Talk:Limburgish/Archive 3

Basic outline for this article
Hello everyone,

This article should ideally describe the language variety in all the facets that valid and reliable references permit. It shouldn't be a platform for language activism, personal extrapolations or "tweaking" referenced material in such a way, that it is no longer in line with the original wording and/or spiked with OR- or NPOV-claims. Regrettably, this is the case in certain portion of the article and has been a recurring issue with some users which are now involving themselves with this article.

Looking ahead to the improvement of this article over the coming weeks, I feel it is important to establish a basic consensus concerning what this article should entail.

I've therefore taken the initiative to formulate 10 basic points with the intent to form a "baseline consensus" for the article, intended as a common ground for future editing.

Some of these point are already represented within the article, others are partially alluded but a significant number are currently not part of the article. The points are non-controversial in that they represent the current scientific consensus and/or are in line with Wikipedia-guidelines concerning WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV.

These points are:

Concerning the relation of Limburgish and Dutch (and German): Concerning the use and meaning of "Limburgish": Concerning the use of sources when describing "Limburgish":
 * (1) The basic premise of this article should reflect and describe the linguistic consensus that the Limburgish varieties are one of main subdivisions of the Low Franconian or Netherlandic branch of the West Germanic languages, rather than (suggest that it forms) a separate West Germanic language branch.
 * (2) The basic premise of this article should acknowledge and expand upon the practical reality and linguistic consensus that Standard Dutch forms the Kultursprache and/or Dachsprache of the dialects spoken in Dutch and Belgian Limburg, whereas Standard German fulfills a similar role for the closely related dialects in adjacent areas of Germany, rather than suggesting that Dutch/German and Limburgish are non-overlapping magisteria. Accordingly, the article should mention that fairly common definitions exist in which Limburgish/South Low Franconian varieties (at the very least socio-linguistically) are regarded as "Dutch" or "German" dialects.
 * (3) The article should explicitly acknowledge and describe the consensus within historical linguistics, in which the Limburgish varieties are included within and are considered an intrinsic part of Middle Dutch and Old Dutch, i.e. that concepts such as "Old Limburgish", "Middle Limburgish" and/or "Early Modern Limburgish" are not a part of mainstream linguistic discourse or literature.
 * (4) The article should explicitly acknowledge and describe the immediate dialect continuum of which the Limburgish varieties are a part; that is, that they transition fluently into Brabantian and South Guelderish; and, albeit less fluently than was historically the case, that they are also linked to Ripuarian Franconian. The article should also describe the influence of the Dutch and German standard languages on the varieties.
 * (5) This article should acknowledge and describe that "Limburgish" itself is a term common in Dutch linguistic parlance, but is uncommon in German discourse. It should further make explicitly clear that "Limburgish" is not used as a descriptor by German speakers of these varieties and that Dutch and Belgian speakers of Limburgish varieties too, will generally define their dialect by the respective locality (village, town) where it is spoken. The article should describe the politics of regionalism which are intricately linked with "Limburgish" (and language identity) in the Netherlands and (to a lesser extent) Belgium, but which are absent in Germany.
 * (6) This article should acknowledge and describe that "Limburgish" is not a monolithic, uniform language, but rather a varying group of unstandardized, closely related dialects. It should explicitly make clear, that linguistic opinion as to which particular dialects constitute this group may vary and explain why this is the case.
 * (7) This article should refrain from giving examples of or make claims pertaining to grammar/vocabulary without valid references. When properly referenced, examples of grammar or vocabulary should ideally only be placed in the article if they represent a significant portion of the Limburgish varieties; if not, the examples belong in article concerning the specific dialect itself. The article should be careful to claim transitional varieties (such as Low Dietsch) as definitely belonging to either category.

Concerning the political status of "Limburgish": Other:
 * (8) This article should include reliable data concerning both the number of speakers and their make up.
 * (9a) The recognition of "Limburgish" in the Netherlands (specifically the Limburg province) under part II of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages should of course be plainly stated, however its context should be thoroughly explored in the article. It should, for example, be made clear that the recognition process proved to be controversial and that the Dutch recognition explicitly pertains to the "dialects spoken in the Dutch province Limburg" and neither describes nor recognizes "Limburgish" as a "separate language". For example, the charter shouldn't be used to describe "Limburgish" as a language with "limited recognition" or in purposely vague formulations that suggest that the Netherlands have "recognized Limburgish" whereas Germany and/or Belgium have refused to do so.
 * (9b) Similarly, the Walloon/French Communities 1990 recognition of "all native Romance and Germanic languages" spoken on the territory of Wallonia and Brussels, should not be misconstrued into a recognition of "Limburgish" proper as this document too, does not refer to a "Limburgish language" or indeed mentions "Limburgish" at all. In other words: this article should avoid conflating politics and linguistics.
 * (10) The presence of/references to the concept of Meuse-Rhenish in the article should be critically reevaluated. This concept exists in linguistic literature, but its acceptance and currency is unclear. The section within this article has no references and the Wikipedia-article on Meuse-Rhenish itself has been somewhat of a mess since 2010.

