Talk:Limburgish/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sarcelles comment concerning classifications

=== Divisions of Dutch varieties ===

Source: has the following varieties for the Netherlands and Belgium, some of those frequently classified among Southern Low German varieties:

• Frisian
• Frisian mixed varieties
• Groningen
• Overijssel
• Southwest Limburg
• Brabant
• Central Dutch varieties
• Urk
• East Flanders
• West Flanders
• Zeeland
• Limburg
• Northeast Luik

Frisian comprises the West Frisian language. Frisian mixed varieties ('Stadfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs" ) is a mishmash of Frisian, Low Franconian and Low Saxon elements. Groningen seems to be Gronings dialect. Overijssel includes large parts of Gelderland, Dutch Low Saxon without Gronings (maybe should be called "Zuid-Nedersaksisch"). Southwest Limburg is an area limited to Belgium. Brabant Brabant, also including most of the province of Antwerp Central Dutch varieties includes almost all of Holland and the province of Utrecht, as well as large parts of North Brabant and Gelderland Dutch, North Brabant, South Guelderish of Gelderland and West Veluwian. Urk is Urks East Flanders is East Flemish. West Flanders is West Flemish, also spoken in France. Zeeland is Zealandic. Limburg comprises very largely Dutch Limburg and a minority part of Belgian Limburg. The area designated as Limburg extends to very close to the northernmost point of Limburg. The adjacent areas in Germany are not included within the study. The area referred to as Limburg extends to very close to the northernmost point of Limburg. The dialect that is included under Limburg has a long border with Germany. Most of the places on the German side of the border are in the Limburgish dialect area. The northernmost third of the areas linguistically referred to here as Limburg borders on dialects in Germany being part of Kleverlandish/South Guelderish, which raises questions. So a more general term should be used, all of them belonging to Low Franconian. In Germany, the Limburgish dialect area in Germany is regarded as a transition area between the Low Franconian language forms (=Dutch) and Middle Franconian Ripuarian and is referred to differently: nearly the entire Limburgish area is referred to as Southern Low Franconian. Often in Germany, the Limburgish area is combined with Kleverlandish under the name "Niederrheinisch" ("Low Rhenish") and the entire Limburg and Southern Gelderland (continued Kleverlandish in the Netherlands) under the name "Rheinmaasländisch" (English Meuse-Rhenish, Dutch Maas-Rijnlands).

has the folllowing classification of vocabulary:

• Friesland, Stellingwerf
• Leeuwarden, Westerkwartier
• Zoutkamp
• Groningen, Noord-Drenthe
• Vriezenveen en omstreken (Vriezenveen and surroundings)
• Overijssel
• Doetinchem en omstreken Doetinchem and surroundings
• Veluwe
• Holland, Zeeland
• West-Vlaanderen
• Zuidoostelijke dialecten

Its classification of pronunciation:

• Friesland
• Friese mengdialecten Frisian dialects
• Noordoostelijke dialecten Northeastern dialects
• West-Limburg
• Centrale dialecten
• Urk
• Brabant en Antwerpen
• Oost-Vlaanderen
• West-Vlaanderen, Zeeland
• Oost-Limburg
• Noordoost-Luik

Its classification of vocabulary and pronunciation combined:

• Friesland
• Westerkwartier, Stellingwerf
• Groningen
• Overijssel
• Zuidwestelijke dialecten
• Zuidwest-Limburg
• Centraal zuidelijke dialecten (Central-southern dialects)
• Tienen''
• Centraal westelijke dialecten (Central-western dialects)
• Urk
• Oost-Limburg

However, it poses several questions. It does not include the German parts of Limburgish and South Guelderish. It has South Guelderish and Brabantian as Centraal zuidelijke dialecten.

has the following phonetically based classification :

• 1. Nedersaksisch
• 1.1 Gronings en Noord-Drents, Midden-Drents en Westerwolds, Twents
• 1.2 Zuid-Drents en Noord-Overijssels, terassen naar de Twentse kern
• 2.1 Fries
• 2.1.1 De Friese dialecten
• 2.1.2 Stadfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs
• 2.2 Veluwse overgangsdialecten
• 3. Hollands, Noord-Brabants
• 3.1 Hollands
• 3.1.1 Noord-Hollands
• 3.1.2 Zuid-Hollands en Utrechts
• 3.2 Noord-Brabants
• 3.2.1 Oost-Brabants
• 3.2.2 Dialecten in het Gelders Rivierengebied, West-Brabants
• 4 Noord-Belgisch
• 4.1. Centraal-Brabants
• 4.2. Periferisch Brabants
• 4.2.1 Zeeuws
• 4.2.2. Brabants
• 4.3. Periferisch Vlaams
• 4.4. Centraal Vlaams
• 5. Limburgs

The two above lists with more than 10 entries include the varieties from the Netherlands, including the Frisian and Low Saxon ones there, as well as the Low Franconian ones from Belgium. Among the Low Franconian varieties spoken outside the Netherlands, at least the Surinamese and Caribbean ones as well as those being part of Afrikaans are missing. for Gronings en Noord-Drents, Midden-Drents en Westerwolds, Twents Nedersaksisch kern, for Zuid-Drents en Noord-Overijssels, terassen naar de Twentse kern Nedersaksisch rand, for Stadfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs Mengtalen and for Zuid-Hollands en Utrechts Zuid-Hollands. "Friesland" refers to Frisian as well as strongly Low Franconian-related varieties spoken in the area. The latter is "Stadfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs". If "varieties of Dutch" are meant, it would be correct to also consider Belgium.

The map based on different language characteristics on the penultimate page of is quite comprehensive. However, it poses several questions. It does not include the German parts of Limburgish and South Guelderish, but the German-speaking part of Belgium. It has the municipality of Venlo as North Limburg. It has South Guelderish and Brabantian as Centraal zuidelijke dialecten. There is also Southwest Limburg, only in Belgian Limburg. A large part of Belgian Limburg belongs to the Central southern dialects. but not to Germany. The map has East Limburg and Southwest Limburg The 6 groups of an upper echelon of the classification there are Friesland/Westerkwartier, Stellingwerf, Groningen/Overijssel, zuidwestelijke dialecten, Zuidwest-Limburg/Centraal zuidelijke dialecten/Tienen, Centraal westelijke dialecten/Urk and Oost-Limburg. Kerkraads and Vaals often are not classed as Limburgish. The dialectal diversity within the Dutch province of Limburg is great. The varieties spoken in North Limburg, such as Venloos and Venrays (which linguistically does not belong to Limburg but to Kleverlands), have much in common with the Brabant and South Gelderland dialects and differ strongly from the (geographical) South Limburgish dialects (such as Maastrichts and Sittards) and also from the (geographical) Central Limburgish (such as Weerts and Roermonds). These two last-mentioned groups, partly considered to be Central Limburgish and partly East Limburgish in dialects, occupy a special position within the Dutch dialects because of their phonology (including, as indicated above, tone as a distinguishing feature) and other Rhenish dialects. elements. The Kerkrade and Vaals dialects are even classified under Middle Franconian Ripuarian.

shows a study from the year 1941, where noordelijk-centrale dialecten, noordweste-lijke dialecten, de zuidelijk-centrale dialecten, zuidwestelijke dialecten, noord-oostelijke dialecten and zuidoostelijke dialecten are the groups of dialects into which the Dutch dialects are classified. has higher-level groupings, which can be summed up as follows:

• Low Saxon
• Frisian
• Hollandic/Brabantic
• Flemish/Zealandic
• Limburgish

==== A negative example: An obsolete grouping of Low Franconian languages ====

Dutch • Flemish • Limburgish • Zeelandic |group3 = Low German/

Dutch Low Saxon |list3 = Achterhooks • Drèents • East Frisian Low Saxon • Gronings • Low German • Plautdietsch • Sallaans • Stellingwarfs • Tweants • Veluws • Westphalian

Kind regards Sarcelles (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sarcelles, thanks for this interesting overview. With regards to the study/thesis dating from 1941 (so from almost a century ago): it should well be noted that linguistic/dialectological views have changed a lot since then, especially with regards to the Dutch language/dialects of Dutch and related languages/varieties. Of course reliable old sources can be used, but this should always be done with some caution.

With regards to source [2] (which can be found back as well here for example); I see Maaslands is indeed used there in the text, but not Maas-Rijnlands (though this latter term is the title of a Dutch Wikipedia article, it seems to be unusual as such in Dutch, or even to exist hardly; Rijn-Maaslands seems a little more common as the Dutch equivalent of Rheinmaasländisch) Another thing: their thesis is about the Nederlandse dialectgebied (= Dutch dialectal area), but without specifying whether this should be interpreted as "areas where dialects of Dutch are spoken" or "dialects (either of Dutch or of another language) spoken within the borders of the Netherlands". I'm strongly inclined to think the last, since the paper treats for example Frisian dialects as well. De Wikischim (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)A small correction was made later

Hi,

thank you very much for your answer. Heeringa in his study mentioned by me above covers neither the parts of Germany bordering to Limburg nor to Gelderland. Furthermore, his Limburg category mainly is in the Netherlands and including nearly all of Dutch Limburg. South Gelderland is grouped in the same study with Hollandic inter alia as Central Dutch. https://www.academia.edu/30823402 is a study, which has Westdeutsch running as far as to include parts of Saarland. To further complicate the issue, it has an roughly area correspondig to German Limburgish facing Dutch Limburg as Niederfränkisch (Low Franconian) and the remainder of that area as Mittelfränkisch (Central Franconian) culminating in the issue, whether the entire are includes Bottrop which I couldn't figure out according to the map given.

Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the new explanation. Do I understand well from this that the varieties of the Limburgish language spoken beyond the German border are actually classified as Central Franconian? This isn't common practice for the varieties of Limburgish spoken within The Netherlands and Belgium; those are usually classified as (South East) Low Franconian. If this is correct, that would make a new significant difference compared to the classification mainly used by Dutch dialectologists, apart from the more common use in Germany of Rheinmaasländisch as a linguistic/dialectological term (about that latter, I found this source in German yesterday which seems to confirm that the most common Dutch translation is Rijn-Maaslands). De Wikischim (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for you answer. The study mentioned has the dialects roughly South of the border of Limburgsh in Germany as Central Franconian. However, a drawback of this study not mentioned yet is that it only covers Germany. For example, Central Franconian runs into Saarland, but stops there at the border to France. Many studies are limited to or excluding Germany. https://www.goethe-museum.de/de/veranstaltung/das-duesseldorfer-rheinisch says Düsseldorfer Mundart (Düsseldorf dialect) and Düsseldorfer Rheinisch (Düsseldorf Rhenish, a regiolect) are the same. Nüsser Platt is the quite similar dialect of Neuss bordering to Düsseldorf. However, both cities are said to be Limburgish speaking at least in the respective center due to being between Uerdingen and Benrath lines, while also having a ''dialect'' similar to Ripuarian. Another issue is the recognition of varieties in Germany. In North Rhine-Westphalia, the division beween Kleverlandish/Limburgish and Low German inexactly coincides with the border of North Rhine and Westphalia. It frequently wrongly is claimed in Germany, that the first varieties also are Low German. Are East Low Franconian, Low Rhenish and Meuse-Rhenish identical? Sarcelles (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sarcelles, there's surely much overlap but the three terms are not fully identical. In broad lines, they refer to the same language varieties historically spoken in what are now the Dutch and Belgian provinces of Limburg and Gelderland as well as in parts of contemporary Westphalia, with Low Rhenish being used especially to refer to the varieties spoken in Germany. Nowadays they're most of the time considered to have been part of Middle Dutch, though it seems especially German linguists don't agree on this either. The meaning of Oostnederfrankisch (= Old East Low Franconian) is well explained for example here. On the other hand, "Limburgish" as a linguistic term is far more restrictive and does not include for example Kleverlandish.

The difference is by and large explained for example here Meuse-Rhenish#Low Rhenish and Limburgish, though of course you shouldn't rely too much on the Wikipedia article as this has some serious issues (the same is the case for example on Wikipedia-nl, where the corresponding article has been contested even stronger, especially because of the title). De Wikischim (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

There also are the following studies:

• figures 8 and 9 are on classification of dialects in the Netherlands, Belgium and French Flanders
• A-dendrogram-derived-from-the-distance-matrix-based-on-unweighted-Manhattan-distance
• Classifying Dutch dialects using a syntactic measure: The perceptual Daan and Blok dialect map revisited

Figure 5 is a map on syntactic variation in the Netherlands, Belgium and French Flanders.

• De analyse van uitspraakverschillen in Nederlandse en Friese taalvariëteiten
• Outdated classification of Dutch dialects
• TITUS Didactica: German Dialects (map)
• Gebiedsindeling van de zuidelijk-Nederlandse dialecten
• Phonetic variation of dialects in the Netherlands and Belgium

Ripuarian-Low Franconian transitional area ends with Rhenish accentuation. It runs North of Geldern, Issum, Rheinberg, Orsoy, Duisburg, Oberhausen, East of Mülheim/Ruhr Peter Wiesinger: Phonetisch-phonologische Untersuchungen zur Vokalentwicklung in den deutschen Dialekten. volume 2. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1970 (Studia Linguistica Germanica 2).p. 331/332 In general, on the left bank of the Rhine the phonological differences end at the line dividing öch and ou for German euch runs North of Kempen, North of Krefeld, North of Uerdingen. Peter Wiesinger: Phonetisch-phonologische Untersuchungen zur Vokalentwicklung in den deutschen Dialekten. volume 2. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1970 (Studia Linguistica Germanica 2).p. 332 The latter is, according to the same page more important than Uerdingen Line. Sarcelles (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Many of the maps in the article including Germany run as far as about the city area of [[Gummersbach]]. However, the following map by Wiesinger

https://www.atlas-alltagssprache.de/dialekt-karte_neu/ has nothing of the city area of Gummersbach within Ripuarian-Low Franconian transitional area. Its southeastern corner is at a minor distance West of the city centre of [[Wipperfürth]].

Which other sources do exist?

Kind regards Sarcelles (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Many of the references above are cited incompletely (lacking author, year or page) or incorrectly (only providing one and hence lacking the other one of two authors).

• De analyse van taalvariatie in het Nederlandse dialectgebied: methoden en resultaten op basis van lexicon en uitspraak (2006) was not only authored by Nerbonne but also by Heeringa (cp. his papers)
• De indeling van de Nederlandse streektalen: Dialecten van 156 steden en dorpen geklasseerd volgens de FFM was authored by both Cor Hoppenbrouwers and Geer Hoppenbrouwers.

Additionally, many of the sources are primary research papers (e.g. Heeringa 2004 is his doctor's thesis) and not secondary sources, cp. WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Furthermore, many of the above sources (like Heeringa 2004, Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006) only cover Benelux and not Germany. That means: a) They are rather sources for Dutch dialects than for Limburgish. b) It's similar to Talk:Limburgish/Archive_1#Classification of dialects: "Furthermore, it does not include Limburgish of Germany. Other studies have different classifications."

--16:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.40.167 (talk)

Goossens

From the article:

• [..] and Jan Goossens (Kleverlandish) have Liemers dialect as part of their respective group.

• Goossens published a study in 1970, in which he used rigid single isoglosses as a basis. Goossens justifies his classification by a few words.

• Goossens published a study in 1970 in which he used rigid single isoglosses as a basis.

Jan Goossens, 1965, Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen, in: Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter, 30: 79-94

---

• That mentions a study by Goossens from 1970, but references a work from 1965.

• That work from 1965 is about South Low Franconian (Südniederfränkisch).
  What can be seen it is (Karte 2 and p. 90ff.): Südbrabantisch (South Brabantian), Nordostbrabantisch (North-East Brabantian), Kleverländisch (Kleverlandish) and Westfälisch (Westphalian) are north of the Ürdingen line; Ribuarisch (Ripuarian) is south of the Benrath line; South Low Franconian with it's subdialects is between Ürdingen and Benrath line. Through the area of Kleverländisch runs the euch-line (the area around Venlo is south of this line and north of the Ürdingen line).
  What can not be seen it: the complete area and boundaries of Kleverländisch.

• [3] mentions two works by Goossens from 1970:
  1. Inleiding tot de Nederlandse dialectologie, in: Bulletin de la Commission Royale de Toponymie et Dialectologie vol. 44 (1970) p. 105-
  2. Niederländische Mundarten - vom Deutschen aus geselren [sic, with geselren], in: Niederdeutsches Wort vol. 10 (1970) p. 61-80
  The 2nd is: Niederländische Mundarten – vom Deutschen aus gesehen (mit 11 Karten im Text und einer Faltkarte), in: Niederdeutsches Wort: Kleine Beiträge zur niederdeutschen Mundart- und Namenkunde, vol. 10, Verlag Aschendorff, Münster, 1970 (LWL)
  So which study from 1970 should be the "right" one?

• Do you notice, how the 3rd point above from the article only duplicates the 2nd?

--07:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Giebers

From the article:

• Giebers 2008 also has Kleverlandish running into South Gelderland.

To add:

That's possibly:

Charlotte (Hendrina Elisabeth) Giesbers, Dialecten op de grens van twee talen: een dialectologisch en sociolinguïstisch onderzoek in het Kleverlands dialectgebied, 2008 [doctor's thesis] ([4]→[5]; [6])

• On p. 6 there's "Figuur 1.2: Het Kleverlands dialectcontinuüm", a map of "Kleverlands" on which it reads: "ontwerp: Georg Cornelissen". It's similar to this map (where it reads: "Kleverändisch/Kleverlands", "Entwurf: Georg Conelissen").

• On p. 23 some places are mentioned, including Goch which can be found in the above map too; similar on p. 31 where also Gennep, Kleve and Pfalzdorf are present.

So without further information, this seems to be redundant to Cornelissen and his map/classification.

--08:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Southeast or South East Limburgish, and Aachens

From the article:

Southeast Limburgish (Zuidoost-Limburgs) is spoken in and around Kerkrade, Simpelveld, Bocholtz and Vaals in the Netherlands, Aachen in Germany and Raeren and Eynatten in Belgium. Especially in Germany these dialects are usually considered as variants of Ripuarian, not of Limburgish.

