Talk:Limburgish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Limburgish article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

What should the language be called in english? At the top of the page it says 'limburgish', next the term limburgian is used and a link in the netherlands-page used limburgic (which I changed to 'limburgian'). I Googled all three terms, resulting in the following number of hits: Limburgish 654, Limburgian 616, Limburgic 71. That doesn't help (though 'Limburgic' is definitely out the window, I'd say). I think 'Limburgian' sounds best, but I suppose someone had better look this up in a better dictionary than the one I have.

The Oxford English Dictionary says "Limburger, also Limburgerish", the ISO 639 document says "Limburgan; Limburger; Limburgish". Pick your choice ... -- Jitse Niesen 15:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Limburgish language

http://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limburgse_dialekte has Aokes as part of Limburgish. This refers to the city of Aix-la-Chapelle usually not included within the area of Limburgish. Sarcelles 12:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a good example of the fact that the traditional boundaries reflect political rather than linguistic realities. The dialect of Aachen (or Aoken in the dialect itself) is very close to that of the Dutch town of Kerkrade just over the border.--MWAK 13:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But is the dialect of Kerkrade part of Limburgish? Steinbach writes on nl:Talk:Limburgs (paraphrased):
In Germany, they delimit Limburgish by the Uerdinger line (ik / ich for the pronoun I) and the Benrather line (maak / mach(e) for the verb make). Nowadays, one usually takes tonality as the defining property.
The "German definition" excludes the dialects of Kerkrade and Venlo. However, taking tonality would include the dialect of Cologne (Köln), according to li:Limburgs, which says that the Limburgish language is often taken to stop at the German border (with the exception of the Selfkant).
Where does the estimate of 1,600,000 speakers come from? It seems rather high, given that there are 1,100,000 and 800,000 people in Dutch and Belgian Limburg respectively. -- Jitse Niesen 15:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
These are all very good points! :o)

I.

1).What we really would like to have is a single indicator designating a dialect that is completely participating in the k ---> ch shift. But there is none! E.g. although the dialect of Aachen is south of the Benrather, the very name of the city in its own dialect is Aoken. And the lines themselves are of course abstractions, simplifications from a much more complex reality. People from Kerkrade are well aware that their dialect is closer to that of Aachen than that of Maastricht. But they would still be amazed and indignant if someone suggested that it wasn't Limburgish (I've tried it a few times :o). And perhaps the dat/das-line is more important; or the appel/apfel-line. Who is to say? That's the reason Dutch linguists consider any dialect showing any characteristic of the Second Germanic Sound Shift to be Middle German. And they don't care whether it's "Limburgish" or not, as this concept is too vague in relation to these phenomena.
2). The tonality is what both the speakers of Limburgish itself and outsiders perceive as the essential and defining quality of the dialect. The dialect of Venlo, though north of the Uerdinger line, is seen by any Dutchman as Limburgish because it's tonal - not because it's south of the mich-line. The tonality is the linguistic entity formative of the dialect identity as a social construct (I hope that as a German you can appreciate this sociobabble ;o)

II. German linguists often take the state border to distinguish Limburgish. The Selfkant region is exempt because it was annexated by the Netherlands after the war. In the Sixties it was given back in exchange for Germany giving up all claims on the Dollard mudflat. Obviously this isn't for purely linguistical reasons. However a point can be made that in the end all dialects will be so strongly influenced by their standard languages that the continuum is essentially broken.

III. This day isn't near however. The number of 1,600,000 is probably that of all inhabitants of the Limburgish dialect region in the Low Countries. It's lower than 1,900,000 because in the north of Dutch Limburg Brabantic dialects are spoken. Are the local dialects really so healthy? The answer is an emphatic YES. Nobody in Belgian Limburg uses standard Dutch for normal speech. In Dutch Limburg there are of course some outsiders, but the Limburgers among themselves always use dialect. Even at school? Again: yes. A few years ago a senior Professor of Logic at my university, who also has a chair at Maastricht University indignantly complained to me that there his students refuse to speak Dutch to him: "They simply don't, even if you ask them politely!". If you want to fit in you'd better learn the dialect real quickly!

