Talk:Bergish dialects

Hello,

the scope of Bergish in the body of the article includes South Bergish and divides Bergish into Low Bergish and East Bergish. This contradicts ^[1]. Hence I suggest an only secondary coverage of the aforementioned terminology. Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The aforementioned work discusses the issue, which dialects are part of Bergish, in depth. The lists of the :current revision of the article are based on this work. The current body of the article is based on several isoglosses, such as those at the following site: https://rheinische-landeskunde.lvr.de//de/sprache/sprachatlas/dialektkarten/rheinischer_faecher/rheinischer_faecher_1/detailseite_159.html I would like to adapt the article to the former work.

--Sarcelles (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Having suggested a move of Low Bergish at the relevant talk page, I advocate a merger of this article with the other and a creation of a disambiguation page.Sarcelles (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Strukturelle historische Dialektologie des Deutschen: Strukturhistorische und strukturgeographische Studien zur Vokalentwicklung deutscher Dialekte Peter Wiesinger

Georg Olms Verlag, 01.11.2017 assigns a not very big role to Uerdingen Line and is critical of the terms Low Bergish and East Bergish. Sarcelles (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It doens't have East Bergish as separate from Bergish.Sarcelles (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, this article should integrate the article Low Bergish. A study in Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet. Steiner, 1975, discusses the issue of divisions of Bergish in depth, rejecting the term niederbergisch (Low Bergisch). Furthermore, the Internet makes rare use of the terms both Low Bergish and Western Bergish. Sarcelles (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Relisted at Project Languages. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Klaus J. Mattheier (ed.): Aspekte der Dialekttheorie. Tübingen 1983, p. 76 has the following division of Bergish around the respective localities, the area around Velbert and Breitscheid much larger resprectively than the others:

• Werden
• Mülheim
• Velbert
• Breitscheid
  • Cronenberg
    • Elberfeld
    • Barmen
• partly in brackets
  • Solingen
  • Haan
• also partly in brackets: Mündelheim

Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet. Steiner, 1975, p. 82 has a similarly dividing map. The area around Breitscheid is labelled as westliches Zentralbergisch and includes Erkrath, Mettmann, Breitscheid, Gruiten and Wülfrath. östliches Zentralbergisch includes Velbert, Heiligenhaus and Vohwinkel. Wermelskirchen is not Bergish, and part of a smaller area within Ripuarian. Cronenberg is together with Remscheid and Ronsdorf. Solingen is together with Höhscheid, Gräfrath, Wald and Ohligs. The area around Barmen includes Heckinghausen and Oberbarmen. The area around Elberfeld includes Uellendahl and Katernberg. Langenberg is in a small area within Westphalian. Lüttringhausen, Lennep, Hückeswagen, Beyenburg are in an area within Westphalian. Essen, Langerfeld and Wipperfürth are otherwise Westphalian. Sarcelles (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The lists should be merged.Sarcelles (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Klaus J. Mattheier (ed.): Aspekte der Dialekttheorie. Tübingen 1983, p. 76 and Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet. Steiner, 1975, p. 82

• Östliches Zentralbergisch (including Velbert, Neviges, Vohwinkel and Heiligenhaus)
• Westliches Zentralbergisch (including Wülfrath, Erkrath, Gruiten and Mettmann)
• around Werden and Kettwig
• around Mülheim an der Ruhr, Oberhausen
• • • Wuppertal (including Barmen)
    • Wuppertal (including Elberfeld)
  • Wuppertal (including Cronenberg and Ronsdorf) and Remscheid
• • • around Solingen, Höhscheid, Wald, Gräfrath, Ohligs
    • around Hilden and Haan
    • around Mündelheim Sarcelles (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

A paper by Wiesinger in Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie. Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet, 1975 has ''Randbergisch'' as sperate varieties and not one. Sarcelles (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Mündelheim, Solingen and Haan are in a category labelled quite differently from the others in the penultimate source. This would suggest a major difference from them. Also, Werden and Cronenberg are in one subcategory each, the representation of Cronenberg and other places due to the very fine subdivison of the varieties around Cronenberg. Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie. Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet, 1975, p. 82 has the same scheme.

This is portrayed in the article likewise concerning several dialects.

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

• Mülheim an der Ruhr, Oberhausen, Dümpten, Heißen
• [[Werden]], [[Heisingen]], Kupferdreh, Bredeney
• [[Haan]], Hilden
• Solingen, Hörscheid, Solingen-Wald, Ohligs
• Barmen
• Elberfeld
• Cronenberg, Remscheid, Ronsdorf

Sarcelles (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. Only two out the four major groups (excluding the two groups Westphalian and Moselle Franconian that are only peripherically covered) in Cornelissen's classification lie within the Rhenish fan. Also, the Rhenish fan extends all the way up to Speyer (and includes virtually all of Hesse) which is way out of the scope Cornelissen's work. OTOH, all dialects spoken in the Bergisches Land are included in the range of Cornelissen's classification, so the latter is more relevant to this article than to the article Rhenish fan. Austronesier (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

There are several other schemes in this article. This is better to be divided betwee the article Rhenish fan, which currently is about similar ideas, and maybe the article Rhinelandic. Sarcelles (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I request a comment on its quality, see also East Bergish. Sarcelles (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, Paderborn lässt grüßen... A dictionary entry for a term that is attested in a wide range of texts is of course ok, but the definition turns Wiktionary into a private POV encyclopedia. If you feel there is something wrong, take it to the Tea Room over there. Btw, as an on-off Wiktionarian I don't agree with this edit of yours. WT is a dictionary. –Austronesier (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

In a classification by Georg Cornelissen [de] based on isoglosses, dialects of the Bergisches Land are assigned to three dialect areas: varieties between the Uerdingen line (northern ik vs. southern ich 'I') and the Benrath line (northern maken vs. southern machen 'make') are grouped as South Low Franconian (e.g. around Remscheid), varieties south of the Benrath line are classified as Ripuarian (e.g. Bergisch Gladbach), while Ostbergisch ("East Bergish") designates a group of dialects in a long narrow stretch from Mülheim to Bergneustadt between the Uerdingen line (including its southeastern extension where it merges with the Benrath line east of Wermelskirchen) and the so-called Einheitsplurallinie (defined as the southwestern-most extension of the Westphalian generalized plural verb suffix -t).

