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

Article lead

Given the past discussions on the talk page, I've modified the article lead accordingly:

1.

Limburgish (also Limburgian, Limburgic or Limburgan) refers to a group of South Low Franconian varieties spoken in Belgium and the Netherlands, characterized by their relative distance to Standard Dutch. In the Dutch province of Limburg, all dialects have been given regional language status, including those comprising ″Limburgish″ as used in this article.

I added the lead intro as thus far agreed upon. The matter of "language identity" is still being debated, but can be added later should this be the outcome of the discussion.

I omitted the Dutch, German, French and two of the (at least) three common renderings of "Limburgian" in the Limburgish dialects from the lead to keep it readable: a grand total of 10 different designations across multiple languages is a bit too much. I think the Limburgish terms can be worked into the sociolinguistic-section later on, for example in contrast to the South Low Franconian dialects of Germany, which do not use such a term.

I removed the remaining text contained within the previous iteration of the article lead for the following reasons:

2:

Although frequently misunderstood as such, Limburgish as a linguistic term does not refer to the regional variety of Dutch spoken in the Belgian and Dutch provinces of Limburg. Within the modern communities of these provinces, intermediate idiolects are also very common, which combine standard Dutch with the accent and some grammatical and pronunciation tendencies derived from Limburgish. This "Limburgish Dutch" is confusingly also often referred to simply as "Limburgish", although in Belgium such intermediate languages tend to be called tussentaal ("in-between language"), no matter the exact dialect/language with which standard Dutch is combined.

This section did not have any citations — and if it would have had these, the section is too specific for the article lead and should ideally (provided sources can be found) be split up between an expanded terminology section and a section of the article dealing with the sociolinguistc minutia.

3.

Since Limburgish is still the mother tongue of many inhabitants in the aforementioned region, Limburgish grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation can have a significant impact on the way locals speak Dutch in public life.

The first part of this excerpt was WP:VAGUE and not inline with WP:SOURCE. The second part, did contain a source for the claim that Limburgian dialect exert a significant impact on the way locals speak Dutch, but this concerns a detailed analysis of a 15th century Middle Dutch manuscript containing various indicators that the authors dialect was Limburgish (link). This, of course, was not acceptable as a source in this context.

4.

Limburgish shares vocabulary and grammatical characteristics with both German and Dutch, but has some unique features as well. Many dialects of Limburgish (and of the closely related Ripuarian) have a pitch accent.

For the time being, I also removed the above passage. Firstly, because the sources provided do not support the claims made; one is a very short grammar summary, the other is a local dialect website. Secondly, because the phrasing is problematic. I do feel the dialectal affinities of the Limburgish dialects and the surrounding dialects should definitely be expanded on in the article, as well as the relation between the dialects and Standard Dutch, possibly also Standard German. Whether this belongs in the lead is a question for a later time, when the article itself is properly sourced and written with regard to this issue. After all, ideally, the article lead should summarize the article itself. Vlaemink (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I oppose these radical changes because they have been implemented without any prior consent of others who are/were involved here, while all kinds of info have been removed now mainly for subjective/discutable reasons (such as rejecting specific sources on more or less arbitrary grounds). Only information which is evidently incorrect should be removed without any futher discussion, while this is definitely not the case here. And even if some of the info was not really at its best place immediately in the lead, it would have been far better to move it to a different section within this article instead.

So my suggestion (to others who read along here) is to wait for some time and see if there's enough consent for these removals. if not, the info cited above should be put back (either in the into or elsewhere in the article). De Wikischim (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

About the now removed passage Limburgish shares vocabulary and grammatical characteristics with both German and Dutch, but has some unique features as well. Many dialects of Limburgish (and of the closely related Ripuarian) have a pitch accent › These facts are completely self-evident for everyone who has at least some minimal knowledge of Limburgish and the linguistic situation. Doubting about this is actually the same as, for example, doubting about the fact that English, German and Dutch have many cognates in common, and provide that as a so-called valid reason to remove the info. Therefore I think at least this last passage should be restored immediately. -De Wikischim (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's a mixed bag.

