Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::You don't actually say which are the problem sections. But what I do see is a lot of {{tag|nowiki}} pairs plus excessive indenting. These seem to have begun around July 2023. --] 🌹 (]) 11:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::You don't actually say which are the problem sections. But what I do see is a lot of {{tag|nowiki}} pairs plus excessive indenting. These seem to have begun around July 2023. --] 🌹 (]) 11:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::You removed the automated archiving code, with an edits summary "Automatic archiving removed, the disputes are not resolved"; this seems to be based on a misunderstanding, as live will not be archived. I have restored the code. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::You removed the automated archiving code, with an edits summary "Automatic archiving removed, the disputes are not resolved"; this seems to be based on a misunderstanding, as live will not be archived. I have restored the code. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::This talk page currently has not a single resolved section as far as I know. Furthermore, it is difficult to read its content, which is even not formatted properly. ] (]) 13:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Revision as of 13:53, 11 March 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.
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
An important note to all involved with this article
Hello everyone, I (Vlaemink (talk·contribs)) and I had hoped to use the next weeks to expand and improve this article in relative peace by use of an alias (RogerDE (talk·contribs)), 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 particularly cryptic alias 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 Wiki-hounding 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: Briegelaer (talk·contribs) and De Wikischim (talk·contribs), 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 WP:SOURCE. Vlaemink (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I invite everyone to look at the absolute mayhem that Vlaemink has caused on the Dutch Friezen and Limburgs. 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). Briegelaer (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@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 Low Franconian, Franconian (linguistics) and West Germanic languages are among the first 5 articles in your Top Edits list, it is mildly spoken naive to consider this kind of multiple use of accounts unproblematic.
@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: user:Westbrabander. Note: this latter account has been blocked indefinitely on the Dutch WP because of sockpuppet abuse. And regarding that, this new investigation request 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, De Wikischim (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@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, Vlaemink (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I would also like to personally ask (if time permits) @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, Vlaemink (talk) 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.
Hello Sarcelles, thanks. However, the main recurring question here (as well as on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, see nl:Limburgs) 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 Hollandic/Brabantian etc.), or a fully separate language which as such makes part of the West Germanic/Low Franconian branch (which actually would make it a sister language 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. De Wikischim (talk) 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: :nl:Zuid-Nederfrankisch literally translated is the same as de:Südniederfränkisch. However, the latter is the German interwiki of this article, whereas the linked article in nl is not. Sarcelles (talk) 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 (Low Dietsch) spoken in Belgium (more precisely: the Liège Province) which are by and large not considered "Limburgish", at least not in the most common sense of the latter term. See as well li:Zuudnederfrankisch, for those who understand Limburgish. De Wikischim (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
There are other terms in Dutch/English/German, which possibly cannot be translated directly:
South Low Franconian is an existing English term (not a made-up translation by Misplaced Pages). Some examples can be found at: Wiktionary.
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.
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 Low Franconian or Netherlandic branch of the West Germanic languages, rather than (suggest that it forms) a separate West Germanic language branch.
(2) The basic premise of this article should acknowledge and expand upon the practical reality and linguistic consensus that Standard Dutch forms the Kultursprache and/or Dachsprache 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.
(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 Middle Dutch and Old Dutch, 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.
(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.
(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.
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 Low Dietsch) 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 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages 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.
(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.
Other:
(10) The presence of/references to the concept of Meuse-Rhenish 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, Vlaemink (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Vlaemink (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
References
Stegeman: Grote geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal, dat men binnen het Nederlands (2021).
Hinskens: Wijdvertakte wortels: over etnolectisch Nederland (2016) p.38.
Janssens: Het Nederlands vroeger en nu (2005) p.69.
Judo: De Zeven Woorden van de Lage Landen (2022) p. 63.
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.
A.A. Weijnen: De Nieuwe Taalgids. Jaargang 63, 1970, pp. 158-159.
Hoppenbrouwers 2001
Rob Belemans 2004, p.21
^ Marijke van der Wal en Cor van Bree, Geschiedenis van het Nederlands, Houten, 2008, p. 109.
Chris de Wulf: Klankatlas van het veertiende-eeuwse Middelnederlands, Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2019, p.40-42.
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.
