Talk:Limburgish

Edits by ‎93.221.40.167

I would like to quote this IP

Article Essen: (closely related to Dutch). removed. This isn't even wrong.

Talk:Lower Rhine region:

Once in the article:

"Bergish .. is the easternmost dialect of Limburgish"

• Jan Goossens, Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen, in: Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter. Jahrgang 30  1965, Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, Bonn, 1965, p. 79-94, esp. p. 79:

• ‚Südniederfränkisch‘ nennt man [..] die Mundarten, die in einem Raum gesprochen werden, der sich beiderseits der Grenze zwischen dem Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen und der niederländischen Kultursprache über drei Staaten, Deutschland, die Niederlande und Belgien, in einem Dreieck Tienen-Remscheid-Eupen erstreckt. Als Seiten des Dreiecks kann man die ik/ich-Linie (Tienen-Remscheid), die maken/machen-Linie (Remscheid-Eupen) und die romanische Sprachgrenze (Eupen-Tienen) betrachten. [...] Der niederländisch-flämische Teil dieses Gebietes ist unter dem Namen ‚Limburgisch‘ bekannt [...].

• That is: South Low Franconian lies between Ürdingen and Benrath line (has ich and maken). Limburgish is the Netherlandic-Flemish part of it.

• Bergish is variously defined, see
  Peter Wiesinger, Strukturgeographische und strukturhistorische Untersuchungen zur Stellung der bergischen Mundarten zwischen Ripuarisch, Niederfränkisch und Westfälisch, in: Peter Wiesinger, edited by Franz Patocka, Strukturelle historische Dialektologie des Deutschen: Strukturhistorische und strukturgeographische Studien zur Vokalentwicklung deutscher Dialekte, Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim / Zürich / New York, 2017, p. 341–437

• p. 349f.: "1967 Erich MENGEL [...] 1. Südbergische Mundarten (südlich der Benrather Linie)"

• I.e. Mengel's Bergish includes some Ripuarian, which is not South Low Franconian.

• p. 422 (map): Elberfeld and Barmen lie north of the Ürdingen line (have ik).

• p. 437 (map): Elberfeld and Barmen lie in the area of "Randbergisch" which is part of "Bergisch".

• Hence some of Wiesinger's Bergish lies north of the Ürdingen line and isn't South Low Franconian (south of the Ürdingen line).

article Low Franconian

Georg Wenker used the term Niederfränkisch (Low Franconian) more in the sense of Ripuarisch. Cp.:

• Georg Wenker, Das rheinische Platt. – Den Lehrern des Rheinlandes gewidmet, 2nd ed., im Selbstverlage des Verfassers, Düsseldorf, 1877

• • p. 13: "Davon abgesehen aber ist Köln der eigentliche Mittelpunkt einer großen, die ganze Mitte der Rheinprovinz einnehmenden Mundart. Diese hat man die niederfränkische genannt, und unter dem Namen wollen wir sie uns denn auch merken. Nach Norden ist die Benrather Linie ihre Grenze, [...]"

• • p. 14: "Wir haben nun noch zu sehen, wie das Niederfränkische, also die Mundart um Köln herum, sich nach Süden hin begrenzt. [...] Welches sind nun die beiden Mundarten, die sich hier vermengen? Die nördliche ist die niederfränfische um Köln, wie wir schon wissen, die südliche aber ist der Moseldialect auf dem linken Rheinufer zu beiden Seiten der Mosel und der Westerwälder Dialect auf der rechten Rheinseite im Westerwald. Diese beiden, der Moseldialect und der Westerwälder Dialect, sind fast ganz gleich und man nennt sie auch zusammen das Mittelfränkische (und zwar die nördlichste Mundart des Mittelfränkischen, denn [...]).

• Jürgen Lang, Sprache im Raum: Zu den theoretischen Grundlagen der Mundartforschung. Unter Berücksichtigung des Rätoromanischen und Leonesischen, series: Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. Band 185, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, p. 195

</ref> Most dialects and languages included within this category are spoken in the Netherlands, northern Belgium (Flanders), in the Nord department of France, in western Germany (Lower Rhine), as well as in Suriname, South Africa and Namibia.

and

North and South Low Franconian, classified like this:. Compare also:

• LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte (ed.). "Dialekte im Rheinland". Retrieved 21 July 2023.

