Talk:Heinrich von Veldeke

message: I notice that in different parts of the article we are using different terms, without helping the readers understand that they all intend the same thing: Old Limburgs, Old Limburgish, Maaslandic, Middle Dutch. I imagine/hope that Maaslandic comes from a good source, but I also doubt that this is the most commonly used term. At least in terms of modern dialects (recent centuries, the only ones we can study) the Maasland has several dialects, not all Limburgish, but Hasselt is not in the Maaslandic area, but rather one of the most westerly forms of Limburgish. At least according to WP, Limburgish is a term that can be defined with objective terminology because of various isoglosses. I have no idea whether the original source of "Maaslandic" had a clear definition in mind? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support using “Limburgish” Over the other variants.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree. --Pfold (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I guess that was also the tendency of my post, although my bigger concern is just being a bit more consistent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistency is good. I think I've seen the term Maasländisch in the German scholarly literature, but Veldeke's linguistic affiliation was never a focus of mine. Limburgish seems to be the more common and general term.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The larger dialect division seems to be Meuse-Rhenish (Rhein-Maasländisch). Willemmyns's Dutch. Biography of a Language has lots of refs to Limburg in the develoment of Dutch, nothing in the index for Maas/Meuse. Google turns up quite a few uses of "maasländisch-limburgisch" with ref. to Veldeke. --Pfold (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly it sounds a bit like Maasländisch is a mistake in those German sources, unless they use the term in an unexpected way. For Limburgers the Maas dialects are a real thing which people talk about, but they don't include Hasselts. Probably for a German speaker Limburgish is one small group of dialects based around the Maas. Their preferred term for the language group of Limburgish and Ripuarian also gives that impression. (In Dutch they seem to prefer calling it Limburgs-Nederrijnse.) The Maas valley was clearly a critical medieval cultural area for these dialects, but for Dutch speakers, who have an equal claim on them, the distinctions between the Maas valley and Demer are big ones, making Hasselts close in practice to standard Brabants Dutch. I am not aware of any claims that Van Veldeke spoke a dialect like Maastrichts? If anyone is interested in the isoglosses between Hasselt and the Maas see :nl:Panninger zijlinie. In any case I can't think of any problem with Limburgish either from a German or Dutch perspective.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that we don't have any self-identifications of the name of the dialect(s) from this time. It's not a mistake, it includes the broad area that wrote in a more or less similar way in the High Middle Ages. The self-designation would be calling it Duutsch or something like that (attested in Veldeke's Sente Servas), but that's the self-designation of all continental West Germanic dialects at the time! Dialect distinctions and self-ascriptions change: I can still remember sitting in a class in Freiburg im Breisgau where we were discussing all the places the self-described Swabian Hartmann von Aue was from, and some students vehemently objecting that some of them weren't in the modern Schwaben.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, mistake might not be a perfect word, but it appears so far that there is a habit or tradition in modern German of sometimes using Maaslandish as a rough term to cover Limburgish more generally. So Limburgish would probably be more correct, and less ambiguous. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of his native language 

message: I don't want to make a big thing out of a short description so I will just post a note here. I preferred the version of  over the version of . Reasons: I see Low Countries as a geographical term (as used today) and not likely to be read as the name of a "state"; His native language is sometimes not seen as a form of Dutch, because Limburgish is often seen as something between Dutch and German, and close to the Rhineland dialects.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would generally agree - I thought of "Low Countries" as a general neutral descriptor of the geographic area rather than a political term.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feel strongly about this, but to me what's imprtant are the languages he wrote in - surely MHG needs to be mentioned. Don't share your view of "Low countries", though - for me "countries" is political and of doubtful appropriateness for this area of 12th C Europe. But if you want to change it back, I'll somehow find a way to live with it! --Pfold (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly think "country" is very often geographical in every day English including the names of traditional regions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare South Carolina Low Country. Or Netherland, as used in the Nibelungenlied, I suppose.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  the short description