger?), it is a) about citing him properly, not ascribing anything to him that he never has claim and b) it is about the impact of his review/synopsis of all preceding work in a cross-border perspective; his classifiction remains widely cited and (at least in broad strokes) unchallenged until today (cf. Ben Herman's chapter "Phonological features of Limburgian dialects" in the De Gruyter volume ''Dutch''). Of course there has been progress especially with the use of quantitative methods, e.g. things like Frens Bakker finegrained cross-border analysis of the northern transitional zone of Limburgish/SLF, which we also should cite with due weight. ] (]) 13:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::PS, this goes to both of you: WP has templates like {{t|tq}} and {{t|tqb}} which allow to highlight in color what you quote from sources, WP articles or other editor's comments. Please use them. It will be incredibly helpful for other editors who want to participate in this discussion. –] (]) 13:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for linking the quote templates. | |||
| :::Frens Bakker has written the work ''bestaande dialectgrenzen kloppen niet'' already mentioned above. It has Uerdingen line as not very important. | |||
| :::The differences of geography and dialectometrics have to be used to avoid mere geographic designations. Thew ork by Heeringa and Nerbonne 2006 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240956524_To_What_Extent_are_Surnames_Words_Comparing_Geographic_Patterns_of_Surname_and_Dialect_Variation_in_the_Netherlands The alredy mentioned figure 3 of the study doesn't cover dialects. There are two dialect maps of the Netherlands, labelled 4 and 5. 4 has the following clusters: Low Saxon, Friso-Saxon, Low Franconian, Central Gelderland, Zeeland, Low Franconian as well as the three, remote, quite neighbouring clusters Frisian, Franco-Frisian and Archaic Frisisan (in Hindeloopen, Schiermonnikoog and Terschelling) 5 has Limburg North of Venlo as a separate dialect area. | |||
| :::The IP adress said concerning ''"or even using other talkpages": | |||
| ::: Different topics have different talk pages.'' This concerned my wish not to discuss these issues on different talk pages. '''This is twisting my mouth.''' | |||
| :::Klaus J. Mattheier (ed.): Aspekte der Dialekttheorie. Tübingen 1983, p. 76 has the following areas with one place mentioned each: | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::**Werden | |||
| :::** | |||
| :::***Cronenberg | |||
| :::***Elberfeld | |||
| :::****Barmen | |||
| :::**Mülheim | |||
| :::**Velbert | |||
| :::**Breitscheid | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::***Solingen | |||
| :::***Haan | |||
| :::***Mündelheim | |||
| :::A paper by Wiesinger in ''Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie. Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet'', 1975 has ''Randbergisch'' (''Border Bergish'') as separate varieties and not one. | |||
| :::Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet'', 1975, p. 82 has the same scheme. | |||
| :::However, the other varieties as shown on page 82 are the following ones, the first place the one used exemplarily by the source entered today above. | |||
| :::* ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| :::* ], ], ] | |||
| :::* ], ], ], ] | |||
| :::* ], ], ], ] | |||
| :::* ], ] | |||
| :::* ], ], ], ] | |||
| :::* ] | |||
| :::* ] | |||
| :::* ], ], ] | |||
| :::* ] | |||
| :::We can't discuss the issues concerning Limburgish on 10 talk pages of 20 Wikipedias each, leaving aside other projects. this would result in a 35-hour week. For dispute resolution the talk page of the Dutch article should be used. ] (]) 09:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Alternative classification as Middle/Central Franconian == | ||
| Though the overall consensus is that Limburgish has its historical base in ], some historical linguists have a somewhat nuanced view on this: , (''Zuiver Oost-Frankisch heerscht: 1e. in het Land van Maas en Waal; 2e. in het Oostelijk gedeelte van Noord-Brabant; 3e. in het Oostelijk gedeelte van de prov. Antwerpen en (4e-6e) in het zoogenaamde mich-kwartier: 4e. het Oostelijk deel van Zuid-Brabant; 5e. Belgisch-Limburg; 6e. het grootste deel van Nederlandsch-Limburg, '''waar het dialect naar het Middel-Frankisch ''(])'' overhelt'''.''; is this archaic Dutch text understandable enough for everyone here?) | |||
| * {{tqb|1=Finally, we should always remind our readers that the scope of the dialectologist definition of Limburgish (= East Low Franconian = South Low Franconian) does not fully correspond to the sociolinguistic and language-political definition}} | |||
| * {{tqb|This list needs to be more qualified since some of these varieties are not generally considered Limburgs, both in common parlance and in dialectological classifications, e.g. Kleverlands (especially north of Horst) and Lommels. And we should also mention dialects on the German side which are sociolinguistically not considered Limburgish, but nevertheless belong to the Limburigan (or East LF or South LF, whatever you may call it) dialect group.}} | |||
| Do you ({{ping|Austronesier}}) happen to have any sources for the equation ''Limburgish = South Low Franconian''?<br/> | |||
| Some sources: | |||
| * This article: It mentioned ''Southeast Limburgish'' (Aachen, Kerkrade) which is considered Ripuarian and not South LF. It still mentions ''Noord-Limburgs'' or ''<nowiki/>''ik''-Limburgs'' which having ''ik'' would be North LF and not South LF. But well, in large parts it was and is unsourced. | |||
| * Belemans et al. (Dutch-language dialectological sources) have ''Noord-Gelders Limburgs'' = ''Kleverlands''. This would be North LF and not South LF. | |||
| * Per Goossens (1965, ''Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen'', p. 79), Limburgish is the Netherlandic-Flemish part of South Low Franconian (= East Low Franconian). That is, South LF is broader than Limb. | |||
| * HSK 30.4, p. 528 about South LF: " in den Niederlanden und Belgien fort (Eupener Land, große Teile von Belgisch Limburg und Niederländisch Limburg). Hier ist die Bezeichnung ''Limburgisch'' üblich." This could be understood in different ways: | |||
| ** Dutch {{lang|nl|Limburgs}} being the same as German {{lang|de|Südniederfränkisch}} (different terminology refering to the same area). | |||
| ** Dutch {{lang|nl|Limburgs}} like German {{lang|de|Limburgisch}} being South LF in Benelux (Limb. and South LF being different terms refering to different areas). | |||
| * / (refering to Jo Daan) has Limburgish roughly being South LF in Benelux. There's also "{{lang|nl|Noord-Brabants en Noord-Limburgs}}" or "{{lang|de|Dialekt von Nordbrabant und Nordlimburg}}". The German refers to one dialect of two areas. The Dutch sounds like two dialects forming one greater dialect. But instead of understanding ''Noord-Limburgs'' as ''northern Limburgish'' (northern part of Limburgish) it might rather be ''North-Limburg-ish'' (dialect of North-Limburg). | |||
| * (ch. 9, p. 231) has ''Southwest Limburg'' roughly as central-southern part of ], and ''Limburg'' as north-eastern part of Limburg (Belgium), in parts of ] (incl. Venlo) and small parts of ]. So Heeringa's Limburg includes some parts of Goossens South LF and North LF. But it also doesn't overlap with the area of Limburg (Belgium & Netherlands). | |||
| * Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006 () present 3 dialect classifications. | |||