Jan Goossens defines the northwest boundary of South East Limburgish at the lijk-lich isogloss. The area between this line and the Benrath line is called Ripuarian-Limburgish. The area between the Benrath line and the aat-alt isogloss is then called Aachens or Limburgish-Ripuarian.

"Dialect - KGV" (in Dutch). kgv.nl. 2010-08-16. Retrieved 2012-06-25.

(a) That's largely unsourced. The single source is now at: KGV (archived) = KerkradeWiki. It has a map with:

• Limburgse Dialecten = Limburgish dialects, i.e. dialects in the Netherlandic Limburg (Netherlands)
  • Kleverlands (incl. Mook, Venroj) = Kleverlandish
  • Mich-kwartier (incl. Venlo) = mich-area
  • Centraal-Limburgs (incl. Wieërt) = Central Limburgish
  • Ost-Limburgs (incl. Remunj, Zittert, Mestreech, Èèsjde) = East Limburgish
  • Ripuarische overgangsdialecten (incl. Heële) = Ripuarian transitional dialects
  • Ripuarisch (incl. Kirchroa) = Ripuarian

It doesn't have:

• Southeast Limburgish (Zuidoost-Limburgs) or Aachens which were mentioned in the article.
• West Limburgish (West-Limburgs) which would be a logical opposite to East Limburgish.

So it doesn't (seem to) support the statement. Additionally, how reliable is the source? It doesn't seem to mention any linguist or linguistic source, and the new name includes Wiki.
(b) "Jan Goossens" without any year, title of a work etc. isn't helpful. Jan Goosens 1965 (Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen) classifies South Low Franconian and not Limburgish. He states (p. 79):

"Der niederländisch-flämische Teil dieses Gebietes ist unter dem Namen ‚Limburgisch‘ bekannt", i.e. Limburgish is the Dutch-Flemish part of South Low Franconian.

His terminology (Karte 2) resembles that of KerkradeWiki:

• Kleverlands = Kleverländisch
• Centraal-Limburgs = Zentrallimburgisch (incl. Maastricht)
• Ost-Limburgs = Ostlimburgisch
• Ripuarische overgangsdialecten = ostlimburgisch-ribuarisches Übergangsgebiet (incl. Eupen)
• Ripuarisch = Ribuarisch (incl. Aachen)

However, Goossens (1965) doesn't have Southeast Limburgish, Aachens or Limburgish-Ripuarian, he also has West Limburgish (Westlimburgisch), and by his definition ostlimburgisch-ribuarisches Übergangsgebiet is part of South Low Franconian while Ripuarian isn't (p. 79):

"‚Südniederfränkisch‘ nennt man [...] die Mundarten, die in einem Raum gesprochen werden, der sich beiderseits der Grenze zwischen dem Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen und der niederländischen Kultursprache über drei Staaten, Deutschland, die Niederlande und Belgien, in einem Dreieck Tienen-Remscheid-Eupen erstreckt. Als Seiten des Dreiecks kann man die ik/ich-Linie (Tienen-Remscheid), die maken/machen-Linie (Remscheid-Eupen) und die romanische Sprachgrenze (Eupen-Tienen) betrachten." I.e. South Low Franconian are the dialects in the triangle Tienen-Remscheid-Eupen, and the sides of the triangle are the Uerdingen line, the Benrath line and the Romance language border.

--2003:DE:3700:672F:FD39:545C:3C1:56E1 (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You both like the old works by Jan Goossens published in Germany. The clinging on isoglosses by Goossens concerning any country is methodically doubtful, http://www.wjheeringa.nl/thesis/thesis09.pdf apparently is methodically better. What concerns Georg Cornelissen, if have read several of his books. He also uses the approach by Jan Goossens. One of his books writes of the areas Ruhr area and Westphalia, though they coincide geographically to a signifcant extent. This chimes in with the fact, that I have heard negative opinions about the LVR, a regional authority. I say this not in spite of being German, but because I have a good overiew of the sources of Germany and othe countries. You seem to have acted under the IP adress Special:Contributions/93.221.40.167 recently. This is discussed in a section above. You have used this IP adress not only in several Wikipedias, but also other projects. As I have said, we should discuss these issues here and on the talk page of the Dutch article before adding or changing content in articles of this ilk or even using other talkpages. Removals of content or adding templates is fine. Sarcelles (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Re Heeringa 2004:
  • It only covers the area of Benelux, not of Germany.
  • It is a primary source, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship.
  • "methodically better": With different methods, one gets different classifications, like Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006 (younger than Heringa 2004) giving three different ones in one paper.
• Re "methodically better", "I have heard negative opinions about the LVR", "but because I have a good overiew":
  That aren't sources, but opinions/OR, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research (no OR), Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV).
• Re "You both like the old works by Jan Goossens published":
  It's not about liking or not liking it. It's a matter of sourcing, no OR, NPOV.
  The classification of Heeringa 2004 for example could be given as well (ch. 9, p. 231):
  "Limburg" is most of the area of Limburg (Netherlands) (incl. Venlo; excl. Kerkrade), a greater part of Limburg (Belgium) (incl. Overpelt) and a small part of southern and eastern North Brabant, and there's also "Southwest Limburg" in Limburg (Beglium).
  But then there are also for example 3 different classifications by Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006 (younger). And both Heeringa and Heeringa & Nerbonne could rather belong into Dutch dialects as their papers are about Dutch dialects in general and not specifically about Limburgish.
  The tables below (they become better with JavaScript enabled) shall illustrate some overlappings and differences between (a) varieties and regions/areas and (b) different classifications:

Variety (Heeringa 2004)	Region/Area
Central Dutch varieties	[also elsewhere]
Central Dutch varieties	Limburg (Netherlands)
Brabant	[also elsewhere]
Brabant	Limburg (Belgium) (western part)
Southwest Limburg	Limburg (Belgium) (central part)
Northeast Luik	Limburg (Netherlands)
Limburg	Limburg (Netherlands) (incl. Venlo; excl. Kerkrade)
Limburg	Limburg (Belgium) (a greater part, incl. Overpelt)
Limburg	North Brabant (a small part in the south and east)

Variety (Heeringa 2004)	Variety (Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006, 3rd classification)
Southwest Limburg	Centraal zuidelijke dialecten
Southwest Limburg	Zuidwest−Limburg
Limburg	Oost−Limburg
Northeast Luik	Oost−Limburg
Brabant	Zuidwest−Limburg
Brabant	Tienen
Brabant	Centraal zuidelijke dialecten

• Re "or even using other talkpages":
  Different topics have different talk pages. Using this talk page to talk about e.g. Bavarian makes no sense, is off-topic, only clutters this page, makes the talk-page hard to read.