As a first remedy, I will restore what obviously needs to be there in the opening sentence (the name in Dutch and Limburgish; English pronunciation in a note).

The linguistic feature of tone is mentioned in the body of the article and relevant for the lead, not just for language enthusiasts, but also for the general public: it explains the common perception of the "sing-song" character of Limburgish speech.

The caveat about not confusing basilectal Limburgish with lingua olandese in bocca limburghese is important, but I agree that it needs to be covered in the article first with good sources, before we can restore it in the lead. Same holds for the linguistic janus-facedness of Limburgish (or South LFr as a whole, for that matter) between the poles of Hollandic-based standard Dutch and East Central German-based standard German. Relevant, but WP:V trumps everything especially in the lede. I might incubate some of it in the article body, and let the grace period principle work.

But for subsequent radical steps, I urge to get consensus first before implementing them in the article. This is what every 3O or dispute resolution will tell you. And also WP:NODEADLINE. Don't press things. I make an exception about everything that appropriates German South LFr dialects under "Limburgish". We maximally need to mention that the "Limburgish" in the dialectological sense has a continuation on German territory, but not under this label. I think we all agree on this. –Austronesier (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier:

• 1. For me personally, the use of multiple names in the article lead is not a deal-breaking big issue. However, I would like you to clarify which Limburgish term(s) you will be using and why. After all, these are nonstandardized dialects; which spelling/form/variant do you propose to use?
• 2. I too would like the tonal aspect to be in lead, however; I would like it to be stressed that this is an areal feature rather than being particular to Limburgish — with proper and valid citations, of course.
• 3. I would support a short concise (not the previous drivel) sentence on the various definitions used in the lead, but, as you say, this first required to get this right in the article itself.

So I think this is going to work out, eventually — which will allow the lead to expand again. Vlaemink (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

ad 2: WP:LEADCITE. If you really want to go the bottom-up approach, citations in the article body are generally sufficient. My version puts it into the full context of Fraconian tone accent. I will make this explicit. –Austronesier (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This is okay by me, the areal tonal feature is sufficiently sourced in the article for what is now written in the lead. I saw you added other older material too though, which was completely unsourced; please read the top post and please do not re-add those portions. Vlaemink (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: The manual of style concerning lead sections is also abundantly clear on how an article introduction should look, and any objective person giving this style guide as much as a glance, will quickly come to the conclusion that the previous lead was not at all in accordance with this. Additionally, the rationales provided above are neither arbitrary nor subjective, rather, they are fully in line with WP:VERIFIABILITY. Sources need to be both valid and reliable. For a source to meet these criteria, it needs to concern the same matter as the claim its being used for as well as being reputable: this is neither optional nor ″radical″, it is required and expected.

In my post I've already made clear some sections of the previous lead, or rather their topics, could or should be placed in the article itself; or might have a place in the lead once sources have been provided. However, I personally do not add or relocate information that has no proper or valid source to back it up — as is the case here — meaning that I left it out. However, you're free to re-add these sections (you've been alerted to WP:SOFIXIT quite recently) to the article provided proper citations are given. I have no problem with that, at all.