| ** "Figuur 6. Verdeling op basis van lexicale afstanden": here the area of Limburg is part of ''Zuidoostelijke dialecten'' (south-eastern dialects) and there's no dialect Limburgish. | |||
| ** "Figuur 8. Verdeling op basis van uitspraakafstanden": it's roughly ''West−Limburg / Oost-Limburg'' = ''Southwest Limburg / Limburg'' (Heeringa 2004). So includes parts of South and North LF. | |||
| ** "Figuur 10. Verdeling op basis van gecombineerde afstanden (lexicon en uitspraak)": it has ''Zuidwest−Limburg'' and ''Oost-Limburg'' (lacking the north of the previous ''Oost-Limburg'' but includes Ripuarian Kerkrade). | |||
| So possibilities are: | |||
| * Limburgish = South LF in Benelux (Goosens; possible Jo Daan) | |||
| * Limburgish = South LF '''' | |||
| * ''variously defined:'' Limburgish = some dialect(s) in Limburg (Belgium & Netherlands), be they North LF, South LF or possibly Ripuarian (Heeringa 2004, Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006) | |||
| * ''politically:'' Limburgish = dialects in Limburg (Belgium & Netherlands), be they North LF, South LF or Ripuarian ( could be understod this way) | |||
| --] (]) 12:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :@IP: I can't ping you, but you'll read it anyway :) | |||
| :The key for bullet point 2 lies with Goossens (1965). On page 79, he indeed writes: {{tq|Der niederländisch-flämische Teil dieses Gebietes ist unter dem Namen 'Limburgisch' bekannt}}. But on p. 93, he suggests to replace the terms "East Low Franconian" (NL) / South Low Franconian (D) with "Limburgisch". And he implements this terminological revision in his Map 2, where e.g. Krefeld lies in the area of "Ostlimburgisch". | |||
| :More about it is found in the chapter "Phonological features of Limburgian dialects" in the 2017 De Gruyter volume ''Dutch'' that I have mentioned before. Here, Ben Hermans writes on p. 337: | |||
| ::{{tqb|Goossens proposes to replace the terms Southern Low Franconian (''Südniederfränkish'') and Eastern Low Franconian (''Oostnederfrankisch'') with the term ''Limburgian'', because it is difficult, if not impossible, to use the labels for the finer distinctions with the general term. In that case, collocations like East-East Low Franconian (for East Limburgian dialects) would result, or West-South low Franconian (for West Limburgian dialects), or even West-East-Low Franconian, etc. If we adopt the term Limburgian, the result is that Limburgian dialects are also spoken in Germany, in particular in the area around Dülken. In Map 18.1, I present Goossens’ map of the Limburgian dialects. This map has met with general approval since its publication, and it also figures, in a simplified form, in the popular literature (cf. for instance Keulen et al. 2007).}} | |||
| :NB: {{tq|"This map has met with general approval since its publication"}} (= Map 2 in Goossens 1965).. Since WP is largely built on secondary sources, here is one that tells us why following Goossens is probably not as bad an idea as {{u|Sarcelles}} appears to think it is. | |||
| :Of course, the term "Limburgish" in Goossens' sense hasn't really caught up in Germany where Südniederfränkisch/Südrheinmaasländisch are commonly used. I suggest to write something like the following at the top of the section "Subdivisions of Limburgish": | |||
| :*{{tq|Dialects of Limburgish belong to a group in the Continental West Germanic dialect continuum that is commonly called East Low Franconian in Dutch dialectology and South Low Franconian in German dialectology, and which extends across the Dutch-German border as far east as Remscheid. Goossens (1965) suggested "Limburgish" as a general term for this dialect group although in Germany, this term is hardly used for South Low Franconian dialects on the German side}}. | |||
| :Or something like that. With this disclaimer, we can list Goossens's grouping, but place the focus in the further discussion on B/NL dialects, based on sources like the ''Taal in stad en land'' overview for the Belgian side. Currently, there is way too much detail about SLF varieties in Germany. Sure, there is a lot of interesting things to tell about them, but I admit it feels odd that this should happen in an article entitled "Limburgish". | |||
| :And of course, we need to talk more about the fuzzy transition areas and the quite non-transitional dialects (like Venrays) that nevertheless are often called Limburgish by virtue of being spoken in Limburg. –] (]) 13:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::The equation ] = ] is doubtful. If it is right, the sentence in the German interwiki | |||
| ::''Das Südniederfränkische entwickelte sich überwiegend aus den Dialekten des ].'' meaning ''South Low Franconian mainly developed from the dialects of ].'' has to loose two logical errors. ] (]) 19:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::]. Goossens' seminal article and Hermans' chapter in the De Gruyter volume are. Here is another one: | |||
| ::::{{tqb|In de Nederlandse dialectologie staat ''Zuidnederfrankisch'' (in de Duitse dialectologie ''Südniederfränkisch'') bekend als ''Oostnederfrankisch''.|source=Frens Bakker (2016), ''Waar scheiden de dialecten in Noord-Limburg?'', p. 10, footnote 11. URL: https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/435_fulltext.pdf)}} | |||
| :::Another one for ''Oostnederfrankisch'' = ''Südniederfränkisch'' = Limburgish: | |||
| ::::{{tqb|Zwischen dem ripuarischen Mdagebiet und dem brabantisch-niederfränkischen Dialektraum, dessen Südostgrenze die Ürdinger Linie ist, liegt eine breite Übergangszone, die in der deutschen Fachsprache Südniederfränkisch, in der ndl. Oostnederfrankisch, aus praktischen Gründen aber auch Limburgisch genannt wird.|source=Hartmut Beckers, José Cajot (1979), ''Zur Diatopie der deutschen Dialekte in Belgien'', p. 155. URL: https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/cajo001zurd01_01/cajo001zurd01_01_0002.php}} | |||
| :::Again, I know that Limburgish = South (or East) Low Franconian is just one of several definitions of Limburgish, and clearly not the most common one. But it can be helpful to justify a short mention of South Low Franconian dialects in Germany (as sister dialects of Limburgish varieties in B and NL) in this article, and also the Low Franconian dialects spoken in Liège (which AFAIK are generally not referred to as ''Limburgs'' in Belgium). –] (]) 20:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::FWIW. another mention in the literature about the use of ''Limburgisch'' for dialects in Germany: | |||
| ::::{{tqb|Noch bevor die intensive Erforschung des ripuarisch-niederfränkischen Übergangsgebietes von deutscher, limburgischer und niederländischer Seite begann, klassifizierte BREMER bereits 1892 den etwa von der Ürdinger Linie umspannten linksrheinischen Bereich von Tienen bis Krefeld und Düsseldorf ähnlich wie 1965 Jan GOOSSENS als Limburgisch. |source=Peter Wiesinger (1975 ), "Zur Stellung der bergischen Mundarten", p. 348. URL: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/60904}} | |||