Article Limburgish:

Gossens (1965) distinguished the following sub-dialects:

• ostlimburgisch-ribuarisches Übergangsgebiet (East Limburgish - Ripuarian transitional area; Ürdingen, Düsseldorf, Solingen, Remscheid, Mönchen-Gladbach, Eupen)

• Ostlimburgisch (East Limburgish; Panningen, Krefeld, Dülken, Sittard)

• Zentrallimburgisch (Central Limburgish; Maastricht, Vroenhoven)

• westlimburgisch-zentrallimburgisches Übergangsgebiet (West Limburgish - Central Limburgish transitional area; around and southern of Genk)

• • Tongerländisch (Tongeren)

• • Bilzerländisch (Genk, Bilzen)

• Westlimburgisch (West Limburgish; Veldeke, Hasselt, St.-Truiden, Loon)

• südbrabantisch-westlimburgisches Übergangsbiet (South Brabantian - West Limburgish transitional area)

• • Ostgeteländisch (Beringen)

• • Westgeteländisch (Tienen)

From talk:Dutch dialects

South Gelderish or Kleverlandish as part of Central Dutch?

Which source states that South Gelderish or Kleverlandish is part of Central Dutch?

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.

Jo Daan is mentioned at [1]; 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 Bergish and LVR's modern North and South Low Franconian.

Hence, Kleverlandish seems similar off-topic like the following sentence from the article:

Both Ripuarian and Moselle Franconian are classified as Central Franconian and not as Low Franconian.

That's correct, but as stated they aren't Low Franconian, and: they aren't part of Central Dutch. Sarcelles (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

???
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 Wikipedia. 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 Limburgish: 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.

The only thing I have to admit, is that I didn't get the format right. How should it be done best? Sarcelles (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Jürgen Erich Schmidt, Robert Möller, Historisches Westdeutsch/Rheinisch (Moselfränkisch, Ripuarisch, Südniederfränkisch); in: Sprache und Raum: Ein internationales Handbuch der Sprachvariation. Band 4: Deutsch. Herausgegeben von Joachim Herrgen, Jürgen Erich Schmidt. Unter Mitarbeit von Hanna Fischer und Birgitte Ganswindt. Volume 30.4 of Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science / Manuels de linguistique et des sciences de communication) (HSK). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2019, p. 515ff., here p. 528.

LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte (ed.). "Dialekte im Rheinland". Archived from the original on 7 December 2022. Retrieved 21 July 2023.

Jan Goossens, Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen, in: Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter. Jahrgang 30 &nbsp;1965, Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, Bonn, 1965, p. 79-94, esp. Karte 2

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).
  
• Earlier in South Guelderish it was:
  1. "It is arguably more appropriate to group South Guelderish (narrow sense), North Limburgish and Cleverlandish into one dialect group—East Dutch."
  2. "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 Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research). Without the first sentence, the 2nd lacks a definition of "East Dutch" which was simply moved from the first one.

--93.221.40.167 (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Into the article Central Dutch dialects you added the following:

Driemaandelijkse bladen (2002, p. 133/134) is phonetically based and has the following divisions inter alia:

* [...]

** 2.2 Veluws transitional dialects (Veluwse overgangsdialecten, underneath "2. Fries")

* 3. Hollandic, North Brabantian

** 3.1 Hollandic (Hollands)

*** 3.1.1 North Hollandic

*** 3.1.2 South Hollandic and Utrechts

** 3.2 North Brabantian (Noord-Brabants)

*** 3.2.1 East Brabantian

*** 3.2.2 Dialects in the Gelders Rivierengebied (dialecten in het Gelders Rivierengebied), West Brabantian

* 4. North Belgian (Noord-Belgisch)