Lastly, I think it's important to really stress (to avoid any miscommunication) that WP:VERIFIABILITY trumps your personal approval: you do not own this article and your agreement is not required for removing (be it temporarily or permanently) unreferenced and/or dubious information. Vlaemink (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus trumps everthing. Wikilaywering doesn't. Note this. –Austronesier (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for partly restoring the old version of the article lead (by the way, I do agree that the full old version was not really perfect either, but have already eplained my objections to the initial complete re-writing). I've now removed "relative distance to standard Dutch"; this was a) lacking any clarifying further context and b) unsourced (!). De Wikischim (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The article by Bakker first added here can be fully read (in Dutch) here: [1]. However it doesn't support the claim "relative distance to standard Dutch" in any way at all, therefore it should be considered not usable for this part of the article. On the other hand, it does support - at least, partly - this passage: This "Limburgish Dutch" is confusingly also often referred to simply as "Limburgish", although in Belgium such intermediate languages tend to be called tussentaal ("in-between language"), no matter the exact dialect/language with which standard Dutch is combined. De Wikischim (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I partially reverted you, because this is not the way. First and foremost: a hard no, consensus does not trump WP:VERIFIABILITY. You recently re-added part of the old lead again ([2]) writing "at least this was sourced" — when it was absolutely not, as explain (and shown) in the top post here. Please do not do this again, and take the time to read the above (top post) rationale. Vlaemink (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Austronesier is fully right, as this is the source (visible to anyone): [3]. So you actually removed at least one sourced passage, and on the other hand added an unsourced and out-of-context passage ("relative distance to Standard Dutch") to the lead. De Wikischim (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is off-putting. Even if one is technically correct, there are awfully wrong ways to be right. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort of volunteers. I for my part have now decided to abstain from voluteering in the improvement of this article. And I have no time to bring this to a drama board, although this appears to be the only right thing to do now at this point. You do not own this article. –Austronesier (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to correct myself. There is Twinkle, which requires minimal energy. –Austronesier (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: It doesn't support that line in any way?! You must have missed page 109: bij zowel het Nedersaksisch als het Limburgs gaat om een groep nauw verwante dialecten die sterk van de nationale standaardtaal verschillen en nauwelijks hebben bijgedragen aan het ontstaan van die standaardtaal. / Both Low Saxon and Limburgish are a group of closely related dialects that differ greatly from the national standard language and have hardly contributed to the origins of that standard language. Vlaemink (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, a correct translation. So what Bakker actually states here (correctly, I think) is that both Limburgish and Low Saxon are each individually made up of a cluster of mutually related dialects and as such, they differ significantly from Dutch, the standard language (just like, for example, Kashubian as it is spoken in a few parts of East Germany differs significantly from the standard language in that same area). Still this doesn't support in any respect the claim about a supposed "relative (?) distance from Standard Dutch", so I'll just remove this passage again. De Wikischim (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The source says, what it says. There's no "I think he means this", there's no mention of "Kashubian" or "East Germany"; that's you attempting to misconstrue a valid source to fit your preferred narrative. It's not going to fly. The source says, what it says: Limburgish is characterized by its distance from Standard Dutch and it's highly limited role in the creation of this Standard language. What part of that do you not understand? Vlaemink (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the article says: "characterized by its distance". It apparently doesn't say: "characterized by its relative distance" - I wish you good luck with finding additional sources to support the latter claim. De Wikischim (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Well - this newest version seems - finally - at least a little more acceptable (if you definitely want to use Bakker's article for this purpose), though I still find it an unnecessary addition at least in the lead. The relation to Standard Dutch is - of course - an important aspect, but the lead should focus on the main topic, which is Limburgish as such. De Wikischim (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: My only "problem" with you is that you recently re-added information, summarizing that "At least this was sourced" when it clearly wasn't: they source does not concern itself with "how Limburg locals speak Dutch in public life"; it's an incredibly detailed analysis of a 15th century Middle Dutch manuscript. That's it! On all other points of the new lead, I am in full agreement with you.