| :::The easternmost part of the South Low Franconian area is assigned by Bremer to a separate dialect group, viz. ''Bergisch''. Here are direct links to the archived map and text by Bremer from 1928 edition of '']'':. –] (]) 09:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wiesinger merely quotes an old work. The maps based on Daan 1969 mainly cover perceptual dialectology, but are used frequently in Wikipedias. The ik/ich-line is without classifying value at least in the Western part of Germany.<ref>Alfred Lameli, ''Strukturen im Sprachraum. Analysen zur arealtypologischen Komplexität der Dialekte in Deutschland.'', Berlin, Boston 2013, p. 90 </ref> Aspects of Tonality, not features of consonants, are the main features of ''mittelfränkisch-maasländisch'' (''Central Franconian-Meuse area'') dialect.<ref>Alfred Lameli, ''Strukturen im Sprachraum. Analysen zur arealtypologischen Komplexität der Dialekte in Deutschland.'', Berlin, Boston 2013, p. 153 </ref> | |||
| ::::This is a debate between probable Germans: Austronesier, the IP user and me. | |||
| ::::We still have neither a convincing division of Limburgish nor convincing definitions of Kleverlandish or South Guelderish. ] (]) 05:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{re|Sarcelles}} The IP challenged the point {{tq|Limburgish = South LF}} (in its entirety) as unsourced. My job here has been simply to illustrate that this terminological usage has a long history. Whether we can follow it without giving it undue weight is a different story. | |||
| :::::The actual range of the area of Limburgish (= E. Low Franconian = S. Low Franconian = ''ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet'' = whatnot) that undoubtly exists as a somehow definable entity is again another question. At the mid-level, the Uerdingen line has served as a handy starting point to <u>roughly</u> delineate the northern arc of its extent, but everybody knows by now that it is inadequate. To the west, it is too inclusive (cf. Gete line), to the north and northeast, it is too narrow. It is probably only useful from Panningen to Beringen, where it forms a relatively tight bundle with other, structurally more relevant lines. | |||
| :::::There will always be a residue of conflicting results, especially for transitional areas like West Limburgish, or the dialects north/northeast of the Uerdingen line. Conflicting classifications mostly hinge on methodological questions such as which piece of evidence is given more classificatory weight. For Wiesinger it's all in the vowels, for Lameli, it's about significant clustering of data points in a "blind-folded" analysis of the Wenker data. | |||
| :::::In this context, the question or Kleverlandish/South Guelderish is only relevant insofar as it has a southern border with Limburgish (= etc.). Its northern and western extent in the Netherlands is a different story, and is only discussed in Dutch literature. | |||
| :::::The high-level classification of Limburgish (= etc.) is more contentious. For Wiesinger, it can be included within Ripuarian (thus within High German) based on its vocalism, but this only works because he is concernced with its varieties spoken on the German side, thus with a transitional area within a transitional area. This also holds ''mutatis mutandis'' for Lameli. Traditionally (both in German and Dutch dialectology), it seen as part of Low Franconian based on the Benrath line. Within Low Franconian, German dialectologists group it with Kleverlandish (= ''Nordniederfränkisch'' = "North Low Franconian"), which only makes sense if you limit the discussion to the German part (and probably als when extending to adjacent parts in the Netherlands in the Rhine-Maas area, hence ''Rheinmaasländisch''), but in a holistic perspective, it makes little sense, simply because Kleverlandish is much closer to ABN by any parameter than Limburgish is (whether you treat is as a language of its own, a dialect of Dutch, or a dialect group in the Continental West Germanic dialect continuum). | |||
| :::::But then, our job is to present these topics in all their complexity (NB I haven't even touched sociolinguistic and language-political aspects), based on good sources and always considering due weight. Linguistics and specifically dialectology is not all about rigid taxonomy. "Save the trees" is best left to environmental policy :) –] (]) 10:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] is an article never existing in the last 15 years. However, the German interwiki ] of the article ] is to be translated as ''South Low Franconian''. | |||
| ::::::http://www.wjheeringa.nl/thesis/thesis09.pdf has a map including map showing a group of dialects ''Limburg'' mainly coexistent with ''Dutch Limburg''. The clarly non-Frisian varieties have the following two highest categories: One grouping including ''Limburgish'' and ''Northeast Luik'' including Kerkrade in the Netherlands inter alia and running to the respective area of all three official languages of Belgium, the other grouping including all varieties non mentioned hitherto as well as most of Belgish Limburg. This supports the idea of East Low Franconian. However, the study doesn't cover the part of Germany bordering to the Low Franconian area of Belgium and the Netherlands. | |||
| ::::::What should be done with the long, recent quotes above? ] (]) 19:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{re|Sarcelles}} I slowly try to bring all related articles more in line with the picture of widely accepted research results, especially considering due weight. I makes little sense e.g. to give too much weight on German research that largely focusess on the marginal area of South Low Franconian in Germany when we want to present a broad picture of the entire dialect area. As said before, I envision for this article a broad article concept: the main focus is of course on South Low Franconian varieties in Belgian and Dutch Limburg, since this is the topic that readers expect to be dicussed here based on its very title. But at the same time, we can give room to South Low Franconian varieties spoken in Liège and Germany. So to address one of your main concers: IMHO, the cross-wiki equation with ] is justifiable. –] (]) 18:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I think it would be very worth adding this information to the "Classification and history" section <small>(note: last year I made similar attempts to get this added to the corresponding article on the Dutch wiki, where it has been removed again, unfortunately).</small> ] (]) 10:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{agree}} Limburgisch originally is only defined in the Benelux (Jo Daan), South Low Franconian was introduces by Goosens to include Germany and is still used by Cornelissen in LvR . The demarcation is academic as Low Franconian and Kleverländisch are highly endangered dialects in Germany only spoken by the 60+ generation. See Georg Cornelissen ''Meine Oma spricht noch Platt'' (My grandmother is still speaking dialect). ] (]) 01:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Based on these two sources (<small>btw: do late 19th century texts really deem archaic to you? I've literally learned Dutch by reading Multatuli and linguistic texts about the Dutch East Indies from that period</small>), this does not support an alternative classification as Central Franconian. Both speak of Central Franconian influence (or Limburg dialects leaning towards Central Franconian), and that's not what just ''some'' historical linguists, but is considered general wisdom. It is usually as an effect of the ''Keulse expansie'' in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period, i.e. the radation of Ripuarian linguistic features into the southeastern part of the Low Franconian speech area as a result of the political dominance of Cologne. | |||
| :::::::::Jo Daan worked on perceptive linguistics. | |||