--MWAK 18:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am surprised by III. above. My experience is rather different. I agree that the dialects are very healthy. But, while everybody can understand dialect (with perhaps a few exceptions), there are quite a number of people that do not speak it. And Dutch is spoken in school, at least during lessons in class. I recall having read about research how many people actually speak the dialect, and that it is increasing, so I was wondering whether the number of 1,600,000 came from one of the polls, since it is so close to the total number of inhabitants. In case you want to know my background: I lived in Belfeld, between Venlo and Roermond, between 1974 (when I was born) and 1993, and I am returning regularly. -- Jitse Niesen 23:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see :o). Well, my remarks were of course largely influenced by the situation in Zuid-Limburg (where much of the population is concentrated). North of the Appendix things quickly become more "normal". It's perhaps useful to remember the historical background. Most of the area wasn't part of the United Provinces - so the language of administration was Latin, German or French. Maastricht was, but there the standard language was French; the upper class in Maastricht would typically speak French until the middle of the 20th century. Dutch first began to have any real influence after 1815. Between 1830 and 1839 the province was Belgian. Even after 1839 Dutch was hardly triumphant. Primary education was optional until 1906 and school attendance among the lower class was low. The Roman Catholic educational system stressed the use of French (often in secondary education the normal language during lessons) and knowledge of Latin. An aspiring young man would do his utmost to become fluent in German, Germany then being the ascending power in economy and science. The situation in 2005 has changed a lot from 1905; but still the status of Dutch is that it has none. There's no social inferiority attached to the use of dialect.--MWAK 09:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am even more surprised by III above, where it is stated that "nobody in Belgian Limburg uses standard Dutch for normal speech". The Belgian dialects are in extreme decline, with some two thirds of the elder generation speaking them, at best 40 % of the middle generation, only a broad 10% of the younger generation and virtually noone of the infant generation currently being raised, and in a very marginal position in everyday communication: limited to men in just the most informal circumstances, say to the local pub. Within 50 years the dialects will perhaps not be entirely extinct but certainly marginalised in the same way as French Flamish is now. Only the Voerstreek, an exclave south east from the province of Limburg, may be a positive exception. Indeed in Netherlands Limburg the situation is much better: there it is normal to raise your children in Limburgic and in rural areas most newcomers more or less assimilate the local dialect. How many speakers Limburgic under its broadest definition - including German varieties - has I frankly can't tell you. Caesarion 20:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Is Limburgian becoming extint ? I think it only depends on how you perceive a dialect as still being a dialect or merely an accent. Because according to both definitions of Limburgian stated above, Limburgian is alive and well, but it has undergone rapid "Brabandization" of the vocabulary. However, the currently commonly used accent/dialect is still tonal and many in Limburg are still saying "ich/mich". Are these massive standard Dutch or Brabantian influences to the dialect detrimental to the ongoing existence thereof, or is it merely an evolution like any previous evolution where more loaned words appear in the dialect (ex. : elektrieker/mekanieker from German, plomb/mortoo/toernevis/... from French) ? And how would you catagorize the new accent or dialect that has emerged in central Belgian Limburg where influences from Arab, Turkish, Slavic and Italian immigrants have made their way into daily speak with a new distinct vocabulary, differing grammatics ('ch ga Mestrich <> ich gon no Mestreech) and clearly new consonant shifts ( z>zj, s>sh at the beginning of a word for example). Is this a mere accent comparable to Afro-American speak in some American cities, or is this a new extension and evolution of the Limburgian accent as native Limburgians also incorporate these changes into their daily speak and no other high-immigration area has a comparable evolution ? Not that I'm too fond of this accent/dialect, but I do think it's worth being catagorized as such. Furthermore I'd like to point out that I, as Limburgian youngster, can pinpoint the location of another Limburgian's home after hearing just 10 words... so is it really gone then ? SonicX 06:14, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

The discussion on point III is interesting - a similar situation exists in Switzerland where the local language "Schwitzerduutsch" is extremely localised so there's Zueriduutsch (Zuerich) and Bernese (Berne). It's also in a number of instances far more guttural than German, partly because sometimes words are compressed into eachother (i.e. one sound which would take a few words in German "Schrift Deutsch"). People are registered by where they came from ("Heimatort") and seem to remain connected to that area for the rest of their life. From a linguistic point of view, someone from the southern part of the Netherlands (i.e. someone brought up in Limburgian in one form or another) can relatively easily connect with the dialect as sufficient components overlap, with Bernese being the easiest to follow. I have personally experimented with some people where I talked back in my Southern Limburgian (or whatever it's called) and both sides understood each other perfectly.

However, one observation: I find it surprising to hear that people refuse to speak another language - when I grew up it was especially in Belgian Limburg merely polite to switch to someone else's language (which, of course, defied newcomers the chance to learn the dialect or Dutch :-). To ask someone to speak your language was considered rude, which explains some of the friction with the French speaking half..

As for the top bit, speakers a bit distanced from Kerkrade humorously refer to the dialect in Kerkrade as "Kirchroas" - an extremely "Germanised" pronunciation of the word 'Kerkrade' to indicate that their dialect is heavily laden with German terms and accents. Language humour features quite a bit in the friendly rivalry between cities and part of this is naming the cities in the local dialect such as "Mesjtreech" (Maastricht), "Voelender" (Voerendaal) and "Zitterd" (Sittard).