Taalvariatie en taalbeleid, J. De Caluwe. pp. 112-113/127.
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}}
(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.
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 Venlo, exactly the same can be stated for example about some language varieties spoken in Gelderland and traditionally considered Low Saxon, while they actually make up a continuum with other varieties considered Low Franconian. This is well explained for example here: Vermengde het Saksisch zich met het Frankisch tot het Zuidoost-Veluwsch (translation: "Saxon mingled with Franconian to become South-East Veluws"). --De Wikischim (talk) 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 Briegelaer (talk·contribs) 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: Südniederfränkisch), which means "South Low Franconian". 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:
Werner König, in his well known and extensively published linguistic atlas, in which Limburgish varieties are shown and described as part of Low Franconian, pp. 230/231. in both its 2007 and most recent (2011) publication.
Peter Wiesinger: Strukturelle historische Dialektologie des Deutschen: strukturhistorische und strukturgeographische Studien zur Vokalentwicklung deutscher Dialekte, Olms Verlag, 2017, pp. 346-347: 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 part of Low Franconian.
Herbert Genzmer: Die deutsche Sprache: Ursprünge, Entwicklung und Wandel. Marix Verlag, 2017, pp. 32: Speaks of South Low Franconian 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:
Joachim Herrgen: Deutsch: Sprache und Raum - Ein internationales Handbuch der Sprachvariation, De Gruyter, 2019, pp. 70 explicitly defines Meuse Rhenish as a category/further specification within Low Franconian.
Ute Boonen: Niederländische Sprachwissenschaft: Eine Einführung, Attempto Verlag, 2013, pp. 40-41: explicitly states that Meuse Rhenish is to be understood as a medieval writing tradition withinMiddle Dutch.
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 (Alfred Lameli: Strukturen im Sprachraum: Analysen zur arealtypologischen Komplexität der Dialekte in Deutschland, 2013, De Gruyter, pp. 212) and with the historio-linguistical reality that the South Low Franconian varieties derive from Old East Low Franconian. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 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.
@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, Vlaemink (talk) 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 here), and isn't used as a dialectogical term, or hardly.
In the past, the relevant article on Dutch WP (nl:Maas-Rijnlands) 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. De Wikischim (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Point 2, Standard Dutch and Standard German as Dachsprachen/culture languages of the South Low Franconian / Limburgish varieties
Briegelaer (talk·contribs) has disputed the role of Standard Dutch as the Dachsprache 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 not support the above claim and are not credible or useful source materials.
The first source provided, is a political pamphlet 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 Taalunie (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 Andre Rieu (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 primary source.
The second source is a covenant on the "Dutch recognition of the Limburgish language" published by the Dutch government in 2019. It too does not concern itself with Dachsprache/culture language. Instead it is a letter of intent (and therefore a primary source) detailing the non-legally binding (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 WP:SOURCE 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:
Bruce Donaldson: Dutch. A linguistic history of Holland and Belgium, 1983, pp. 11: 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.".
Ann Marynissen: ‘Limburgers worden Nederlanders? Over de vernederlandsing van het zuidoosten van Nederlands Limburg (1789-1935)’ in: Taalvariatie en groepsidentiteit, 2005, pp. 65: which unequivocally and explicitly states that "At the moment three culture languages are spoken in the Meuse–Rhine Euroregion: 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, Vlaemink (talk) 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). De Wikischim (talk) 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, Vlaemink (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Point 3, the validity of terminology
Briegelaer (talk·contribs) 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 and Limburgish. 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." (Maaike Hogenhout-Mulder: Cursus Middelnederlands, Wolters-Noordhoff, 1983, pp. 13)
In other words, she warns readers not to view Middle Dutch as a monolithic modern standard language, but as a collection of dialects. That's her point; 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:
"Just like within for example English and German, 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." (Maaike Hogenhout-Mulder: Cursus Middelnederlands, Wolters-Noordhoff, 1983, pp. 12)
Noted scholar Kate Burridge does exactly the same (and goes on to list Middle Limburgish as a subset of Middle Dutch): "Like Old, Middle and Modern English, terms like Middle Dutch are simply conventient labels and have little linguistic reality. 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, Middle Limburgish, etc.)" (Kate Burridge: Syntactic Change in Germanic: Aspects of Language Change in Germanic with Particular Reference to Middle Dutch, 1993, (pp. 4))
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 Maurits Gysseling, 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 Einheitsplural, while Middle Dutch and High German are divided along the Benrath line -- 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 and Middle Limburgish". 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:
A google.nl-search on Middellimburgse taal 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, Vlaemink (talk) 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 this link. 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 and Middle Limburgish 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? De Wikischim (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing contradictory, you're simply missing the issue, which isn't just about the occurrence of a particular word; but of a concept.