The above points are representative of the broad consensus regarding these dialects, but should not be interpreted as excluding alternative points of view, as long as these are presented in the form of reliable and valid sources. I would like to ask all interested editors, to voice their opinion as to whether they consider these points to form an acceptable workable framework for future improvement and changes to this article. If an editor considered a specific point or part of it problematic, I kindly request them to voice their concerns here as well. If an editor believes that an additional point could prove beneficial to the improvement of the article, I would too request them to share this here. Regards, Vlaemink (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Vlaemink (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * (1) and (10): No. German linguistics dissents and has an alternative definition from the Low Franconian classification common in Dutch linguistics called "Rheinmaasländisch" (example Deutsch: Sprache und Raum, 2019).
 * (2): No .That may be the reality in the Rhine region, but Dutch linguists explicitly reject Dutch as a Dachsprache. The cultural autonomy of Limburgish is one the reasons the Netherlands recognized it as a regional language under the European treaty.
 * (3): That is misleading, it is established that "Middle Dutch" and "Old Dutch" project current politics on the past (i.e. all languages spoken in the region where Dutch is currently an official language), see the standard work on Middle Dutch by Hogenhout-Mulder. Ties in to point (1), calling Low Franconian "Netherlandic" is simultaneously misleading. Old and Middle Limburgish are established terms in modern linguistics, example:
 * (4) Utter nonsense. Example: the Limburgish-Brabantian "border" which is typically the Gete line consists of 26 isophones, loss of tonality and umlautization. That is not "fluently". See "De grens tussen het Brabants en Limburgs in België" bij Pauwels and Morren.
 * (5): Agreed.
 * (6): The article does this sufficiently already
 * (7): We have this same discussion on the Dutch wikipedia, I disagree. Sources should be provided wherever possible, but unless an example isn't suspiciously false or provably wrong they serve as testimonies of a living language and are highly appropriate on Wikipedia.
 * (8): Agreed, although the article currently does this.
 * (9): That is incorrect, the signing of the treaty does not come with a definition of Limburgish. Feel free to nuance the impact of the treaty, but you will have to do better than a single source from 2002 (the treaty is from 1997), considering that it is 2023. Consider for example the official adoption of the Veldeke spelling, creation of the Raod veur 't Limburgs (official organ for Limburgish) or the usage of Limburgish in schools and media. (9b): the French community's adoption of the "langues régionales endogènes" was in direct response to the inability of Belgium to sign the European treaty. They recognize Limburgish as a regional language, albeit only the part in the North-East of Liège that falls under their jurisdiction.
 * Briegelaer (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll for now comment on point 4 only. Regarding [...] the immediate dialect continuum of which the Limburgish varieties are a part [...]; though this may indeed be true – at least to some extent – especially for Limburgish varieties spoken in and just above Venlo, exactly the same can be stated for example about some language varieties spoken in Gelderland and traditionally considered Low Saxon, while they actually make up a continuum with other varieties considered Low Franconian. This is well explained for example here: [...] Vermengde het Saksisch zich met het Frankisch tot het Zuidoost-Veluwsch (translation: "Saxon mingled with Franconian to become South-East Veluws"). --De Wikischim (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Point 1, the mainstream categorization of Limburgish as part of Low Franconian & use of "Meuse Rhenish"
To my surprise, the claim has been made by that the German linguistic field does not categorize the Limburgish varieties as Low Franconian and that there supposedly exist a dichotomy between mainstream German and Dutch linguists. He instead claims, again without mentioning any sources, that German linguists use an alternative definition "Meuse Rhenish" to classify the Limburgish varieties.

These two claims are both unsupported by references and incorrect: in Dutch, English and German publications, the Limburgish varieties are generally classified as being part of Low Franconian; and while alternative views exist and have existed (and should be given a place in the article), this is the consensus position and has been for quite some time.

The most common term in German linguistics today (and hence my surprise) for the varieties that are commonly included within the term "Limburgish" is Südniederfränkisch (as for example evidence by this article's German Wikipedia equivalent: Südniederfränkisch), which means "South Low Franconian ". The categorization of the varieties themselves as part of Low Franconian is exceedingly common and mainstream. This is not only (self-)evident by the corresponding Wikipedia article, but (and more importantly) by numerous publications; such as:
 * Werner König, in his well known and extensively published linguistic atlas, in which Limburgish varieties are shown and described as part of Low Franconian, pp. 230/231. in both its 2007 and most recent (2011) publication.
 * This linguistic map designed by Georg Cornelissen (considered an expert on the dialects of the Lower Rhine) and published by the LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte, also using South Low Franconian.
 * Peter Wiesinger: Strukturelle historische Dialektologie des Deutschen: strukturhistorische und strukturgeographische Studien zur Vokalentwicklung deutscher Dialekte, Olms Verlag, 2017, pp. 346-347: which clearly describes that "South Low Franconian" (first used since 1908) and a lesser known term "Nordripuarisch" (North Ripuarian) have been used in German publications, but then goes on to specify in the footnotes that the the two publication using the term, explicitly state it being part of Low Franconian.
 * Herbert Genzmer: Die deutsche Sprache: Ursprünge, Entwicklung und Wandel. Marix Verlag, 2017, pp. 32: Speaks of South Low Franconian as the dialects between Uerdingen line and Benrath line; correctly noting that the Uerdingen line is a much younger (13th-15th century) development of the Benrath line.

This is a limited selection of course, but the authors are very reputable and their works clearly disprove any notion of a supposed terminological split along Dutch-German state lines.

Additionally, the second claim made by Briegelaer (that German linguists instead classify these dialects as Meuse Rhenish) can be dismissed even further, as "Meuse Rhenish", as introduced by the linguist Arend Mihm in 1992, refers to a written language used during the Late Middle Ages. The claim is further debunked by the following (German) authors:
 * Joachim Herrgen: Deutsch: Sprache und Raum - Ein internationales Handbuch der Sprachvariation, De Gruyter, 2019, pp. 70 explicitly defines Meuse Rhenish as a category/further specification within Low Franconian.
 * Ute Boonen: Niederländische Sprachwissenschaft: Eine Einführung, Attempto Verlag, 2013, pp. 40-41: explicitly states that Meuse Rhenish is to be understood as a medieval writing tradition within Middle Dutch.