I'm not quite sure where this fits in, but AFAIK, the local collective term for these dialects is "plat" (the "a" pronounced as in "bath") to distinguish it from formal Dutch. However, I don't know if this purely a Southern Limburgish word or spread further North..

Cheros 11:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oostlimburgisch-Ripuarisch Overgangsgebied

In some books it says there is a transition zone between Ripuarian and limburgish, that includes an area in the Netherlands West of Kerkrade, an area in Belgium and a particularly large area in Germany. Does the dialectal form of this area count as part of limburgish ? Tonality at least partly is present. Sarcelles 22:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, there seem to be basically three definitions:
  1. the area between the Benrather and Uerdinger lines (this correspond with Limburgisch-Bergisch in de:Bild:Heutige deutsche Mundarten.PNG);
  2. the area where the language is tonal;
  3. the part of Limburg (both Dutch and Belgian) where the language is tonal.
I think that the Ripuarin-Limburgish transition zone would fall under Limburgish for the second definition, but not for the other two definitions.
However, my knowledge comes from reading the Wikipedia articles in different languages. It would be helpful if we had some more references. Unfortunately, I doubt I will find many books about the dialects of Limburg where I am living now (in Edinburgh). -- Jitse Niesen 23:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The zone is mentioned in the books as falling entirely under the first definition. And there is some overlap with the third definition on the map.

Sarcelles 00:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jan Goossens defined this transition zone as the area where the High-German Consonant Shift has not generally applied (disregarding those five words in -ch; so here one says aete/eate 'eat', maake 'make', loupe/loope 'walk', tiit 'time' rather than ease/maache/loofe/tsiit), although some Ripuaric features are present, most notably the non-gemination in zaage 'say' (rather than zegke) or ha/han/hant (rather than höbbe). So basically a Low Franconian (Limburgian) dialect with some Central Franconian (Ripuaric) features. According to Goossens, who invented the term I think, the area would fall under Limburgian according to the above first definition of Limburgian, and virtually under the second definition as well. Not under the thrid definition, because that definition excludes the largest part of the area, namely the part in Germany.--145.18.230.130 16:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Georg Cornelissen has a better word in a book, that apllies only to german Limburgish, possibly East of the Rhine as well: Südostniederfränkisch —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarcelles (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 January 2007.
But the term Südostniederfränkisch applies both to the Germany part of Limburgian-in-the-closer-sense (i.e. the zegke area) and to this transition area (i.e. the zaage-but-no-second-shift area). The term Südostniederfränkisch (South East Low Franconian) is widely used, and very appropriate for the whole Limburgian area (i.e. including the parts in the Netherlands and Belgium), because the term reflects the positioning of the language within Low Franconian rather than with respect to political borders.86.80.90.136 20:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
,,Dialekte und Dialektliteratur in der Euregio Rhein-Maas-Nord" edited by Georg Cornelissen is my source.

Sarcelles 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

All this shows it's impossible to attain some "perfect description" of factual reality :o)--MWAK 09:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I suggest to take the area from the Limburgish wikipedia and maybe som eother areas and divide them according to the features mentioned above.

Sarcelles 10:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If Limburgish is to include Bergisch, is it appropriate to divide Limburgish into Bergisch on the one hand and Limburgish proper on the other ?

The de. article has it as Limburgisch-Bergisch. Sarcelles 15:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It takes "Limburgisch" and "Bergisch" as one group of dialects. "Bergisch" is supposed to refer to the dialects spoken in Germany, "Limburgisch" to those in the Netherlands and Belgium. Btw, it's me who is responsible for the definition and division on the Limburgish article on Limburgish, and my definition is thus: Limburgish contains all West German dialects which generallyhave a high tone for the originally longer syllabes. In this sense, it stretches over the German border, even onto Cologne. The Benrather Linie divides the Limburgic language area into two main groups, which are almost, or perhaps just entirely, seperate languages. But for a clear picture, we often stop our definition with the German border.
Thus, it would be attractive to trim the few remain Ripaurian dialects (there are five places in the Netherlands where Ripauric is spoken) from the Limburgic language area, but whe chose not to do so, since the speakers themselves consider their language "Limburgic" (But that alone is no valid reason to adapt the definition, even I agree).
The German definition - "Limburgish are all dialects between the Uerdinger and Benrather Linie" - is obsolete: those dialects have nothing in common except one single word (ich)! Caesarion 08:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Where is the border of tonality ?