| :But there are indeed some classifications in ''German'' dialectology that plainly assigns South Low Franconian (both in Limburg and the Rhineland) to Central Franconian and thus within the High German dialect landscape (most notable by Wiesinger), by taking the opposite view, i.e. South Low Franconian dialects are Ripurian dialects that increasingly acquire Low Franconian traits when you move further to the west and north. The common textbook view in B, D and NL however sees the Benrath line as the western/northern boundary of Central Franconian (and so does the Raod veur't Limburgs). | |||
| :::::::::This is not useful. Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie. Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet, 1975, p. 57 has the Ripuarian-Low Franconian transitional area from Panningen to Germany on both sides of the Rhine as rarely demarcated by Uerdingen line. The Ripuarian-Low Franconian transitional area includes Duisburg on that page. ] (]) 08:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :We have a bit about this in ] already. I strongly opt for this article not simply to be a fork of ], but rather primary intended to talk about the recognized regional language (that's also what the ISO-code is for). Hence, we don't have to talk ''too'' much about classification here (especially when the northern part of Limburg tells a completely different story). But that's just me. I know there are other opinions, but contrary to what I've heard in the past days, it takes more than a 2:1 !vote to dance the WP consensus tango. –] (]) 08:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{re|Hans Erren}} {{tq|South Low Franconian was introduces by Goosens to include Germany}} This is not quite correct. Usage of the term South Low Franconian for the dialect area from Tienen to Remscheid obviously predates Goossens. Even "Limburgish" as a synonym of South Low Franconian to include dialects in the Rhineland predates Goossens. Dialect demarcations are always "academic", regardless of vitality. And academically relevant. | |||
| ::I agree (among others based on your explanation about the view on this within German dialectology - thanks for that) that the ] and ] articles are likely more suitable places for this sort of info. Yet I think it shouldn't be left completely unmentioned here either, as it serves among others to clarify the relationship of Limburgish to (Standard) Dutch (which is now discussed throughout this article in a rather vague/unclear/inconsistent manner, which I think will be of little or no use to common readers). ] (]) 09:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{re|Sarcelles}} {{tq|rarely demarcated by Uerdingen line}}, sure about "rarely"? It is still often seen in academic literature, even Giesbers uses it in her 2008 dissertation ''Dialecten op de grens van twee talen'', which is the first monograph dedicated to Kleverlandish. And frankly, I start to feel uncomfortable to persistently see an emphasis on German works when discussing West Germanic varieties that are for the most part spoken in Belgium and the Netherlands. ] (]) 20:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, this is part of Vlaemink's and my point that this article overall does not a good job of explaining anything (much of which has to do with its advocacy-driven edit history), regardless of the question of what this article actually should explain. –] (]) 09:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Many of the sources entered by me on this talk page are from Belgium or the Netherlands. Furthermore, Wiesinger was an Austrian working in Austria. The many times I used his works rarely pertained to Belgium or the Netherlands. I have stated doubt on several sources from Germany. Which sources should be used for the borders of dialects? {{Ping|Bertux}} {{Ping|Briegelaer}} {{Ping|De Wikischim}} | |||
| ::::I agree there are more striking issues with the current, rather poor version. Just one example is the relatively long section about "Meuse Rhenish", which seems of little or even no importance here. It's nothing but a proposed alternative classification of a big regiolectal area (including even ] and further), not supported by many linguists and therefore violating Original Research Policy. ] (]) 10:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{Ping|Hans Erren}} {{Ping|Hoyanova}} | |||
| {{od}} {{Ping|De Wikischim}} No, it wouldn't be possible to add this information to the ″Classification and history″ section, because the sources provided cannot be used to support what is being claimed: | |||
| :::::::::::{{Ping|Matroos Vos}} {{Ping|MWAK}} {{Ping|MicBy67}} {{Ping|Steinbach}} {{Ping|Tevergeefs}} {{Ping|Tomaatje12}} {{Ping|Vinvlugt}} ] (]) 09:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * Both of these sources are outdated, being published in 1892 and 1901 respectively; and hence do not meet ] on ]. | |||
| ::::::::::::Hello everyone. I'll not take part in this discussion! I've other “construction sites” that are more important than this one. | |||
| * Neither of these sources makes any claims about ″Limburgish″ not being ''Low Franconian'', they do not discuss this issue: | |||
| ::::::::::::Have a pleasant day! -- ] (]) 23:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''1.''' When Wieger (1901) mentions ''Middle Franconian'', he simply states that the dialects in the southeast of Dutch Limburg are transitional — which is true. | |||
| :::::::::::::I don't know why I'm mentioned here. ] (]) 13:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''2.''' When Leviticus (1892) mentions ''Middle Franconian'', he simply states that the language of the Middle Dutch Sente Servas-text is closely related to Middle Franconian — which is true. | |||
| ::::::::::::::Because of having left a comment on the talk page of the Dutch article. There is the following incomplete jigsaw puzzle: | |||
| '''On a meta note''': The way these sources were provided is inherently faulty: you searched for ''limburgs nederfrankisch middelfrankisch overgangsdialect'' (″Limburgish Low Franconian Middle Franconian transitional dialect″) in Google books and, most likely, did the same with the DBNL-database. In other words: <u>you are searching for what you ''want to find'', instead of what you ''want to know''</u>, in addition to (erroneously) taking fragments or excerpts out of their broader context. The inherent problems with this method have been stated before . ] (]) 10:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::*Limburgish in Germany is divided into Bergish and the remainder | |||
| ::::::::::::::*Limburgish in Belgium is divided into three vertical parts | |||
| ::::::::::::::*North Limburgish is part of Kleverlandish | |||
| ::::::::::::::] (]) 16:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Nice to see further discussion. | |||
| ::::::::Excluding one place in ], Central Dutch in the Netherlands can be grouped into a cluster in ] and a one of other varieties.<ref name="thesis09" /> Both clusters border to Germany.<ref name="thesis09" /> Most varieties in Gelderland South of the aforementioned variety of Central Gelderland cluster together with the dialect of ] and several varieties in ].<ref name="thesis09" /> | |||
| ::::::::Dutch Limburg can divided into a small area around Weert, a large area until Venlo and an area North of this.<ref name="researchgate.net"/> | |||
