Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 13:20, 8 December 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Languages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Belgium This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands

About the latest revert to the last version by Austronesier

@Austronesier: With this, you have undone all the edits which were made on this article in the last two days, something with which I cannot agree. First, my own reformulations were - of course- made for several good reasons. Second, even though I do disagree as well with the greater part of Vlaemink's edits here and on similar topics elsewhere, I think the addition/clarification "Sociolinguistically" was correct anyway here, and could easily have been kept.

So would you at least consider putting this previous version back? I ask this in particular because I don't want to revert you just this way. De Wikischim (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

No. "A group of homogenous language varieties" is meaningless. What is homogenous? South Low Franconian? That's obviously incorrect. Every source will tell you that South Low Franconian is hardly defined by any exclusively shared innovation, but rather as a traditional zone of isoglosses that link it either to other Low Franconian dialect groups or to Ripuarian and which cut right through the South Low Franconian area. Goossens (1965) gives a nice overview of it, for details there are multiple other good sources. Or are the indivdual varieties homogenous? The fact that the speech of one town is fairly homogenous is trivial, and we wouldn't mention it in any other article about a linguistic grouping. The contintental West Germanic (to the exclusion of Frisian) forms dialect continuum, and every grouping within this continuum is a "dialect group". This is most NPOV way to about it. "Refers to" is bad (see WP:REFERSTO).

The traditional assignment of SLFr dialects as dialects of either German or Dutch is not just based on sociolinguistics; that's Goossens' modern twist of it. It has largely to do with Dutch ressentments against the common German scholarly view of Dutch as part of Niederdeutsch at least in early times of Germanic studies. This ressentment deepened with the bitter experiences of WWII. It was a Belgian (Goossens) who broke the ice and paved the for cross-border studies by scholars like Giesbert and Bakker.

And is it two days or two hours? –Austronesier (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

With homogenous language varieties, I simply meant to express the fact that the diverse dialects which make up together the group linguistically referred to as "South Low Franconian" are mutually homogenous enough for this classification to be made. I do realize this may actually seem rather self-evident; yet I believe the formulation I had put down is preferable over calling it "a dialect group", which seems an oversimplification here. De Wikischim (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Drawing borders in a dialect continuum is always a simplification. It presupposes a hierarchy in the mesh of linguistic boundaries which sometimes does exist, but often not. For South Low Franconian, primacy is given to the Benrath line, and on the other side to the Uerdingen line (or the accent line in more modern approaches). It is a greater oversimplification to call this set of lects "homogenous" when "dialect group" gives due focus on its internal diversity (hence "group") and at the same time also its internal coherence (hence "group"). I gather from the first version of your comment that it is the very word "dialect" that initially triggered your aversion to the original text. –Austronesier (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this last issue: indeed, more or less. To my idea, "dialect" as a linguistic term is too often used in an improper way (for example, to denote a whole continuum of related dialects, as in this case too). Something that I think should certain be avoided is a description like "West Germanic dialect", which only creates new confusion. De Wikischim (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Improper according to whom? Every, yes, every source that takes a spatially fine-grained look at linguistic diversity uses the term "dialect". Dialects can form a dialect continuum; you can then slice the pie along territorial/political lines and get entities like Dutch, German, Luxembourgish or Limburgish, and proceed to call them "langauges", or you go by linguistic features: the ensuing clusters are called "dialect groups", regerdless of whether they cut through territorial/political lines or stay within a single territory. Central Hessian can safely be called a German dialect group, or South Hollandic a Dutch dialect group. For dialect groups like Moselle Franconian, Low Saxon and South Low Franconian, there is no such choice for a primary descriptor. Thus, the best solution is to talk about the larger entity that comprises them, i.e. the continental West Germanic dialect continuum. You can't get any more neutral than that. –Austronesier (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I don't follow. Why should the continental West Germanic dialect continuum be preferred over ″Low Franconian″? What's the problem with describing ″South Low Franconian″ as a subset of ″Low Franconian″? To me, this is like describing ″West Germanic″ as ″Indo-European″ ... Vlaemink (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it is a transitional area in the first place, straddling the German and Dutch diasystems. –Austronesier (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I still do not follow. South Low Franconian is a subdivision of Low Franconian, explicitly made obvious by the description South Low Franconian if nothing else. Now you talk about this dialect group being transitional ″within in the context of the Dutch-German diasystem″. What do you mean by that? It's typologically transitional, of course, but that goes for all dialects of the West Germanic continuum. The whole essence of the Dutch-German diasystem, is that it is not transitional at all, hence the name ″diasystem″. In fact, in a way, one could argue that the Dutch-German dialect system is the antithesis of the West Germanic continuum. So I have to ask again, not only what do you mean; but also, why oppose it being described as part of Low Franconian; as is incredibly common in the literature? Vlaemink (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Not "within in the context of the Dutch-German diasystem", but "straddling the German and Dutch diasystems". –Austronesier (talk) 15:36, 17