** 4.1. Central Brabantian

** 4.2. Peripheral Brabantian

*** 4.2.1 Zeelandic (Zeeuws)

*** 4.2.2. Brabantian (Brabants)

** 4.3. Peripheral Flemish

** [...]

* [...] Sarcelles (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not correct. Large parts of that were already present in the original version from 2021. What was done was:

• The source was expanded, e.g. an author was provided.
• Some Dutch terms were provided and some Dutch translated ("dialecten in het" = "dialects in the").
• The translation of "Hollands, Noord-Brabants" as "Hollandic, North Hollandic" was corrected into "Hollandic, North Brabantian" (3.).
• Some context for 2.2 was provided: per source, it's "Fries" (literally Frisian) and not Central Dutch, Hollandic or Brabantian.

However, the article Central Dutch dialects has nothing to do with Limburgish. So the above is off-topic for this article (similar how these comments are OT: [2], [3]). --93.221.40.167 (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_multilingual_countries_and_regions&diff=prev&oldid=1174400427 removed Low Rhenish is recognized in North Rhine-Westphalia.

South Bergish 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.

Bergish dialects

• Bergish (Bergisch)
  • Central Bergish (Zentralbergisch)
    • western Central Bergish (westliches Zentralbergisch; Breitscheid, Ratingen, Wülfrath, Mettmann, Erkrath)
    • eastern Central Bergish (östliches Zentralbergisch; Velbert, Vohwinkel)
  • Border Bergish (Randbergisch)
    • in the north (Oberhausen, Mülheim, Dümpten, Heißen, Bredeney, Werden, Heisingen, Kupferdreh)
    • in the west (Mündelheim)
    • in the south (Hilden, Haan, Wald, Ohligs, Solingen, Hörscheid)
    • in the east (Barmen, Elberfeld, Ronsdorf, Cronenberg, Remscheid)
• not Bergish but surrounding Bergish:
  • Low Rhenish (Niederrheinisch; Hamborn, Sterkrade, Meiderich, Ruhrort)
  • Westphalian (Bottrop, Essen, Gelsenkirchen, Bochum, Hattingen, Gevelsberg, Schwelm)
    • influenced by Bergish (Langenberg, Lüttringhausen, Lennep, Hückeswagen)
  • Ripuarian (Benrath, Leichlingen, Dhünn, Wipperfeld, Kürten, Schlebusch): separated from Bergish by the Benrath line.
    • influenced by Bergish (Wermelskirchen)
  • Duisburg, Ürdingen, Düssekdorf, Gerresheim

Article Low Franconian:

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 [equating West Low Franconian and North Low Franconian as well as East Low Franconian and South Low Franconian, calling the West/East terminology Netherlandic technical language]

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 [...]).

Article Rhenish fan:

The Rhenish fan:Low Franconian: 1 North Low Franconian 2 South Low Franconian West Central German: 3 Ripuarian Franconian 4 & 5 Mosel Franconian 6 Rhenish Franconian

Dialects and isoglosses of the Rhenish fan(Arranged from north to south: dialects in dark fields, isoglosses in light fields)
North Low Franconian (Kleverlandish, East Bergish) / Low Saxon
Uerdingen line (Uerdingen) (Ürdinger Linie)	ik/ick	ich
South Low Franconian (Limburgish)
Benrath line(Benrather Linie) (Boundary: Low German — Central German)	maken	machen
Ripuarian Franconian (Cologne, Bonn, Aachen)
(Dorp/Dorf-Linie or Eifel-Schranke/Eifelschranke) (State border NRW–RP)	Dorp	Dorf
Northern Mosel Franconian (Luxemburgish, Trier)
	up	uf
Southern Mosel Franconian (Koblenz, Saarland)
Bacharach line (Bacharach) (dat/das-Linie or Hunsrück-Schranke/Hunsrückschranke or Bacharacher Linie)	dat, wat	das, was
Rhenish Franconian (Pfälzisch, Frankfurt)
Speyer line (Speyer) (Speyrer Linie) (Boundary: Central German — Upper German)	Appel	Apfel
Germersheim line (Germersheim) (Germersheimer Linie) (Boundary: Central German — Upper German)	Pund	Pfund
Upper German

Talk: Low Franconian:

== 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.