This doesn't really make clear what Cornelissen grouped "Ostbergish" as, unless this is written to say that "Ostbergish" is a group in itself instead of being part of South Low Franconian or Ripurian. Can this be clarified? Because, quite frankly, I've even seen it most often grouped as being in the North Low Franconian group along with Klevelandish since it's lies north/east of the Uerdingen line. Regardless of whether or not it's a transition dialect (all of them are in this area, really), it'd seem that it's either part of North or South Low Franconian groups. Criticalthinker (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: Me again :) For Cornelissen, "Ostbergish" is a thing of its own in his classification of dialects of the northern Rhineland. Based on the three isoglosses alone that serve as the base of his classification in the northern part of the Rhenish fan, it is indeed indistinguishable from Kleverlandish. I haven't read all of his works, so maybe he has some other defining criterion that specifically sets off "Ostbergish" from Kleverlandish.

In traditional classifications (see this map) and also in more modern approaches such as by Wiesinger or Lameli (see these maps for Wiesinger's classification), "Ostbergish" does not exist. The southern part of "Ostbergish" (located to the southeast of the corner where the Uerdingen and Benrath lines meet) is generally classified as Westphalian, directly bordering on Ripuarian. The classification of the northern half (ranging from Mülheim past Wuppertal to the eastern suburbs of Remscheid) has been the matter of debate in German dialectology; Wiesinger's classification settled the matter when he grouped them with their western neighbors in the Bergish subgroup of South Low Franconian (or "Ripuarian–Low Franconian transitional area" as he calls it). As you can see on all three maps, there is no Kleverlandish "wedge" at all that would go between South Low Franconian and Westphalian (or even further southeast between Ripuarian and Westphalian).

I am aware of only one scholarly map that extends Kleverlandish into such a wedge as to extend at least to the eastern suburbs of Remscheid, which appears in an article by Jan Goossens that is mainly concerned with the formation of Dutch as a literary language. But then, Goossens does not separate this northeastern Bergish area from the rest of Kleverlandish. –Austronesier (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, again, for engaging me in this discussion. I'd just found out about this area, and just want to make sure we stay consistent across pages about the dialects in these areas. What it sounds like you are saying is that the scholarly concensus is that it is probably safest, if this area is to be classified, to classify this area in between the Uerdinger and Benrath lines as "Low Franconian" in general, and then if it must be broken down further "Bergish" or "South Low Franconian" for those "Limburgs" dialects in Germany.

So, I do agree with you, then, that the use of "Ostbergish" outside of a passing mention isn't very clarifying. If I have any further opinion to add, however, it's that I'm not comfortable referring to all of these dialects - or grouping them - as "Limburgs," which is a very Dutch-centered view of things, particularly given the historic population of the Rhineland versus that of Limburg. If you have any further opinions/suggestions, let me know. Criticalthinker (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: You are right about the problematic extension of the term Limburgs to include vareties in Germany. It's not very common even in Dutch publications, but somehow has crept into Wikipedia maps and articles, leading to such weird statements like "Limburgish is not officially recognized in Germany".

FWIW, that terminological practice is not solely a Dutch-centered thing: early editions of Brockhaus Enzyklopädie (late 19th and early 20th century) had a map by German dialectologist Otto Bremer that in fact referred to all South Low Franconian dialects west of the Rhine as Limburgisch and to the remaining ones east of the Rhine as Bergisch. This practice never caught up in Germany, also when then Marburg-based Goossens (himself being Belgian) suggested to replace Südniederfränkisch by Limburgisch in his seminal 1965 article. The dialect group is still called Südniederfränkisch in German scholarship, and even Dutch scholars have come to use Zuidnederfrankisch or "South Low Fraconian" especially in studies that go beyond national boundaries.

For that reason, I have created the linguistic/dialectological article South Low Franconian next to the regional identity-based article Limburgish and tried to bring terminology more into line with mainstream practice in various related articles including this one. Here, the only left-over is the map and its caption, for the simple reason because I'm a complete dummy when it comes to doing maps. Since much of this article is based on Wiesinger, it would be ideal also to have a Wiesinger-based map. Now, I have seen that you have uploaded a handful of maps to Commons. Do you by chance feel inclined to colloborate in creating a map for this article? :) –Austronesier (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

After I'd replied to you, I did see that historically, "Limburgs" or "Limburgisch" was used without respect to a nation or country. As for your request, I fear that I do not know the area well enough to yet help with that, particularly since the placement of this group of dialects seems to be a bit controversial to begin with. Thanks for linking to the South Low Franconian article. I had not known it existed and I'll follow it. Hopefully, it is linked to in the other articles related to these dialects, which is mostly what I'm requesting. Criticalthinker (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)