With this in mind it is hard to take Briegelaers claims very seriously, though I invite him to list his sources to the contrary if he wants to contest the observations above.

Moving forward, I think it is fair to say that most linguists worth their salt on the German-Dutch continuum (be they German or Dutch or Chinese) would agree that, regardless of which name it is given, South Low Franconian is a transitional area between Low Franconian and Ripuarian. After all, this is a part of the Rhenish fan, which is practically defined by its transitional nature and as such, any cutoff point is ultimately arbitrary.

However, this does not mean that sources or longstanding conventions no longer matter: Low South Franconian is conventionally/traditionally seen as part of the broader Low Franconian varieties and the article should reflect this. Not only is this in line with the majority of publications on the matter, it also aligns with South Low Franconian topologically being on the Low Franconian end of the spectrum (Alfred Lameli: Strukturen im Sprachraum: Analysen zur arealtypologischen Komplexität der Dialekte in Deutschland, 2013, De Gruyter, pp. 212) and with the historio-linguistical reality that the South Low Franconian varieties derive from Old East Low Franconian. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * thank you all for the lively discussion.
 * does it make sense to classify Limburgish and dialects north of it together? I have raised the issue of division and definition of Limburgish on the talk page of the Dutch article.
 * Kind regards Sarcelles (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In some contexts it does, in some it doesn't. For example, within the context of the Dutch recognition of "Limburgish" as a regional language in Limburg, it makes sense; as the recognition document takes "Limburgs" to mean "all dialects of Limburg", and I have seen it been done as well when using particular (i.e. self-reporting) methods of establishing dialect areas. When it comes to certain features or isoglosses (such as pitch accent or the consonant shift) it doesn't have to be so though. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * A problem with Rheinmaasländisch is that this term doesn't seem very common except among German philologists. In Dutch, the corresponding term Rijn-Maaslands exists as such. However it refers most of the time to the historical literal tradition of the region (see for example here), and isn't used as a dialectogical term, or hardly.
 * In the past, the relevant article on Dutch WP (nl:Maas-Rijnlands) has been subject to a lot of discussion and doubt and raised some serious questions (as well because of the uncommon title, which apparently should have been "Rijn-Maaslands"). Anyway this shouldn't be discussed on this talk page further. De Wikischim (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Point 2, Standard Dutch and Standard German as Dachsprachen/culture languages of the South Low Franconian / Limburgish varieties
has disputed the role of Standard Dutch as the Dachsprache or culture language of the South Low Franconian / Limburgish varieties spoken in the Netherlands. He added two sources; which supposedly support his claim that "Dutch linguists explicitly reject Dutch as a Dachsprache [for Limburgish, red.]".

These sources shouldn't be taken at face value however, as even a short examination will reveal that they in fact do not support the above claim and are not credible or useful source materials.
 * The first source provided, is a political pamphlet published on a petition platform called petitie24.nl (a type of website similar to change.org). The petition in question does not speak of Dachsprachen or languages of culture; instead it attacks the Taalunie (the Dutch and Belgian governmental institution for Dutch language issues) for not including "the Limburgish language" as an option in a survey which asked participants in which situations they used Dutch and in which situations they did not; instead using (for example) Frisian, English or a migrant language. The authors allege that the Taalunie did this purposely, to demean and ignore "the Limburgish language". Among the 58 Signees are several linguists, but also a rather wellknown concert violinist by the name of Andre Rieu (and his wife), regional television presenters and "a Limburgish speaker from New Zealand".


 * Clearly, this is not a valid, neutral or reliable source for the matter at hand. In fact, even if it had been the case that this online petition concerned the matter being discussed here, and even if it had been signed exclusively by linguists, it would still have constituted, at best, a primary source.


 * The second source is a covenant on the "Dutch recognition of the Limburgish language" published by the Dutch government in 2019. It too does not concern itself with Dachsprache/culture language. Instead it is a letter of intent (and therefore a primary source) detailing the non-legally binding (section 3) in which the Dutch government hopes to preserve the Limburgish dialects in such a way, that it doesn't require the introduction of new or additional laws.

If Briegelaers is still of the opinion that these source are in fact valid, reliable and applicable within the frame work of WP:SOURCE I cordially invite him to do so.

However, if choosing to do so, I think it would be more than prudent to take into account the following sources (all secondary, linguistic literature) which explicitly state that Dutch, German and French are in fact the language of culture in the area in which the South Low Franconian / Limburgish varieties are spoken. These are:


 * Bruce Donaldson: Dutch. A linguistic history of Holland and Belgium, 1983, pp. 11: in which the author states that "[The dialects] spoken along the Dutch-German border are regarded as either Dutch or German dialects according to which of those two languages the speakers of those dialects regard as their standard written language or cultuurtaal.".
 * Ann Marynissen: ‘Limburgers worden Nederlanders? Over de vernederlandsing van het zuidoosten van Nederlands Limburg (1789-1935)’ in: Taalvariatie en groepsidentiteit, 2005, pp. 65: which unequivocally and explicitly states that "At the moment three culture languages are spoken in the Meuse–Rhine Euroregion: Dutch, French and German." and in fact provides an excellent framework for describing the interplay between the Dutch, German and French culture languages in the wider Limburg-region from the 17th century up until the present-day.

In summary: like virtually all dialects of the Continental West Germanic continuum, the Low South Franconian / Limburgish varieties are not standardized and the majority of speakers use either Standard Dutch or Standard German as their standardized written language or culture language. Of course speakers of these varieties use they respective dialect in various situations, which is perfectly normal and undisputed, but the languages of the administrative and broader cultural realm are one of the three aforementioned standard languages and this should be (as already stated above) be clearly reflected in the article. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For now, just regarding this last point: it's unclear to me this way why an article which is about a certain language variety/group of varieties, should pay excessive attention to the so-called "culture language" (by the way, I'd actually prefer to avoid that term because it seems to imply that some languages/language varieties are "superior" – i.e. representative of "the culture" – to other ones spoken in the same area, which from a linguistic point of view is utter nonsense, of course). De Wikischim (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * None of the authors referenced here at any point claim or imply that culture languages are "better" than dialects, or even touch the concept of "superiority" at any given moment: it simply doesn't enter the conversation with them.


 * They discuss the culture languages, because these relate to both how a variety is perceived socio-linguistically and profoundly effects lexical borrowing and/or relexifying of preexisting vocabulary. In the case of the Low South Franconian / Limburgish varieties this is especially important to address as, unlike many other Dutch dialect groupings, these varieties show a (regionally varying) sustained influence of not one or two, but three (Dutch, French and German) culture languages. The culture language matters, for example when it comes to societal status, i.e. to clarify in which context a Low South Franconian / Limburgish variety was, is or can be used or isn't. For example, this section could elaborate how in 19th century southern Limburg German was more prominent in clerical spheres, whereas Dutch was the language of administration and how this influenced the various dialects and/or limited their sphere. Or it could be used to explain that regional language recognition has been largely symbolic up until now and, unlike for example Frisian speakers, the speakers of South Low Franconian-varieties are expected and required to address the courts or make their correspondences with local administration in Dutch. And so on and on.


 * So no, I very much disagree with both your claim that a concept of "superiority/inferiority" is a part of this particular matter and with the notion that this is a non-important facet of describing the socio-linguistic dimensions of these varieties; it very much is. Regards, Vlaemink (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Point 3, the validity of terminology
has alleged that terminology such as "Old Dutch" and "Middle Dutch" are misleading. He claims these terms are without meaning, while simultaneously claiming that terminology such as "Old Limburgish" and "Middle Limburgish" are established terms in modern linguistics. I'm not sure what his particular angle is here, but it might be an attempt to remove Limburgish from the Middle Dutch paradigm to further stress its separateness from "Dutch".

First and foremost it is important to absolutely stress that "Middle Dutch" is a long-established term within historical Germanic linguistics; found in all the standard works on this subject. Definitions vary, but Middle Dutch is commonly described as consisting of five main dialects: Hollandic, Flemish, Brabantian, Zealandic and Limburgish. Depending on the author and definition used, these five can be expanded with Middle East Dutch (essentially Dutch-influenced Western Low Saxon) or South Guelderish (Low Franconian varieties now spoken in Germany).

The view is in fact so common; that the author referenced by Briegelaer (Maaike Hogenhout-Mulder, in a 1983 coursebook meant for students) actually contradicts his claim. She writes:


 * "The above already shows that [a singular Middle Dutch] doesn't exist. There is only a collection of dialects, which, predominantly based on later political developments, are viewed as forming a single unit, as Middle Dutch. Roughly speaking, one could say that Middle Dutch is the language of the texts that were written in the language of the people between 1100 and 1500, in the area which now comprises of the Netherlands (except Friesland) and the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. This demarcation isn't entirely accurate (in a part of Northwestern France) Dutch was also spoken, but it is workable." (Maaike Hogenhout-Mulder: Cursus Middelnederlands, Wolters-Noordhoff, 1983, pp. 13)

In other words, she warns readers not to view Middle Dutch as a monolithic modern standard language, but as a collection of dialects. That's her point ; not that the predecessors of the South Low Franconian dialects should not be viewed as part of Middle Dutch, but that what we call Middle Dutch wasn't homogeneous in the way that standardized languages today are.

This is not unique to Middle Dutch however, it's common to all "languages" of historical linguistics. In fact Hogenhout-Mulder explicitly states this, when she writes:
 * " Just like within for example English and German, three stages are distinguistished within Dutch: Old Dutch, Middle Dutch and New Dutch. This division is based on certain characteristics (mainly of a fonological and morphological nature) which the language in question would have shown in certain periods." (Maaike Hogenhout-Mulder: Cursus Middelnederlands, Wolters-Noordhoff, 1983, pp. 12)

Noted scholar Kate Burridge does exactly the same (and goes on to list Middle Limburgish as a subset of Middle Dutch): " Like Old, Middle and Modern English, terms like Middle Dutch are simply conventient labels and have little linguistic reality . At no one point in time can we say that Middle Dutch finishes and Modern Dutch begins. What we are dealing with is a continuum. If it were possible to decide upon any sort of firm linguistic criteria, the result would be different dates for each regional dialect (i.e. Middle Brabantish, Middle Flemish, Middle Limburgish, etc.)" (Kate Burridge: Syntactic Change in Germanic: Aspects of Language Change in Germanic with Particular Reference to Middle Dutch, 1993, (pp. 4))

Concerning his source Briegelaer also forgot to mention that in addition to this semi-political definition of Middle Dutch, the author went on (on the same page, mind you) to list the much used linguistic definition of Middle Dutch used by Maurits Gysseling, the preeminent scholar of Middle Dutch during the second half of the 20th century, explicitly noting that in his definition Middle Dutch and Middle Low German are separated by the Einheitsplural, while Middle Dutch and High German are divided along the Benrath line -- a definition, which also includes South Low Franconian / Limburgish; and which consists of purely linguistic arguments.

