Limburgish

Fragment of a discussion from User talk:Rua

Limburgish is considered part of Middle Dutch. Middle Dutch dictionaries include Limburgish forms and grammars also mention the particularities of Limburgish. On Wiktionary, we consider Middle Dutch an ancestor of Limburgish, as noted in Module:languages/data2. Please don't push your own agenda here.

Rua (mew)12:44, 10 November 2017

That is an unfortunate case, as Limburgish shows clear changes directly related to sound changes prior to Middle Dutch, such as o/u-split. If that is the rule you keep then please update all the pages to reflect this (including the page I referred to earlier).

Also, please don't accuse me of pushing "my agenda". If you gave me a message earlier, that would have been more constructive.

Ooswesthoesbes (talk)12:53, 10 November 2017

Ok, sorry for accusing you.

It depends on what you define Middle Dutch as. If you say that terms must have, say, fronting of ū in order to be Middle Dutch, then yes, Limburgish isn't Middle Dutch. But the sources I've consulted consider Limburgish to be a rather divergent dialect of Middle Dutch, and describe the particular sound changes and retentions that occur in Limburgish.

For example, A. van Loey describes the special development of original long â: "In Limburg (en verder noordoostwaarts) is â een geronde ao-klank geworden (dus verschillend van ā)." and also the typical Limburgish lengthening in open syllables when no ending follows: "In het Limburgs vindt men dgl. gerekte vocaal ook in nietgeflecteerde vormen: laem, ghaef" and "In Limburg komt, tengevolge van apocope, gerekte o ook in gesloten syllabe voor: hoel ‘hol’, loef ‘laus’, hoef ‘hof’." The Dutch language history by M.C. van den Toorn, W. Pijnenburg, J.A. van Leuvensteijn and J.M. van der Horst also covers Limburgish variants of Middle Dutch, and even gives a separate paradigm for Limburgish personal pronouns.

The two Middle Dutch dictionaries, VMNW and MNW, also list Limburgish forms as variants, e.g. http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?wdb=VMNW&actie=article&id=ID16242 . Notice that it says the oldest attestation is in Limburg.

All this leads me to conclude that the consensus of linguists working on the subject is that Limburgish is a form of Middle Dutch. Wiktionary should follow this consensus, unless there's evidence that something has changed in the prevalent opinion.

Rua (mew)13:11, 10 November 2017

No problem :) As always, there is no clear rule when it concerns cases like this. Limburgish of course belongs to the Dutch sprachraum and as such could be considered Middle Dutch. Linguistically, it is more blurry. Limburgish (with the notable exception of Maastrichts) clearly exhibits a-umlaut in keeping pairs like "hae vloog" vs. "hae is gevlaoge", which can only be explained as having come before all unstressed "a"s became schwa. (unfortunately I do not have the literature at hand currently) Even though I think direct Old Dutch is linguistically a better grouping, I am not bothered with the grouping under Middle Dutch. However, consistency is very important, and as such, it should be indicated somewhere. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Ooswesthoesbes (talk)13:32, 10 November 2017

Are you sure that the distinction between those is umlaut? They had separate vowels across Middle Dutch, as indicated at vliegen. Can the Limburgish distinction be a result of an older ô ~ ō alternation?

Rua (mew)15:05, 10 November 2017

For that I'd like to refer you to a-mutation and middle dutch: Retention of /u/ (did not merge with /o/) and /uː/ (remained as a back vowel). I believe ôo in general turns op as oea/oa/oeë/oe (or ou) instead of oo. As in doead (dead) vs. bloòd (blood) vs. kaore (corn) vs. boum (tree) vs. noót (nut). Strong verbs are an exception to this general change and become oo due to its plural having oo (*flaug > *vloôg > vloog, *flug- > vloge). Middle Dutch had a paradigm in which (singular) alternated with ō (plural/particle). In Limburgish the past tense oo alternates with the particle ao, which is the same as the pattern in Old English (flugon vs. flogen), with the exceptions in the singular.

Ooswesthoesbes (talk)15:59, 10 November 2017

So the oo in the Limburgish past tense is reflex of a preserved Old Dutch u that underwent lengthening, and this gave a different result than lengthened Old Dutch o? Does Limburgish preserve distinct original u anywhere else?

Rua (mew)17:21, 10 November 2017

Limburgish preserves /ɒ ~ ɔ/ - /ʊ/ split. In Limburgish this can be seen as o and ó. Compare: góld (gold, no umlaut) - hout (wood, with umlaut and diphtongization), honing (honey, no umlaut) - kaore (corn, with umlaut and lenghthening). Limburgish pretty much follows the rules as described: here. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ooswesthoesbes (talk)10:22, 11 November 2017