| ::::::::''Centraal zuidelijke dialecten'' which encompasses Brabantic and parts of Northern Dutch Limburg and Northern Belgium Limburg.<ref>https://www.academia.edu/3130916/De_analyse_van_taalvariatie_in_het_Nederlandse_dialectgebied_methoden_en_resultaten_op_basis_van_lexicon_en_uitspraaken</ref> | |||
| ::::::::It clusters with ''Tienen'' and also with ''Zuidwest-Limburg'' and ''Centraal zuidelijke dialecten'' and Urk<ref>https://www.academia.edu/3130916/De_analyse_van_taalvariatie_in_het_Nederlandse_dialectgebied_methoden_en_resultaten_op_basis_van_lexicon_en_uitspraaken</ref> Oost-Limburg doesn't group with these varieties. | |||
| ::::::::<ref>https://www.academia.edu/3130916/De_analyse_van_taalvariatie_in_het_Nederlandse_dialectgebied_methoden_en_resultaten_op_basis_van_lexicon_en_uitspraaken</ref> | |||
| ::::::::Heeringa (2004) distinguished (names as in Heeringa):<ref>Wilbert (Jan) Heeringa, ''Chapter 9: Measuring Dutch dialect distances'', of the doctor's thesis: ''Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences using Levenshtein Distance'', series: ''Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics (GRODIL)'' 46, 2004, (esp.) p. 231, 215 & 230 (, , )</ref> | |||
| ::::::::* ''Frisian'' | |||
| ::::::::* ''Frisian mixed varietie''s (including ] ({{lang|nl|Stad(s)fries}}) and ]) | |||
| ::::::::* '']'' | |||
| ::::::::* ''Overijssel'' | |||
| ::::::::* ''Southwest Limburg'' | |||
| ::::::::* '']'' | |||
| ::::::::* '']'' nearly entire Holland and Utrecht Province, as well as large parts of North Brabant and Gelderland | |||
| ::::::::* ''Limburg'' also nearly all of North Limburg. This part of North Limburg has a long border with Germany. For the most part, the places on the German side of this part of the border are in the Kleverlandish dialect area. | |||
| ::::::::*Northeast Luik, including Kerkrade and Eupen, could also be given as Southeast Limburgish. | |||
| ::::::::Dialektologie. 2. Halbband Werner Besch, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke, Herbert E. Wiegand Walter de Gruyter, 2008 p. 858/859 has Ripuarian as to include | |||
| ::::::::Nördliche Eifel | |||
| ::::::::Mittleres Erft- und Rurgebiet | |||
| ::::::::Aachener Land | |||
| ::::::::Bergisches Land | |||
| ::::::::Ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet ohne nordbergischen Raum | |||
| ::::::::Nordbergischer Raum | |||
| ::::::::Klaus J. Mattheier (ed.): Aspekte der Dialekttheorie. Tübingen 1983, p. 76 | |||
| ::::::::::::* | |||
| ::::::::::::**Werden | |||
| ::::::::::::** | |||
| ::::::::::::***Cronenberg | |||
| ::::::::::::***Elberfeld | |||
| ::::::::::::****Barmen | |||
| ::::::::::::**Mülheim | |||
| ::::::::::::**Velbert | |||
| ::::::::::::**Breitscheid | |||
| ::::::::::::* | |||
| ::::::::::::***Mündelheim | |||
| ::::::::::::***Solingen | |||
| ::::::::::::***Haan | |||
| ::::::::''Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie. Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet'', 1975, p. 82 are the following ones, the first place the one used exemplarily by the source entered today above. | |||
| :::::::::::::* ], ], ], ] | |||
| :::::::::::::* ], ], ], ] | |||
| :::::::::::::* ], ] | |||
| :::::::::::::* ], ], ], ] | |||
| :::::::::::::* ] | |||
| :::::::::::::* ] | |||
| :::::::::::::* ], ], ] | |||
| ::::::::] (]) 08:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::''Die Einteilung der niederdeutschen Mundarten auf Grund der strukturellen Entwicklung des Vokalismus'' | |||
| :::::::::from 1971, p. 41 by Baldur Panzer has Uerdingen line as irrelevant particularity. ] (]) 14:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ping|Austronesier}} Indeed, some publications use the Uerdingen instead of the more common Benrath isoglos, but as you've correctly stated the northward expansion of the first is a development from the High Middle Ages. This could be briefly explained in the article (if it isn't already), but would then also require explicit mentioning of the fact that Old East Dutch / Old East Low Franconian, did not have these characteristics. To me, this seems like a fairly minute and uncontroversial detail to be addressed later, after the article as a whole is in a far better shape than it is now. ] (]) 10:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Reflist-talk}} | |||
| :https://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Village_pump#Long-term_disputes_on_various_wikis_involving_a_cross-wiki_IP_author is an attempt to centralize this lengthy debate, ] (]) 16:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Legibility of this talk page == | |||
| == Platdiets and related varieties == | |||
| Not only I have made this talke page difficult to. What can I do to render its content better? ] (]) 07:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Platdiets of French-speaking Wallonia possibly isn't Limburgish. It is sometimes lumped with South East Limburgish of the Netherlands as well as some varieties of Flanders as well as including Düsseldorf, a city right into Germany. ] (]) 20:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've added {{tl|Reflist-talk}} to the section above, and tagged the page so that older sections will be archived by a bot. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The reflist makes a better legibility. However, the content still doesn't follow the rules. How can I change this? ] (]) 07:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:11, 28 November 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Limburgish article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 28 days  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 Archives | ||||||
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
|
Archives | ||||||
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Edits by 93.221.40.167
I would like to quote this IP
Article Essen: (closely related to Dutch). removed. This isn't even wrong.
Once in the article:
- "Bergish .. is the easternmost dialect of Limburgish"
- Jan Goossens, Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen, in: Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter. Jahrgang 30 1965, Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, Bonn, 1965, p. 79-94, esp. p. 79:
- ‚Südniederfränkisch‘ nennt man die Mundarten, die in einem Raum gesprochen werden, der sich beiderseits der Grenze zwischen dem Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen und der niederländischen Kultursprache über drei Staaten, Deutschland, die Niederlande und Belgien, in einem Dreieck Tienen-Remscheid-Eupen erstreckt. Als Seiten des Dreiecks kann man die ik/ich-Linie (Tienen-Remscheid), die maken/machen-Linie (Remscheid-Eupen) und die romanische Sprachgrenze (Eupen-Tienen) betrachten. Der niederländisch-flämische Teil dieses Gebietes ist unter dem Namen ‚Limburgisch‘ bekannt .
- That is: South Low Franconian lies between Ürdingen and Benrath line (has ich and maken). Limburgish is the Netherlandic-Flemish part of it.
- Bergish is variously defined, see
Peter Wiesinger, Strukturgeographische und strukturhistorische Untersuchungen zur Stellung der bergischen Mundarten zwischen Ripuarisch, Niederfränkisch und Westfälisch, in: Peter Wiesinger, edited by Franz Patocka, Strukturelle historische Dialektologie des Deutschen: Strukturhistorische und strukturgeographische Studien zur Vokalentwicklung deutscher Dialekte, Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim / Zürich / New York, 2017, p. 341–437
- p. 349f.: "1967 Erich MENGEL 1. Südbergische Mundarten (südlich der Benrather Linie)"
- I.e. Mengel's Bergish includes some Ripuarian, which is not South Low Franconian.