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).

--93.221.40.167 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Weser-Rhine Germanic article has as synonymous:

Rhine-Weser-Germanic, Istvaeonic, Istveonic, Franconian

Article Frankish language:

gradually evolved into Old Low Franconian (Old Dutch) and Old High Franconian

From the article Dutch dialects:

In Driemaandelijkse bladen (2002) the following phonetically based division of dialects in the Netherlands is given:

1. Nedersaksisch
   1. Gronings, North Drents, Middle or Central Drents and Westerwolds, Tweants (Gronings en Noord-Drents, Midden-Drents en Westerwolds, Twents)
   2. Zuid-Drents en Noord-Overijssels, Terrassen naar de Twentse kern
2. Frisian (Fries)
   1. Frisian (Fries)
      1. West Frisian dialects (de Friese dialecten)
      2. Stadsfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs (Stadfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs)
   2. Veluws transitional dialects (Veluwse overgangsdialecten)
3. Hollandic, North Brabantian (Hollands, Noord-Brabants)
   1. Hollandic (Hollands)
      1. North Hollandic (Noord-Hollands)
      2. South Hollandic and Utrechts (Zuid-Hollands en Utrechts)
   2. North Brabantian (Noord-Brabants)
      1. East Brabantian (Oost-Brabants)
      2. dialects in the Gelders Rivierengebied, West Brabantian (dialecten in het Gelders Rivierengebied, West-Brabants),
4. North Belgian (Noord-Belgisch)
   1. Central Brabantian (Centraal Brabants)
   2. Peripheral Brabantian (Periferisch Brabants)
      1. Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
      2. Brabantian (Brabants)
   3. Peripheral Flemish (Periferisch Vlaams)
   4. Central Vlaams (Centraal Vlaams)
5. Limburgish (Limburgs)

Heeringa (2004) distinguished (names as in Heeringa): Sarcelles (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

article Middle Dutch: In a finer classification there are:

• Flemish
  • West Flemish
  • East Flemish
• Brabantic
  • West Brabantic
  • East Brabantic
• Hollandic
• Utrechts
• Limburgic

Sarcelles (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

http://www.wjheeringa.nl/thesis/thesis09.pdf It has the following groups of relevance to this article:

• Southwest Limburg, Belgium only
• Limburg, also nearly all of North Limburg. This part of North Limburg has a long border with Germany. For the most part, the places on the German side of this part of the border are in the Kleverlandish dialect area. The term

Limburgish would therefore be too narrow. I therefore suggest using the term Meuse-Rhenish.

• Northeast Luik, including Kerkrade and Eupen, could also be given as Southeast

Limburgish.

Wiesinger, Peter. 1983b. "Die Einteilung der deutschen Dialekte". In Besch, Werner (ed.), Dialektologie: Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung, p. 859. Berlin, New York: Berlin/New York: de Gruyter has

• Ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet ohne nordbergischen Raum (Ripuarian-Low Franconian transition area without the North Bergish area)
• Nordbergischer Raum (North Bergish area)

https://www.academia.edu/3130916/De_analyse_van_taalvariatie_in_het_Nederlandse_dialectgebied_methoden_en_resultaten_op_basis_van_lexicon_en_uitspraaken has much of the respective Northern part of both Limburgs as part of centraal zuidelijke dialecten (central southern dialects). Zuidwest-Limburg (Southwest Limburg) merely is Southern Dutch Limburg. The remainder, including Kerkrade and even a small area of Belgium outside Limburg including Eupen is classified as Oost-Limburg (East Limburg).

References to works by Georg Cornelissen or Jan Goossens currently are frequently entered as references in various Wikimedia projects.

The question is: Which one or ones should we use for the article?

Sarcelles (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course all of them. And don't forget Hermans (2013)[4] 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?