I would now briefly like to address the second claim made by Briegelaer, namely that "Old Limburgish" and "Middle Limburgish" are established terms in modern linguistics.

The sources mentioned by me above have of course already shown that "Middle Limburgish" is indeed a term used in modern linguistics, to refer to a group of dialects included within the broader term "Middle Dutch". However, what Briegelaer seems to claim, is that terms like "Old Limburgish" and "Middle Limburgish" are supposedly used in a sense in which they exclude "Old Dutch" and or "Middle Dutch". In other words: that the medieval West Germanic languages are supposedly commonly divided into "Middle English, Middle Dutch, Middle High German, Middle Low German and Middle Limburgish ". I have yet to see a single reliable source, which does that; let alone a source that does this and then explains the context/rationale for doing so; which would indicate that these terms are not part of the broader consensus which Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent.

To expand on the uncommonness, Ngram clearly shows that the term "Middle Limburgish" is virtually non-existent in either English or German:


 * Ngram showing "Middle Dutch" vs. "Middle Limburgish", clearly showing "Middle Dutch" as an established term in English; with "Middle Limburgish" not yielding any results.
 * Ngram showing "Mittelniederländisch" vs. "Mittellimburgisch", clearly showing "Mittelniederländisch" as an established term in German; with "Mittellimburgisch" not yielding any results.


 * A google.de-search on "Mittellimburgische Sprache" gave 0 results.


 * A google.com-search on "Middle Limburgish language" gave 0 results.


 * A google.nl-search on Middellimburgse taal gave 1 result, a false positive as the given page is about a surgeon having trouble learning the Central Limburgish language ("midden-Limburgse taal").

Summarizing: I can't see how Briegelaer has in any way shown that Middle Dutch is considered an invalid linguistic category, nor that he has shown that the inclusion of the South Low Franconian /Limburgish varieties within "Middle Dutch" is in anyway controversial, let alone uncommon. The sources, widely available, show the opposite picture: Middle Dutch is a much used and uncontroversial term, subject to the same (near universal) caveats as other historical languages and includes the medieval Limburgish varieties together with the other historical Low Franconian and/or Dutch-influenced dialects of Low Saxon.

By comparison: the terms "Old Limburgish" and "Middle Limburgish" are not common and seem to lack any formal defining within the linguistic literature, aside from subcategories of Old Dutch and Middle Dutch.

I think the sources and figures listed above speak for themselves, though I again invite Briegelaer to list his sources to the contrary if he wants to contest the above. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Somewhere above (as a result of many new posts in a short period of time, it's become somewhat difficult to find it back easily), Briegelaer already gave this link. In the pdf (downloadable), the following can be found on page 252-253: However, accurately transcribed legal documents up to 1600 need to be evaluated by Middle Dutch and Middle Limburgish linguistic experts to [..]. Elsewhere on the internet, some instances of Old Limburgish can be found as well (though the source is in some cases Wikipedia itself, unfortunately). Anyway I wouldn't state as bluntly as Vlaemink does above that the two terms are "virtually non-existent".
 * By the way, by stating at the same time The sources mentioned by me above have of course already shown that "Middle Limburgish" is indeed a term used in modern linguistics [...] (which, indeed, seems in conformity with the pdf I just cited from), Vlaemink actually seems to contradict himself. Otherwise, could this be explained better? De Wikischim (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing contradictory, you're simply missing the issue, which isn't just about the occurrence of a particular word; but of a concept.


 * This point concerns the use of regular, commonly accepted terminology for the historical phases of the South Low Franconian / Limburgish dialects. The scientific consensus (as clearly shown above) is that these dialects, as are all other Low Franconian dialects, are treated within the constructs of "Middle Dutch" and "Old Dutch". Within these two concepts, further delineation can be made; for example "Meuse Rhenish" for a relatively distinctive variant within the written corpus of Middle Dutch, or "Middle Limburgish" for texts that display the characteristics of this particular dialect or Old Dutch being divided int Old West Dutch and Old East Dutch. That's all firmly rooted in linguistic literature and should therefore be reflected in the article.


 * What isn't rooted in literature however, is the idea of a "Old Limburgish language" or "Middle Limburgish language" existing as a distinct entity at a tier equal to Old Dutch, Middle Dutch, Old High German and Middle High German. Sources are required for this, preferably by respected and established authors clearly explaining this; which have not been provided.


 * I really can't stress enough that the sources not only need to address this concept rather than just "drop a term" but that they also need to be valid and reliable . I'll "dissect" your link to show you what is meant:


 * Validity of the source: The document you googled; isn't about either Middle Dutch nor "Middle Limburgish", which explains why only mentions both terms once. Its subject is (as clearly stated by the author, pp. 148) "To assesses the opportunities for successfully completing a contemporary Dutch-Limburgish legal dictionary.". In other words, your source is completely unsuited (i.e. invalid) for this particular subject matter.


 * Reliability of the author: This is clearly a linguistic subject, the author of your link however, Coen van Laer, is not a linguist. Instead he is a law and philosophy graduate, as is evidenced by both his Maastricht University profile and his publications. In addition to that, he also appears to be the secretary for the "Limbörgse Academie" ; a somewhat activist, online platform, with a very limited presence in academia (the authoritative Digital Library of Dutch Literature contains no references to it, neither does Google Books and Google Scholar contains three references, one of which published by the same author (Van Laer) as above) and which stated goal is apparently to "Preserve and further develop Limburgish and all its dialects" and to "Provide digital tools" to achieve this goal. Now to be perfectly clear, provided that the source itself is valid (which it of course isn't in this case) it shouldn't really matter if an author or the platform he or she represents is activist or has a atypical POV ; those sources can and should still have a place alongside the consensus view. However this depends on the validity of such an organisation (or an author) within the academic field, which in this case, appears to be entirely insufficient.