- p. 422 (map): Elberfeld and Barmen lie north of the Ürdingen line (have ik).
- p. 437 (map): Elberfeld and Barmen lie in the area of "Randbergisch" which is part of "Bergisch".
- Hence some of Wiesinger's Bergish lies north of the Ürdingen line and isn't South Low Franconian (south of the Ürdingen line).
article Low Franconian
Georg Wenker used the term Niederfränkisch (Low Franconian) more in the sense of Ripuarisch. Cp.:
- Georg Wenker, Das rheinische Platt. – Den Lehrern des Rheinlandes gewidmet, 2nd ed., im Selbstverlage des Verfassers, Düsseldorf, 1877
- p. 13: "Davon abgesehen aber ist Köln der eigentliche Mittelpunkt einer großen, die ganze Mitte der Rheinprovinz einnehmenden Mundart. Diese hat man die niederfränkische genannt, und unter dem Namen wollen wir sie uns denn auch merken. Nach Norden ist die Benrather Linie ihre Grenze, "
- p. 14: "Wir haben nun noch zu sehen, wie das Niederfränkische, also die Mundart um Köln herum, sich nach Süden hin begrenzt. Welches sind nun die beiden Mundarten, die sich hier vermengen? Die nördliche ist die niederfränfische um Köln, wie wir schon wissen, die südliche aber ist der Moseldialect auf dem linken Rheinufer zu beiden Seiten der Mosel und der Westerwälder Dialect auf der rechten Rheinseite im Westerwald. Diese beiden, der Moseldialect und der Westerwälder Dialect, sind fast ganz gleich und man nennt sie auch zusammen das Mittelfränkische (und zwar die nördlichste Mundart des Mittelfränkischen, denn ).
- Jürgen Lang, Sprache im Raum: Zu den theoretischen Grundlagen der Mundartforschung. Unter Berücksichtigung des Rätoromanischen und Leonesischen, series: Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. Band 185, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, p. 195
</ref> Most dialects and languages included within this category are spoken in the Netherlands, northern Belgium (Flanders), in the Nord department of France, in western Germany (Lower Rhine), as well as in Suriname, South Africa and Namibia.
and
North and South Low Franconian, classified like this:. Compare also:
- LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte (ed.). "Dialekte im Rheinland". Retrieved 21 July 2023.
Article Limburgish:
Gossens (1965) distinguished the following sub-dialects:
- ostlimburgisch-ribuarisches Übergangsgebiet (East Limburgish - Ripuarian transitional area; Ürdingen, Düsseldorf, Solingen, Remscheid, Mönchen-Gladbach, Eupen)
- Ostlimburgisch (East Limburgish; Panningen, Krefeld, Dülken, Sittard)
- Zentrallimburgisch (Central Limburgish; Maastricht, Vroenhoven)
- westlimburgisch-zentrallimburgisches Übergangsgebiet (West Limburgish - Central Limburgish transitional area; around and southern of Genk)
- Tongerländisch (Tongeren)
- Bilzerländisch (Genk, Bilzen)
- Westlimburgisch (West Limburgish; Veldeke, Hasselt, St.-Truiden, Loon)
- südbrabantisch-westlimburgisches Übergangsbiet (South Brabantian - West Limburgish transitional area)
- Ostgeteländisch (Beringen)
- Westgeteländisch (Tienen)
From talk:Dutch dialects
- Jürgen Erich Schmidt, Robert Möller, Historisches Westdeutsch/Rheinisch (Moselfränkisch, Ripuarisch, Südniederfränkisch); in: Sprache und Raum: Ein internationales Handbuch der Sprachvariation. Band 4: Deutsch. Herausgegeben von Joachim Herrgen, Jürgen Erich Schmidt. Unter Mitarbeit von Hanna Fischer und Birgitte Ganswindt. Volume 30.4 of Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science / Manuels de linguistique et des sciences de communication) (HSK). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2019, p. 515ff., here p. 528.
- LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte (ed.). "Dialekte im Rheinland". Archived from the original on 7 December 2022. Retrieved 21 July 2023.
- Jan Goossens, Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen, in: Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter. Jahrgang 30 1965, Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, Bonn, 1965, p. 79-94, esp. Karte 2
Text parts added to/removed from the lead
Until yesterday, this was still part of the definition in the lead: spoken in Dutch Limburg, Belgian Limburg, (the latter part seems rather the somewhat broader definition of South Low Franconian; maybe this essential distinction should be re-added as well to the lead in a different form, to distinguish better and immediately between Limburgish and SLF). The current version only defines the territory where Limburgish is spoken, very vaguely and not in any detail, as ... Belgium and the Netherlands.. . So this new version seems very incomplete, unlike the previous version. Therefore I think at least this is no improvement at all.
Another striking issue with the new lead is the emphasis which is now immediately laid on the relation of Limburgish to Standard Dutch (with Bakker (1997) as the only source used). My suggestion is to move this part to the section "Classification and history" (or maybe "Characteristics", not existing in the current article version),
What do others (preferably I'd like to see especially non-involved editors here) think about these points? De Wikischim (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- "Characterized by their distance to, and limited participation in the formation of, Standard Dutch" is a very inapt and cherry-picked classifier for what Limburgish is (and to "refers to"). For the most part since late the 19th century, "Limburgish" is the Dutch/Belgian term for the southeasternmost group of Low Franconian varieties spoken on the territory of the Low Countries (in other words: South Low Franconian minus its dialects in Germany and eastern Luik). With the emergence of the Limburgs language movement, it has come to designate the collective of all basilects in Limburg that has attained regional language status in NL. Since this is English WP, we don't really need a Dutch POV-based fork about a transnational dialect area, so this article can safely focus on the sociolinguistic/politcal aspect of Limburgish, which is best mirrored in the lede by identifying it as a regional language spoken in spoken in Dutch Limburg and Belgian Limburg (and obviously not in Germany) AND in the next sentence mention its second meaning.
- We should take care not to equate Limburgs with "Limburgish". In B/NL scholarship, Limburgs has a strong connotational baggage as a dialect group, but in common international parlance, "Limburgish" doesn't (or at least does to a much lesser extent). Go to Ngram Viewer and you'll find that "Limburgish" is almost entirely confined to 21th century discourse. A thorough unbiased survey of these source will tell if the topic of this article should be about "a group of Dutch dialects spoken in the southern Netherlands and Belgium" (Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe, 2008) or an "official regional language in the Netherlands" (Multilingualism in European Language Education, 2019). –Austronesier (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think especially this should be an essential part of the definition: With the emergence of the Limburgs language movement, it has come to designate the collective of all basilects in Limburg that has attained regional language status in NL, now missing in the lead, at least in this form.