I tried to warn you for the current situation when I asked you to stay vigilant. What is happening here now, is wat De Wikischim wants: drama, which then leads to inertia, keeping his preferred status quo ante bellum. Please, do not fall for that. Stick to the sources, be critical of what I write and propose , just as I am of you; but please, do not give in here. Vlaemink (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I repeat what I have said before: there is this thing when A explains why B is a jerk, and B explains why A is jerk, but 90% of readers only think "what they each say about the other actually says more about themselves..." My vigilance simply says: the air is toxic when rules ([here[4], there's WP:ONUS!) only apply to others but not to oneself, I can't breathe, I'm off. –Austronesier (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly ... how can the addition of that sentence constitute WP:ONUS? It's part of the formulation that was agreed upon here: [5]. Anyway, I hope you will reconsider when you catch your breath again at some point, because, like you yourself said: it's a pity for such a beautiful topic and I truly consider you to be a helpful, objective and knowledgeable editor. [6]. Vlaemink (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I have said we're almost there. De Wikischim – who at this point for me is just another editor in good standing as you are – has never agreed to it; and even if one(!) source says so (confirmation bias, "cherry-picking", remember?), when they disagree with that addition, then it is very much a matter of WP:ONUS. This is not about me or regaining my breath; it's about releasing the choke. It is about maintaining a collaborative spirit that entails finding consensus before rushing things with brute force. When I don't see that this spirit is upheld, my choice is to leave matters to the rest of the community. When I see a genuine commitment to live up to that spirit, I gladly take part in further efforts. Simple as that. –Austronesier (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

For someone who claims to despise drama, you certainly have a flair for it ;) I never made this [7] edit by brute force. I might have been too quick to implement, that's something I will admit to, but this formulation did have a majority here, with a third user remaining formally undeclared.

Notice here how I'm willing to admit that I was wrong. Notice also, how, throughout the above discussion, I've consistently used sources to support my position and/or doubts. Notice the absence of this in others.

You talk about ″maintaining″ a collaborative spirit, but there never was one to begin with. You want total agreement on the talk page before implementing any change whatsoever, and I'm telling you, this is never going to work because we do not all have the same mindset or intentions. I want to improve this article based on scientific literature, you want to do this, but the elephant in the room is that (Personal attack removed). You've seen this, you've commented on this, and as long as you're going to advocate total consensus instead of merely a consensus, you are giving him exactly what he wants: a veto in an article in whose content he's personally invested. Instead, what this article needs, is serious editors who look at the literature, and eventually reach a majority consensus text based on what can be supported by literature and use that to improve the article. Vlaemink (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Protected

Per the request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected the article for two weeks. Let me or any other admin know if consensus is reached and protection can be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Text parts added to/removed from the lead

Until yesterday, this was still part of the definition in the lead: [...] spoken in Dutch Limburg, Belgian Limburg, [and neighbouring regions of Germany (North Rhine-Westphalia)] (the latter part seems rather the somewhat broader definition of South Low Franconian; maybe this essential distinction should be re-added as well to the lead in a different form, to distinguish better and immediately between Limburgish and SLF). The current version only defines the territory where Limburgish is spoken, very vaguely and not in any detail, as ... Belgium and the Netherlands.. . So this new version seems very incomplete, unlike the previous version. Therefore I think at least this is no improvement at all.

Another striking issue with the new lead is the emphasis which is now immediately laid on the relation of Limburgish to Standard Dutch (with Bakker (1997) as the only source used). My suggestion is to move this part to the section "Classification and history" (or maybe "Characteristics", not existing in the current article version),

What do others (preferably I'd like to see especially non-involved editors here) think about these points? De Wikischim (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

"Characterized by their distance to, and limited participation in the formation of, Standard Dutch" is a very inapt and cherry-picked classifier for what Limburgish is (and to "refers to"). For the most part since late the 19th century, "Limburgish" is the Dutch/Belgian term for the southeasternmost group of Low Franconian varieties spoken on the territory of the Low Countries (in other words: South Low Franconian minus its dialects in Germany and eastern Luik). With the emergence of the Limburgs language movement, it has come to designate the collective of all basilects in Limburg that has attained regional language status in NL. Since this is English WP, we don't really need a Dutch POV-based fork about a transnational dialect area, so this article can safely focus on the sociolinguistic/politcal aspect of Limburgish, which is best mirrored in the lede by identifying it as a regional language spoken in spoken in Dutch Limburg and Belgian Limburg (and obviously not in Germany) AND in the next sentence mention its second meaning.

