Talk:Low Rhenish

Name
Sorry, but there is no such term as Low Rhinic: it is not used in English-language scholarship on German dialects; a Google search shows 19 hits, all of which seem to be derived from this article. --Pfold 22:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * AFAICT the usual English terms is "Low Rhenish". Still only 58 Google hits, but it isn't something discussed much in English. I'm moving it now. Angr 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Speculative and incorrect
This article is using far too much weasel words and incorect terms. The claims of mutual intelligibility "far surpassing national borders" and the use of "Low Germanic" are just some examples.Rex 18:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for you, Rex, but you are wrong. It is an empirical fact that people even from the Belgian province of Limburg can use their native vernacular meeting dialect users from the entire Düsseldorf District. What arguments do you have to deny this? If your possible other objections are comparably ill-founded, your opinions on this subject are much more incorrect and speculative than mine. It doesn't help you to use strong overall disqualifications, rather than detailed arguments. Ad43 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On wikipedia it doesnt matter what arguments users who question information have, but which information the users supporting the information have. Do you have the supporting sources, and do they use weasel words as well? Rex 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I could discuss all your points and convincingly, I trust, if you could only articulate them. Ad43 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've made myself pretty clear already. " Really?Why and how? " Really? Where are the souces for this claim? Apart from that, this sounds very unencyclopedic. " Sources? Just some examples.Rex 21:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait and see.
 * Why do you use Low Germanic?
 * Not in the sense of Niederdeutsch, but as Low Franconian, which is a sister regiolect of Low Saxon.
 * What are your sources for mutual int. far beyond national borders?
 * I have oral testimonies of very, very qualified people.
 * What does "far" in this context really mean?
 * From the western border of the Meuse up to the eastern border of the Rhine.
 * "Low Rhenish differs strongly from High German.
 * Ever heard of the Benrath Line?
 * Sounds like Low Rhenish is a unified group ... is it?
 * No, not exactly, but it is heavily different from Ripuarian or Middle Franconian. To the North of the Uerdingen Line it is even more Low Franconian.
 * "The more to the north it approaches the Netherlands, the more it sounds like Dutch.
 * So-called Kleverländisch is a Dutch dialect. It stretches to Wuppertal.
 * "As it crosses the Dutch-German as well as the Dutch-Belgian borders, it becomes a part of the language landscape in three neighbouring countries." * Does it?
 * In other words, Limburgish is spoken in three neighbouring countries. What's wrong with this?
 * Why? It is a simple geographic fact.
 * "This whole region between the Meuse and the Rhine was linguistically and culturally more coherent during the period of the so-called Early Modern History (1543-1789), though politically more fragmented.
 * These are historical facts. The Duchies of Guelders and partly Limburg were Limburgish speaking, as were those of Julich and Berg partially. Don't tell me that this is completely new to you.
 * Please give me more. They can easily be refuted. Our discussion has just begun. Ad43 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, nothing has begon. I asked for your sources (and when you give them I will contradict them with my own) not your opinions.Rex 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Georg Cornelissen: Kleine niederrheinische Sprachgeschichte (1300-1900) : eine regionale Sprachgeschichte für das deutsch-niederländische Grenzgebiet zwischen Arnheim und Krefeld : met een Nederlandstalige inleiding. Stichting Historie Peel-Maas-Niersgebied, Geldern / Venray 2003, ISBN 90-807292-2-
 * A good and recent source already mentioned is:

But there are plenty more. Ever heard of the eminent Belgian dialectologist Jan Goossens? It's time for you to give an equal reference. Ad43 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ill-founded criticisms
I hope you will be able to come up with some trustworthy and up to date references to counter mine, but honestly, with my knowledge of the matter, I strongly doubt even this theoretical possibility. Thusfar, the only thing you have done is putting an authoritarity claim as a way of opposition. Authoritarity, however, can not be taken for granted. It must be tested and be proven. By no means did you indicate where your objections come from, what qualified expertise you think to possess yourself. You pretend to have some backing knowledge on the subject, but you were just able to locate specific phrases that for unknown reasons sound dubious to you, but nothing more than that. Thusfar you have entirely failed substantiating your claims. And then, you even dare to suggest that there could be so much more, that you only restrain yourself to a few examples. It is unbelievable. Is this a fair basis for serious judgments and cricitisms? For any professional reader, the article was fine as it was, and there was definitely nothing essentially wrong with it. Only your competence seems to be too limited. Let me put it straight. Either you are ignorant or you are bluffing. In both cases, your personal opinions and prejudices are no valid arguments. How could you possibly hold them to be objective. You must come up with factual information yourself. Not only must you have some general background knowledge, but also enough detailed and compelling competing information to may intervene in my exposition the way you do. This is blunt abuse on your part. I am curious if you can discuss these matters more seriously. If not, your actions are unjustified to the bone, your suspicion is loose, and all you are doing is giving false alarm. Ad43 08:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not pretend anything, I have my degree in Germanic languages and you'd be surprised how many articles I've written on wikipedia. Don't doubt my education here Ad43, I have the degree and know of what I speak. A linguistic article is supposed to be clear, hence linguists don't say "far beyond national borders" but use terms like the "Uedinger" and "Panninger" isogloss instead. Also, linguists, especially in the Germanic field, generally don't use "Low Germanic", linguists like Vennemann do, but they form a very small minority and I doubt it's the term used in your "reference". I want to see inline citations, not just a "reference" below to cover for all the (odd) claims made in this article.Rex 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now your tone is getting more acceptable. I understand that you dispose of a reasonable background knowledge and that you also have some experience on Wikipedia. I will grant you that. And yet, a real academic stance demands that you moderate your judgments before you fully understand what really is at issue. What I present is far from odd, but it may be relatively new for more generalised, less specialised people like you. Wikipedia is not the place for scientific reporting, but neither should it completely avoid newer insights. Your objections make a lot of noise about futile and minor points like terminology, and do not properly esteem the overall view. It's no use to ask for citations on secondary issues the way you do. You should behave more prudently and modestly in your contacts with qualified experts. I recognise a psychological syndrome in the attitude you represent here. This is my deep diagnosis of the real problem opponents like you seem to signal: They are just jealous guys. Ad43 19:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not ask for a psycho analysis, nor am I jealous. In linguistics, terminology is everything as is canon. On wikipedia we've decided not to use "Low Germanic" and the term "Low German" (Nederduits) is limited to what we call "low Saxon" in Dutch. Instead we have come to the conclusion that "Low German" is a linguistic marker, in short, languages who did not, or marginally expierenced the Anglo-Frisian or High German soundshifts and not (a real historic language) hence on the English wikipedia we just use either Low Franconian or Low Saxon, and skip "Low German". All Germanic articles abide this rule, yet yours speaks of Low Germanic ... we can't have that, people will get confused. Also, I expect wikipedia to present accurate information, not information "that any fool can understand", no quality.Rex 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be no problem to obey any reasonable convention, but would you imply that Low Saxon and Low Franconian are not deeply related? If they are, wouldn't it be better to generalise them under one common denominator? What is more convenient than to oppose High to Low, and then to use the term Germanic in stead of German to distinguish that from Low German in the modern sense? This doesn't fit in your and some others system, but whose problem is that? Would you imply that accurate and less complex information are mutually exclusive? A noble and general objective here should be: quality that any layman can understand. This could be less simple than you might assume. Quality nor accuracy need pomp and circumstance. Clarity and sharpness is what counts, both in vision and in exposition. Ad43 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "yours and some other system"? The term Low Germanic/Niedergermanisch is simply not an accepted term in German linguistics. It is not the job of a WP editor to override the terminology of the discipline. If you're going to prose a particlar terminology, you need to be able to cite sources in the published literature in support of it. You will find exactly two articles which use your proposed term, and these relate to a particular theory of the Sound Shift which the author has now abandoned!
 * However, on the question of sources, I have to say that this page is no better or worse than most others on the Gmc languages. --Pfold 09:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