Sarcelles 22:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It starts on the Flemish-Wallonian border and runs through Limburg, Belgium|Belgian Limburg]], with St.-Truiden west of it and Hasselt east of it (so the Hasselt dialect is tonal, the St.-Truiden dialect is not). Then it turns from running vertically to running horizontally at the Belgian-Dutch border and runs over the southwesternmost villages of the Noord-Brabant province, before entering Netherlands Limburg just over Weert (which has, thus, a tonal dialect as well). Then it makes a bow to the north over Venlo and enters Germany, where my detailed knowledge of this topic ends. But streches very wide, until well over Cologne, where it starts moving back eastward. Finally it enters Belgium again, in the "German" speaking eastern parts of the Liege province, between Eupen and Sankt-Vith, where it touches the Romance language area. I don't know it is desirable to call all dialects within this area Limburgish, and where the border should be drawn is unclear. But we can surely take a lot of dialects in Germany in the count, though if you consider this too confusing, you can take the German border as the eastern border of the language for now. Caesarion 08:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me inappropriate to include the varieties of Southern NRW, but at the same time to exclude the varieties of central NRW.

Sarcelles 21:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Sarcelles 21:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a good point in this. But then, strictly taken, the Kerkrade dialect should also be excluded. We should make these problems clear in the article itself. For as long as it takes, we treat the Belgian and Dutch dialects only, with some references to Rhinelandic. Caesarion 20:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

btw: Is there a language or something under the name Rhinelandic at all ? What does it include/not include ? Limburgs, accepted. and how about other forms in the Netherlands and Germany or even Belgium ? Sarcelles 20:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rhinelandic is just the language of the areas adherent to the Rhine within Germany, and it is often linguistically defined as those dialects that are tonal, be it Low or Middle German dialects. Much the same as with Limburgish, as you can see. There lies the problem: where to draw the border, if you won't take them as one language? The whole of the West German language area actually is a dialect continuum, so drawing borders or dividing it into dialect areas is close to impossible. Caesarion 20:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have entered a scheme into the article, that has 2 forms of Limburgish that run far into Germany. If these varieties are to run across the Rhine, there would be no difference between Limburgish and Zuidrijmaasfrankisch. Or are Oostlimburgisch-Ripuarisch Overgangsgebied and Oostlimburgs to differentiate from the varieties East of the Rhine (Bergish) ?

Sarcelles 20:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's getting really confusing now. Well, as I said, if you want to take the most relevant border, the tonality border, there is no difference Between Limburgish and Zuidrijnmaasfrankisch, and then you have to discuss whether the Benrather Linie is a border as well; then the above discussion recurs: Kerkrade dialect not included, should it yet be taken within the definition, but where do you stop then. I think we can really clearify and brevify the discussion on its definition by far by saying where the border runs is unclear and then give some of the proposed definitons: the Dutch-German border (arbitrarily), the tonality border, the tonality border and the Benrather Linie, the Uerdinger and Benrather Linie. I'll look what I can do.Caesarion 10:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By the way, the subdivisions I made on the li: article and their names are not official, albeit far from voluntayr. Neither are the divisions as named on the de: article widely accepted. We should make that clear. Caesarion 10:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I opt for the inclusion of Bergish within Limburgish. Even if de:Bergisch stresses the difference between varieties East of the Rhine (Bergish) and varieties West of the Rhine, I have found more evidence for the inclusion.

Sarcelles 30 June 2005 18:28 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to use a shibboleth from Düsseldorf Platt to opt or not opt for an inclusion ?

Sarcelles 21:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Now I am listing several words of Düsseldorfer Platt:
  • dech
  • diäschen
  • öch
  • op
  • kleen
  • jong
  • müd
  • Samstag
  • Could someone compare this to differences in Belgian and Dutch ?

Sarcelles 08:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

http://www.mundartfreunde.de/platt.htm

This doesn't seem similar to Limburgish. If this is to be taken serious, we probably have to exclude the difficult country.

Don't be fooled by these broad but superficial differences. "Dusseldorp" lies within the Limburgish language area, possessing all of the necessary features. The Hasselt dialect is also very different from the Limburgic varieties spoken in the Netherlands. Caesarion 12:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
O, but by the way: Düsseldorf is really on the Benrather Linie, just north of it, so it seems normal to me that a lot of Ripuarian features are to be found in its dialect. The poem Sarcelles has linked shows that. In that case, it depends on individual speakers whether we should consider this dialect Limburgic or Ripuarian. Caesarion 12:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic substrate

What are the Celtic words in modern Limburgish. Can you provide us a list or some examples? Meursault2004 10:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

IIRC, these are mostly obscure agricultural terms, today explained away as later Gallo-Roman derivations. In the late Empire and the early Dark Ages the Roman area extended much further to the east than the present French area. But I'm no expert on this: I leave it to the anonymous user to enlighten us all! :o)--MWAK 14:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
There are no Celtic words in modern Limburgish, no more than in standard Dutch, unless I am very wrong. All typical Limburgic words I know of are Germanic (either inherited or borrowed from Middle German) or Romance (borrowed from French or Walloon) origin. Caesarion 20:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd be very interested to know any more about connections between Limburgs and Celtic. Myself I am half Scottish and half Dutch, and family folklore has it that my great-grandmother, being Scottish and having grown up speaking Celtic, could hold a conversation with Limburgs speakers when she was in Venlo. --(luvdave) 13:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tonal language