 * Summarizing: this point concerns the validity of linguistic terminology, it isn't merely about whether a word "exists": if you and Briegelaer want to have your POV next to the mainstream consensus on this matter, you will have to provide reliable and sources which deal with this particular subject matter. Regards, Vlaemink (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Point 4, fluent dialectal transitions


The notion that the Limburgish / South Low Franconian varieties fluently transition in other larger dialect groupings such as Brabantic and Kleverlandish was challenged by above. To quote him directly, he claimed this was "Utter nonsense" and then claimed that the "Limburgish-Brabantian border" was supposedly clearly defined by the Gete line, which consists of "26 isophones [sic.], loss of tonality and umlautization."

Again this objection surprised me as the idea, with the exception of areas bordering French-speakers, that Limburgish does not transition fluently into Brabantian and other neighboring dialect clusters; is completely against linguistic consensus.

Just as surprising is that the Gete line is given as "proving" Briegelaers point, as it does the exact opposite. Why? Because the "Gete line" is best described by its alternative name of "Gete bundle/cluster", as it isn't in any way a single line (as illustrated by the map on the right) but a series of isoglosses in which, viewed east to west, the typically Limburgish / South Low Franconian features steadily decrease. Or, in the wording of the definition given by the "dialect desk" of the Gent University: "a bundle/cluster of 26 isoglosses marking the transitional area between the Brabantic and Limburgish dialects .".

A quick google-books scan results in several additional unambiguous statements confirming the transitional nature of the area between Brabantic and Limburgish and/or the Dutch dialectal landscape as a whole; for example:


 * Rob Belemans: Belgisch-Limburgs, Lannoo, 2004: "The dialects of Beringen, Eversel, Tervant, Paal, Beverlo, Oostham, Heppen and Korspel are a true transitional zone, containing dialects which are half-Brabantic and half-Limburgish . They are included within the Limburgish language area, but as real borderline cases ." (pp. 19)
 * Miet Ooms: Vlaams-Brabants en Antwerps, Lannoo, 2005: "The dialectal landscape in Dutch-speaking Belgium thus is a succession of core and transtional areas between West-Flemish, East-Flemish, Brabantic and Limburgish ." (pp. 21)
 * Johan Taeldeman & ‎Marc van Oostendorp: De fonologie van de Nederlandse dialecten en fonologische theorievorming, 2002: "The dialect of Meijel can therefore be viewed as a transition between the Limburgish and the Brabantic dialects ." (pp. 34)

With this in mind it is hard to take Briegelaers claims very seriously, though I invite him to list his sources to the contrary if he wants to contest the observations and sources above. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Analogously, there are some transitional dialects as well between Limburgish and Ripuarian. Why should the transitional Limburgish-Brabantian zone be stressed in particular? Another thing is that maybe Briegelaer meant "not fluently" in a somewhat different way (I hope Briegelaer can explain that themselves). De Wikischim (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * [...] as the idea, with the exception of areas bordering French-speakers, that Limburgish transition fluently into Brabantian and other neighboring dialect clusters; is completely against linguistic consensus › I think you mean exactly the opposite of what you write here. (Or, if not, you've suddenly completely changed your mind on this subject.) De Wikischim (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In the "Basic outline for this article"-paragraph, I clearly and explicitly state that this article should stress the transitional nature of these dialects in all directions, including (in fact, explicitly) Ripuarian Franconian. Nowhere, do I at any point say that the transition between Brabantian and Limburgish / South Low Franconian "ought to be stressed in particular". The fact that I focussed on the fluent transition between Brabantic and Limburigsh in the above comment and listing of sources is simply and logically due to Briegelaer giving this as a particular example supposedly proving the opposite.