ad 1) I think you have a point here. But let me say this. My point of view is entirely synchronic. Historical linguistics is not my field. I am however interested in the history of Low Franconian, mainly from a dialect-geographical point of view. Setting up a family tree for Franconian or even contributing in that field is not my intention. Now, from a purely synchronic standpoint it is possible and worthwile to generalise over two adjacent members of the Continental West German dialect groups, Low Franconian and Low Saxon, and to oppose them to High German. Whether there could be an common exclusive ancestor for the two is not relevant for synchronic descriptive and analytical purposes. In my branch of linguistics, individual researchers are free to coin any new term they need, provided its meaning is clear and there isn't any other existing use of it. If the term Low Germanic turns out to be less appropriate, especially from a historical linguistic standpoint, one could a) restrain its interpretational scope contextually, b) replace it with a suitable neutral other name,  c) abandon this concept and this particular generalisation for want of something better. Perhaps this comes as a surprise to you, but I have no strong principles on this point or preferences for any of the three options. For me this is only a minor point. It seemed to be useful in my exposition, but it was no practical choice, and it is anything but essential. It was Rex who brought this up, when I asked him to explicate his allegations against my text. I admit he had the right and good reasons to do this, but made a big case out of it. As you can see, I do not avoid to discuss this point, but it is of minimal importance for my exposition.

ad 2) The former issue concerned a derived point, but whith this one you hit the heart of the problem. The whole discussion revolves around my feeling, that Rex's interventions were disproportional and unsufficiently motivated. As you point it out so clearly, the text is completely in line with others in this section. It looks neither better, nor worse documented than average. There's no need for stir and agitation. All things considered, everything is pretty normal, as it should be. Ad43 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Low Saxon and Low Franconian are related, both are Germanic languages. But there is absolutely no linguistic evidence, for example that they have a common ancestor. Grouping Low Franconian and Low Saxon together is based purely on the similarity between the two groupsn when it comes to experienced soundshifts. Also, I believe that wikipedia is not created for laymen. It is created for people who want accurate information and it's articles should therefore written in a professional and accurate style.Rex 14:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on Rex, don't exaggerate. This is a dead end. Don't turn it into a matter of prestige. Retrace your steps. Let's go back to normal, no hard feelings. Ad43 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree this has got out of hand, and I can't really see the need for all the {fact} tags.
 * What the article could do with is some linguistic features - nothing here tells us why such a term is needed by citing the characteristics of the varieties this term covers. As it is, it's mostly geographical info. --Pfold 10:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exaggerating, this article used terms that no other other wikipedia article uses and makes bold, unsourced, claims at a high school level. In a linguistic article this is unacceptable.Rex 14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thusfar you have only made one minor point. There are no other serious shortcomings. You are heavily overplaying your hand and make yourself ridiculous with such an outburst of envy and frustration. Sorry for you, Rex, . Ad43 14:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On wikipedia we are civil. Personal attacks, like the ones I removed in your above post, will get you blocked. I will discuss nothing further with you untill you've appologised.Rex 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say, this is all in the game. We're on a slippery slope here. But I immediately agree, it is a good thing to draw a red line. I seem to have been too harsh on you. That I had better let unspoken. But I strongly disapprove of the arrogance and prejudice I feel in your position. Your whole attitude is needlessly offensive and obstinate. Your reactions have nothing to do with fair or objective arguing. Ad43 23:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Where I live, the above does not count as an appology. Rex 09:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Who do you think you are? The King of Germania? Ad43 11:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, if you are unable or unwilling to remain civil and use arguments instead of ad hominem attacks then this discussion is over.12:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I will not attack you personally as long as your reactions sound reasonable. Your last three did so. That gives hope. Let's stay cool, calm, collected. This is fine with me. Ad43 16:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You will not attack me personally. There is no "as long as", you simply will not make any more personal attacks. If you still choose to do so for whatever flawed reason you have you will  be blocked.Rex 18:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Back to business. My article did not aim at a global, let alone a detailed description of what Low-Rhenish and its Dutch couterparts have in common and what their differences are. Its main aim was to broaden the traditional view that Limburgish as spoken in the Netherlands would be something of its own. That is suggested by the fact that Limburgish is recognised as a regional language in the Netherlands and as such it receives moderate protection under chapter 2 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.


 * The area in which Limburgish is spoken roughly fits within a wide circle from Venlo to Düsseldorf to Aachen to Maastricht to Hasselt and back to Venlo. In Germany, it is common to consider the Limburgish varieties as belonging to the Low Franconian languages; in the Netherlands and Belgium however all these are traditionally seen as West Central German, part of High German. This difference is caused by a difference in definition: the linguists of the Low Countries define a High German variety as one that has taken part in any of the first three phases of the High German consonant shift.
 * In German sources, the dialects linguistically counting as Limburgish spoken east from the river Rhine are often called "Bergisch". West of the river Rhine they are called "Low Rhenish", "Limburgish" or "Ripuarian". Limburgish is not recognised by the German government as an official language. Low Rhenish is considered as a group of dialects in Germany.