- About the (supposed) " distance of Limburgish to Standard Dutch", I already pointed out (see above) that this info may be better at its place elsewhere within this article (the "Classification" section, for example).
- Apart from that, I'm a little in doubt as well about the use of the article by Frens Bakker (1997) as a primary source for this. Bakker's article is very well usable as such for this subject, but focuses mainly on other relevant aspects of the Limburgish language (those aspects seem by and large absent from the article right now). De Wikischim (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Austronesier: While Bakker (1997) could be criticized for being having somewhat of a ″popular linguistic″ vibe to it, I really don't see how repeating his remark that Limburgish dialects are characterized by their distance to, and limited participation in the formation of, Standard Dutch can be qualified as either ″cherry picked″ or ″inapt″, as it's one of the defining characteristics mentioned by Bakker.
And I would agree with this, as it seems that Standard Dutch is essential with regards to defining Limburgish, which would prove very difficult if not impossible to classify ″Limburgish″ as something other than South Low Franconian, without factoring in Standard Dutch; for example as a Dachsprache or as a major factor in dialectal decline. Defining ″Limburgish″ by isoglosses alone is not possible, as there is no isogloss separating it from South Low Franconian in Germany, and defining it by political status is not possible either, as there is no recognition in Belgium and the Dutch recognition is not specific to South Low Franconian. Defining ″Limburgish″ as ″South Low Franconian with Dutch as its Dachsprache″ seems very workable to me. It's not 100% watertight, but I don't see a better or more practical one.
As for using the term ″Limburgish language movement″, this is problematic as ″Limburgse taalbeweging″ gives a total of three results in Dutch, while ″Limburgish language movement″ has a grand total of zero] results in English. In addition to it not being term used, literature on this subject that the impetus for the regional language recognition wasn't at all a secessionist language movement, but rather a mainly conservatory effort mixed with a nation-wide resurgence of regionalism.
In order to work, this article needs to clear up what it's really about. For me personally, all the grammar/phonology/vocabulary and much of the linguistic history should (once properly sourced) be moved to South Low Franconian, where it belongs; whereas this article should primarily focus on sociolinguistics and political status. Vlaemink (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody criticizes Bakker. De Wikischim and I just don't think that this is a primary characteristic of "Limburgish". For virtually every not entirely counterfactual statement you will find a reliable source, whether you do a Google search to prove a point, or you provide one single source in order to apply so much weight to a statement based on it so that we simply must have it as a descriptor in the opening sentence of lede. "Distance" might be a secondary characteristic (and one that is often emphasized and exaggerated by language advocates) and can mentioned in the lede but not in the defining sentence, while "limited participation in the formation of Standard Dutch" is true (as for all varieties in the eastern part of the Low Countries) but not ledeworthy.
- "Limburgish language movement" is a phrase something I have used out of hand, so we shouldn't use it literally. But with some genuine goodwill to listen and to accomodate constructive contributions by fellow editors like De Wikischim we can easily rephrase it to "efforts to gain official recognition as regional language". It's ironic that these efforts have run counter the agenda of a manifest secessionist language movement in a neighboring country (with known results). -–Austronesier (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I find it nonconstructive that you suggest that I purposely only provided a single source in order to push trough a particular POV, going on to compare this with doing a Google search to prove a point. That's not at all the case here. There's (at the moment) a single source stating this, yes, but the idea that the amount of sources is intentionally limited and aimed at pushing through a particular POV, is complete nonsense. In addition to this, you're misrepresenting my position, because I'm not at all hellbent on keeping this particular characteristic in the lead. However, I do feel there have to be, at the very least, several reputable sources who omit this characteristic in their definition or defining of ″Limburgish″ to support leaving it out. The fact that you think it isn't primary characteristic, is not enough, you have to argue for it based on literature.Vlaemink (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all do I suggest that you "purposely only provided a single source". I merely stated that you only provide one single source. Call it "not a strong case", that's all. (For a piece of text you have added and then re-added three times. That looks quite hellbent when good practice suggests WP:BRD .) It is impossible to continue this discussion when one bad-faith assumption flies after another. –Austronesier (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- In your comment, you suggest that I've ″cherry picked″ a characteristic from one single source with the intention to apply so much weight to this as to force its inclusion in the lead. If that was not your intention, then you could have said this without further implying bad faith on my part. Vlaemink (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- P. 109: "Wat voor de politieke erkenning de doorslag gegeven heeft, is dat...." Bakker's statement does not serve to answer the question "Wat is Limburgs?", but explains the government's rationale to recognize Low Saxon and Limburgs as regional languages. Bakker describes in the first place that Limburgish simply exists as something recognizable for the collective of its speakers: "Hoewel ze de dialectverschillen goed horen, hebben Limburgers toch het gevoel dat ze allemaal ‘Limburgs’ spreken. ‘Hét Limburgs’ bestaat dus niet, maar ‘Limburgs’ kennelijk wel." (But NB in his dissertation he presents other observations which show that the northernmost (=Kleverlandish) dialects fair somewhat differently under the "you speak your dialect and I speak mine"-test.) –Austronesier (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- And the quote is preceded by Net als taalkundigen vindt de politiek een eenheidstaal kennelijk geen absolute voorwaarde (translation: "Just like linguists, politicians believe that the presence of a uniform language is not a strict precondition "). De Wikischim (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- P. 109: "Wat voor de politieke erkenning de doorslag gegeven heeft, is dat...." Bakker's statement does not serve to answer the question "Wat is Limburgs?", but explains the government's rationale to recognize Low Saxon and Limburgs as regional languages. Bakker describes in the first place that Limburgish simply exists as something recognizable for the collective of its speakers: "Hoewel ze de dialectverschillen goed horen, hebben Limburgers toch het gevoel dat ze allemaal ‘Limburgs’ spreken. ‘Hét Limburgs’ bestaat dus niet, maar ‘Limburgs’ kennelijk wel." (But NB in his dissertation he presents other observations which show that the northernmost (=Kleverlandish) dialects fair somewhat differently under the "you speak your dialect and I speak mine"-test.) –Austronesier (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- In your comment, you suggest that I've ″cherry picked″ a characteristic from one single source with the intention to apply so much weight to this as to force its inclusion in the lead. If that was not your intention, then you could have said this without further implying bad faith on my part. Vlaemink (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all do I suggest that you "purposely only provided a single source". I merely stated that you only provide one single source. Call it "not a strong case", that's all. (For a piece of text you have added and then re-added three times. That looks quite hellbent when good practice suggests WP:BRD .) It is impossible to continue this discussion when one bad-faith assumption flies after another. –Austronesier (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I find it nonconstructive that you suggest that I purposely only provided a single source in order to push trough a particular POV, going on to compare this with doing a Google search to prove a point. That's not at all the case here. There's (at the moment) a single source stating this, yes, but the idea that the amount of sources is intentionally limited and aimed at pushing through a particular POV, is complete nonsense. In addition to this, you're misrepresenting my position, because I'm not at all hellbent on keeping this particular characteristic in the lead. However, I do feel there have to be, at the very least, several reputable sources who omit this characteristic in their definition or defining of ″Limburgish″ to support leaving it out. The fact that you think it isn't primary characteristic, is not enough, you have to argue for it based on literature.Vlaemink (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Austronesier: I used Bakker (1997) to support the claim that a defining characteristic of Limburgish is that these dialects differ strongly from Standard Dutch and contributed little to its development. Whether this was or wasn't an argument for the Dutch government to support regional language status isn't relevant; it's a characteristic that Bakker clearly and explicitly ascribes to Limburgish. Do you you disagree with this reading? If so, why? Vlaemink (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Alternative classification as Middle/Central Franconian
Though the overall consensus is that Limburgish has its historical base in Low Franconian, some historical linguists have a somewhat nuanced view on this: , (Zuiver Oost-Frankisch heerscht: 1e. in het Land van Maas en Waal; 2e. in het Oostelijk gedeelte van Noord-Brabant; 3e. in het Oostelijk gedeelte van de prov. Antwerpen en (4e-6e) in het zoogenaamde mich-kwartier: 4e. het Oostelijk deel van Zuid-Brabant; 5e. Belgisch-Limburg; 6e. het grootste deel van Nederlandsch-Limburg, waar het dialect naar het Middel-Frankisch (Central Franconian languages) overhelt.; is this archaic Dutch text understandable enough for everyone here?)