The article currently claims that Limburgish is a tonal language. Although the Wikipedia article Tone (linguistics) does not rule out this classification, it could definitely be called a minority view among linguists. Rather, most would call it a pitch-accented language. Not that this is unproblematic, though. There are several meanings of the term pitch accent and our current article does not do much to clarify them. This is why I've written a new draft of this article at User:Alarm/Pitch accent that tries to adress the different meanings of the term (as well as incorporating the current melodic accent article. I've done some reading on Limburgish and mention it in the text, but since I have no personal knowledge of it I would appreciate any input. / Alarm 13:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

If you want to make a distinction between tonal languages and those having a pitch accent, Limburgish certainly belongs to the latter category. But of course this distinction is in itself problematic. Nevertheless I can't think of a single example of two Limburgish words, identical apart from pitch, where that identity hasn't been caused by convergence. But I'm not a Limburger myself; I'll try consulting the relevant literature. BTW, I see no reason not to make your article the main one.

--MWAK 09:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong, there is a clear distinction between mere pitch accents, like the "tones" in Swedish, and the Limburgish sleeptoon, which is really more profound. Yet the way in which Limburgish is tonal is indeed much more like Swedish than, say, Chinese or even many African languages (though some Bantu languages come close): the pitches are still largely dictated by the rhythm of a sentence and the meaning or function a certain word has. Only before pauses the tonal nature of a word really wins out over the demands of a sentence, that is easily to be made out. In non-accented syllabes it does not occur and in stressed syllabes in the middle of a sentence it is present, but less prominently so. Caesarion 21:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just as a comment, the tonal aspects of Swedish (which is more or less identical to that of Norwegian) are refered to as tonal word accents by linguists. The reference to "melodic accent" is based on a misconception and the term is actually used to describe an aspect of music. The exact origins of the Scandinavian tonal accents are unknown, but unlike the tones of the various East Asian and many African tonal languages they are predictable according to lexical context and the minimal pairs contrasted only by the word accent are not that many. It is mostly a matter of whether a word has a root consisting of one or two syllables, though it does serve functions when differentiating lexicalized phrases and compounds from simple nominal phrases. A good example is the difference between grön sak ("green thing") and grönsak ("vegetable") where the first example uses two consecutive accents like that of English, while the second example is pronounced with accent 2 (or grave accent) the realization of which varies in both Norwegian and Swedish dialects and has no equivalent in English.
Peter Isotalo 01:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Livonian is also definitely tonal with two tones. It is spoken in Europe (more precisely, in Latvia) though it is not an Indo-European language but a Finno-Ugric (Baltic-Finnic) one. I think it qualifies as European. Ohpuu 07:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese version

The Japanese version of this article links to non-existing pages on this wiki. Sarcelles 01:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it is an example of a language version of this article, contradicting other language versions.

Sarcelles 7 July 2005 11:04 (UTC)

It is outdated basically.

Sarcelles 21:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The Romanian version of this article has it as part of Limburgisch-Bergisch. This is an obsolete category.

Sarcelles 13:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tongerlands and Bilzerlands

This source has Tongerlands and Bilzerlands as part of Centraal Limburgs. Is it righ to integrate them ? The seperation probably only is based on isoglosses. http://fuzzy.arts.kuleuven.be/rewo/gebiedsindeling.htm Sarcelles 19:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map

This map is unsatisfactory. The map has a border running through the Northern half of the Rhineland. As the differences there are minor, this area should either be excluded or run beyond the Rhine up to Wuppertal. Sarcelles 20:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

On top of that, the Limburgic area stretches too far to the west in Belgium. What we really need is a detailed map with some major isoglosses. Caesarion 19:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be enough to have in the Netherlands/Belgium only a) the border of Opperlimburgs, b) Noordnederlimburgs c) Wesnederlimburgs d)Centralnederlimburgs

e)West-Limburgs f) Oost-Limburgs g) Oostlimburgs-Ripuarisch-Overgangsgebied h)Centraal-Limburgs. This still leaves the difficult country aside. Sarcelles 21:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, I'd reject a dogmatic division - a map with the major isoglosses leaves the reader the space to judge where the Limburgic language begins and ends. It can be referred to from the text. Besides, don't take the divisions on the Limburgic article too strict - I made them myself and commented it can be endlessly discussed. We can agree on a few things, though:
  1. Tonality is a major feature of the Limburgic language;
  2. the Benrather Linie both clearly divides the tonal area into two language areas and clearly fails to conceal they are yet very similar;
  3. There is a clear western group of Limburgic dialects, spoken roughly in the middle and some western areas of Belgian Limburgic;
  4. The northwesternmost strip of Belgian Limburg and Netherlands Limburg above the village of Arcen (near Venlo) are anyway out of the Limburgic langauge area;
  5. Any language border for Limburgish, both internal and external, even those on which we agree about the existence, is very vague and has a transition area; a strip which is sometimes more then ten miles broad.