 * The close relation between Limburgish and Bergisch is parallelled with that between Zuid-Gelders and Kleverlãndisch-Ostbergisch, which are even more clearly belonging to Low Franconian. Together all these varieties belong to a greater continuum. These insights are rather new among dialectologists at both sides of the national Dutch-German border. Both Limburgish and Low Rhenish belong to the greater Meuse-Rhine area, a triangle-shaped region containing a larger group of southeastern Low Franconian dialects, including areas in Belgium, the Netherlands and the German Northern Rhineland. By including Zuid-Gelders-Kleverlãndisch-Ostbergisch in this continuum, we are enlarging the territory and turn the wide circle of Limburgish into a triangle with its top along the line Arnhem - Cleves - Wesel - Duisburg - Wuppertal (along the Rhine-IJssel Line). The Diest- Nijmegen Line is its western border, the Benrath Line (from Eupen to Wuppertal) is a major part of the southeastern.


 * I expect it to be helpful if the Englsh Wikipedia could contribute to the dissemination of these newer insights, because of the somewhat homemade, narrow provincialist views one often finds with regard to Limburgish and Low Rhenish and their respective status. Thus a rather introductory, and merely dialect-geographical oriented article would do, whereas the ins and outs of Franconian or the evolution of West German can be spelled out elsewhere. Ad43 18:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No we will not "get back to business". I already told you, I expect a proper appology. Furthermore I also expect sources with inline citations.Rex 18:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This reaction was only to be expected from you. Your way of responding is impervious and invariably follows a destructive pattern. It does not surprise at all. This is a dead end. Ad43 02:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is a dead end (I think it will stay a dead end untill you stop refusing to provide the needed references) then maybe you should start editing the psychology articles, and leave articles like this to people with the know-how.Rex 10:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, all I do is denying you the right to put vicious and fundamentalist demands on innocent collegues. That's what must be cleared out in the first place. If a little psychoanalysis might be useful to that end, that won't hurt. Sometimes some people must be confronted with themselves. They should be grateful that they get it free and in time. Ad43 13:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'm no expert at this stuff, but I think pretending to be able to make an accurate psychoanalysis of a person you only know from a few talk pages messages sounds like a clear cut case of megalomania.
 * Weren't you able then to see the joke of it? Ad43 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As for you ridiculous remark on my requests... if you consider simple inline citations to be vicious and fundamentalistic then I can't wait to hear you speak of citing sources as a whole.Rex 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weren't you able then to see the joke of it? Ad43 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think personal attacks and ridiculous exaggerations are funny.Rex 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I must agree, it was a layered joke. Good jokes are never flat. They are bold. Ad43 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I know a personal attack when I see one, stop this idiocy.Rex 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But do you always recognise a joke when you encounter one? Ad43 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am fedd up with your ridiculous behaviour Ad43, if anyone should see a shrink it's you.Rex 21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally disagree. Ad43 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Come on guys, give it a rest. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this issue, from the point of view of the rest of us, there is absolutely no point in either of you making further contributions to this talk page unless they relate to the subject matter. --Pfold 00:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Cleaning up"
Removing fact tags and unreferenced templates isn't cleaning up. Provide references and inline citations.Rex 10:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * References and inline citations have been provided by various editors. Rex, stop pushing you private POV here - and elsewhere.-- Matthead discuß!    O       21:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No private POV. Wikipedia policy. I want inline citations and reputable sources. And I strongly urge you to stop this loathsome behgaviour Matthead. Fast.Rex 22:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Meuse-Rhenish
This article should be merged with Meuse-Rhenish, as the articles are coextensive. Sarcelles (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. They only partly overlap. Meuse-rhenish is also found in Belgium and the Netherlands. Ad43 (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this article, Low Rhenish is not only spoken in Germany. Sarcelles (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, neither article has got much linguistic information about these varieties. I suppose merging might increase the chances that someone will cite some linguistic evidence to justify all this boundary drawing. --Pfold (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)