Limburgish

"Limburgs" redirects here. For other uses, see Limburg.

Limburgish
Limburgan, Limburgian, Limburgic, East Low Franconian, South Low Franconian
Limburgs, Lèmburgs
Pronunciation	[ˈlɪm˦bʏʀ(ə)xs, ˈlɛm˦-]
Native to	Netherlands Limburg Belgium Limburg Liège Germany North Rhine-Westphalia
Region	Limburg (Netherlands) Limburg (Belgium)
Ethnicity	Dutch Belgians Germans
Native speakers	1.3 million in Netherlands and Belgium^[citation needed] (2001)[1] unknown number in Germany
Language family	Indo-European Germanic West Germanic Weser–Rhine Germanic Low Franconian Limburgish
Early form	Frankish
Writing system	Latin
Official status
Recognised minority language in	Netherlands – Statutory provincial language in Limburg Province (1996, Ratification Act, ECRML, No. 136), effective 1997.[2]
Regulated by	Veldeke Limburg, Raod veur 't Limburgs
Language codes
ISO 639-1	li
ISO 639-2	lim
ISO 639-3	lim
Glottolog	limb1263  Limburgan
Linguasphere	52-ACB-al
Limburgish is classified as Vulnerable by the UNESCO Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger.[3]

A Limburgish speaker, recorded in Slovakia

Limburgish[a] (Limburgish: Limburgs [ˈlɪm˦bʏʀ(ə)xs] or Lèmburgs [ˈlɛm˦-]; Dutch: Limburgs [ˈlɪmbʏr(ə)xs]; also Limburgian, Limburgic or Limburgan[1][4]) refers to a group of South Low Franconian varieties spoken in Belgium and the Netherlands, characterized by their distance to, and limited participation in the formation of, Standard Dutch.[5] In the Dutch province of Limburg, all dialects, despite their differences, have been given collectively a regional language status, including those comprising "Limburgish" as used in this article.

Limburgish shares many vocabulary and grammatical characteristics with both German and Dutch. A characteristic feature of many dialects of Limburgish is the occurrence of a lexical pitch accent (Franconian tone accent), which is shared with the adjacent Central Franconian dialects of German.[6]

Etymology

The name Limburgish (and variants of it) derives only indirectly from the now Belgian town of Limbourg (Laeboer in Limburgish, IPA: /ˈlæːbuʁ/), which was the capital of the Duchy of Limburg during the Middle Ages. More directly it is derived from the more modern name of the Province of Limburg (1815–39) in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which has been split today into a Belgian Limburg and a Dutch Limburg. In the area around the old Duchy of Limburg the main language today is French, but there is also a particular cluster of Limburgish (or Limburgish-like, depending on definitions) dialects. The use of Limburgish is first attested at the close of the 19th century.[7]

People from Limburg usually call their language plat,[8] similar as Low German speakers do. This plat refers simply to the fact that the language is spoken in the low plains country, as opposed to the use of "High" in "High German", which are derived from dialects spoken in the more mountainous southerly regions. The word "plat" is therefore associated both with the platteland (Dutch: "countryside") and can in effect sometimes mean simply "slang" in the sense of any very informal, rustic or locally unique words or expressions.

Terminology

Limburgish, using several definitions

The term Limburgish can refer to all varieties spoken within either the Belgian or Dutch province of Limburg, the South-East of Flemish Brabant, the North-East of Liège as well as in combination with the adjacent Rhineland region in a Limburgian-Ripuarian context.

• In everyday speech, Limburgish refers to the varieties spoken in Dutch and Belgian Limburg. It is likewise legally defined through the Dutch recognition of Limburgish as a regional language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.[9]
• In traditional Dutch and Belgian dialectology, Limburgish is roughly defined as comprising the dialects between the Uerdingen line and the Benrath line spoken in Belgium and the Netherlands.
• Flemish linguist Jan Goossens suggested to expand the definition of Limburgish to include all Low Franconian varieties positioned between the Uerdingen and Benrath line, although this usage has not been adopted by other scholars.

Regardless of the exact definition used, the term Limburgish itself is specific to the Netherlands and Belgium, where it used by linguists and speakers alike and is strongly connected to the cultural and regional identity of the inhabitants of both Belgian and Dutch Limburg. This regional identity is notably absent from the speakers of closely related Low Franconian dialects in adjacent parts of Germany, who do not refer to their local dialects as Limburgish.[10] In German linguistic discourse too, the term is uncommon with German linguists instead tending to use Southern Low Franconian (German: Südniederfränkisch) to refer to the same dialect grouping.