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; which have not been provided.
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 valid and reliable. I'll "dissect" your link to show you what is meant:
Validity of the source: The document you googled; 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 his publications. 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 Digital Library of Dutch Literature contains no references to it, neither does Google Books and Google Scholar 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 the validity of linguistic terminology, 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, Vlaemink (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Point 4, fluent dialectal transitions
The Gete bundle, the solid green line is the Uerdingen line (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 Briegelaer (talk·contribs) 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 Gent University: "a bundle/cluster of 26 isoglosses marking the transitional area between the Brabantic and Limburgish dialects.".
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 a true transitional zone, containing dialects which are half-Brabantic and half-Limburgish. They are included within the Limburgish language area, but as real borderline cases." (pp. 19)
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 and Limburgish." (pp. 21)
Johan Taeldeman & Marc van Oostendorp: De fonologie van de Nederlandse dialecten en fonologische theorievorming, 2002: "The dialect of Meijel can therefore be viewed as a transition between the Limburgish and the Brabantic dialects." (pp. 34)
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, Vlaemink (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Analogously, there are some transitional dialects as well between Limburgish and Ripuarian. 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). De Wikischim (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@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 against 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.) De Wikischim (talk) 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, Vlaemink (talk) 10:02, 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 (. De Wikischim (talk) 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. Vlaemink (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that we should be consistent in classification. If Getelands is not Limburgish (but Brabantian) then Southeast Limburgish dialect should probably be classified as Ripuarian (see this discussion on German Misplaced Pages). Maybe we should merge that page with Ripuarian language and make it into a redirect. Ripuarian language 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 WP:V and WP:NOR.
In the aforementioned discussion on German Misplaced Pages, a Wikipedian (w:de:User:Plantek) says that 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 Ripuarian language through the merger.
"Southeast Limburgish" features the /ɣ/ → /j/ as well as the High German consonant shift. 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 /skV/ → /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 /sC/ → /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 /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 /øː/ and /oː/ (good → jód) found in Germany but, as far as I know, not in the Netherlands. Same with the historical /ɣ/ after back vowels: it merges with /ʁ/, or almost so. Vroage is . This is typical Ripuarian. /x/ is also uvular after back vowels - this, coupled with the palatal 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 Herzogenrath. The dialect is exactly the same and even the official site of Herzogenrath 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 Hindustani language, Serbo-Croatian 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 Venlo dialect.
Here, 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).
There's one citation: 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 WP:COMMONNAME, which concernes a common name in English-language sources (whenever there is such a thing). Sol505000 (talk) 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 Kerkrade, Vaals 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 Venlo dialect, 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).
You say that 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? w:nl:Zuidoost-Limburgs 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).
and therefore shouldn't be changed nor avoided here on Misplaced Pages It shouldn't be entirely avoided but we should be mindful of WP:FRINGE 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 Southeast Limburgish should be made into a redirect. Sol505000 (talk) 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 Southeast Limburgish; do you believe the title of that article should be changed? To be honest, I see no good reason.
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: WP:NOR and WP:V. 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 WP:COPYVIO!). Wikimedia sister projects might have other standards when it comes to WP:NOR and WP:V, but these are irrelevant for this Wikimedia project.
@Briegelaer: ...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: WP:OR/N.
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! –Austronesier (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@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? Vlaemink (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Definition in the intro
Here, 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).
"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. Briegelaer (talk) 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. De Wikischim (talk) 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 nothing 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, Vlaemink (talk) 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 this source (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 nl:Limburgs, but it has been deleted there again by you with no other argument than debunking it as obsolete/irrelevant). De Wikischim (talk) 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 Low Franconian" or (also common in Dutch) "East Low Franconian") and hence their common incorporation within Low Franconian.