@Austronesier: Let's not devolve into semantics. I'm asking you two things: 1) what do you mean, concretely, when you say that the "dialect of the West Germanic continuum" is preferred due to these dialects "straddling the German and Dutch diasystems" and 2) why do you seemingly oppose classifying South Low Franconian as part of Low Franconian? Vlaemink (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: Just a trifle, but this is a nice'n compelling stylistic argument that turns the whole thing into a c/e-matter. –Austronesier (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC) October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Austronesier, sorry but could you perhaps explain a little better what you mean exactly? Do you just disagree with the use of "subgroup" in the definition? Anyway you've left this unchanged thus far. De Wikischim (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC) OK, seen everything well now after all. Hereabove you wrote ... is a nice'n ...., not: .. isn't a nice ... or something similar. Thanks as well for giving the compliment. De Wikischim (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No it is just my contrived way to say that I'm fine with it ;) –Austronesier (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I cannot help but ask how the above relates to your comments here, where you urge consensus before everything else and berated me for implementing changes to the article when 2/3 of the editors were involved? How is this any different from what it seemingly happening here? The discussion on what wording to use in the lead is clearly not over, yet you seem to be fine with De Wikischim changing it already. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, wouldn't you agree? Vlaemink (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to honestly contest it for reasons that you also would have applied if the edit had been made by someone of the Guild of Copy Editors and not @De Wikischim. Because this is exactly how I have approached the edit in spite of the fact that I have lengthily argued in favor of "dialect group" before. Also, both of you haven't edit-warred over this page as vehemently as you have done in Limburgish, so some friendly micro-tuning on the fly is certainly good as long as it doesn't completely run counter WP:BRD. –Austronesier (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier:If you implore me to assume good faith, then please, do not question my honesty or suggest that I only contest this matter merely because De Wikischim is involved.

My comment concerned you and your choices, not his. I was clearly not on board with your changes and was clearly still engaged in discussing these matters — as I still am — and I was asking you to hold yourself to your own standards when it comes to achieving consensus. I am asking youto bring into practice what you preach, consistently, not merely when you are trying to assert moral high ground in a heated debate. I do not think that is an unreasonable request — and if you think it is, then please remember that I'm repeating your own words.Vlaemink (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to contest it. I haven't seen yet that you do. And if you contest it, then hopefully for reasons ... . –Austronesier (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well I've already been doing that by asking you several critical questions , but I also made my argument in another section . Vlaemink (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Subgroup of Low Franconian or Continental West Germanic dialect continuum

The present introductory text gives South Low Franconian (SLF) as a subgroup of the Continental West Germanic dialect continuum (CWGDC), instead of Low Franconian, which I think isn't the best possible or most common definition.

Because, while South Low Franconian indisputably forms a transitional area between Low Franconian and Central German, this does make SLF an ″additional main category″ within the historical West Germanic dialect continuum, which are traditionally either given as either comprising of ″Low Franconian, Low Saxon, Central German and Upper German″ or as ″Dutch, Low German and High German″. In other words, by omitting that South Low Franconian as being a subgroup of Low Franconian by mentioning the CWGDC instead, a taxonomic ″tier″ (if you will) is being skipped. This is problematic for a number of reasons:

• The taxonomy in the article does show South Low Franconian as a subgroup of Low Franconian.
• For the average reader this wording can be confusing, possibly prompting the question why South Low Franconian isn't part of Low Franconian as a whole — when it is.
• The literature doesn't seem to support this, to name a few:

Goossens (1984) explicitly positions South Low Franconian on a micro-level, whereas Low Franconian is described as existing on the macro-level.

Boersma (2017) in a paper on Franconian tone is interesting, because he also mentions the dialect continuum in his definitions, writing:

In continental West-Germanic, a contiguous group of Low Franconian dialects (″Limburgian or “Southern Low Franconian”) and Central Franconian dialects (Ripuaric and Moselle Franconian) exhibit a binary lexical tone contrast on long vowels and diphthongs, which interacts with the intonation contour of the sentence.″

• I haven't been able to find any publication which explicitly positions South Low Franconian outside of the larger Low Franconian grouping; or which positions SLF as an equal category to Low Franconian, Low Saxon, Central German and Upper German.

