Talk:Franconian (linguistics)

Lorraine Franconian (or Platt) is a general term used in Lorraine not for one, but three languages :

• Rhine Frankish or Rhine Franconian;
• Moselle Frankish or Moselle Franconian;
• the third one used in Lorraine is the same as Luxembourgish.

The term German is not used in Lorraine. When they speak French they refer to it as francique (i.e. Frankish or Franconian) or, when they speak the dialect they refer to it as Platt.

In linguistics the term German must be used only in Low German, Central German and High German.

• The designation Franconian German simply does not exist, neither does Lorrainian German.
• This page should be called Franconian languages.

Liam D 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Franconian German, a Wikipedia neologism. Ulritz 14:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

False edit by User: Ulritz

This edit makes absolutely no sense. The Franconian languages and dialects are the languages and dialects spoken within the former core of the Frankish Empire not within the former Frankish Empire, which would mean nearly every German dialect would be a Franconian dialect. Rex 19:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced article

I have added tags to this article to demonstrate where assertions are made without citation of reliable sources. As verifiability is the cornerstone of Wikipedia, these tags are not to be removed until the policies and guidelines are satisfied. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope I have satisfied them.Rex 18:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No; only your first edit stands. Please read WP:CITE and any featured article to determine how to cite sources and what counts as a reliable source (for one, Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I trust this is nothing personal, and something you do with every article you edit because some of your 's are just obvious (to me at least). Rex 19:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You trust correctly. Please note your last edit appeared to be someone's school report; well referenced though it was, this violates WP:RS#Self-published sources. Please read that entire guideline to see what is considered "reliable". Also, you must understand that what it "obvious" to you, me, or anyone else is not necessarily "obvious" to someone reading up on the subject for the first time. This is an encyclopedia and, as the first sentence states in WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The sources now included are a definite improvement, but they all contain the same names. If there are legitimate, published opposing viewpoints, they must be presented as well, or the article represents one side only. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Now look, I didn't start this article, in fact I wanted it to be removed. I am not here to do his work. Especially since he isn't the most pleasant wikipedian I met till now.

Rex 19:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The source for footnote 2 ([1]) is unacceptable as outlined in WP:RS#Self-published sources and because it requires translation. A source in English, and published by a WP:RS is required.

Meantime, whether you started this article or not is irrelevant, nor are you doing "his work"—your presence on this article indicates you want to improve the encyclopedia. None of us owns anything here—this article is not his, nor yours, nor mine; improving what needs it is the responsibility of anyone who chooses to edit. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, someone please translate the book titles and authors into English so I can fix the citation template language... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that. Rex 19:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Completed, thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Rex 20:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Poposal to merge Franconian languages into (or redirect to) Low Franconian languages

Most if not all of the information presented here already exists at Low Franconian languages; I propose merger or redirect. Comment below. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep

• Ulritz 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Redirect

• Redirect per above; this article is essentially an undersourced repeat. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Rex 20:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The comment by radiokirk that the article is undersourced made me laugh/cry a bit ... I mean seriously, the article has got almost as much written about sources as it has on the matter itself.lol. Rex 20:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Not when I started; there was no source data whatsoever and, yes, it's still lacking. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that not everyone on wikipedia is as ... "thorough" as you are Kirk, I'm pretty sure there would be a lot less articles ;-) Rex 20:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, apologies, but that's the wrong argument. Jimbo Wales himself has said, more than once (including at a recent gathering of Wikipedians) that he'd rather see fewer excellent articles than more bad ones. For those of us who choose to volunteer some of our time here, this should be our sine qua non. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree of course, but the whole array of problems an unsourced article brings ... can discourage certain users. Rex 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be frank, users who want to learn and improve themselves as well as the encyclopedia are the ones more likely to stick around, as you appear to be. Those who don't should do the rest of us a favor and move on. Harsh? Perhaps... :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets call it online selection ;-) Rex 21:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that's harsh... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Survival of the fittest I'd say ;) Rex 22:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting to Low Franconian would be wrong for the simple reason that Franconian extends beyond the aforementioned, notably Middle and High Franconian, which are just as "Franconian" as Dutch. That said, each article also has its own page. Ulritz 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Then that article should merge into this one, with subsections on the variants. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I will merge them as soon as I have a nice article ready, I've already started in my sandbox. If people would like to see how it's going go to: User:Rex Germanus/Sandbox Rex 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourgish official language, also Frankonian language (mislabelled saxon) in Romania

This article seems like a mess and from the little reading I've done so far I don't wish to cross one of its editors. Here are some corrections that need to be made.

1) Luxembourgish is an official language, thereby the statement under Low Frankish that the only group that has members which are official, national and standard languages is false. 2) The saxon dialect spoken in some parts of Romania (Siebenbürgen) is also a Franconian language belonging to the second group of Franconian dialects (it's problematic that the first group is listed as Franconian and the second and third as German).

I'm no linguist, but this just seems wrong. Oh and the english language in the current article ain't so good either.--Caranorn 13:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen (and corrected) in your above comment you aren't the person to judge what is bad and what is good English. Before you accuse people of writing bad English I suggest you learn the difference between it's and its first and learn to write franconian instead of frankonian.

As for your remarks, the first one is still correct as it talks about members (plural) the second remark on "saxon" or whatever is not the fault of the writers they did not include Transylvanian Saxons and they cannot be held responsible for it. I wonder why instead of complaining you did not ad it yourself.

As for the grouping, I don't see your problem. The first group is called Low Franconian because it is and the terms West Central German and High German dialects are used because they are dialects of German.

Rex 13:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not there are blatant errors (language) in the article. That is why I made that comment so someone could take a look at them. Some I definitelly feel competent enough to handle, some not. And yes, it's and its is a common error which I know I'm making all the time.

And no, that section means that the Low Frankonian group is the only one that has one or more official language members. It should either be that that group has multiple official group members and then list Luxembourgish as another official language under West Central German (not standardising these until I know what the correct use is in english).

Lastly, I did not criticise any editors with my comment on the "saxon" language, rather an addition I wanted to point out. The reason why I decided not to add a short entry is that I found the article in general needed a reworking and that I'm not qualified to do that.

Lastly, obviously all three groups are either German dialects or German languages, I'm shocked that I even have to mention that.--Caranorn 19:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that you still write frankonian your knowledge of (Germanic) linguistics is clearly limited. "German languages" do not exist nor are all of the groups dialects of German. They are dialects of Dutch, Afrikaans and German respectivly. I suggest you take a look at the terminology before you make accusations of flawed information or a bad article. Rex 19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mind cleaning up these two sentences which I can't even understand. That way I can avoid changeing content. High German dialects in the transition area between Central and Upper German dialects, an estimated 700,000 people speak these dialects, most of them are located in Eastern France (in northern Alsace, in the region of Strasbourg) and South-West Germany. [5] I really didn't know those dialects were able to speak, and speak in dialect to boot (wish I knew which one).

And yes I'm a bit sarcastic there, but that sentence makes zero sense right now.

As to the existance of german languages, I'll leave that to scolars to decide, I'll try to contact one or two in the coming days. As to my spelling of frankonian or franconian it might simply be due to the fact that it is the languages of the Franks, not the Francs. But I'll try to remember the correct usage.--Caranorn 20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You do know English has a SVO word order don't you? Because some of the sentences you write ... Anyway, dialects can't speak (obviously) they are spoken. As for German languages, you don't have to leave that to scolars it's already been decided; they don't exist. The use of the letter "k" in the way you used in the adjective form of Frank is not because frank is written with a "k" but because English uses a romance/latinate based ending (-onian) rather than a Germanic one, which would be -ish. To me this indicates you:

• A, speak a Germanic language.
• B, tend to base your English on you native language and overestimate their relation to each other linguistically.

Studying is solution here. Rex 20:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, you went and editted my comments. While that was indeed done to correct misspelling (in one case a little more, but I'll let that pass as spelling and not content change) I find this disturbing. Accordingly I will take a look at some of the rules and conventions of Wikipedia. In the meantime, please refrain from correcting/altering my posts on discussion pages.

Back to the topic. You still haven't corrected that sentence, while you are right that the verb speak (or to speak) indeed refers to an estimated 700,000 people, the first part of the sentence is still incomplete. As to language, if you just took a look at my user page you'd find I do indeed speak 3 Germanic languages, one latin (romance) language and have very basic notions of a few others. But my english is not all that much influenced by those Germanic languages, actually more so by the romance one. But all of that is irrelevant to the issue, unless of course you say there were no errors in the article.

So once again, could you please at least complete that sentence I mentionned in the article.--Caranorn 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited your posts because you dared to comment on my English. Someone who claims to speak English at a near native level does not make its/it's mistakes and generally knows how to spell. Rex 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny really, I hope you are aware that the huge group of US-Americans constantly makes those errors? I chose en-4 as I constantly had good grades in college english yet did not train to be an english teacher. My english is definitelly superior to many native speakers, but also inferior to the better schooled. In any case, editing another user's comments on a talk page is indeed against etiquette. But as you did not change the actual meaning (just confused me as you pointed at my error and which I couldn't find looking back...) it not an issue.

By the way what purpouse did the met zeuren en kreunen genaken wij verder edit summary serve? By cheating a bit (using an online dictionary for a few words) I find this to mean roughly matt souren an grommelen komme mir waider in my own language/dialect (note I don't claim to be able to spell that) or by nagging and groaning we advance further in english. Is this some kind of quote? A test? Or just an attempt at a hidden insult?

That's still not a complete sentence by the way, but I'll leave it be.--Caranorn 21:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, you really should lower you supposed English level to en-3, you write misspell "definitely", "purpose" you don't capitalize English and your word order strikes me as rather weird. But that's up to you.

"Met zeuren en kreunen genaken wij verder" roughly means "By whining and moaning we move onwards" and is not an insult but an observation. You whine while it is me who is expected to make the changes. This is Wikipedia the encyclopaedia everyone can edit. Your remark on "the sentence" not being a "sentence" is therefore rather weird, if it's wrong (according to you that is) then correct it. Rex 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Corrected, I'll just have to assume this is what you had in mind. The reason why I asked the author of those lines (you respond as such, so I assume it's you) to do it or at least try and explain the intent was that it was not entirely clear yet. If the content had been obvious and a very minor correction sufficient I'd have done this with the other two sections. I'll consider some more whether the content of the article needs correcting. Actually, I'll add one little change right away, but the major one I have in mind will require some documentation first.--Caranorn 15:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

the only group that has members which are official, national and standard languages.

As I already stated, Low Frankish cannot be the only group that has members which are official, national and standard languages. Luxembourg is also an official and national language, thereby there are indeed two groups (Low Frankish and West Central German) of the Franconian languages that have such. In the meantime I'll just add the correct links to your false statement hoping you will decide to revert to my previous version.--Caranorn 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, members plural. Btw, are you sure luxemburgish is a full standard language?

Rex 15:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourgish is certainly official and national, standard would be a question for a linguist. Even assuming Luxembourgish met only 2 of the 3 criteria, that would automatically make your statement invalid. You could then say that the Low Frankish group is the only one to have a standard language, but I'm not all that certain that'd be correct either. The plural by the way is irrelevant, the sentence as it stands means that none of the other two groups has either of the official, national or standard languages. If at all, your argument could be based on the use of and, not on the plural.--Caranorn 15:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Allright, very basically: Plural = more than 1. If you choose to make another post here, please make sure you grasp this concept. Rex 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to push through your POV (yes, that's what it is) change the sentence to multiple members... In the meantime I took another look at the Wikipedia article on standard languages, Luxembourgish would meet 7-8 of those 10 criteria.--Caranorn 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how this is POV, if you want it to say that Luxemburgish is a separate and national language as well (I'm not blind, of course this your goal) feel free to add, afterall this is wikipedia not whineopedia.

Rex 18:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny as that's not in the least my goal. Personally I am of the opinion that Luxembourgish is not a language, only a dialect, but I have no power in that matter and my own opinion is pretty irrelevant in that area. In any case it's not very important to me either. WhatI find important is that the sentence in question is at best misleading, at worst incorrect. But before I change anything else I will wait for an outside opinion. Lastly I will ask you to please remain civil (it is possible that I started the previous discussion too agressively, if that's the case I carry part of the blame for the lack of civility), I have done my best to explain to you what that sentence means (my opinion, though again I am seeking outside interpretation for this just to double check), I have also looked at a lot of documentation (when I really planned to work on an entirely different article that is indirectly linked to the subject) etc. to try to be fair. You on the other hand label my attempts at dialogue as whining...--Caranorn 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If something bothers you, then edit it. If that edit get reverted read the summary and if you disagree sort it on talk. Don't go to a talk page and start telling others why something (in your opinion) is wrong, because that's just double and I consider it whining. Rex 19:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Controversy"