We should take care not to equate Limburgs with "Limburgish". In B/NL scholarship, Limburgs has a strong connotational baggage as a dialect group, but in common international parlance, "Limburgish" doesn't (or at least does to a much lesser extent). Go to Ngram Viewer[8] and you'll find that "Limburgish" is almost entirely confined to 21th century discourse. A thorough unbiased survey of these source will tell if the topic of this article should be about "a group of Dutch dialects spoken in the southern Netherlands and Belgium" (Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe, 2008) or an "official regional language in the Netherlands" (Multilingualism in European Language Education, 2019). –Austronesier (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think especially this should be an essential part of the definition: With the emergence of the Limburgs language movement, it has come to designate the collective of all basilects in Limburg that has attained regional language status in NL, now missing in the lead, at least in this form.

About the (supposed) "[relative] distance of Limburgish to Standard Dutch", I already pointed out (see above) that this info may be better at its place elsewhere within this article (the "Classification" section, for example).

Apart from that, I'm a little in doubt as well about the use of the article by Frens Bakker (1997) as a primary source for this. Bakker's article is very well usable as such for this subject, but focuses mainly on other relevant aspects of the Limburgish language (those aspects seem by and large absent from the article right now). De Wikischim (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: While Bakker (1997) could be criticized for being having somewhat of a ″popular linguistic″ vibe to it, I really don't see how repeating his remark that Limburgish dialects are characterized by their distance to, and limited participation in the formation of, Standard Dutch can be qualified as either ″cherry picked″ or ″inapt″, as it's one of the defining characteristics mentioned by Bakker.

And I would agree with this, as it seems that Standard Dutch is essential with regards to defining Limburgish, which would prove very difficult if not impossible to classify ″Limburgish″ as something other than South Low Franconian, without factoring in Standard Dutch; for example as a Dachsprache or as a major factor in dialectal decline. Defining ″Limburgish″ by isoglosses alone is not possible, as there is no isogloss separating it from South Low Franconian in Germany, and defining it by political status is not possible either, as there is no recognition in Belgium and the Dutch recognition is not specific to South Low Franconian. Defining ″Limburgish″ as ″South Low Franconian with Dutch as its Dachsprache″ seems very workable to me. It's not 100% watertight, but I don't see a better or more practical one.

As for using the term ″Limburgish language movement″, this is problematic as ″Limburgse taalbeweging″ gives a total of three results in Dutch, while ″Limburgish language movement″ has a grand total of zero] results in English. In addition to it not being term used, literature on this subject that the impetus for the regional language recognition wasn't at all a secessionist language movement, but rather a mainly conservatory effort mixed with a nation-wide resurgence of regionalism.

In order to work, this article needs to clear up what it's really about. For me personally, all the grammar/phonology/vocabulary and much of the linguistic history should (once properly sourced) be moved to South Low Franconian, where it belongs; whereas this article should primarily focus on sociolinguistics and political status. Vlaemink (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody criticizes Bakker. De Wikischim and I just don't think that this is a primary characteristic of "Limburgish". For virtually every not entirely counterfactual statement you will find a reliable source, whether you do a Google search to prove a point, or you provide one single source in order to apply so much weight to a statement based on it so that we simply must have it as a descriptor in the opening sentence of lede. "Distance" might be a secondary characteristic (and one that is often emphasized and exaggerated by language advocates) and can mentioned in the lede but not in the defining sentence, while "limited participation in the formation of Standard Dutch" is true (as for all varieties in the eastern part of the Low Countries) but not ledeworthy.