References

--2003:DE:3700:672F:8567:9BE6:1822:E107 (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Seconding this. It is not about "liking" Goossens (btw, should I mention in return the infallibility that I constantly see ascribed to Wiesinger?), it is a) about citing him properly, not ascribing anything to him that he never has claim and b) it is about the impact of his review/synopsis of all preceding work in a cross-border perspective; his classifiction remains widely cited and (at least in broad strokes) unchallenged until today (cf. Ben Herman's chapter "Phonological features of Limburgian dialects"[7] in the De Gruyter volume Dutch). Of course there has been progress especially with the use of quantitative methods, e.g. things like Frens Bakker finegrained cross-border analysis of the northern transitional zone of Limburgish/SLF, which we also should cite with due weight. Austronesier (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

PS, this goes to both of you: WP has templates like {{tq}} and {{tqb}} which allow to highlight in color what you quote from sources, WP articles or other editor's comments. Please use them. It will be incredibly helpful for other editors who want to participate in this discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for linking the quote templates.

Frens Bakker has written the work bestaande dialectgrenzen kloppen niet already mentioned above. It has Uerdingen line as not very important.

The differences of geography and dialectometrics have to be used to avoid mere geographic designations. Thew ork by Heeringa and Nerbonne 2006 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240956524_To_What_Extent_are_Surnames_Words_Comparing_Geographic_Patterns_of_Surname_and_Dialect_Variation_in_the_Netherlands The alredy mentioned figure 3 of the study doesn't cover dialects. There are two dialect maps of the Netherlands, labelled 4 and 5. 4 has the following clusters: Low Saxon, Friso-Saxon, Low Franconian, Central Gelderland, Zeeland, Low Franconian as well as the three, remote, quite neighbouring clusters Frisian, Franco-Frisian and Archaic Frisisan (in Hindeloopen, Schiermonnikoog and Terschelling) 5 has Limburg North of Venlo as a separate dialect area.

The IP adress said concerning "or even using other talkpages":

Different topics have different talk pages. This concerned my wish not to discuss these issues on different talk pages. This is twisting my mouth.

Klaus J. Mattheier (ed.): Aspekte der Dialekttheorie. Tübingen 1983, p. 76 has the following areas with one place mentioned each:

• • Werden
  • • Cronenberg
    • Elberfeld
      • Barmen
  • Mülheim
  • Velbert
  • Breitscheid
• • • Solingen
    • Haan
    • Mündelheim

A paper by Wiesinger in Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie. Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet, 1975 has Randbergisch (Border Bergish) as separate varieties and not one.

Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet, 1975, p. 82 has the same scheme.

However, the other varieties as shown on page 82 are the following ones, the first place the one used exemplarily by the source entered today above.

• Breitscheid, Ratingen, Wülfrath, Mettmann, Erkrath
• Velbert, Vohwinkel, Neviges
• Mülheim an der Ruhr, Oberhausen, Dümpten, Heißen
• Werden, Heisingen, Kupferdreh, Bredeney
• Haan, Hilden
• Solingen, Hörscheid, Solingen-Wald, Ohligs
• Barmen
• Elberfeld
• Cronenberg, Remscheid, Ronsdorf
• Mündelheim

We can't discuss the issues concerning Limburgish on 10 talk pages of 20 Wikipedias each, leaving aside other projects. this would result in a 35-hour week. For dispute resolution the talk page of the Dutch article should be used. Sarcelles (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

South Gelderish or Kleverlandish as part of Central Dutch?

Which source states that South Gelderish or Kleverlandish is part of Central Dutch?

Heeringa's thesis, chap. 9, p. 231 has the area around Venlo and north of it – which is part of Goossens' Kleverlandish (which extents into western Germany) – as Limburg and not as part of Central Dutch varieties.

Jo Daan is mentioned at [8]; it has among others "Südholländisch" (as part of the "nördlich-zentralen Dialekte") and "Südgelderländisch" (as part of the "südlich-zentralen Dialekte"). Part of the area of Daan's Südgelderländisch is part of Heeringa's area of Central Dutch varieties. But that doesn't mean that Südgelderländisch is part of Central Dutch:

a) Only some part of Daan's Südgelderländisch is included in Heeringa's Central Dutch, some other part isn't (so none is included in the other, but both overlap).

b) There can be different and contradictory classifications, which can't be combined, like there's Wiesinger's 1975 Bergish and LVR's modern North and South Low Franconian.

Hence, Kleverlandish seems similar off-topic like the following sentence from the article:

Both Ripuarian and Moselle Franconian are classified as Central Franconian and not as Low Franconian.

That's correct, but as stated they aren't Low Franconian, and: they aren't part of Central Dutch. Sarcelles (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

???
I don't think it makes sense to mix various separate discussions into a big, fuzzy, confusing one. And I don't think the above is readable.
Why not e.g. comment on Talk:Central Dutch dialects#Giebers? The first point there was, it wasn't referenced properly (author's name, title of work, year, page(s)) as only the author's last name and a year was provided. So it's much harder to find the work and a possible source for the statement in Wikipedia. The second point was, that it was presented like there were (new) insights from Giebers. But instead she referred to Conelissen, who was already present in the article.
You're quoting e.g. "Article Limburgish: Gossens (1965) distinguished the following sub-dialects" with reference and classification. Why? What's the point? The statement is sourced, the source was even quoted. Do you think that the reference lacks information (e.g. editor)? Or do you think the sub-classification is off-topic? Or that there are other views/classifications? That maybe Gossens is dated? --19:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.40.167 (talk)

From Essen article: (Bredeney, Heisingen, Kupferdreh) to Border Bergish per Wiesinger 1975, and are also classified as East Bergish which is part of Low Franconian (they have ik and not ich for I and maken and not machen for (to) make)

This is absolutely refuted by the sources used by me in Talk:Bergish dialects. The article South Guelderish now states: The political status of Low Franconian (or East Dutch: South Guelderish (narrow sense), North Limburgish and Kleverlandish) dialects, including South Guelderish, has long differed greatly between the Netherlands and Germany.

