Talk:Central Dutch dialects

Goossens
From the article:
 * [..] and Jan Goossens (Kleverlandish) have Liemers dialect as part of their respective group.
 * Goossens published a study in 1970, in which he used rigid single isoglosses as a basis. Goossens justifies his classification by a few words.
 * Goossens published a study in 1970 in which he used rigid single isoglosses as a basis.

--07:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That mentions a study by Goossens from 1970, but references a work from 1965.
 * That work from 1965 is about South Low Franconian (Südniederfränkisch). What can be seen it is (Karte 2 and p. 90ff.): Südbrabantisch (South Brabantian), Nordostbrabantisch (North-East Brabantian), Kleverländisch (Kleverlandish) and Westfälisch (Westphalian) are north of the Ürdingen line; Ribuarisch (Ripuarian) is south of the Benrath line; South Low Franconian with it's subdialects is between Ürdingen and Benrath line. Through the area of Kleverländisch runs the euch-line (the area around Venlo is south of this line and north of the Ürdingen line). What can not be seen it: the complete area and boundaries of Kleverländisch.
 * mentions two works by Goossens from 1970: 1. Inleiding tot de Nederlandse dialectologie, in: Bulletin de la Commission Royale de Toponymie et Dialectologie vol. 44 (1970) p. 105- 2. Niederländische Mundarten - vom Deutschen aus geselren [sic, with geselren], in: Niederdeutsches Wort vol. 10 (1970) p. 61-80 The 2nd is: Niederländische Mundarten – vom Deutschen aus gesehen (mit 11 Karten im Text und einer Faltkarte), in: Niederdeutsches Wort: Kleine Beiträge zur niederdeutschen Mundart- und Namenkunde, vol. 10, Verlag Aschendorff, Münster, 1970 (LWL) So which study from 1970 should be the "right" one?
 * Do you notice, how the 3rd point above from the article only duplicates the 2nd?

Giebers
From the article: To add: That's possibly:
 * Giebers 2008 also has Kleverlandish running into South Gelderland.
 * Charlotte (Hendrina Elisabeth) Giesbers, Dialecten op de grens van twee talen: een dialectologisch en sociolinguïstisch onderzoek in het Kleverlands dialectgebied, 2008 [doctor's thesis] (→; )

So without further information, this seems to be redundant to Cornelissen and his map/classification. --08:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * On p. 6 there's "Figuur 1.2: Het Kleverlands dialectcontinuüm", a map of "Kleverlands" on which it reads: "ontwerp: Georg Cornelissen". It's similar to this map (where it reads: "Kleverändisch/Kleverlands", "Entwurf: Georg Conelissen").
 * On p. 23 some places are mentioned, including Goch which can be found in the above map too; similar on p. 31 where also Gennep, Kleve and Pfalzdorf are present.

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 ; 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. --08:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

stuff that doesn't appear to be Central Dutch
From the article: Stadsfries is wrongly seen as Hollandic. Frisian mixed varieties has Stadsfries together with Amelands, Bildts and Midslands. These dialects have similarities with Frisian. The other dialects in this group in that study are Stellingwerfs. Stellingwerfs is not very close to them. The question cannot be answered whether Stellingwerfs varieties are more related to Frisian or to Low Saxon. Eupen dialect is similarly different from Luxembourgish as from Hollandic. Wenker's original Rhenish fan outside the Netherlands largely has been reduced to regiolects and formal Luxembourgish.

Pages aren't provided (in fact, originally not even author, title, year were given but only a URL). What's in the source (Heeringa's thesis, ch. 9): So: --09:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.40.167 (talk)
 * (p. 231) Heeringa's classification of dialects, a map with the "13 most significant groups". "Central Dutch varieties" are spoken in most of North Holland (excluded is some part in the north), most of South Holland (e.g. some parts of Goeree-Overflakkee are instead "Zeeland"), Utrecht, large parts of Gelderland (north-eastern parts are part of "Overijssel"), most of North Brabant (the southern parts belong to "Brabant", a smaller part in the east to "Limburg"), some parts of Dutch Limburg. "Frisian" is spoken in most of Dutch Friesland, "Frisian mixed varieties" at the border of Dutch Friesland and Drenthe (roughly where the 3rd map of File:Languages Benelux.PNG has "Stellingswerfs") and in some other parts of Friesland.
 * (p. 215) "A special group of Frisian varieties that do not form one geographical area are the ‘town Frisian’ varieties (Stad(s)fries). [...] town Frisian dialects may be regarded as an intermediate form of Dutch and Frisian. Town Frisian varieties are spoken in Midsland, Dokkum, Harlingen, Franeker, Leeuwarden, Bolsward, Sneek, Heerenveen, Staveren and on the island of Ameland."
 * (p. 216) "a Low Saxon Stellingwerf variety" (p. 266) "The Stellingwerf varieties are intermediate between Frisian and Low Saxon, but they are closer to Low Saxon than to Frisian." That's contradictory to WP's statement: "The question cannot be answered whether Stellingwerfs varieties are more related to Frisian or to Low Saxon."
 * (p. 217) "Eupen and Raeren which belong to the German language area" (p. 264) "Eupen and Raeren belong to the German language area"
 * "Luxembourgish" or "Luxembourg" (and "Luxemburgian", "Luxemburgic"), "Hollandish" or "Hollandic", "Wenker" do not occur in it.
 * The parts regarding Luxembourgish, Hollandic and Wenker seem to be unsourced.
 * Regarding Stellingwerfs and relationship, Heeringa seems to contradict WP.
 * Why is Stellingwerfs mentioned at all? It is not part of Central Dutch and it doesn't even have a border with Central Dutch. Instead it could rather belong to the more general article Dutch dialects.
 * Why are Eupen and Luxembourgish even mentioned at all? They aren't part of Central Dutch and don't even have a border with Central Dutch. Instead that information could rather belong into Eupen dialect, that is, if there are sources.
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Dutch_dialects_according_to_Heeringa.png has the following key, recently enlarged by [part of Low Saxon]:


 * 1) Frisian [i.e. West Frisian, as East Frisian and North Frisian are spoken outside of the Netherlands and Belgium]
 * 2) Frisian mixed varieties [incl. town Frisian (Stad(s)fries)]; not fully marked on the Wikimedia map but in the original by Heeringa
 * 3) Groningen [part of Low Saxon]
 * 4) Overijssel [part of Low Saxon]
 * 5) Southwest Limburg
 * 6) Brabant
 * 7) Central Dutch varieties
 * 8) Urk
 * 9) East Flanders
 * 10) West Flanders
 * 11) Zeeland
 * 12) Limburg
 * 13) Northeast Luik

How should they be characterized? To give an example: There is Southwest Limburg on the list, for example. However, can it be rendered as West Limburgish? Sarcelles (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)