Talk:Elbingian

1882

 * "The 1882 edition of dictionary of dialects Preußisches Wörterbuch includes Mundart der Elbinger Höhe using this wording."
 * which is: H. Frischbier's Preußisches Wörterbuch: Ost- und westpreußische Provinzialismen in alphabetischer Folge, vol. I: A — K, Berlin, 1882

--10:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:3726:EF88:940E:866B:DF45:F8F3 (talk)
 * Where? On p. XIV (section Abkürzungen) it mentions: "Spook. Datt Spook. Mundart der Elbinger Höhe. Von D. Neue Pr. Prov.-Bl. IV 470 475 [Auch als Sonderabdruck im Verlage von Neumann-Hartmann in Elbing o. J. erschienen. Die Zahlen bezeichnen die Seitenzahlen der Prov.-Bl.] So that's: Mundart der Elbinger Höhe. Mitgetheilt von D. Datt Spook, in: Neue Preußische Provinzial-Blätter. Mit Beiträgen von [...]. Im Namen der Alterthums-Gesellschaft Prussia herausgegeben von Dr. A. Hagen. Jahrgang 1847. Juli – December. / Band IV., Königsberg, 1847, p. 470–475  That's also mentioned elsehwere, e.g. in: Twöschen Wiessel on Noacht. Plattdietsche Gedichte von Robert Dorr, Neumann-Hartmannsche Buchhandlung, Elbing, 1862, at the end at "In demselben Verlage erschien: [...]"
 * Relevance? If Frischbier only cites the title of another work and doesn't write about a dialect or the classification of dialects, it has no scientific relevance, no scientific back-up. The author could have called it "Datt Spook in the best Prussian dialect" and in case of proper citing one would have to copy it, but that wouldn't mean it's really the best Prussian dialect.

Elbing
From the article:
 * In Elbing, no German dialect was spoken for long.

Per Ziesemer (and others like Wiesinger and Heinel),  in Elbing (and Pr. Holland, Marienburg, Freystadt, Deutsch Eylau etc.) the High Prussian dialect Oberländisch was spoken, while the Elbinger Höhe (lit. Elbingian Height) is north/north-east of Elbing (maybe see also ). Hence: Even though Mitzka's statement isn't wrong, it's unrelated as this article is about the dialect of the Elbinger Höhe and not about the High Prussian dialect Oberländisch which was spoken in Elbing.

--2003:DE:3700:672F:8567:9BE6:1822:E107 (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Northern Low German vs. East Low German
Regarding edits like this, this and this, they are: And regarding the claim "I have foundedly rejected this concept [West/East Low German] and you know this": Nowhere that I know of this was foundedly rejected. Rejected it was by referring to Lameli and having the above flaws (WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR/WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABILITY).
 * A Violation of WP:NPOV: Pushing one view ("it's Northern LG/Southern LG"), removing other common and sourced views ("it's West LG/East LG").
 * A Violation of WP:WEIGHT: There's a single source for the concept "Northern Low German" (A. Lameli given in the article, who only covered post-1990 Germany and not Low German in the Netherlands, East Pomerania or West and East Prussia). For East Low German there are many sources, several of them were provided and also are by famous linguists (like P. Wiesinger, D. Stellmacher) published by famous publishers (like Walter de Gruyter).
 * A Violation of WP:OR and WP:VERIFY: No source was provided that Low Prussian is Northern Low German (Lameli doesn't cover it).
 * Ignoring WP:RELIABILITY, esp. "Prefer secondary sources" and "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised": Lameli's study is a primary source (and BTW so is Heeringa's doctor thesis used in other articles).

--01:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Work for Wikipedia is not the result of votes. It is about using methodically good swources.

Sarcelles (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no source was provided for the claim that Low Prussian is Northern Low German. And "methodically good" is subjective, and no excuse for the violations of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR/WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABILITY. --10:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:370C:38A6:CCC3:BAC8:B246:9099 (talk)
 * I agree with most of the IPs points. Lameli's classification is interesting and quite compelling, but has not all of a sudden invalidated the long-standing East/West classification. You will need secondary sources (and just more than one) and of course consensus before altering the infobox in multiple articles as if it was the mainstream communis opinio. Also, you can not apply Lameli's research to Low German varieties outside of its scope. That's WP:OR. I advise to self-revert here (and everywhere else). –Austronesier (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The concept of East Low German is refuted.
 * Sarcelles (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No it's not. A swallow does not a summer make. See our previous comments. And whatever Lameli has proposed, it does not apply to Elbingian. I wouldn't have qualms to mention potential conflicts with the traditional classification based on a source that presents qualitative criteria, but Lameli's method is quantiative (a black box!), so based on its very nature one can not draw any conclusions about varieties outside of its scope. –Austronesier (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the respective case for quality and quantity? I will have a look into the book mentioned soon. Sarcelles (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lameli parametrized dialect differences and put all the parameters into a distance-measuring algorithm. So dialect A and B are classified as more closely related to each other than to C based on clustering of similarities, and not based on specific identifiable qualitative/structural features. And if dialect D is not included in the dataset, you cannot make any statement about it. Any assumption about which dialect group it might cluster with if it were included is entirely speculative.
 * OTOH, when dialectologists use diagnostic qualitative criteria (e.g. Wiesinger's focus on the fate of certain long vowels and diphthongs) for their classification, one can apply these criteria (we can't because of WP:SYNTH) to dialects that are not included in the original scope of dialects compared.
 * Lameli's work is important and deserves a mention in every article where his research affect the "traditional" classification. But not as the final word, this would violate WP:UNDUE. Every novel approach needs to find its way into multiple reliable secondary sources that endorse it before we can present it at as state of the art. So the basic classification scheme including the one applied in the infobox should remain "conservative" (including the East/West split of Low German). And Lameli's classification has no place at all in articles about varieties outside of its scope. All this is a simple corollary of basic WP rules. –Austronesier (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * https://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neddersassisch&oldid=165427 was an edit in 2008, where the Low German article on West Low German
 * (Low Saxon) was made a redirect to the article on Low German. This was an article mainly shaped by me at the point of its death. Currently the article starts with Plattdüütsch (Neddersassisch) is meaning Low German (Low Saxon) is.
 * https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Nedersaksisch#Oost-Nederduits is where User:Slomox says, that East Low German versus West Low German only has historical relevance, but is not a linguistic border. He is the author of a dictionary of Low German dialects in general: https://plattmakers.de/en Sarcelles (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)