Classification and history

Further information: History of Dutch, Low Franconian, and Rhenish fan

The classification of Limburgish is contended by different national traditions. Within the context of historical linguistics, Limburgish is regarded as one of the five main dialects of Middle Dutch,[11][12] although this is not considered to be a homogeneous language, but a retrofit definition based on the region where Dutch is currently an official language.[12]

German and French[13] dialectology considers Limburgish part of the Rhenish Fan. Sometimes it is also called a variety of Meuse-Rhenish, especially among German dialectologists. Belgian/Dutch linguistics considers it in the context of Limburgian-Ripuarian,[14] together with the Ripuarian varieties. The early medieval Limburgish writer Heinrich von Veldeke is claimed by the tradition of both Dutch and German dialectology.[15]

From the end of the 20th century on, Limburgish has developed a sense of autonomy from the traditional Dutch-German dipole as Limburgish linguists and functionaries consider it explicitly distinct from Dutch and German,[16][17] as affirmed by the Covenant of the Limburgish language[18] which politically decouples Limburgish from Dutch in the eyes of the Dutch government.

Limburgish developed from Old East Low Franconian, which had evolved itself from earlier Weser–Rhine Germanic, a language which had been spoken in the Low Countries on both sides of the Roman limes since at least the 4th century. During the High Middle Ages, the dialects which would result in Limburgish were influenced by the High German dialects spoken around the city of Cologne, resulting in certain High German features being absorbed by these varieties. It is the adoption of these phonological traits that resulted in Limburgish being classified as East Low Franconian.

In the past, all Limburgish varieties were therefore sometimes seen as West Central German, part of High German.[19][20] This difference is caused by a difference in definition: the latter stance defines a High German variety as one that has taken part in any of the first three phases of the High German consonant shift. It is nevertheless most common in linguistics to consider Limburgish as Low Franconian.

The traditional terminology can be confusing as the differences between the historical groupings Old West Franconian and Old East Franconian (which mainly concern certain vowel variations and the presence of Ingvaeonic features) is different from the modern modern dialectal dichotomy between Western and Eastern Low Franconian, which is based on the presence or absence of High German features in Low Franconian, which did not occur until the advent of the Middle Dutch period.[21][22] The period of High German influence lasted until the 13th century, after which the Duchy of Brabant extended its power, which resulted in a marked Brabantian influence, first among the western (i.e. spoken up to Genk) Limburgish dialects and then also among the eastern variants.[23]

Currently Limburgish – although being essentially a variety of Low Franconian – still has a considerable distance from Standard Dutch with regards to phonology, morphology and lexicon. Standard Dutch, which developed mostly from West Low Franconian dialects such as Flemish and Brabantic,[24] serves as the standard language (or Dachsprache) for the Limburgish varieties spoken in the Netherlands and Belgium. The speakers of Limburgish or South Low Franconian dialects in Germany use Standard German as their Dachsprache.

Form

Limburgish is far from being homogeneous. In other words, it has numerous varieties instead of one single standard form. Between 1995 and 1999, a uniform standard form called AGL (Algemein Gesjreve Limburgs, "Generally written Limburgish") was developed and proposed, but found too little support.[25] Today the so-called "Veldeke-spelling" which was first applied in the 1940s is most of the time used to write in a specific Limburgish dialect.[26] In 2000 the parliament of the province of Dutch Limburg enacted a measure establishing the Limburgish Language Council (Raod veur 't Limburgs), a committee which advises the Parliament of Dutch Limburg on measures in relation to Limburgish. In 2003 the Limburgish Language Council adopted a standard orthography for Limburgish. On the basis of this standard orthography the Limburgish Academy Foundation (Stiechting Limbörgse Academie) is creating Limburgish-Dutch, Limburgish-English, Dutch-Limburgish and English-Limburgish dictionaries.[27]

Contemporary usage

Bilingual signs in Maastricht

Limburgish is spoken by approximately 1.6 million people in the Low Countries and by many hundreds of thousands in Germany.^[citation needed] It is especially in the Dutch province of Limburg that Limburgish is used not only in everyday speech, but also often in more formal situations and on the local and regional radio.[28] According to a study by Geert Driessen, in 2011 Limburgish was spoken by 54 percent of the adults and 31 percent of the children.[29] Limburgish has no real written tradition, except for its early beginnings. Hendrik van Veldeke wrote in a Middle Limburgish dialect.[30] Especially in the Netherlands, the cultural meaning of the language is also important. Many song texts are written in a Limburgish dialect, for example during Carnival. Jack Poels writes most of his texts for Rowwen Hèze in Sevenums, a local dialect.