Caesarion 17:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it creates unnecessary confusion to have the Uerdinger Line on the map. Btw: Which equivalences exist regarding differently called designations.

Sarcelles 19:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I consider isoglosses, that are used to define Südlimburgisch/Zuid-Limburgs as unnecessary. First of all it is likely to confuse this with Opperlimburgs. Second, it is a category used by few sources, many of them being German, which clearly is an important point. Third, there is much reason to confuse this with the Belgian/Dutch border nearby.

Sarcelles 19:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Disagreed on the Uerdinger Linie, agreed on Südlimburgisch. The Uerdinger Linie has been the defining isogloss for Limburgic for ages and still is in Germany. The consept of South Limburgic however is rather unlucky, because the main isoglosses within the Limburgic area run from North to South, thus dividing the language in West- Middle and East-Limburgic areas. Really, from the village of Tegelen just under Venlo to the small town of Valkenburg in the south, Limburgic changes only slightly, and within the sound, dialects change rapidly as one travels westward or eastward (e.g. from Maastricht to Kerkrade: the difference between Dutch and German in a nut shell!) Caesarion 21:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I would really like to have a map showing the isoglosses. This seems about the only "hard" information possible. The subdivision of the language in different subdialects (or whatever they are called) seems to be rather arbitrary. The east-west gradient should be mentioned in the article, and also the explanation that this is because of the orientiation of the Meuse/Maas (if that is correct). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I second that. Also, Roermond definitely falls below the Uerdingen line, as it has the "ich" form. "Ik" only starts pretty close to Venlo. I also miss in the article that the language is (also) refered to as "Plat" by its speakers. Regarding the numbers, they are too high for speakers, in NL Limb. speakers are dominant, but not THAT much. It might be correct for people understanding the language though, since a lot of non-speakers do.

About tonality: my feeling is that in the middle of Limburg (Weert, Roermond, Sittard), it is rapidly disappearing. 88.159.73.216 13:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The portuguese article has it as being defined by ,,Venlo, Colônia, Aachen, Maastricht e Hasselt". This seems doubtful. Tonality actually might have its limits in these municipalities.

Sarcelles 20:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The map that is currently in this article is not correct. Venlo is not shown as part of the Limburgish speaking area, while Eupen is shown as part of the Limburgish speaking area.--Joop20 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] exact figure in Opperlimburgs section?

In the section on Opperlimburgs, it says that"If tonality is to be taken as to define this variety, it stretches several dozen km into Germany." I know that these things are hard to define, but is there a more exact figure for the number of KM this dialect stretches into Germany? Something like 40-50km (as an example) will do. The several dozen bit confuses the grammar of the sentence. Graham 06:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It think that Opperlimburgs section should be merged with the previous one.

Sarcelles 18:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frysian

The map should make clear difference between languages and dialects. And it says "Frysian" which is wrong. It's spelled as "Frisian" or "Friesian". (83.118.38.37 17:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Attention Limburgish speakers!

If you are fluent in Limburgish, please go to the following page: Talk:Dutch_language#Requested_help_from_Dutch_and_Flemish_people_from_all_Dutch_speaking_regions and help complete a project concerning all Dutch dialects.  Rex  13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move proposal

I propose a move from Limburgish to Limburgian.
Google Limburgish: 138.000 results
Google Limburgian: 1.020.000 results

Clearly, the latter is used much more. Troy 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. Yet, this is the ISO advice:
The ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee has approved the following item:
English name: Limburgish; Limburger; Limburgan
French name: limbourgeois
Indigenous name: Limburgs
Alpha-2 identifier: li
Alpha-3 identifier: lim
And I think, Limburgish sounds more familiar to Dutch, German and even French people.

Ad43 22:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


I just checked Google for Luxemb(o)urgish vs. Luxemb(o)urgian. Here are the results of the Luxembourgian Jury :

                         Luxemburgian:      17,700
                         Luxembourgian:     59,800
                                          TOGETHER:        77,500
                         
                         Luxemburgish:      89,600
                         Luxembourgish:  2,630,000
                                          TOGETHER:     2,719,600

I think, this is compelling and overwhelming evidence in favour of Limburgish. And, what is more: my linguistic intuition or instinct was right. What a great experience that is! Ad43 22:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orthography

Does anyone here know the standardized orthography?Cameron Nedland 18:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In 't Limburgs is d'rs gaaroet génne gesjtanderdizeerde ortegrafie. There is no standardized orthography in Limburgish. --Ooswesthoesbes 15:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (a: li.wikt)
Thank you.Cameron Nedland 16:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basque Version

This language version apparently uses the words for ,,Zealandic", ,,Hollandic", ,,Brabanmtic" and ,,Flemish", which contradicts the English Wikipedia. Sarcelles 21:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One could call it German-administered?