I will put in further work within the next few weeks. I'm also active at Talk:Dutch dialects. Sarcelles (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

References

References

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).
• [5]/[6] (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).
• Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006 ([7]) present 3 dialect classifications.
  • "Figuur 6. Verdeling op basis van lexicale afstanden": here the area of Limburg is part of Zuidoostelijke dialecten (south-eastern dialects) and there's no dialect Limburgish.
  • "Figuur 8. Verdeling op basis van uitspraakafstanden": it's roughly West−Limburg / Oost-Limburg = Southwest Limburg / Limburg (Heeringa 2004). So includes parts of South and North LF.
  • "Figuur 10. Verdeling op basis van gecombineerde afstanden (lexicon en uitspraak)": it has Zuidwest−Limburg and Oost-Limburg (lacking the north of the previous Oost-Limburg but includes Ripuarian Kerkrade).

So possibilities are:

• Limburgish = South LF in Benelux (Goosens; possible Jo Daan)
• Limburgish = South LF [unsourced]
• 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)

--2003:DE:3700:672F:606F:14E4:BB48:829E (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@IP: I can't ping you, but you'll read it anyway :)

The key for bullet point 2 lies with Goossens (1965). On page 79, he indeed writes: 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[sic!]) 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)

The equation East Low Franconian = South Low Franconian is doubtful. If it is right, the sentence in the German interwiki

Das Südniederfränkische entwickelte sich überwiegend aus den Dialekten des Ostniederfränkischen. meaning South Low Franconian mainly developed from the dialects of East Low Franconian. has to loose two logical errors. Sarcelles (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Goossens' seminal article and Hermans' chapter in the De Gruyter volume are. Here is another one:

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 [2017]), "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:[8][9]. –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)

Southern Meuse-Rhenish is an article never existing in the last 15 years. However, the German interwiki de:Südniederfränkisch of the article Limburgish is to be translated as South Low Franconian.

http://www.wjheeringa.nl/thesis/thesis09.pdf has a map including map showing a group of dialects Limburg mainly coexistent with Dutch Limburg. The clarly non-Frisian varieties have the following two highest categories: One grouping including Limburgish and Northeast Luik including Kerkrade in the Netherlands inter alia and running to the respective area of all three official languages of Belgium, the other grouping including all varieties non mentioned hitherto as well as most of Belgish Limburg. This supports the idea of East Low Franconian. However, the study doesn't cover the part of Germany bordering to the Low Franconian area of Belgium and the Netherlands.

What should be done with the long, recent quotes above? Sarcelles (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@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:

@Hans Erren: @Hoyanova:

@Matroos Vos: @MWAK: @MicBy67: @Steinbach: @Tevergeefs: @Tomaatje12: @Vinvlugt: Sarcelles (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'll not take part in this discussion! I've other “construction sites” that are more important than this one.

Have a pleasant day! -- MicBy67 (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm mentioned here. Vinvlugt (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Because of having left a comment on the talk page of the Dutch article. There is the following incomplete jigsaw puzzle:

• Limburgish in Germany is divided into Bergish and the remainder
• Limburgish in Belgium is divided into three vertical parts
• North Limburgish is part of Kleverlandish

Sarcelles (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice to see further discussion.

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):

• Frisian
• Frisian mixed varieties (including town Frisian (Stad(s)fries) and Stellingwerfs)
• Groningen
• Overijssel
• Southwest Limburg
• Brabant
• 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.

• Mülheim an der Ruhr, Oberhausen, Dümpten, Heißen
• Werden, Heisingen, Kupferdreh, Bredeney
• Haan, Hilden
• Solingen, Hörscheid, Solingen-Wald, Ohligs
• Barmen
• Elberfeld
• Cronenberg, Remscheid, Ronsdorf

Sarcelles (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Die Einteilung der niederdeutschen Mundarten auf Grund der strukturellen Entwicklung des Vokalismus

from 1971, p. 41 by Baldur Panzer has Uerdingen line as irrelevant particularity. Sarcelles (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Legibility of this talk page

Not only I have made this talke page difficult to. What can I do to render its content better? Sarcelles (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added {{Reflist-talk}} to the section above, and tagged the page so that older sections will be archived by a bot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The reflist makes a better legibility. However, the content still doesn't follow the rules. How can I change this? 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 edits 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. Sarcelles (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)