With this in mind, I propose describing Southern Low Franconian as a subgroup of Low Franconian.Vlaemink (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Vlaemink (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to leave out Continental West Germanic dialect continuum from the definition. The taxonomic infobox on the right already gives enough info on this point, so I don't think many readers of this article will actually start to wonder why South Low Franconian isn't part of Low Franconian as a whole. However, should somebody still believe it's definitely necessary to mention this explicitly in the main text too (making it a duplicate with the infobox), the definition might become something like a subgroup of Low Franconian, belonging as a whole to the Continental West Germanic dialect continuum, which however sounds rather awkward. De Wikischim (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Having been victimized due to minority issues in Germany, I support to either use the concept Limburgish or this refuted Goossens scheme South Low Franconian as defined by him. Sarcelles (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sarcelles, the two terms "Limburgish" and "South Low Franconian" should remain distinguished (as the latter includes Germany). Otherwise, what's your point here exactly? Perhaps I don't get it fully. De Wikischim (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

There is Limburgish as to exclude Germany. Is South Low Franconian defined as between the lines? Sarcelles (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ideally, the definition of a topic in the first sentence should be precise and accurate, recognizable to our readers, and only mention primary charactistics.

Starting with the last point, a (made-up) bad example will show what I mean: "Hausa is a tonal language spoken in West Africa". Sure, Hausa is tonal, but that's not the first thing that people usually have to say about it.

"West Germanic" and "Low Franconian" are both familiar to readers with a certain degree of interest in languages and linguistics, the former obviously more than the latter. But then, the "Continental West Germanic dialect continuum" arguably ranks lower than "Low Franconian". "Low Franconian" is a familiar term for readers of texts about Dutch and German dialectology, while "Continental West Germanic dialect continuum" appears in more specialized literature that covers a broad, transnational picture of the linguistic landscape from the North Sea to the Alps.

"Continental West Germanic" is accurate, but seemingly less precise than "Low Franconian". It appears to be like saying that Bengali is a Indo-Iranian language, when it is an Indo-Aryan language in the first place. This however presupposes that the classification of "South Low Franconian" as cladistically nested within "Low Franconian" is undisputed. And here's the rub: it is not.

In 1975, Wiesinger summarized 100 years of Belgian (referred to by him as "Belgian-Limburgian"), Dutch and German scholarship in his article "Strukturgeographische und strukturhistorische Untersuchungen zur Stellung der bergischen Mundarten zwischen Ripuarisch, Niederfränkisch und Westfälisch". Referring to the dialect group that is roughly demarcated by the Uerdingen and Benrath lines as the "the large Ripuarian-Low Franconian transitional area in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany" and after listing German scholars who give preference either to the Uerdingen line or to the Benrath line as a primary linguistic boundary, he goes on as follows:

Hence, the transitional area is either considered part of Ripuarian and sometimes also called "North Ripuarian" , or is it included – always so in Limburgian and Dutch research – within Low Franconian as "South Low Franconian".

Thus, as of 1975, there was no universal consensus about South Low Franconian being part of Low Franconian, although Wiesinger does not fail to mention that alternative classifications had only been brought forward by German scholars, while Dutch and Belgian scholarship is unequivocal about its inclusion in Low Franconian. (Personally, Wiesinger belonged to the former "camp", as can be seen in several other publications where he primarily classifies the Ripuarian-Low Franconian transitional area as Ripuarian because of its structually High German vocalism.)

What about scholarship post-Wiesinger? At least in German research, this alternative view is still relevant more than ever. In the chapter "Historisches Westdeutsch/Rheinisch" in Sprache und Raum - Ein internationales Handbuch der Sprachvariation, Band 4: Deutsch, South Low Franconian is classified together with Moselle Franconian and Ripuarian in a distinct "Rhenish" dialect group. While the volume only discusses dialects in the area that has German as Dachsprache, the authors don't fail to mention that the South Low Franconian dialect area extends to the Netherlands and Belgium, which means that South Low Franconian spoken across the border nevertheless are part of the wider "Rhenish" dialect group.