The only thing I have to admit, is that I didn't get the format right. How should it be done best? Sarcelles (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Peter Wiesinger, Strukturgeographische und strukturhistorische Untersuchungen zur Stellung der bergischen Mundarten zwischen Ripuarisch, Niederfränkisch und Westfälisch, in: Peter Wiesinger, edited by Franz Patocka, Strukturelle historische Dialektologie des Deutschen: Strukturhistorische und strukturgeographische Studien zur Vokalentwicklung deutscher Dialekte, Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim / Zürich / New York, 2017, p. 341–437, here p. 437. This paper by Wiesinger was originally published in: Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie. Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet, 1975, p. 17–82.

LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte (ed.). "Dialekte im Rheinland". Archived from the original on 7 December 2022. Retrieved 21 July 2023.

Peter Wiesinger, Strukturgeographische und strukturhistorische Untersuchungen zur Stellung der bergischen Mundarten zwischen Ripuarisch, Niederfränkisch und Westfälisch, in: Peter Wiesinger, edited by Franz Patocka, Strukturelle historische Dialektologie des Deutschen: Strukturhistorische und strukturgeographische Studien zur Vokalentwicklung deutscher Dialekte, Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim / Zürich / New York, 2017, p. 341–437, here p. 422. This paper by Wiesinger was originally published in: Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie. Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet, 1975, p. 17–82.

• Re Essen and "refuted by the sources .. in Talk:Bergish dialects":
  The sources on that talk page are Wiesinger 1975 who is used in the article Essen, and Wiesinger 1983 who doesn't reject his old classification. Additionally, Cornelissen/LVR is used in the article. Yes, he gives another classification than Wiesinger. But Wiesinger doesn't 'refute' him: Cornelissen/LVR is younger (and also a scientific, linguistic source), Wiesinger doesn't show that Cornelissen/LVR is wrong (instead he also gives for the example the Ürdingen line in the Bergish region which supports Cornelissen), and both have and can have a different classification (e.g. emphasize different isoglosses).
  
• Earlier in South Guelderish it was:
  1. "It is arguably more appropriate to group South Guelderish (narrow sense), North Limburgish and Cleverlandish into one dialect group—East Dutch."
  2. "The political status of Low Franconian (or East Dutch) dialects, including South Guelderish, has long differed greatly between the Netherlands and Germany."

  The first sentence is unourced, and sounds like speculation/conjecture/OR ("arguably" - does anybody argue this way? Who, where, when? Maybe compare Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research). Without the first sentence, the 2nd lacks a definition of "East Dutch" which was simply moved from the first one.

--93.221.40.167 (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Into the article Central Dutch dialects you added the following:

Driemaandelijkse bladen (2002, p. 133/134) is phonetically based and has the following divisions inter alia:

* [...]

** 2.2 Veluws transitional dialects (Veluwse overgangsdialecten, underneath "2. Fries")

* 3. Hollandic, North Brabantian

** 3.1 Hollandic (Hollands)

*** 3.1.1 North Hollandic

*** 3.1.2 South Hollandic and Utrechts

** 3.2 North Brabantian (Noord-Brabants)

*** 3.2.1 East Brabantian

*** 3.2.2 Dialects in the Gelders Rivierengebied (dialecten in het Gelders Rivierengebied), West Brabantian

* 4. North Belgian (Noord-Belgisch)

** 4.1. Central Brabantian

** 4.2. Peripheral Brabantian

*** 4.2.1 Zeelandic (Zeeuws)

*** 4.2.2. Brabantian (Brabants)

** 4.3. Peripheral Flemish

** [...]

* [...] Sarcelles (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not correct. Large parts of that were already present in the original version from 2021. What was done was:

• The source was expanded, e.g. an author was provided.
• Some Dutch terms were provided and some Dutch translated ("dialecten in het" = "dialects in the").
• The translation of "Hollands, Noord-Brabants" as "Hollandic, North Hollandic" was corrected into "Hollandic, North Brabantian" (3.).
• Some context for 2.2 was provided: per source, it's "Fries" (literally Frisian) and not Central Dutch, Hollandic or Brabantian.

However, the article Central Dutch dialects has nothing to do with Limburgish. So the above is off-topic for this article (similar how these comments are OT: [9], [10]). --93.221.40.167 (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, folks, I cannot parse the commenst/arguments of either of you, since the formating makes it impenetrable to disentangle what you criticize and what you propose instead.

What is clear to me though is that "Subdivisions of Limburgish" does a terrible job. It is over large parts unsourced, makes exaggerated and often wrong claims about conflicting classification traditions in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. It is repetitive when presenting Goossens widely cited and accepted cross-border classification under the header "South Low Franconian" as if it were something totally different. Heck, it isn't: you find Goossens' map in various publications about Low Franconian dialectology, and it is adapted both by Limburgish language activists as well as by Dutch traditionalists that consider Limburgish just another dialect of Dutch. It is also not quite correct to present Goossens as if he made a six-partite split. He actually outlines three broad divisions, with one internal and two external transitional areas. (The two transitional areas flanking on both sides of West Limburgish are confined to limited fan-like areas close to the Germanic-Romance language border. In the northern half, the West Limburgish area is sharply divided from Brabantian and Central Limburgish on both sides.)

Also, the concept of Meuse-Rhenish doesn't have to be discussed here in detail. It adds little to the understanding of the internal divisions of Limburgish from a dialectological perspective.