"Limburgish language movement" is a phrase something I have used out of hand, so we shouldn't use it literally. But with some genuine goodwill to listen and to accomodate constructive contributions by fellow editors like De Wikischim we can easily rephrase it to "efforts to gain official recognition as regional language". It's ironic that these efforts have run counter the agenda of a manifest secessionist language movement in a neighboring country (with known results). -–Austronesier (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I find it nonconstructive that you suggest that I purposely only provided a single source in order to push trough a particular POV, going on to compare this with doing a Google search to prove a point. That's not at all the case here. There's (at the moment) a single source stating this, yes, but the idea that the amount of sources is intentionally limited and aimed at pushing through a particular POV, is complete nonsense. In addition to this, you're misrepresenting my position, because I'm not at all hellbent on keeping this particular characteristic in the lead. However, I do feel there have to be, at the very least, several reputable sources who omit this characteristic in their definition or defining of ″Limburgish″ to support leaving it out. The fact that you think it isn't primary characteristic, is not enough, you have to argue for it based on literature.Vlaemink (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Not at all do I suggest that you "purposely only provided a single source". I merely stated that you only provide one single source. Call it "not a strong case", that's all. (For a piece of text you have added and then re-added three times. That looks quite hellbent when good practice suggests WP:BRD .) It is impossible to continue this discussion when one bad-faith assumption flies after another. –Austronesier (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

In your comment, you suggest that I've ″cherry picked″ a characteristic from one single source with the intention to apply so much weight to this as to force its inclusion in the lead. If that was not your intention, then you could have said this without further implying bad faith on my part. Vlaemink (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

P. 109: "Wat voor de politieke erkenning de doorslag gegeven heeft, is dat...." Bakker's statement does not serve to answer the question "Wat is Limburgs?", but explains the government's rationale to recognize Low Saxon and Limburgs as regional languages. Bakker describes in the first place that Limburgish simply exists as something recognizable for the collective of its speakers: "Hoewel ze de dialectverschillen goed horen, hebben Limburgers toch het gevoel dat ze allemaal ‘Limburgs’ spreken. [...] ‘Hét Limburgs’ bestaat dus niet, maar ‘Limburgs’ kennelijk wel." (But NB in his dissertation he presents other observations which show that the northernmost (=Kleverlandish) dialects fair somewhat differently under the "you speak your dialect and I speak mine"-test.) –Austronesier (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

And the quote is preceded by Net als taalkundigen vindt de politiek een eenheidstaal kennelijk geen absolute voorwaarde (translation: "Just like linguists, politicians believe that the presence of a uniform language is not a strict precondition [for a regional language to be recognized as such]"). De Wikischim (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I used Bakker (1997) to support the claim that a defining characteristic of Limburgish is that these dialects differ strongly from Standard Dutch and contributed little to its development. Whether this was or wasn't an argument for the Dutch government to support regional language status isn't relevant; it's a characteristic that Bakker clearly and explicitly ascribes to Limburgish. Do you you disagree with this reading? If so, why? Vlaemink (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Alternative classification as Middle/Central Franconian

Though the overall consensus is that Limburgish has its historical base in Low Franconian, some historical linguists have a somewhat nuanced view on this: [9], [10] ([..]Zuiver Oost-Frankisch heerscht: 1e. in het Land van Maas en Waal; 2e. in het Oostelijk gedeelte van Noord-Brabant; 3e. in het Oostelijk gedeelte van de prov. Antwerpen en (4e-6e) in het zoogenaamde mich-kwartier: 4e. het Oostelijk deel van Zuid-Brabant; 5e. Belgisch-Limburg; 6e. het grootste deel van Nederlandsch-Limburg, waar het dialect naar het Middel-Frankisch (Central Franconian languages) overhelt.; is this archaic Dutch text understandable enough for everyone here?)

I think it would be very worth adding this information to the "Classification and history" section (note: last year I made similar attempts to get this added to the corresponding article on the Dutch wiki, where it has been removed again, unfortunately). De Wikischim (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on these two sources (btw: do late 19th century texts really deem archaic to you? I've literally learned Dutch by reading Multatuli and linguistic texts about the Dutch East Indies from that period), this does not support an alternative classification as Central Franconian. Both speak of Central Franconian influence (or Limburg dialects leaning towards Central Franconian), and that's not what just some historical linguists, but is considered general wisdom. It is usually as an effect of the Keulse expansie in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period, i.e. the radation of Ripuarian linguistic features into the southeastern part of the Low Franconian speech area as a result of the political dominance of Cologne.