Given that the inclusion of South Low Franconian within Low Franconian still remains a matter of debate, I consider "subgroup of the Continental West Germanic dialect continuum" maximally precise. But sure, an additional sentence that explains the details is perfectly fine, something like: "It is usually classified as a subgroup of Low Franconian, but shares many linguistic features with High German dialects, especially Ripuarian. Some scholars alternatively classify South Low Franconian as closer to Ripuarian than to Low Franconian." –Austronesier (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this summary, which seems rather adequate. Low Franconian as a dialectological term seems less demarcated than some other sources imply. Anyway, it should definitely not be considered as an equivalent of Dutch which, most of the time, refers only to Standard Dutch (which, historically, is actually nothing but a linguistic construct made up of mainly Low Franconian elements). De Wikischim (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I do not consider wording "subgroup of the Continental West Germanic dialect continuum" to be maximally precise, but rather to be unnecessarily vague and not in line with the literature, which is quite clear: South Low Franconian is either placed within Low Franconian, which is the overal consensus of Dutch and Belgian linguists and a substantial part of German linguists, or it is defined as either (West) Middle German, or — in at least one source —, as Rhenish, the latter being defined as South Low Franconian + Moselle Franconian + Ripuarian, i.e. essentially a subgroup of West Middle German.

As of yet, no source has been shown to use "(Continental) West Germanic dialect" as the primary descriptor for "South Low Franconian, let alone to provide a rationale for doing so, and thus, neither should this article. Fact of the matter is, that linguists differ on the immediately adjacent macro-classification of this dialect grouping; and this does not warrant the proposed ambiguity. There is no doubt about whether these dialects are perhaps Frisian, Upper German or Low German; so I cannot for the life of me see a reason to drag in the entire West Germanic dialect continuum, nor do any authors writing about this subject. Instead, a fairly straightforward dichotomy is represented in the scientific literature: it's either considered A or B; Low Franconian or (a subgroup of) West Gentral German. That's where the 'dispute' is, nowhere else, and this can be expressed perfectly clearly within the proper micro/macro-context.

For example in this suggestion, based on all sources mentioned above:

South Low Franconian refers to a group of transitional dialects between Low Franconian and West Central German. Linguists hold different opinions as to which of these groups South Low Franconian should be primarily be ascribed, the consensus view among Dutch and Belgian linguists being that South Low Franconian is a part of Low Franconian, whereas German linguists tend to be divided between either concurring or preferring to position South Low Franconian within (subgroupings of) West Central German.

The above wording is of course open for changes, but essentially, covers the entire matter. It does justice to both the micro/macro-context of these dialects, while also making clear that the (directly following) macro-classification is contended. In the article itself, further details and rationales could be given, elaborating on the various positions and providing a more in depth analysis, explaining;

• ... the rationale for placing it within Low Franconian is based on historical linguistics + the Benrath line
• ... the rationale for placing it within (West) Middle German is based on the Uerdingen line
• ... the rationale for placing it within "Rhenish" is based on phonological characteristics ("phonologisch Rheinisch ohne Lautverschiebung")

Would you disagree with this analysis and/or proposed solution, and if so, why? Vlaemink (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder @Austronesier:.Vlaemink (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It is common practice here in WP (and not only here) to characterize linguistic entities by their membership in a larger "taxomonic" entity. For South Low Franconian, the lowest-order grouping that it unequivocally belongs to is the continental West Germanic dialect continuum. Phylogenetically, this is as precise as you can get withouth taking sides. But I acknowledge that in this case, continental West Germanic as a primary classifier would be an insular solution not commonly found in the relevant literature. So I agree to skip it as the primary classifier, but don't support to discard it entirely, as it provides a wider context.

What is indeed frequently encountered is pinning down the place of South Low Franconian within the dialect continuum. The text you propose does that, so it's a useful framework to start with (and which has multiple precedences in the relevant literature). The only objection I have with the opener is "(West) Central German" as the second outer bound. Following Goossens, Wiesinger, and the entire school of Rhenish dialectology (Wenker, Welter, Frings etc.), the coordinates are between Low Franconian and Ripuarian (narrow), Central Fraconian (mid) or even High German (wide).