 * As for your additional comment concerning my supposed "complete change of mind on the subject" ... that was obviously a (now fixed) typo. I say obviously, as it clearly wouldn't be in line with any of my previous comments on this matter or any of the sources provided and, last but not least, because it would have had me implying that a Romantic language such as French, belonging to an entirely different branch of Indo-European, would have transitional dialects with a Germanic dialect group such as Limburgish -- which is absurd and ridiculous. Regards, Vlaemink (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (I presume you mean a Romance language.) OK, thanks for clarifying anyway. De Wikischim (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding Belemans & Keulen (2004); though on one hand they classify the Limburgish dialects spoken in the province of Belgian Limburg on page 19 indeed as transitional, they also make a very strict demarcation between the so-called West Limburgish language area and the rest (more western part of) Belgian Limburg on page 27 (. De Wikischim (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what point you´re trying to make: it is perfectly possible and extremely common to state that dialects are transitional while simultaneously using various isoglosses, or even a single isoglos, to differentiate between varieties. Vlaemink (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that we should be consistent in classification. If Getelands is not Limburgish (but Brabantian) then Southeast Limburgish dialect should probably be classified as Ripuarian (see this discussion on German Wikipedia). Maybe we should merge that page with Ripuarian language and make it into a redirect. Ripuarian language is rather short and very poorly sourced. A list of books is still poor sourcing because the exact pages are not mentioned and there are hardly any inline citations. The article fails WP:V and WP:NOR.
 * In the aforementioned discussion on German Wikipedia, a Wikipedian (w:de:User:Plantek) says that Die Einstufung der Dialekte am Dreiländereck rund um Aachen als eigene Dialektgruppe Südostlimburgisch ist sicher keine gängige Lehrmeinung. In der Fachliteratur habe ich diese Dialekte durchweg als ripuarisch eingestuft wahrgenommen. It shouldn't be hard to prove and then we'd get to expand and improve upon Ripuarian language through the merger.
 * "Southeast Limburgish" features the →  as well as the High German consonant shift. The latter gives those dialects a very German (after all, this matches the consonant shifts found in Standard German), non-Dutch sound which starkly contrasts with the sound of Limburgish, with its consonantal phonology/phonotactics being much closer to Dutch (you still have  →  in Limburgish, which makes it sound a bit German but not to that extreme extent (the sentence Jód èse en drinke hilt lief en zieël tsezame neither looks nor sounds very Dutch to me). And  →  mirrors the development in Northern Dutch, where it is non-phonemic. Straat is basically sjtraat in those varieties of Dutch, or very close to that. I don't find Limburgish  to be phonetically remarkable in any way, Belgians will obviously disagree with this though). This does not look like a fluent transition to me, but rather a hard border (with Eygelshoven speaking Limburgish and areas further south speaking Ripuarian, in the case of Kerkrade - so an either-or issue).
 * This "Southeast Limburgish" also features the shortening of and  (good → jód) found in Germany but, as far as I know, not in the Netherlands. Same with the historical  after back vowels: it merges with, or almost so. Vroage is . This is typical Ripuarian.  is also uvular  after back vowels - this, coupled with the palatal  after front vowels, also sounds German (see above). I've always been puzzled as to why those dialects are lumped together with Maastrichtian or Zittesj. I get it, the speakers of Kirchröadsj or Völzer don't want to perceive themselves as German (the vast majority of Ripuarian speakers are German) - but that is not what this is about. The irony is that Kirchröadsj is also spoken by Germans, in Herzogenrath. The dialect is exactly the same and even the official site of Herzogenrath says this. I don't know whether the residents of Herzogenrath use any special name for it besides the generic Platt (Kirchröadsj refers to Kirchroa (Kerkrade), the Dutch part of the city), but that's neither here nor there. The name or the wishes of the native speakers of any given language/dialect should not affect its linguistic classification (see Hindustani language, Serbo-Croatian etc.) This insistance on the term "Southeast Limburgish" by some looks like a kind of a misguided local patriotism ("because it is spoken in Limburg in the Netherlands, it must be called Limburgish"). This also seems to apply to the Venlo dialect.
 * Here, a Limburgish Wikipedian wrote that In Oche zaat mer dat 't beste Öcher plat jekalld weat i Vols. This means that they are perceived as one dialect that cannot be truly and reliably ascribed to one country or nation (unless it's already dead in Aachen - then it can. Maybe that's what the sentence means, after all. But Kirchröadsj cannot).
 * And what about Low Dietsch dialects? Sol505000 (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's one citation: Within Central Franconian, Ripuarian is distinguished from Moselle Franconian/Westerwäldisch by the form Dorp (or Dörp), which contrasts with Dorf ‘village’. It is further sub-divided into the Low Franconian/Ripuarian border dialect with maken, and Aachen-Cologne Ripuarian with machen ‘make’. Within Aachen-Cologne comes the additional distinction West Rip. reit, East Rip. rech(t) ‘right’. It is from "The Dialects of Modern German: A Linguistic survey" by Charles Russ, p. 200. I've got the digital version from 2006, if it makes a difference. It appears to me that his "West Ripuarian" is the same as our "Southeast Limburgish". Now comes the question of WP:COMMONNAME, which concernes a common name in English-language sources (whenever there is such a thing). Sol505000 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this interesting and extensive explanation. I have just these comments for now:
 * Though I surely agree that the term "Limburgish" as it's used in Southeast Limburgish may be linguistically confusing/misleading since the dialects referred to (i.e. those of Kerkrade, Vaals etc.) are as such actually varieties of Ripuarian, this term seems already to have become commonplace among dialectologists and therefore shouldn't be changed nor avoided here on Wikipedia (where, of course, only the relevant sources must be followed). Furthermore, I doubt whether this has anything do with "misguided local patriotism" (which seems a somewhat bold statement to me).
 * About the Venlo dialect, indeed this is actually a transitional dialect. It's most of the time basically considered "linguistically Limburgish", but with some striking Kleverlandish and/or Brabantian traits (such as the use of the first person pronoun ik, instead of ich as in the varieties spoken in the more southern part of the Dutch province of Limburg).
 * Best, De Wikischim (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * http://www.wjheeringa.nl/thesis/thesis09.pdf linked by me above uses Levenshtein distances and is quite convincing. However, there are other studies with other methods.
 * Which studies do exist?
 * Kind regards  Sarcelles (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You say that this term seems already to have become commonplace among dialectologists. Can you name the sources? Are they only Dutch-language, or are there some English- or German-language (or French-language) ones? Do they deal with dialects spoken on both sides of the border, or just those in the Netherlands? Zuidoost-Limburgs says that Southeast Limburgish is a division used in Woordenboek van de Limburgse Dialecten (of course, not as Southeast Limburgish but as Zuidoost-Limburgs - i.e. a Dutch name. This too is important).
 * and therefore shouldn't be changed nor avoided here on Wikipedia It shouldn't be entirely avoided but we should be mindful of WP:FRINGE dialectal classifications, especially those that are not linguistic but cultural or political. By the same token, we haven't replaced the terms "Bosnian", "Croatian", "Serbian" and "Montenegrin" with "Serbo-Croatian" in every article. You can still encounter them. Judging by what I've seen so far, the article Southeast Limburgish should be made into a redirect. Sol505000 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's enough scientific literature to find at least in Dutch where the term is used. See for example . On the other hand, the term doesn't seem very common in German but you can still find some instances of it, . In English, you can only translate it literally as Southeast Limburgish; do you believe the title of that article should be changed? To be honest, I see no good reason.
 * Furthermore, my suggestion is to discuss this further on Talk:Southeast Limburgish, if needed. This talk page is about Limburgish as such. De Wikischim (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Point 7, unsourced examples
I'm still following this discussion as a silent observer, but when it comes to point 7, I have to point out two unnegotiable pillars of enWP: WP:NOR and WP:V. Every descriptive claim needs a source, and this also holds for examples that illustrate key points of the grammar. Using primary sources (i.e. written published material in the language that is described) to illustrate an aspect of the grammar (which itself must be supported by a citation from a secondary reliable source) is to be avoided when descriptive sources have their own set of examples (but beware of WP:COPYVIO!). Wikimedia sister projects might have other standards when it comes to WP:NOR and WP:V, but these are irrelevant for this Wikimedia project.