I think it would be very worth adding this information to the "Classification and history" section (note: last year I made similar attempts to get this added to the corresponding article on the Dutch wiki, where it has been removed again, unfortunately). De Wikischim (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Based on these two sources (btw: do late 19th century texts really deem archaic to you? I've literally learned Dutch by reading Multatuli and linguistic texts about the Dutch East Indies from that period), this does not support an alternative classification as Central Franconian. Both speak of Central Franconian influence (or Limburg dialects leaning towards Central Franconian), and that's not what just some historical linguists, but is considered general wisdom. It is usually as an effect of the Keulse expansie in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period, i.e. the radation of Ripuarian linguistic features into the southeastern part of the Low Franconian speech area as a result of the political dominance of Cologne.
- But there are indeed some classifications in German dialectology that plainly assigns South Low Franconian (both in Limburg and the Rhineland) to Central Franconian and thus within the High German dialect landscape (most notable by Wiesinger), by taking the opposite view, i.e. South Low Franconian dialects are Ripurian dialects that increasingly acquire Low Franconian traits when you move further to the west and north. The common textbook view in B, D and NL however sees the Benrath line as the western/northern boundary of Central Franconian (and so does the Raod veur't Limburgs).
- We have a bit about this in South_Low_Franconian#Classification already. I strongly opt for this article not simply to be a fork of South Low Franconian, but rather primary intended to talk about the recognized regional language (that's also what the ISO-code is for). Hence, we don't have to talk too much about classification here (especially when the northern part of Limburg tells a completely different story). But that's just me. I know there are other opinions, but contrary to what I've heard in the past days, it takes more than a 2:1 !vote to dance the WP consensus tango. –Austronesier (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree (among others based on your explanation about the view on this within German dialectology - thanks for that) that the Low Franconian and South Low Franconian articles are likely more suitable places for this sort of info. Yet I think it shouldn't be left completely unmentioned here either, as it serves among others to clarify the relationship of Limburgish to (Standard) Dutch (which is now discussed throughout this article in a rather vague/unclear/inconsistent manner, which I think will be of little or no use to common readers). De Wikischim (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well, this is part of Vlaemink's and my point that this article overall does not a good job of explaining anything (much of which has to do with its advocacy-driven edit history), regardless of the question of what this article actually should explain. –Austronesier (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree there are more striking issues with the current, rather poor version. Just one example is the relatively long section about "Meuse Rhenish", which seems of little or even no importance here. It's nothing but a proposed alternative classification of a big regiolectal area (including even Kleve and further), not supported by many linguists and therefore violating Original Research Policy. De Wikischim (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well, this is part of Vlaemink's and my point that this article overall does not a good job of explaining anything (much of which has to do with its advocacy-driven edit history), regardless of the question of what this article actually should explain. –Austronesier (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree (among others based on your explanation about the view on this within German dialectology - thanks for that) that the Low Franconian and South Low Franconian articles are likely more suitable places for this sort of info. Yet I think it shouldn't be left completely unmentioned here either, as it serves among others to clarify the relationship of Limburgish to (Standard) Dutch (which is now discussed throughout this article in a rather vague/unclear/inconsistent manner, which I think will be of little or no use to common readers). De Wikischim (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@De Wikischim: No, it wouldn't be possible to add this information to the ″Classification and history″ section, because the sources provided cannot be used to support what is being claimed:
- Both of these sources are outdated, being published in 1892 and 1901 respectively; and hence do not meet Misplaced Pages standards on reliable sources.
- Neither of these sources makes any claims about ″Limburgish″ not being Low Franconian, they do not discuss this issue:
- 1. When Wieger (1901) mentions Middle Franconian, he simply states that the dialects in the southeast of Dutch Limburg are transitional — which is true.
- 2. When Leviticus (1892) mentions Middle Franconian, he simply states that the language of the Middle Dutch Sente Servas-text is closely related to Middle Franconian — which is true.
On a meta note: The way these sources were provided is inherently faulty: you searched for limburgs nederfrankisch middelfrankisch overgangsdialect (″Limburgish Low Franconian Middle Franconian transitional dialect″) in Google books and, most likely, did the same with the DBNL-database. In other words: you are searching for what you want to find, instead of what you want to know, in addition to (erroneously) taking fragments or excerpts out of their broader context. The inherent problems with this method have been stated before . Vlaemink (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Austronesier: Indeed, some publications use the Uerdingen instead of the more common Benrath isoglos, but as you've correctly stated the northward expansion of the first is a development from the High Middle Ages. This could be briefly explained in the article (if it isn't already), but would then also require explicit mentioning of the fact that Old East Dutch / Old East Low Franconian, did not have these characteristics. To me, this seems like a fairly minute and uncontroversial detail to be addressed later, after the article as a whole is in a far better shape than it is now. Vlaemink (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Village_pump#Long-term_disputes_on_various_wikis_involving_a_cross-wiki_IP_author is an attempt to centralize this lengthy debate, Sarcelles (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Platdiets and related varieties
Platdiets of French-speaking Wallonia possibly isn't Limburgish. It is sometimes lumped with South East Limburgish of the Netherlands as well as some varieties of Flanders as well as including Düsseldorf, a city right into Germany. Sarcelles (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: