Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:36, 17 October 2024

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

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

About the latest revert to the last version by Austronesier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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