I would like Rex to respond to the following: Chris Wells German. A linguistic history to 1945. As such, I suggest the removal of the unsourced controversy section. Ulritz 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A (seemingly outdated) tree, is not enough. Also, the page itself says "possible" relations. I found the booklet on google.books, here and I was wondering, as you surely must have more than just this tree, on which page the author treats your claim. Also, I think I have an old East German book somewhere, which uses more or less the same terminology ... around 1950. I also do not see "Old Frankish" on that tree ... it would seem it treats O.L.F as being Old Frankish. Rex 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tough luck if you dont like Oxford sources, now prove your OR fantasies. Ulritz 21:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Having a source is one thing, having an up to date and accurate source is a whole different matter. I'm not even speaking of correctly interpreting a source.Rex 09:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of side-stepping the issue, get OVER it. Offhand dismissal of reputable sources is below trolling. Ulritz 17:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are the last to say that. Rex 17:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

very nice map available

By the way, de: Fränkische Sprachen has a very nice map that is easier to read, since it has cities as landmarks and doesn't try to show all of Europe. Including Heidelberg is rather sketchy, but isn't nearly so confusing as why it matters linguistically where the border of Germany and the Netherlands is (the two greens on our map aren't identified as two seperate dialects, so why are there two of them?) — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That map also has some problems, though I only immediately recognise the one involving Luxembourg (if the language/dialect extends beyond the Belgian and French borders (which is correct) then it should also extend beyond the German border). Lastly, that map would be inapropriate as it doesn't provide any sources for the data...--Caranorn 11:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that the Franconian languages sub languages Moselle Franconian, Lorraine Franconian and Rhine Franconian (and others that i will be looking for) be merged into this main article. Most of the others do not have a great ammount of information in them, some duplication of info and would otherwise would be easy to merge.

I think the result would be a rather good article with everyone's contribs.

Triwbe 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Limburgisch is NOT a Dutch dialect

This fact seems to have escaped the (activists?) who edited this Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loginigol (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course Limburgish is a Dutch dialect because it belongs to the Low Franconian dialect continuum as spoken within the Netherlands. Ad43 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. On 14 february 1997 Limburgisch was officially recognized by the Dutch as quote "a foreign language". That is not the case with Dutch dialects. Wikipedia needs to follow the facts instead of making them up. Loginigol (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and this is a very wellknown pitfall. Limburgish has only be recognised as a regional variety, but not in Belgium nor in Germany. This was a purely politically driven prerogative without any serious linguistic motivation. Ad43 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't change the section's title, I'd consider that part of Ad43's talk page edit which we should not alter except for good reasons, which are not given here. And yes, I agree that the recognition of Limbourgish as a language within the Netherlands seems to have been a political decision, not a linguistic one. The major issue here though is reliable sources, these have to be presented to change this type of information within the article. If we end up with conflicting sources we will have to see how to solve that problem, but it certainly won't do for a single editor to delete said sources.--Caranorn (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

numbers

it simply cannot be correct that there are only 1.5 or 1.7 native speakers of franconian dialects in germany. the cologne region alone already has that many people. i added a zero to each figure - that looks more like it. could the person who put these numbers in check that out and explain? secondly, i also added some areas that were not covered by the list of sub-groups. the whole area of north-western bavaria, which happens to be called "franken" (franconia), and northern baden-württemberg, was missing. i have no idea, what these dialects are called in english (in german its "frankish" and "badish". i can hardly call the fomer "francish" or "franconian", can i? Sundar1 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

you cannot just "add a zero" because you think it "looks more like it". All these dialects are apparently near-extinct. If in doubt, remove any unreferenced figures but don't randomly change them. --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuremberg and eastern regions

The map in the English WP is wrong! Please see the map in the German WP http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fränkische_Sprachen, since missing almost the entire area, which is shown in blue in the de-wikipedia, eg the Nuremberg Region, Upper Franconia and the southern Thuringia, ie the East Franconian dialects (in Nuremberg as the "Central Franconian" ("Mittelfränkisch") referred to the administrative district "Mittelfranken" which is linguistically incorrect, but is known in the vernacular so) --Qhx (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so

Sorry, this is oversimple and too creative. There's some high Franconian as well. The references also don't cover the topic. Historical Franconian is excluded. There were a lot of Middle High German Franconian speakers and some Old High Franconian, not to mention a Proto-Franconian. You can only make it look like this article by excluding everything else Franconian. I Don't buy it. Having said that I have to do the ground work. I definitely will be back if only to supply refs where the article is correct.Dave (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked it over more in detail, and maybe I do think so. It isn't bad at all; in fact parts are good. It cerainly is above atart class I would say. My main objections were (and are) it does not include the general concept of Franconian and the extinct Framconian dialects. I suppose it relies on Old Frankish for that. However, Old Frankish treats Franconian as entirely low, excluding High Franconian. Well, Franconian languages must include the extinct ones as well. We can make extensive use of the blue links. I propose to add a section on historical Franconian up front, nothing very extensive, introducing the concept of Franconian. I don't plan to make many changes to what is there; it is too good. A second objection is that the refs do not really cover it and are not WP-style refs. They include all kinds of speculations. I would say, the author is good in linguistics but needs work of WP formatting, which he probably does not have time for. So, I want to work on that. I will try to change the text as little as possible to accomplish those goals.Dave (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate sentence

"Though all named after the Franks, only the Low Franconian group is commonly accepted as the descendant of Old Frankish. "Old Dutch came forth from Old Frankish" (Dutch)"

This is sort of stuck in there as a sort of peevish assertion counter to the whole rest of the article. The reference on it is in Dutch. Although WP often uses references in foreign languages when it needs to use them, there is a problem with that concept here. The Dutch and German terminology is a different system from the English; you can't mix them. Where English uses Franconian to mean Frankish, the Dutch and Germans use forms of Frankish to mean Frankish. If you start pulling in words from German and Dutch you are going to repeat the same concept referenced by Franconian. The English do Franconian; the Germans and Dutch do Frankish. The Dutch speaking editor may not have realized this subtlety; parallel traditons are a finer point of translation. Now, Old Frankish is used by native English authors (rarely) to mean Old Franconian by people that get carried away by literalism: they are going to use the "true" terms as expressed by the natives. The problem is, they seldom mean Low Frankonian by it, always upper and middle. Our article on Old Frankish is totally off the wall. It contradicts itself all over the place. It wants to define Old Frankish as Proto-Franconian and then it turns around and asserts that such a term only apples to Low Franconian. How can that possibly be? Proto-Franconian is a dialect of Proto-Germanic, so are we to presume there were two unrelated groups of Franks on the Rhine in the 3rd century, Franks 1 and Franks 2? Franks 2 must not be Germanic. So that is how that goes, which is the result of mixing systems. Dutch editors should not be telling us English what Old Frankish is to them and ought to be to us. This isn't the first encounter. I am going to work on the Old Frankish article next but meanwhile this questionable statement needs to come out, as soon as I get what should be in there in there.Dave (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Mixed system titles

The three sections of dialects look pretty good. The titles, however, mix systems. If you are refering to groups of dialects under the heading of Franconian then they ought to be the low, central or middle and upper or high. These dialects can only be properly defined in terms of the languages of which they are a part. So, we have two choices. We can title the dialects or we can title the languages. Since this is an article on the dialects I propose to change it to Lower Middle and Upper Franconian or something similar with the word Franconian in each case. The very first sentence of each section states the alternative names, so we are only putting in two alternative names and making the language names the alternatives. Same result, systematic and therefore more comprehensible titles.Dave (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Do you mind if I pass on a bit of friendly feedback? Much of this interesting article is essentially a usage note or historical overview of the terms involved. I think the headings should reflect that. It's not clear to me why a discussion of Franconian languages relies so heavily on the work of a 17th c. Dutch linguist (Van Vliet). Those parts of the article dealing with historical linguistics should perhaps be more clearly headed in that way. The reader is drawn into a complicated discussion of the history of these terms. It appears that a few sentences in the article amount essentially to original (albeit interesting) research on specific points and are not truly encyclopedic in nature.

I'm a little uncomfortable with some of the comments relating to the term "Old Dutch", which is discussed here from an historical perspective. I think some of this could be tied into the usage notes (found elsewhere) on the history of the English word "Dutch".

Also, if you don't mind me saying this, I also think the intro needs to be tightened up and cut down somewhat. The idea is to give a quick overview of the languages that fall into this family. Schildewaert (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Low Franconian vs Low German

How does one actually separate Low German from Low Franconian ? I mean, what is the most prominent linguistic feature that sets the two group of languages apart ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Incoherent characterization of dialect versus language

The word "Franconian" refers to a collection of dialects, and not to a language.[7] Languages have to be genetically related, unless they are defined as isolates; that is, a parent language descends into child languages, or reflex languages, which are defined on that account to be "related." Dialects are not necessarily related. For example, German and Dutch, which are closely related, descend from Proto-Germanic, a parent language. Dialects of German and Dutch at any stage of their development are not necessarily related to each other. The defining elements of the dialect might come from any language or be innovated. No dialect labelled "Franconian" has to be related to any other dialect of the same tag. For example, Old Low Franconian, ancestral phase of Dutch, is not related to the Franconian dialects of Old High German. Moreover, Middle Franconian is not related to Middle High German.