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 skip several tiers 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, Vlaemink (talk) 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 Template:Citation needed throughout the text and put Template:POV 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. De Wikischim (talk) 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, Vlaemink (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
This map of Levenshtein distances This map of Levenshtein distances (left) shows a major contrast between the Kleverlandish of Limburg and the South Guelderish of Gelderland. Sarcelles (talk) 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. De Wikischim (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@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, Vlaemink (talk) 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.
Varying definitions of Kleverländisch and South Guelderish
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.
I would love to help but this isn't structured as WP:RFC
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
@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, Vlaemink (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Sarcelles comment concerning classifications
=== Divisions of Dutch varieties ===
Source: 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 West Frisian language. Frisian mixed varieties ('Stadfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs" ) is a mishmash of Frisian, Low Franconian and Low Saxon elements. Groningen seems to be Gronings dialect. 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).
has the folllowing classification of vocabulary:
Friesland, Stellingwerf
Leeuwarden, Westerkwartier
Zoutkamp
Groningen, Noord-Drenthe
Vriezenveen en omstreken (Vriezenveen and surroundings)
Overijssel
Doetinchem en omstrekenDoetinchem and surroundings
Veluwe
Holland, Zeeland
West-Vlaanderen
Zuidoostelijke dialecten
Its classification of pronunciation:
Friesland
Friese mengdialectenFrisian dialects
Noordoostelijke dialectenNortheastern 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:
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.
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
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. for Gronings en Noord-Drents, Midden-Drents en Westerwolds, TwentsNedersaksisch kern, for Zuid-Drents en Noord-Overijssels, terassen naar de Twentse kernNedersaksisch rand, for Stadfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, StellingwerfsMengtalen and for Zuid-Hollands en UtrechtsZuid-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 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. 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. Kerkraads 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.
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. 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 ====
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 here 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. De Wikischim (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)A small correction was made later
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.
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 this source in German yesterday which seems to confirm that the most common Dutch translation is Rijn-Maaslands). De Wikischim (talk) 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 dialect) 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 ''dialect'' 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? Sarcelles (talk) 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 Middle Dutch, 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 here. 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 Meuse-Rhenish#Low Rhenish and Limburgish, 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). De Wikischim (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Ripuarian-Low Franconian transitional area ends with Rhenish accentuation. It runs North of Geldern, Issum, Rheinberg, Orsoy, Duisburg, Oberhausen, East of Mülheim/Ruhr Peter Wiesinger: 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. Peter Wiesinger: 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. Sarcelles (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Many of the maps in the article including Germany run as far as about the city area of ]. 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 ].
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 papers)
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. Heeringa 2004 is his doctor's thesis) and not secondary sources, cp. WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
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 Dutch dialects than for Limburgish. b) It's similar to Talk:Limburgish/Archive_1#Classification of dialects: "Furthermore, it does not include Limburgish of Germany. Other studies have different classifications."
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).
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 , the push tone seems to act as a plural morpheme. Apparently the article should be corrected here. De Wikischim (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Edits by 93.221.40.167
I would like to quote this IP
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 ]
''] 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 ].
''
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}}. Compare also:
{{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}}
''
Article ]:
''Gossens (1965) distinguished the following sub-dialects:<ref>Jan Goossens, ''Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen'', in: ''Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter. Jahrgang 30 1965'', Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, Bonn, 1965, p. 79-94, esp. ''Karte 2''</ref>
* {{lang|de|westlimburgisch-zentrallimburgisches Übergangsgebiet}} (''West Limburgish - Central Limburgish transitional area''; around and southern of Genk)
* {{lang|de|südbrabantisch-westlimburgisches Übergangsbiet}} (''South Brabantian - West Limburgish transitional area'')
{{lang|de|Ostgeteländisch}} (Beringen)
** {{lang|de|Westgeteländisch}} (Tienen)''
From ]
== Goossens ==
From the article:
* and Jan Goossens (Kleverlandish) have Liemers dialect as part of their respective group.
* Goossens published a study in 1970, in which he used rigid single isoglosses as a basis. Goossens justifies his classification by a few words.<ref>Jan Goossens, 1965, Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen, in: Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter, 30: 79-94</ref>
* Goossens published a study in 1970 in which he used rigid single isoglosses as a basis.
