Talk:Franconian (linguistics)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  False edit by [[User: Ulritz]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: Then that article should merge into this one, with subsections on the variants. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poposal to merge [[Franconian languages]] into (or redirect to) [[Low Franconian languages]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  very nice map available 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Limburgisch is NOT a Dutch dialect

message: 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)
thread_title: numbers

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nuremberg and eastern regions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: I don't think so

message: "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)
thread_title: Inappropriate sentence

message: 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)
thread_title: Mixed system titles

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
thread_title: Low Franconian vs Low German

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incoherent characterization of dialect versus language 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have removed the section. Vlaemink (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article seems like an essay or OR 

message: From the article:
:(1.) Linguistically, it has no common typological features for all the various dialects conventionally grouped as Franconian.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)
:(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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Source?