...unless an example isn't suspiciously false or provably wrong they serve as testimonies of a living language and are highly appropriate on Wikipedia. Sorry, but this is the wrong approach. "Provably wrong" is definitely not the only criterion for revomal of content; add "unsupported by reliable source" and we're getting closer to how enWP works. If there's still doubt about this, please consult the noticeboard for original research: WP:OR/N.

I won't chime in for the actual content dispute yet. Btw, I'm happy to see that the participants stick to the topic without drama and toxicity (I'm specialized in Austronesian languages of the Malay archipelago so my reading proficiency in Dutch is pretty good; my glimpse into the discussion surrounding this issue in nlWP was an unpleasant read, I can tell you). Cheers! –Austronesier (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explicitly making the point that this is a foundational pillar of the project and is indeed non-negotiable. Judging from your username and activity of the German-language Wikipedia, am I correct to assume that you are also proficient in German? Vlaemink (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Contradictory or confusing text w.r.t. (non-)lexicality of push tone
The current article contains what seem to be contradictory statements.

While one paragraph says:


 * “The dragging tone is lexical while the push tone is not.”

the next one says:


 * “An example of a lexical difference caused by dragging tone is the word [biː˦˨] bièwhich is articulated with a push tone and means "bee", forming a tonal minimal pair with [biː˦˨˧] biẽ, which is articulated with a dragging tone and means "at".”

I suppose the statement saying that the push tone is not lexical is false, since in contrast with the dragging tone it is shown to create (at least one) minimal pair(s).

What was the intended message?Redav (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. In terms of phonology, a (in this case, tonal) minimal pair automatically implies there are two lexical items. Moreover, in the example, the push tone seems to act as a plural morpheme. Apparently the article should be corrected here. De Wikischim (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"South Low Franconian" and other terms
An issue not yet raised here is the question of direct translations. An example is the folllowing: :nl:Zuid-Nederfrankisch literally translated is the same as de:Südniederfränkisch. However, the latter is the German interwiki of this article, whereas the linked article in nl is not. Sarcelles (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not fully consistent indeed. The difference is subtle at any case, but South Low Franconian/Südniederfränkisch/Zuidnederfrankisch seems to be a little broader term than "Limburgish", including as well some dialects/varieties (Low Dietsch) spoken in Belgium (more precisely: the Liège Province) which are by and large not considered "Limburgish", at least not in the most common sense of the latter term. See as well li:Zuudnederfrankisch, for those who understand Limburgish. De Wikischim (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are other terms in Dutch/English/German, which possibly cannot be translated directly:
 * Nederrijns Low Rhenish Niederrheinisch
 * Rijnlands Rhinelandic Rheinisch
 * Zuidoost-Limburgs Southeast Limburgish Südostlimburgisch
 * Furthermore, the article de:Rheinisch has two meanings of Rhinelandic varieties: dialectal and other ones. Kind regards Sarcelles (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * South Low Franconian is an existing English term (not a made-up translation by Wikipedia). Some examples can be found at: Wiktionary.
 * South Low Franconian is broader than Limburgish (the Netherlandic-Flemish part of South Low Franconian). Alternatively, Limburgish would have a broader and a stricter sense and be ambiguous.
 * Goossens, Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen, 1965: "‚Südniederfränkisch‘ nennt man [...]. Der niederländisch-flämische Teil dieses Gebietes ist unter dem Namen ‚Limburgisch‘ bekannt". I.e.: South Low Franconian includes Limburgish.
 * HSK 30.4, p. 528 (in chapter 3.1.2.1. Das Südniederfränkische): "Das Südniederfränkische ... Nach Westen hin setzt sich dieser Dialektraum in den Niederlanden und Belgien fort (Eupener Land, große Teile von Belgisch Limburg und Niederländisch Limburg). Hier ist die Bezeichnung Limburgisch üblich." I.e. in Limburg the term Limburgish is used. This could be understood in two different ways: The term is used for South Low Franconian in Limburg (i.e. only for a part of South LF), or the term is [only?] used in Limburg but for the complete South LF. As the term Limburgish is also used outside of Limburg (e.g. ), the first interpretation is more likely.
 * There could be other translations, like: a) with Low or Lower, Rhenish or Rhenian, b) English Rhenish, Rhenian, Rhenic or German Rheinländisch. mentions a "Reference Corpus Middle Low German/Low Rhenish (1200–1650) Referenzkorpus Mittelniederdeutsch/Niederrheinisch (1200–1650)." So here it's Low Rhenish = Niederrheinisch.
 * --20:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.40.167 (talk)