Finally, we should always remind our readers that the scope of the dialectologist definition of Limburgish (= East Low Franconian = South Low Franconian) does not fully correspond to the sociolinguistic and language-political definition, instead of mixing up these two things with sometimes quite silly results (such as labelling the Ripuarian variety of Aachen "Southeast Limburgish"—which latter is of course a perfectly meaningful term if used in the correct context, as explained on a different occasion by @De Wikischim). –Austronesier (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_multilingual_countries_and_regions&diff=prev&oldid=1174400427 removed Low Rhenish is recognized in North Rhine-Westphalia.

South Bergish was made a redirect. South Bergish (German: südbergische Mundarten) or Upper Bergish (German: oberbergische Dialekte) is a group of German dialects of the Bergisches Land region East of the Rhine and approximately south of the Wupper and north of the Sieg. These dialects are part of the Ripuarian group and thus are also called East Ripuarian. Ripuarian dialects are also spoken west of the Rhine up to the German border, and in some small areas next to the respective borders in Belgium and in the Netherlands. Ripuarian Bergish dialects belong to the Middle German group, and thus are varieties of High German, where they belong to the northmost ones.

In popular view, rather than scientific, South Bergish dialects are often referred to as Bergish by locals, or as Rhinelandic by outsiders.

Bergish dialects

• Bergish (Bergisch)
  • Central Bergish (Zentralbergisch)
    • western Central Bergish (westliches Zentralbergisch; Breitscheid, Ratingen, Wülfrath, Mettmann, Erkrath)
    • eastern Central Bergish (östliches Zentralbergisch; Velbert, Vohwinkel)
  • Border Bergish (Randbergisch)
    • in the north (Oberhausen, Mülheim, Dümpten, Heißen, Bredeney, Werden, Heisingen, Kupferdreh)
    • in the west (Mündelheim)
    • in the south (Hilden, Haan, Wald, Ohligs, Solingen, Hörscheid)
    • in the east (Barmen, Elberfeld, Ronsdorf, Cronenberg, Remscheid)
• not Bergish but surrounding Bergish:
  • Low Rhenish (Niederrheinisch; Hamborn, Sterkrade, Meiderich, Ruhrort)
  • Westphalian (Bottrop, Essen, Gelsenkirchen, Bochum, Hattingen, Gevelsberg, Schwelm)
    • influenced by Bergish (Langenberg, Lüttringhausen, Lennep, Hückeswagen)
  • Ripuarian (Benrath, Leichlingen, Dhünn, Wipperfeld, Kürten, Schlebusch): separated from Bergish by the Benrath line.
    • influenced by Bergish (Wermelskirchen)
  • Duisburg, Ürdingen, Düssekdorf, Gerresheim

Article Low Franconian:

Jan Goossens, Die gerundeten Palatalvokale im niederländischen Sprachraum, in: Ludwig Erich Schmitt (ed.), Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung, XXIX. Jahrgang 1962, Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1962, p. 312–328, here p. 313 [equating West Low Franconian and North Low Franconian as well as East Low Franconian and South Low Franconian, calling the West/East terminology Netherlandic technical language]

Georg Wenker used the term Niederfränkisch (Low Franconian) more in the sense of Ripuarisch. Cp.:

• Georg Wenker, Das rheinische Platt. – Den Lehrern des Rheinlandes gewidmet, 2nd ed., im Selbstverlage des Verfassers, Düsseldorf, 1877
  • p. 13: "Davon abgesehen aber ist Köln der eigentliche Mittelpunkt einer großen, die ganze Mitte der Rheinprovinz einnehmenden Mundart. Diese hat man die niederfränkische genannt, und unter dem Namen wollen wir sie uns denn auch merken. Nach Norden ist die Benrather Linie ihre Grenze, [...]"
  • p. 14: "Wir haben nun noch zu sehen, wie das Niederfränkische, also die Mundart um Köln herum, sich nach Süden hin begrenzt. [...] Welches sind nun die beiden Mundarten, die sich hier vermengen? Die nördliche ist die niederfränfische um Köln, wie wir schon wissen, die südliche aber ist der Moseldialect auf dem linken Rheinufer zu beiden Seiten der Mosel und der Westerwälder Dialect auf der rechten Rheinseite im Westerwald. Diese beiden, der Moseldialect und der Westerwälder Dialect, sind fast ganz gleich und man nennt sie auch zusammen das Mittelfränkische (und zwar die nördlichste Mundart des Mittelfränkischen, denn [...]).

Article Rhenish fan:

The Rhenish fan:Low Franconian: 1 North Low Franconian 2 South Low Franconian West Central German: 3 Ripuarian Franconian 4 & 5 Mosel Franconian 6 Rhenish Franconian

Dialects and isoglosses of the Rhenish fan(Arranged from north to south: dialects in dark fields, isoglosses in light fields)
North Low Franconian (Kleverlandish, East Bergish) / Low Saxon
Uerdingen line (Uerdingen) (Ürdinger Linie)	ik/ick	ich
South Low Franconian (Limburgish)
Benrath line(Benrather Linie) (Boundary: Low German — Central German)	maken	machen
Ripuarian Franconian (Cologne, Bonn, Aachen)
(Dorp/Dorf-Linie or Eifel-Schranke/Eifelschranke) (State border NRW–RP)	Dorp	Dorf
Northern Mosel Franconian (Luxemburgish, Trier)
	up	uf
Southern Mosel Franconian (Koblenz, Saarland)
Bacharach line (Bacharach) (dat/das-Linie or Hunsrück-Schranke/Hunsrückschranke or Bacharacher Linie)	dat, wat	das, was
Rhenish Franconian (Pfälzisch, Frankfurt)
Speyer line (Speyer) (Speyrer Linie) (Boundary: Central German — Upper German)	Appel	Apfel
Germersheim line (Germersheim) (Germersheimer Linie) (Boundary: Central German — Upper German)	Pund	Pfund
Upper German

Talk: Low Franconian:

== Old Low Franconian in a western sense or West Frankish ==

From the article:

Some linguists use the terms Old Low Franconian or West Frankish to specifically refer to the (very sparsely attested) varieties of Old Dutch spoken prior to its assimilation in the coastal dialect.