• Goossens writes in his Inleiding tot de Nederlandse Dialectologie: "Een voorbeeld is het Zuidnederfrankische overgangsgebied in Limburg en aan de Duitse Nederrijn, tussen het eigenlijke Nederfrankisch in Nederland, België en het N. van de Duitse Nederrijn enerzijds en het Middelfrankisch van het Ripuarisch af anderzijds." Note the phrase "het eigenlijke Nederfrankisch", which implies a lot; Goossens is even more explicit in his 1965 paper (cited in the article): "über das Ganze gesehen ist diese Linie wahrscheinlich die tiefste Scheide im ganzen kontinentalwestgermanischen Gebiet"; hence, for Goossens the probably deepest divide in the continental West Germanic dialect continuum cuts right between South Low Franconian and West Low Franconian (or "Low Franconian proper" per his Inleiding).
• Wiesinger also talks about "das ripuarisch-niederfränkische Übergangsgebiet", but primarily classifies (in various works) it as Ripuarian (in a wider sense) < Central Franconian < High German (for Wiesinger, "Central German" and "West Central German" are not categories defined by any structurally relevant innovation).
• Finally, Erich Schmidt explicitly excludes "Rhenish" (or historisches Westdeutsch, i.e. South Low Franconian, Ripuarian (in the narrow sense), Moselle Franconian) from Central German, which is also supported by Lameli's seminal 2013 computational phylogenetic classification.

So I suggest to open as follows:

South Low Franconian is a group of transitional dialects between Low Franconian and Ripuarian within the continental West Germanic dialect continuum. Linguists hold different opinions about the higher classification of South Low Franconian: the consensus view among Dutch and Belgian linguists is that South Low Franconian is a part of Low Franconian, whereas German linguists either agree with its inclusion within Low Franconian or instead position South Low Franconian within Central Franconian, either as part of its Ripuarian branch or as a sister group of it.

(yeah, I know, this cries for copy-editing by a native speaker of English).

In the further discussion, we can elaborate on the criteria that have resulted in these different classification. But note that all of them are based on historical linguistics: the traditional model priorizes the High German consonant shift; Wiesinger structural innovations in the vowel system, especially the High German split of WGmc *ai and *au; and Schmidt, who emphasizes the opposite vowel height positions in Rhenish and the rest of High German for reflexes of the vowel/diphthong series coresponding to Old High German ê-ô and ie-uo. Note also that Boersma (2017) derives the vowel systems of South Low Franconian varieties from an Old High German-like base, and not an Old Dutch-like one. Pasting "based on historical linguistics" only to the first bullet point "placing it within Low Franconian" introduces an unwarranted bias. –Austronesier (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason whatsoever to make the issue of classifying this dialect grouping either political or emotional. This isn't a war, there are no 'sides to be taken', merely two prominent viewpoints to be described. So to break from normal linguistic terminology by "Continental West Germanic" as the primary descriptor for these dialects in order to avoid (from what I make out to be, at best,) fringe sensitivities, makes no sense — and I'm very glad you've agreed to drop this particular issue.

As for the wording you proposed, I disagree with two things:

• I'd omit the word "higher", as it's non-standard English and a tautology of "part of".
• I'd omit "within the continental West Germanic dialect continuum", as it's still just too broad and non-specific for an individual dialect. Such a practice would be very uncommon as most, if not all, individual West Germanic dialects are not described in this manner. If a further addition had to be made, I could only support mentioning the Rhenish fan; as this at least has relevance within the context of the dialect described, as well as the larger groupings it is ascribed to.

This would result in the following (or similar) wording:

South Low Franconian is a group of transitional dialects between Low Franconian and Ripuarian, part of the so-called Rhenish fan, a much larger transitional area between Low Franconian and Rhine Franconian. Linguists hold different opinions about the classification of South Low Franconian: the consensus view among Dutch and Belgian linguists is that South Low Franconian is a part of Low Franconian, whereas German linguists either agree with its inclusion within Low Franconian or instead position South Low Franconian within Central Franconian, either as part of its Ripuarian branch or as a sister group of it.

Would you disagree with this proposed solution, and if so, why?

Some additional remarks:

• While I disagree with your statement that all classifications are based in historical linguistics (several authors seem to use contemporary isoglosses) I see your point that defining these dialects by historical arguments isn't particular to one particular school of thought. Nevertheless the main point was that various POV should be further explained in the article, which, I believe, is something on which we are in agreement.

• I could not find Boerma claiming that the vowel system of South Low Franconian varieties derives from Old High German, rather than Old Dutch. I might have missed it, but it wouldn't make much sense as Boersma himself notes that "the Old Low Franconian vowel system is virtually identical to that of most known Old High German dialects" (Boersma, 2017, p.6). Vlaemink (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Since I'm pretty busy off-wiki these days, just three remarks at this point:

• Continental West Germanic remains good and helpful as a secondary descriptor. Because SLF straddles the areas of German dialects and Dutch dialects, we cannot pin them down to either of them (unlike, for instance, Brabantian or Thuringian, for which one can use "dialect group of Dutch" and "dialect group of German" as recognizable entities).
• Historical linguistics can entail the study of non-contemporary (= historcal) language data, but does not necessarily do so. Meinhof, Dempwolff, Bloomfield etc. have taught us how to do historical linguistics solely based on synchronic data. I'm a historical linguist and have spent more than half of my life working in an area where written documentation for the most part only began in the 19th and 20th century and thus have pursued historical linguistics solely based on "contemporary isoglosses" (just as Wiesinger and Schmidt do in a different part of the world). I've recently published a book chapter about the historical linguistics of the languages in a specific area that is literally entitled "Historical linguistics of " and which again is entirely based on synchronic data. Several companion chapters in the same volume do the same, and the publisher in Clarendon Street didn't find fault with it ;)
• The correct quote on page 33 (not page 6; we use the pagination of published versions) from Boersma is the OLF vowel system is virtually identical to that of most known Old High German dialects. "OLF" is defined as "Old (Eastern) Low Franconian" in the preceding sentence. "Eastern" is highly relevant here, since the vowel system of the bulk of Dutch dialects – including the historical and contemporary literary standard varieties, and NB also Western Limburgian – does not derive from this OHG-like "OLF" vowel system. So the Genks set kleen–been–zie structurally aligns with German klein–Bein–See, while Hasselts kleen–bien–zie aligns with Dutch klein–been–zee. That's a "blue-sky" fact in Dutch dialectology (e.g. Weijnen, Nederlandse dialectkunde, 1958:155–156; De Vaan, The Dawn of Dutch, 2017:467; see also further citations in De Vaan's footnote on the same page).

We might consider to elicit wider input from other editors via WT:LANG. –Austronesier (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Let me begin by stating that nobody is obligated to comment, but it's a bit disappointing that after two weeks and stating that you're pretty busy, you then commented on somewhat peripheral matters rather than the proposed wording, which, after all, is the main subject of this discussion. I'd therefore like to ask you to comment on the proposed wording in in your next comment here.

As for your three remarks:

• Your comment surprised me to be honest, as I don't think it has been a point of contention whether this dialect group "belongs to" either Dutch or German. It's not in the current proposed wording, nor was it in any of the previous proposals and I cannot really see, especially with the inclusion of the "Rhenish fan" how readers could interpret the proposed text as in any way suggesting this.
• I don't see how this conflicts with my earlier remark?
• I think the problem here is the use of confusing and differing terminology by you, me and the authors involved. Boerma somewhat confusing uses Old Low Franconian (OLF) as a synonym of Old East Low Franconian (which might make sense within his article, but not in a broader sense), whereas you in your previous comments you wrote that Boerma "derived the vowel systems of South Low Franconian varieties from an Old High German-like base, and not an Old Dutch-like one." which is confusing, because I (and De Vaan) would say that the concept of "Old Dutch" both includes the inland (i.e. Old East Low Franconian) variety of Old Low Franconian and its coastal (i.e. Old West Low Franconian) varieties. Had I done a more meticulous reading of Boersma, I might have spotted my mistake with the terminology used in that particular article, but would probably still taken issue with your use of "Old Dutch" ... in the end though I don't think we're actually talking about different things here and I would fully agree with the statement that an east/west or inland/coast distinction can be made between the vowel systems of Old Low Franconian.

Getting back to the current issue, I think all of the above remarks are concerned with the (future) main article text, not the lead; which is something I would like to solve within a reasonable amount of time, so I'd like to ask you again to comment on the proposed wording:

South Low Franconian is a group of transitional dialects between Low Franconian and Ripuarian, part of the so-called Rhenish fan, a much larger transitional area between Low Franconian and Rhine Franconian. Linguists hold different opinions about the classification of South Low Franconian: the consensus view among Dutch and Belgian linguists is that South Low Franconian is a part of Low Franconian, whereas German linguists either agree with its inclusion within Low Franconian or instead position South Low Franconian within Central Franconian, either as part of its Ripuarian branch or as a sister group of it.

I would concur that requesting more input is an option, but I'd like yours first. Vlaemink (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

1. J.J. Goossens: Die Herausbildung der deutsch-niederländischen Sprachgrenze, 1984, pp. 4.
2. Paul Boersma: The history of the Franconian tone contrast, 2017 pp. 27.

• C-Class language articles
• Low-importance language articles
• WikiProject Languages articles
• C-Class Belgium-related articles
• Unknown-importance Belgium-related articles
• All WikiProject Belgium pages
• C-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• C-Class Netherlands articles
• All WikiProject Netherlands pages