No one could call it German-administered. It was always Germany. The Netherlands are a 1648 split-off of Germany (Officially: Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation). Maybe we could call the Netherlands Dutch-administered? Allthough their royal familiy comes from Limburg (Hesse, Germany). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.205.233 (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a sheer misinterpretation. It has nothing to do with nationalism of any kind, nor with politics. What it would state is only, that the concepts of Limburg and Limburgish should and can not be restrained to Dutch Limburg, but apply to a very wide cultural and linguistic zone stretching in three adjacent countries and administrations. This fact solely has to be recognised and acknowledged. Ad43 (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Limburgish and English

Oei... Dao höbbe v'r d'rs weer 'ns las vanne. In principe ben ik het met je eens, gezien datgeen dat men zegt. Mijn hart zegt dat ik het niet eens met je ben... Ik vindt het artikel erg vanuit een Duits/Nederlands standpunt geschreef. Limburg is (NOG) geen echt bestaand land, dus zal het Limburgs dan wel een dialect van het Nederlands zijn, of een mengeling tussen het Nederlands/Duits. Ooit gehoord van dorps"fabeltjes"? Ik oordeel niet totdat ik weet wat ze vroeger in het (nog niet echt bestaande) Nederlands of Duits zeiden. Ik zoek 't op :) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, discussions on this page should preferably be held in English. Not every user here is able to read Limburgish or Dutch, although I am.
Don't be afraid to be associated with your eastern neighbours. Sentiments don't matter here. We do not dream, do not engage in politics, just are interested in the linguistic state of affairs. Ad43 (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I know wikipedia :) But that article doesn't work with the NPOV-policy. I can see you wrote a few parts of it, but I have got a question. Do you speak Limburgish? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have at least a pretty good passive mastery of it. And I have a rather advanced professional background knowledge of it. I think the article generally is NPOV, as it should be. You may correct me if I'm wrong. The discussion page stands open. Ad43 (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Good. I'll read the page out and go search for more information and maybe I consider a rewriting, but for now it's good. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I am curious and look forward to it. Ad43 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Both English and Limburgish are closely related to German, which would explain the relationship. I think this section of the article should be removed. I also agree with Ad43 that the article is NPOV and needs rewritten. YoungWebProgrammerMsg me 01:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It lacks a part of grammar, but that's not strange. The problem with grammar and also phonology is that it's different for each town in Limburg. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Velar fricatives

In het NL want mijn Engels is te slecht om dit daar in te zeggen: De gamma (ɣ) is volgens mij toch echt wel de harde g van het noorden. De x is de g van in chemisch en de ʝ is de zachte g dacht ik. En de g is die van het engelse good, zoals in het Limburgs zègke. (in Limburg heb je een verschil in de klank van chemisch en daag. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you are:
  • sound -- example -- pronunciation
  • ch /x/ -- ach ("acht") -- voiceless velar fricative ("weak g")
  • g /ɣ/ -- good -- voiced velar fricative
  • gk /g/ -- zègke ("zeggen") -- g like in English, German or French
Ad43 (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And the hard-g is? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just the same as the weak one, only formed more backwards. If you want to describe the velar fricatives as fully palatal, we should use /ç/ and /ʝ/ instead. Would you consider that more appropriate? Or should it be something in between? For now, I've already made some adjustments in the table. Ad43 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, after listning to the Remunjs (Roermonds) I've found out the hard-g seems to exist, but only in 'scream-words' (uitroepwoorden? interjection?) like 'Ach!' For example:
  • Höbs te det daak waal good aafgekit?
    • Ach! Aan dae kwatsj doon ich neet!

Translated as:

  • Did you kit that roof correctly?
    • Oh! I don't use that nonsense!

But I'm not very familiar with the hard-g 'above the rivers', since I'm not visiting places outside Limburg or Brabant so often. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this could be possible, only not with ach, but rather with och in just the same context. Ad43 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, och is mostly with a sound like chemisch. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic?

Please read:

Limburgish also shows signs of a possible Celtic substrate which is indicated by a larger number of words that have Celtic origins in Limburgish than in other West Germanic dialects. The area originally was inhabited by Celtic tribes.