:<references/>
----
* That mentions a study by Goossens from 1970, but references a work from 1965.
* That work from 1965 is about South Low Franconian ({{lang|de|Südniederfränkisch}}).<br/> What can be seen it is (''Karte 2'' 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 ''euch''-line (the area around Venlo is south of this line and north of the Ürdingen line).<br/> What can not be seen it: the complete area and boundaries of Kleverländisch.
* mentions two works by Goossens from 1970:<br/> 1. ''Inleiding tot de Nederlandse dialectologie'', in: Bulletin de la Commission Royale de Toponymie et Dialectologie vol. 44 (1970) p. 105-<br/> 2. ''Niederländische Mundarten - vom Deutschen aus geselren'' , in: Niederdeutsches Wort vol. 10 (1970) p. 61-80<br/> The 2nd is: ''Niederländische Mundarten – vom Deutschen aus gesehen (mit 11 Karten im Text und einer Faltkarte)'', in: ''Niederdeutsches Wort: Kleine Beiträge zur niederdeutschen Mundart- und Namenkunde'', vol. 10, Verlag Aschendorff, Münster, 1970 ()<br/> So which study from 1970 should be the "right" one?
* Do you notice, how the 3rd point above from the article only duplicates the 2nd?
--07:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
== Giebers ==
From the article:
* Giebers 2008 also has Kleverlandish running into South Gelderland.
To add: {{who?}}{{where?}}<br/>
That's possibly:
: Charlotte (Hendrina Elisabeth) Giesbers, ''Dialecten op de grens van twee talen: een dialectologisch en sociolinguïstisch onderzoek in het Kleverlands dialectgebied'', 2008 (→; )
* 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 (where it reads: "Kleverändisch/Kleverlands", "Entwurf: Georg Conelissen").
* 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)
== South Gelderish or Kleverlandish as part of Central Dutch? ==
Which source states that South Gelderish or Kleverlandish is part of Central Dutch?<br/>
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 ''Limburg'' and not as part of ''Central Dutch varieties''.<br/>
Jo Daan is mentioned at ; 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 ''Südgelderländisch'' is part of Heeringa's area of ''Central Dutch varieties''. But that doesn't mean that Südgelderländisch is part of Central Dutch:
: a) Only some part of Daan's ''Südgelderländisch'' is included in Heeringa's ''Central Dutch'', some other part isn't (so none is included in the other, but both overlap).
: b) There can be different and contradictory classifications, which can't be combined, like there's Wiesinger's 1975 ] and LVR's modern ].
Hence, Kleverlandish seems similar off-topic like the following sentence from the article:
: Both ] and ] are classified as ] and not as Low Franconian.
??? 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. Why not e.g. comment on Talk:Central Dutch dialects#Giebers? 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. You're quoting e.g. "''Article ]: ''Gossens (1965) distinguished the following sub-dialects" 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.40.167 (talk)
From Essen article: (Bredeney, Heisingen, Kupferdreh) to Border Bergish per Wiesinger 1975, and are also classified as East Bergish which is part of Low Franconian (they have ik and not ich for I and maken and not machen for (to) make)
This is absolutely refuted by the sources used by me in Talk:Bergish dialects.
The article South Guelderish now states:
The political status of Low Franconian (or East Dutch: South Guelderish (narrow sense), North Limburgish and Kleverlandish) dialects, including South Guelderish, has long differed greatly between the Netherlands and Germany.
^ 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.
LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte (ed.). "Dialekte im Rheinland". Archived from the original on 7 December 2022. Retrieved 21 July 2023.
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.
Re Essen and "refuted by the sources .. in Talk:Bergish dialects": The sources on that talk page are Wiesinger 1975 who is used in the article Essen, 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).
"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 Low Franconian (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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research). Without the first sentence, the 2nd lacks a definition of "East Dutch" which was simply moved from the first one.
'Driemaandelijkse bladen'' (2002, p. 133/134) is phonetically based and has the following divisions inter alia:<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>
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.
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.)
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.