This makes little sense.

Languages have to be genetically related, unless they are defined as isolates

For what? To be languages?

German and Dutch, which are closely related,...

Dialects of German and Dutch at any stage of their development are not necessarily related to each other.

No dialect labelled "Franconian" has to be related to any other dialect of the same tag.

So German and Dutch are closely related, but their dialects aren't, and the Franconian dialects aren't at all? Aren't they also descended from the common "ancestor" of German and Dutch?

The general thrust here appears to be that the Franconian dialects are not defined by having a common ancestor, but rather by resemblance, cutting across clade lines. But it is said in such a formally wrong way that it makes little sense on its face. The requisite vocabulary is missing. 89.217.12.82 (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Article seems like an essay or OR

It seems to me that some agenda is being pursued in this article -- can't tell what exactly, since I don't know the subject, but from the tone of the very long historical section of the article, it seems that SOME linguists 300 years ago were evidently asleep or not paying attention, and then once they got active, they became very naive !! It is like a long opinion piece peppered with juicy quotes.

This tone continues in the vast paragraphs concerning the exact meaning and total contradictory apparent misuse of the term "Franconian". It sounds like someone trying to establish a thesis against opposition.

So Franconian, not Frankish, is the correct translation of Fränkisch when it comes to naming dialects. So what. We've seen false friends before. Since when does it require a polemical essay rather than just a passing remark (suitably supported from the literature)?

If the topic of the article was something like "the English Civil War", this kind of tendentiousness would get ironed out by hot arguments on both sides, but since it's on a topic that obscure to most English speakers, a few selective voices dominate. 89.217.12.82 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the section. Vlaemink (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Source?

From the article:

(1.) Linguistically, it has no common typological features for all the various dialects conventionally grouped as Franconian.

(2.) As such, it forms a residual category within the larger historical West Germanic dialect continuum and not a homogeneous group of closely related dialects.

Alfred Klepsch: http://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Fränkische_Dialekte Fränkische Dialekte, published on 19th of October 2009; in: [Historisches Lexikon Bayerns] (accessed November 21st 2020)

That's not in the source, or where? The Source instead has:

• "Dass auch außerhalb Bayerns Dialekte gesprochen werden, die genetisch mit den fränkischen Mundarten des nördlichen Bayerns verwandt sind, ist aus dem Bewusstsein der Bevölkerung weitgehend geschwunden." I.e: the Franconian/Frankish dialects are genetically related.
• "Als sprachliches Kriterium zur Abgrenzung gegen das Alemannische führte er die Endung der 3. Person Plural an. Sie lautet im Alemannischen –et , z. B. sie saget, im Fränkischen aber –e(n), z. B. sie sage(n)." I.e. there's a linguistic criterion to distinguish Alemannic and Franconian.

--08:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.40.167 (talk)

Die Sprachwissenschaftler verwenden den Ausdruck fränkisch gerne. Das ist eine sprachliche Kategorie. Weder in Frankreich, noch in Belgien oder den Niederlanden verwenden die Sprecher den Ausdruck fränkisch. Ostfränkisch wird fast nur in Franken gesprochen. Etwas außerhalb sagt niemand mehr, es sei fränkisch. Das verstehe, wer will. Sarcelles (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, one has to differ between (a) the statements and their correctness and (b) the sourcing of the statements. The statements are unsourced and not supported by the alleged reference/source, but that doesn't mean they are incorrect. --09:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.40.167 (talk)

Ich bitte dich, solche Verhaltensweisen zu unterlassen. Ich verweise exemplarisch auf Talk:East Bergish. Ich möchte die sich abzeichnende Dauerdabatte bei Talk:Limburgish zentralisieren. Dies ist eine Verhandlungsbasis, weitere Diskussionsseiten sind vorschlagbar.

Sarcelles (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

At Talk:East Bergish an example from Schöller was provided. It's not East Bergish in the sense of LVR as the example has ech and is south of the Uerdingen line; it's not East Bergish in the sense of Wiesinger 1975 as he doesn't have a category East Bergish; and it's not even East Bergish in the sense of Mendel 1967 as Schöller is in the area of Low Bergish. That is: The example provided at Talk:East Bergish is simply off-topic for the article East Bergish. And the mentioning of East Bergish here is off-topic for the quoted statements above. --10:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)