You can re-find it under the heading 'Dutch and Belgian Limburgish'. Are there any references, sources or examples? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound unlikely to me, and hopefully the editor of that passage can respond. Ad43 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think it's unlikely especially because an IP came with this idea: [1]. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
And note [2], this and this ([3]). It looks this IP has got an obsession with Celtic and has therefor made this nonsense claim. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that does change the entire perspective. I have removed it all now. However, apart from the issue at hand, this ([4]) seems to stem from a qualified source. Nevertheless, it was banished from the article there. That still intrigues me a little. So, I will bring it back into discussion on the corresponding discussion page. Ad43 (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Germany

It says, it is spoken by 50-90 % of the population. This seems unlikely. And: The Rhine is not the border of Limburgish. Sarcelles (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That percentage is given by A. Schunck 2001, see [5]. Of course, his data can be outdated. Could you provide a more realistic estimation? Indeed, the Rhine is not literally the border, which the article itself does not state either, but only a rough, schematic demarcation. That seems fair enough. Ad43 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think in Germany it's 10 - 30 %. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you are right, but we need sources. Ad43 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say, the Rhine is even a rough demarcation. Either both banks of the Rhine have to be included or none.

Sarcelles (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to be a rough border, it is not necessary to distinguish between banks. It is not explicitly precluded that a small strip on the right bank too would belong to it. Of course indications like this could be more refined. At an introductory level these are details. What seems to count here more is, that the river happens to be a kind of natural border anyway. Of that, the Rhine could be an interesting indication.Ad43 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The 50% - 90% refers to the situation in the Netherlands, not in Germany, so it is obviously wrong.--Joop20 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Schunck uses the same percentage explicitly also for the German parts. But indeed, this estimation seems to be far too optimistic.Ad43 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
As a Limburger I can even tell you 50% for the Netherlands is an overestimation. Many parents don't teach Limburgish to their children, unfortunately. And even if they do, it's very inflewenced by Dutch. Many people say 'oud', 'koud', 'zout' instead of 'aad', 'kaad', 'zaat' and 'wete' instead of 'weite'. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It has been stated, that these dialects are closer to Dutch than to German. Can one also say they are closer to Dutch than to Low Saxon/Low German of Germany ? -- Sarcelles (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know (don't speak Low Saxon) Limburgish is closer to Dutch than to German, we say 'make', 'appel', 'twieë'. Some words might sound a little bit german like 'ich', but even then it sounds very Dutch (the 'i' sounds like the dutch 'ik' and the 'g' is pronounced like a normal Limburgish 'g' and not the 'x'-sound as in German) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question. The differences between Low Rhenish and Low Saxon are smaller than between Low Rhenish and High German. Yet, Low Rhenish does not belong to Low German, but to Low Franconian. Therefore it could properly be called German Dutch. Ad43 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

there should be a Southeastern border mentioned in this article.

Sarcelles (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Websters

It's better to not view that link, because of the following reasons:

  1. It mixes different Limburgish dialects through eachother
  2. The spelling is not a little bit, but toally wrong
  3. It mostly shows Limburgish from Belgium, which is spoken so much anymore
  4. I recommend bringing a link to thee Limburgish Wiktionary which contains almost 4 000 quality articles.

--OosWesThoesBes (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Limburgish Wiktionary - De Limburgse Wiktionair has been added. Ad43 (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meuse-Rhenish section

What is exactly the purpose of this section, and why is it called 'meuse-rheinish'? It appears that the main goal of this section currently is to describe Limburgish in Germany, while Meuse-Rhenish is a dialect continuum that includes Zuid Gelderlands, Limburgish, and Bergisch (and not Ripuarian!). Moreover, there is alot of wrong information in this section. I don't know if the meuse-rhenish section is necessary, and I suggest that the situations of Limburgish in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany are discussed in seperate sections.--Joop20 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely because of the tradional narrow view (that of many Limburgians, I guess) that a kind of general exposition of the real, broad range of the Low Franconian dialects between Meuse and Rhine is needed in the first place. Then more specific expositions on the varieties of all Limburgish dialects might follow. Ad43 (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consonant Inventory

The article allegedly lists the consonant inventory for the Hasselt dialect of Limburgs. I personally don't know much about the Belgian variants, but in my dialect (Sittard region) I definitely have the following sounds in addition to those in the chart:

/c/ as in 'kindj' /kɪ̄nc/, child; or 'bandj' /bɑ̄nc/, tyre. /ɲ/ as in 'kinjer' /'kɪ̄ɲəʁ/, children; or 'benj' /bɛ̂ɲ/, tyres.

Are these normally regarded as allophones of the sequence /dj/ or /tj/ and /nj/ ? I'm not sure if they should be considered allophones, but I'm open to your arguments.

—Nay 24/4/2008 22:17 GMT+1 —Preceding comment was added at 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Those should be added. They are also in the Hasselt variant. The table is very bad. Maybe we should change the table to another dialect to make it more "Limburgish"? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tonality section

Because of constant changing of stoeattoean to stoottoon to sjtoeëttoeën I think we should better take AGL here. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)