The sources doesn't seem to support the statement - or on what page exactly? That are four pages, while it's only a short information, hence it should be possible to give a more concrete page. The pages include:

• beginning and some part of chapter "2. Oudnederlands" (p. 47-50.)
  • intro (p. 47): "Oudnederlands ... vanaf de 8ste eeuw ... midden van de 12de eeuw"
  • "2.1 De Volksverhuizingen en het Frankische Rijk" (p. 47f.)
  • "2.1.1 Ingweonen of Kustgermanen" (p. 49): "Ingweoonse kustdialect"
  • "2.1.2 Franken" (p. 49f.): mentioning Sidonius Apollinaris and "Nederzettingssituatie in de 7de eeuw" (of Franken, Saksen, Friezen)

Also:

• The source is given incorrectly and improperly: it lacks the other author Ann Marynissen and that 2005 is the 2nd ed. (1st ed. 2003).
• On p. 54f. Janssens & Marynissen mention Old East Low Franconian (Oudoostnederfrankisch; e.g. in the Wachtendonckse psalmen) and Old West Low Franconian (Oudwestnederfrankisch), but that's something different.
• Following Sonderegger (Stefan Sonderegger, Grundzüge deutscher Sprachgeschichte, vol. I, 1979, p. 165 & 198), West Franconian/Frankish (Westfränkisch) is not part of Old Low Franconian (OLF; Altniederfränkisch) but like OLF and e.g. Middle Franconian (Mittelfränkisch) another daughter language of Old Franconian/Frankish (Altfränkisch).

--93.221.40.167 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Weser-Rhine Germanic article has as synonymous:

Rhine-Weser-Germanic, Istvaeonic, Istveonic, Franconian

Article Frankish language:

gradually evolved into Old Low Franconian (Old Dutch) and Old High Franconian

From the article Dutch dialects:

In Driemaandelijkse bladen (2002) the following phonetically based division of dialects in the Netherlands is given:

1. Nedersaksisch
   1. Gronings, North Drents, Middle or Central Drents and Westerwolds, Tweants (Gronings en Noord-Drents, Midden-Drents en Westerwolds, Twents)
   2. Zuid-Drents en Noord-Overijssels, Terrassen naar de Twentse kern
2. Frisian (Fries)
   1. Frisian (Fries)
      1. West Frisian dialects (de Friese dialecten)
      2. Stadsfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs (Stadfries, Kollumerlands, Bildts, Stellingwerfs)
   2. Veluws transitional dialects (Veluwse overgangsdialecten)
3. Hollandic, North Brabantian (Hollands, Noord-Brabants)
   1. Hollandic (Hollands)
      1. North Hollandic (Noord-Hollands)
      2. South Hollandic and Utrechts (Zuid-Hollands en Utrechts)
   2. North Brabantian (Noord-Brabants)
      1. East Brabantian (Oost-Brabants)
      2. dialects in the Gelders Rivierengebied, West Brabantian (dialecten in het Gelders Rivierengebied, West-Brabants),
4. North Belgian (Noord-Belgisch)
   1. Central Brabantian (Centraal Brabants)
   2. Peripheral Brabantian (Periferisch Brabants)
      1. Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
      2. Brabantian (Brabants)
   3. Peripheral Flemish (Periferisch Vlaams)
   4. Central Vlaams (Centraal Vlaams)
5. Limburgish (Limburgs)

Heeringa (2004) distinguished (names as in Heeringa): Sarcelles (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

article Middle Dutch: In a finer classification there are:

• Flemish
  • West Flemish
  • East Flemish
• Brabantic
  • West Brabantic
  • East Brabantic
• Hollandic
• Utrechts
• Limburgic

Sarcelles (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

http://www.wjheeringa.nl/thesis/thesis09.pdf It has the following groups of relevance to this article:

• Southwest Limburg, Belgium only
• Limburg, also nearly all of North Limburg. This part of North Limburg has a long border with Germany. For the most part, the places on the German side of this part of the border are in the Kleverlandish dialect area. The term

Limburgish would therefore be too narrow. I therefore suggest using the term Meuse-Rhenish.

• Northeast Luik, including Kerkrade and Eupen, could also be given as Southeast

Limburgish.

Wiesinger, Peter. 1983b. "Die Einteilung der deutschen Dialekte". In Besch, Werner (ed.), Dialektologie: Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung, p. 859. Berlin, New York: Berlin/New York: de Gruyter has

• Ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet ohne nordbergischen Raum (Ripuarian-Low Franconian transition area without the North Bergish area)
• Nordbergischer Raum (North Bergish area)

https://www.academia.edu/3130916/De_analyse_van_taalvariatie_in_het_Nederlandse_dialectgebied_methoden_en_resultaten_op_basis_van_lexicon_en_uitspraaken has much of the respective Northern part of both Limburgs as part of centraal zuidelijke dialecten (central southern dialects). Zuidwest-Limburg (Southwest Limburg) merely is Southern Dutch Limburg. The remainder, including Kerkrade and even a small area of Belgium outside Limburg including Eupen is classified as Oost-Limburg (East Limburg).

References to works by Georg Cornelissen or Jan Goossens currently are frequently entered as references in various Wikimedia projects.

The question is: Which one or ones should we use for the article?

Sarcelles (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course all of them. And don't forget Hermans (2013)[11] and many other old and modern good sources (like the series of articles by Bakker and his supervisor van Hout). We shouldn't fall for the illusion that there might be the one ultimate authorative source that trumps all others. My personal preference is to have this article focus on Limburgish in the two most commonly used senses: a) all Low Franconian varieties in Dutch and Belgian Limburg; b) South Low Franconian varieties spoken in Dutch and Belgian Limburg. We could then broaden the scope by explicitly devoting one section to the South Low Franconian varieties spoken Germany and the Eupen area; alternatively, we could have a separate general article about South Low Franconian (= Limburgish in Goossens's wider sense = Wiesinger's "Ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet") where we can go into all necessary detail about the minute differences among various authors in defining the western, northern and eastern borders of this dialect area. Luckily, at least the Benrath line as southern border is undisputed. –Austronesier (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for you further source. Which other sources do exist? What is the method of the respective source?

I will put in further work within the next few weeks. I'm also active at Talk:Dutch dialects. Sarcelles (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

References

References