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). –Austronesier (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
] was made a redirect. South Bergish (German: südbergische Mundarten) or Upper Bergish (German: oberbergische Dialekte) is a group of German dialects of the Bergisches Land region East of the Rhine and approximately south of the Wupper and north of the Sieg. These dialects are part of the Ripuarian group 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 Belgium and in the Netherlands. Ripuarian Bergish dialects belong to the Middle German group, and thus are varieties of High German, where they belong to the northmost ones.
In popular view, rather than scientific, South Bergish dialects are often referred to as Bergish by locals, or as Rhinelandic by outsiders.
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
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 ).
(Germersheimer Linie)
(Boundary: Central German — Upper German)
Pund
Pfund
Upper German
]:
== 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.
LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte (ed.). "Dialekte im Rheinland". Archived from the original on 7 December 2022. Retrieved 21 July 2023.. Compare also:
LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte (ed.). "Dialekte im Rheinland". Retrieved 21 July 2023.
LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte (ed.). "Kleverländisch/ Kleverlands". Retrieved 11 September 2023.
LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte (ed.). "Südniederfränkisch/ Zuidnederfrankisch". Retrieved 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.
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.
Guy Janssens: Het Nederlands vroeger en nu, ACCO, 2005, p. 47-50.
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 (Oudoostnederfrankisch; e.g. in the Wachtendonckse psalmen) and Old West Low Franconian (Oudwestnederfrankisch), but that's something different.
Following Sonderegger (Stefan Sonderegger, Grundzüge deutscher Sprachgeschichte, vol. I, 1979, p. 165 & 198), West Franconian/Frankish (Westfränkisch) is not part of Old Low Franconian (OLF; Altniederfränkisch) but like OLF and e.g. Middle Franconian (Mittelfränkisch) another daughter language of Old Franconian/Frankish (Altfränkisch).
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)
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. –Austronesier (talk) 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?
Stefan Müller, Germanic syntax: A constraint-based view, series: Textbooks in Language Sciences 12, Language Science Press, Berlin, 2023, p. 3
Stefan Müller, Germanic syntax: A constraint-based view, series: Textbooks in Language Sciences 12, Language Science Press, Berlin, 2023, p. 3
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.
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: Papers → cp. PDF). 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
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 (thesis, chapter 9 (PDF), alternative source)
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.
Jan Goossens defines the northwest boundary of South East Limburgish at the lijk-lich isogloss. The area between this line and the Benrath line is called Ripuarian-Limburgish. The area between the Benrath line and the aat-alt isogloss is then called Aachens or Limburgish-Ripuarian.
"Dialect - KGV" (in Dutch). kgv.nl. 2010-08-16. Retrieved 2012-06-25.
(a) That's largely unsourced. The single source is now at: KGV (archived) = KerkradeWiki. It has a map with:
Limburgse Dialecten = Limburgish dialects, i.e. dialects in the Netherlandic Limburg (Netherlands)
Kleverlands (incl. Mook, Venroj) = Kleverlandish
Mich-kwartier (incl. Venlo) = mich-area
Centraal-Limburgs (incl. Wieërt) = Central Limburgish
Ost-Limburgs (incl. Remunj, Zittert, Mestreech, Èèsjde) = East Limburgish
Southeast Limburgish (Zuidoost-Limburgs) or Aachens which were mentioned in the article.
West Limburgish (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.
(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:
However, Goossens (1965) doesn't have Southeast Limburgish, Aachens or Limburgish-Ripuarian, he also has West Limburgish (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 Uerdingen line, the Benrath line and the Romance language border.
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 ''Ruhr area'' and ''Westphalia'', 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 ''not in spite of being German'', but because I have a good overiew of the sources of Germany and othe countries. You seem to have acted under the IP adress ] 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. Sarcelles (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
"methodically better": With different methods, one gets different classifications, like Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006 (younger than Heringa 2004) giving three different ones in one paper.
Re "You both like the old works by Jan Goossens published": It's not about liking or not liking it. It's a matter of sourcing, no OR, NPOV. The classification of Heeringa 2004 for example could be given as well (ch. 9, p. 231): "Limburg" is most of the area of Limburg (Netherlands) (incl. Venlo; excl. Kerkrade), a greater part of Limburg (Belgium) (incl. Overpelt) and a small part of southern and eastern North Brabant, and there's also "Southwest Limburg" in Limburg (Beglium). 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 Dutch dialects as their papers are about Dutch dialects in general and not specifically about Limburgish. 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:
Re "or even using other talkpages": Different topics have different talk pages. Using this talk page to talk about e.g. Bavarian makes no sense, is off-topic, only clutters this page, makes the talk-page hard to read.
