This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Sarcelles: 1. Do we have enWP-wide consensus that for overview information such as in the infobox, the border between Kleverlandish and South Low Franconian follows the criteria of Wiesinger (for D) and Bakker (for NL and the D/NL border area), rather than the Uerdingen line? 2. Do we have enWP-wide consensus to use the term "Limburgish" for the South Low Franconian varieties in Germany? I don't want to discuss the issue here since it belongs in Talk:Limburgish, but at least you should be slower in doing faits accomplis such as this one[1]. Austronesier (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
a) Wiesinger doesn't speak of Kleverlandish and South Low Franconian (or where?), but e.g. "Niederrheinisch" (at least roughly: Low Franconian in Germany north of the Uerdingen line) and "ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet" (at least roughly: between Uerdingen and Benrath line). Hence it wouldn't be correct, to state that Duisburgian is South Low Franconian per Wiesinger. Linguists who use the term South Low Franconian (Goossens, Cornelissen/LVR [2][3]) define it by Uerdingen and Benrath line and not with Wiesingers structuralism. So South Low Franconian, "ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet" and "Bergisch" (which includes areas with ik and ich) do in parts overlap, but are three different things. Does Wiesinger even has a term which is specific and not a circumlocation for the area around Duisburg? In "Strukturgeographische und strukturhistorische Untersuchungen zur Stellung der bergischen Mundarten zwischen Ripuarisch, Niederfränkisch und Westfälisch" (2017, orig. 1975) it doesn't look like it.
b) Wiesinger speaks of Low German in a broad sense (like: "im Niederdeutschen mit Niedersächsisch und Niederfränkisch"). Accepting Wiesinger when one likes it (like for his "Bergisch") but rejecting it when one doesn't like it (like Low German in the broad sense; West vs. East Low German) is subjective/arbitrary.
c) There are WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT. Only giving one view, pushing it and removing other views (e.g. only giving Wiesinger and ignoring/removing Goossens or Cornelissen, or in other cases only giving Lameli and ignoring/removing everything else) might and sometimes does violate such policies.
d) Are there sources which classify Duisburgian as Limburgish (and use the term Limburgish for the area in Germany)?
a) Wiesinger was well aware of the terms "Kleverlandish" and "South Low Franconian" as synonyms for his "Niederrheinisch" (usually he just writes "Niederfränkisch") and "ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet", even though he did not use them for his own research. When discussing data and dialect borders of other scholars, we would freely apply his term "ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet" to their work (note that Wenker already had coined the term "Mischgebiet" for the area between the Benrath an Uerdingen lines a century before Wiesinger). E.g., Wiesinger wrote that Goossens saw the Uerdingen line as the northern border of the "ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet", even though Goossens himself called this area Limburgish or South Low Franconian. So following Wiesinger himself, we can safely identify "ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet" and "South Low Franconian" in spite of the fact that its northern extent is disputed. The latter doesn't hinge on terminology. Frens Bakker largely agrees with Wiesinger in placing the border to Kleverlandish further north (at least in the area where their research overlaps), yet he uses "South Low Franconian".
Per Wiesinger, the old Duisburg dialect lies in the "ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet", but is not included in "Bergisch" (a strict subset of the "ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet") by Wiesinger's criteria. As far as I know, only Bremer included the old Duisburg dialect in "Bergisch".
b) Wiesinger was not entirely consequent in his usage of "Low German" and "Low Saxon". In the Bergisch paper, he used "Low German" as a cover term for Low Saxon and Low Franconian, but in later works like his chapter in the 1983 De Gruyter volume Dialektologie, he distinguished the three structural areas Low German, High German and Low Franconian, thus strictly using Low German for Low Saxon (i.e. the dialect chain from Dutch Low Saxon to Low Prussian).
c) Agree.
d) No.
Ideally, we should leave the old Duisburg dialect directly under Low Franconian, and explain the details, especially its transitional character that has led to contradicting classifications, in the main text (as I already have done in rough strokes).
Wiesinger 1975 and 1983 both group the city centre of Duisburg with varieties further South.Sarcelles (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