But there are indeed some classifications in German dialectology that plainly assigns South Low Franconian (both in Limburg and the Rhineland) to Central Franconian and thus within the High German dialect landscape (most notable by Wiesinger), by taking the opposite view, i.e. South Low Franconian dialects are Ripurian dialects that increasingly acquire Low Franconian traits when you move further to the west and north. The common textbook view in B, D and NL however sees the Benrath line as the western/northern boundary of Central Franconian (and so does the Raod veur't Limburgs).

We have a bit about this in South_Low_Franconian#Classification already. I strongly opt for this article not simply to be a fork of South Low Franconian, but rather primary intended to talk about the recognized regional language (that's also what the ISO-code is for). Hence, we don't have to talk too much about classification here (especially when the northern part of Limburg tells a completely different story). But that's just me. I know there are other opinions, but contrary to what I've heard in the past days, it takes more than a 2:1 !vote to dance the WP consensus tango. –Austronesier (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree (among others based on your explanation about the view on this within German dialectology - thanks for that) that the Low Franconian and South Low Franconian articles are likely more suitable places for this sort of info. Yet I think it shouldn't be left completely unmentioned here either, as it serves among others to clarify the relationship of Limburgish to (Standard) Dutch (which is now discussed throughout this article in a rather vague/unclear/inconsistent manner, which I think will be of little or no use to common readers). De Wikischim (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is part of Vlaemink's and my point that this article overall does not a good job of explaining anything (much of which has to do with its advocacy-driven edit history), regardless of the question of what this article actually should explain. –Austronesier (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree there are more striking issues with the current, rather poor version. Just one example is the relatively long section about "Meuse Rhenish", which seems of little or even no importance here. It's nothing but a proposed alternative classification of a big regiolectal area (including even Kleve and further), not supported by many linguists and therefore violating Original Research Policy. De Wikischim (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: No, it wouldn't be possible to add this information to the ″Classification and history″ section, because the sources provided cannot be used to support what is being claimed:

• Both of these sources are outdated, being published in 1892 and 1901 respectively; and hence do not meet Wikipedia standards on reliable sources.
• Neither of these sources makes any claims about ″Limburgish″ not being Low Franconian, they do not discuss this issue:

1. When Wieger (1901) mentions Middle Franconian, he simply states that the dialects in the southeast of Dutch Limburg are transitional — which is true.

2. When Leviticus (1892) mentions Middle Franconian, he simply states that the language of the Middle Dutch Sente Servas-text is closely related to Middle Franconian — which is true.

On a meta note: The way these sources were provided is inherently faulty: you searched for limburgs nederfrankisch middelfrankisch overgangsdialect (″Limburgish Low Franconian Middle Franconian transitional dialect″) in Google books and, most likely, did the same with the DBNL-database. In other words: you are searching for what you want to find, instead of what you want to know, in addition to (erroneously) taking fragments or excerpts out of their broader context. The inherent problems with this method have been stated before [11]. Vlaemink (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Indeed, some publications use the Uerdingen instead of the more common Benrath isoglos, but as you've correctly stated the northward expansion of the first is a development from the High Middle Ages. This could be briefly explained in the article (if it isn't already), but would then also require explicit mentioning of the fact that Old East Dutch / Old East Low Franconian, did not have these characteristics. To me, this seems like a fairly minute and uncontroversial detail to be addressed later, after the article as a whole is in a far better shape than it is now. Vlaemink (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Platdiets and related varieties

Platdiets of French-speaking Wallonia possibly isn't Limburgish. It is sometimes lumped with South East Limburgish of the Netherlands as well as some varieties of Flanders as well as including Düsseldorf, a city right into Germany. Sarcelles (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)