Talk:Southeast Limburgish dialect

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

German article[edit]

I have entered an article Zuidoost-Limburgs und Platdiets into the German wikipedia. It has been moved to Zuidoost-Limburgs. I don't think it would be sensible to link it per interwiki. Sarcelles (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German interwiki merely is a redirect. The talk page of the redirect is de:Diskussion:Südostlimburgisch, where a lengthy discussion has taken place. Sarcelles (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To quote w:de:User:Plantek from that discussion (sorry to bother you again, I hope you can join this discussion), 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. Translation: "The classification of dialects spoken in the tri-state area around Aachen as a separate dialect group called "Southeast Limburgish" is definitely not a common one. I have always seen those dialects classified as Ripuarian in the literature."

I have one citation that supports this: 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. Kirchröadsj has maache (see SKD 1997), which groups it with Russ's Aachen-Cologne Ripuarian, which is obviously a wider classification than Southeast Limburgish.

Now, onto the references in the article: Bodelier (2011) supports the notion than those are Ripuarian. Gilles & Trouvain (2013) discusses Luxembourgish, not relevant to the issue at hand. Kohnen (2003) cannot be accessed, but this seems to be temporary. It's a two-page PDF and I don't imagine it deals with that issue at all (it just gives recommendations regarding spelling). SKD (1997) cannot be accessed for free anymore since the release of the second edition of Kirchröadsjer Dieksiejoneer (which would affect its sales, obviously). There is Cornelissen (2003) which I cannot access. w:nl: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). A Google search "Southeast Limburgish" -wikipedia gives very poor results. Google Scholar and Google Books give NO results when I search for "Southeast Limburgish". Is this a WP:COMMONNAME or a direct translation from Dutch-language sources? How likely is it for Cornelissen (2003), Rovenhagen (1912), Herrmanns & Lantin (1970), Steins (1998) or Allgeier, Baumschulte, Baumschulte, Wolfgarten (2000) to use Südostlimburgisch or any other term different from Ripuarian? Even if they do, the article still fails WP:V as there are no inline citations to support the notion of Southeast Limburgish. The contrary seems to be the case: this looks like a WP:FRINGE classification of a group of Ripuarian dialects that depends on a political/cultural understanding of the term Limburgish, rather than a linguistic one which should be our priority.

See this rev, where three sources (Welschen 2005, Frins 2005, 2006) are mentioned but without any hint as to what exactly they are. Frins (2005) could be Syntaktische Besonderheiten im Aachener Dreilãndereck. Eine Übersicht begleitet von einer Analyse aus politisch-gesellschaftlicher Sicht, whereas Frins (2006) could be Karolingisch-Fränkisch. Die plattdůtsche Volkssprache im Aachener Dreiländereck - and that's judging by the sources listed in the article Limburgish. Note that both are written in German, so even if Südostlimburgisch or a similar term is used there, it still does not pass WP:COMMONNAME which seems to be Ripuarian (again, correct me if I'm wrong). The only mention of those I could find is Frins's LinkedIn page and some Russian-language PDF file. And what is Welschen (2005)? Sol505000 (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welschen (2005) may be what was deleted in this rev - so this is something that is entirely unverifiable, unless we could get ahold of a recording or something. That still would not make it pass WP:V unless it was an officially published one (the university could have it, you never know). By the same token, both Frins 2005 and Frins 2006 (if they are what I think they are) also fail WP:V as they are both unaccessible to the public. Sol505000 (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, Rovenhagen (1912), Herrmanns & Lantin (1970), Steins (1998) and Allgeier, Baumschulte, Baumschulte, Wolfgarten (2000) are all unlikely to support the notion of Southeast Limburgish. In fact, it is me who added those references, as a byproduct of the merger of Aachen dialect (which was not about the Aachen dialect proper, i.e. Ripuarian) with this article; see [1]. As German-language sources, they're bound to use the classification Ripuarian or ignore the issue altogether (like SKD 1997 does). Sol505000 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wjheeringa.nl/thesis/thesis09.pdf has with one exception further away from Kerkrade every place covered in Dutch Limburg under ''Limburg'' or ''Northeast Luik''. In Dutch Limburg, the latter group is the same as the varieties South of Benrath line. It also includes the one variety of German-speaking Belgium South of the Benrath line. However, North of the Benrath line it includes all varieties of French and German-speaking Belgium as well as the one dialect of Voeren. Sarcelles (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

''Northeast Luik'' includes Kerkrade, Vaals, Voeren,German-speaking Belgium on both sides of the Benrather line and parts of French-speaking Wallonia. However, the part of Germany below 100 km from this area is not covered in the study. Sarcelles (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germany[edit]

Is the dialect of Aix-la-Chapelle closer to the one of Cologne or the one of Kerkrade ? Sarcelles (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last . Ad43 (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dialects of Limburgish[edit]

This section uses unsatisfactory designations and extends beyond Southeast Limburgish. Sarcelles (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Ad43 (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dialects run well into Belgium. This should be Southeast Limburgish no more. Sarcelles (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? There are three separate articles already, but they also refer to each other. They can be headed as Dialects

of the Three Countries / Three Languages Area.  Ad43 (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dialects in Brabant are not Southeast Limburgish. Sarcelles (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody denies that. Southeast Limburgish has its pendant only in the Province of Liege. Ad43 (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ripuarian or not[edit]

Ever since the definition of the Benrather linie by Georg Wenker, everything to the south of it is by definition ripuarian. On other wikipages placed I have seen "Southeastlimburgish" used for all dialects between the -lich/-lijk and the alt-aa(j)t isogloss. The current lemma simply describes the ripuarian dialects of Aachen, Kerkrade and Raeren. Therefore a more general, more descriptive and less confusing name would be limburgish-ripuarian. Hans Erren (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statement: Borders[edit]

Earlier in the article:

The linguistic border of the Limburgish varieties to the South is the Benrath line, to the North it is the Uerdingen line. This means Southeast Limburgish is different in nature from the other Limburgish varieties.^{[citation needed]}

After a recent change:

The linguistic border of the Limburgish varieties to the South in most cases is the Benrath line, to the North it is nearly nowhere the Uerdingen line. This means Southeast Limburgish is different in nature from the other Limburgish varieties.^{[citation needed]}

Both is unsourced.
For South Low Franconian the borders are: ik/ich-line or Ürdingen line (separating it from North Low Franconian), maken/machen-line or Benrath line (separating it from Ripuarian), Romance language border (Jan Goossens, Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen, 1965). Hence the former statement seems more correct. --06:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced statement regarding Ripuarian[edit]

Earlier in the article:

In Germany, it is consensus to class [...] Ripuarian as High German.

After a recent change:

In Germany, it is [...] not consensus to class Ripuarian as High German.

Both is unsourced.
That Ripuarian is High German (or Central Franconian < West Central German < Central German < High German) can be sourced with dozens of references. That should also attest that it is consensus. Contradictory views (like Lameli 2016 who gave a new and uncommon classification of dialects in Germany) are uncommon minority opinions. That shouldn't attest the new statement. --93.221.40.167 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]