References
Wilbert Heeringa, John Nerbonne, De analyse van taalvariatie in het Nederlandse dialectgebied: methoden en resultaten op basis van lexicon en uitspraak, 2006 (, )
Seconding this. It is not about "liking" Goossens (btw, should I mention in return the infallibility that I constantly 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. Austronesier (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
PS, this goes to both of you: WP has templates like {{tq}} and {{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. –Austronesier (talk) 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. Sarcelles (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Limburgish = South Low Franconian?
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
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 (@Austronesier:) happen to have any sources for the equation Limburgish = South Low Franconian?
Some sources:
This article: It mentioned Southeast Limburgish (Aachen, Kerkrade) which is considered Ripuarian and not South LF. It still mentions Noord-Limburgs or 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 Limburgs being the same as German Südniederfränkisch (different terminology refering to the same area).
Dutch Limburgs like German 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 "Noord-Brabants en Noord-Limburgs" or "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).
Heeringa 2004 (ch. 9, p. 231) has Southwest Limburg roughly as central-southern part of Limburg (Belgium), and Limburg as north-eastern part of Limburg (Belgium), in parts of Limburg (Netherlands) (incl. Venlo) and small parts of North Brabant. 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).
"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 (e-WLD could be understod this way)
@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: 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:
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: "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 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":
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. –Austronesier (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
In de Nederlandse dialectologie staat Zuidnederfrankisch (in de Duitse dialectologie Südniederfränkisch) bekend als Oostnederfrankisch. — 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:
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. — 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). –Austronesier (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
FWIW. another mention in the literature about the use of Limburgisch for dialects in Germany:
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. — 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 Der Große Brockhaus:. –Austronesier (talk) 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. Aspects of Tonality, not features of consonants, are the main features of mittelfränkisch-maasländisch (Central Franconian-Meuse area) dialect.
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. Sarcelles (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
@Sarcelles: The IP challenged the point 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 roughly 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 :) –Austronesier (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
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.
@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 de:Südniederfränkisch is justifiable. –Austronesier (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2023 (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 link. 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). Hans Erren (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Jo Daan worked on perceptive linguistics.
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. Sarcelles (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@Hans Erren: 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.
@Sarcelles: 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. Austronesier (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2023 (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? @Bertux: @Briegelaer: @De Wikischim:
Excluding one place in Holland, Central Dutch in the Netherlands can be grouped into a cluster in Central Gelderland and a one of other varieties. Both clusters border to Germany. Most varieties in Gelderland South of the aforementioned variety of Central Gelderland cluster together with the dialect of Amersfoort and several varieties in North Brabant.
Dutch Limburg can divided into a small area around Weert, a large area until Venlo and an area North of this.
Centraal zuidelijke dialecten which encompasses Brabantic and parts of Northern Dutch Limburg and Northern Belgium Limburg.
It clusters with Tienen and also with Zuidwest-Limburg and Centraal zuidelijke dialecten and Urk Oost-Limburg doesn't group with these varieties.
Heeringa (2004) distinguished (names as in Heeringa):
Central Dutch varieties 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.
The reflist makes a better legibility. However, the content still doesn't follow the rules. How can I change this? Sarcelles (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
You don't actually say which are the problem sections. But what I do see is a lot of <nowiki>...</nowiki> pairs plus excessive indenting. These seem to have begun around July 2023. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
You removed the automated archiving code, with an edits summary "Automatic archiving removed, the disputes are not resolved"; this seems to be based on a misunderstanding, as live will not be archived. I have restored the code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This talk page currently has not a single resolved section as far as I know. Furthermore, it is difficult to read its content, which is even not formatted properly. Sarcelles (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
"Kleverländisch" (Goossens)
"South Guelderish" (Daan)
"Northern Limburgish" (Daan)
Varying definitions of Kleverländisch and South Guelderish
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 link. 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). Hans Erren (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)