To what degree Limburgish actually is spoken in Germany today remains a matter of debate. Not depending on the city in these parts of Germany, less than 50% of the population speak a local or regional form of Limburgish. Depending on the city in these parts of Belgium, according to A, Schuck (2001) 50% to 90% of the population speak a local or regional form of Limburgish, which seems to be a clear overestimation.^[citation needed] Moreover, research into some specific variants seems to indicate a gradual process of development towards the national standardised Dutch, especially amongst younger generations.[31] In Belgium, the Limburgish dialects are generally considered to be more endangered than in the Netherlands.[32]

Bilingual signs in Hasselt, Belgium

Since Limburgish is still the mother tongue of many inhabitants in Dutch and Belgian Limburg, Limburgish grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation can have a significant impact on the way locals speak Dutch in public life.[33] Within the modern communities of these provinces, intermediate idiolects are also very common, which combine standard Dutch with the accent and some grammatical and pronunciation tendencies derived from Limburgish. This "Limburgish Dutch" is confusingly also often referred to simply as "Limburgish", although in Belgium such intermediate languages tend to be called tussentaal ("in-between language"), no matter the exact dialect/language with which standard Dutch is combined.[34]

Linguistic versus societal status

In March 1997 the Dutch government recognised Limburgish as a regional language (Dutch: streektaal) in the Netherlands.[35] As such, it receives moderate protection under chapter 2 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.[35]

However, some linguists have argued that this recognition was highly politically motivated and done more on sociolinguistic than purely linguistic grounds. In 1999, the Dutch Language Union, the de facto language authority which asserted that it had not been asked for advice, opposed the recognition.[36] From the Limburgish side^[vague] it has been argued^[according to whom?] that the arguments put forth against the recognition of Limburgish were not based on linguistic considerations, but rather a concern for maintaining the dominance of the Dutch language.

On the other hand, Limburgish is not recognised by the German and Belgian national governments as an official language. An attempt at recognition, made after Limburgish had been recognised in the Netherlands, failed in the Belgian parliament due to Flemish opposition.[35] Because in Belgium political power is divided according to linguistic lines, recognizing Limburgish as an official language would have had considerable constitutional implications and undermine the small majority Flemish speakers hold over Walloon speakers in the Belgian State.^[according to whom?]

Subdivisions of Limburgish

Principal dialects

Subdialects of Limburgish in Dutch and Belgian Limburg are:[37][38]

• Truierlands
• Lommels (around Lommel)
• Brabants-Limburgs
  • Noorderkempens
  • Zuiderkempens
  • Getelands
• West-Limburgs (West Limburgish)
  • Dommellands
  • Demerkempens
  • Beringerlands (cp. Beringen)
  • Lonerlands
• Centraal-Limburgs (Central Limburgish)
  • Weertlands
  • Horns
  • Maaskempens
  • Centraal-Maaslands
  • Trichterlands
  • Bilzerlands (cp. Bilzen)
  • Tongerlands (cp. Tongeren)
• Oost-Limburgs (East Limburgish)
  • Noordelijk Oost-Limburgs (Northern East Limburgish)
  • Zuidelijk Oost-Limburgs (Southern East Limburgish)
• Zuid-Gelders Limburgs (around Venlo)
• Noord-Gelders Limburgs or Kleverlands

Expanded

The Limburgish group belongs to the Continental West Germanic dialect continuum. As usual inside dialect continua, neighboring languages have a maximum of similarities, and speakers being used to the rather small individual lingual differences in their immediate neighborhood perceive them as close, and familiar, while more distant ones become gradually harder to understand with distance. That ends, in the Dutch–German continuum at least, most often with incomprehensible dialects. Isoglosses are so dense in this area that practically every village or town has its own distinct dialect of Limburgish. Large cities such as Mönchengladbach, Krefeld, and Düsseldorf have several local dialect varieties. The named cities have in common, that they are large enough to in part extend outside the area of the dialect group. Thus each has one or more quarters outside, having vernacular languages belonging to adjacent groups, such as Kleverlandish or Ripuarian.

A few sample dialects are: Dremmener Platt of Dremmen near Heinsberg, Breyellsch Platt of Breyell in Nettetal, Jlabbacher Platt of central Mönchengladbach, Jriefrother Platt of Grefrath, Viersener Platt of Viersen, Föschelner Platt of Fischeln in Krefeld, Krieewelsch of central Krefeld, Ödingsch of Uerdingen in Krefeld, Düsseldorver Platt of northern and central Düsseldorf, Rotinger Platt of Ratingen, Wülfrother Platt of Wülfrath, Metmannsch Platt of Mettmann, Solinger Platt of Solingen, Remscheder Platt of Remscheid, and many more.

The group combines Low Franconian properties with some Ripuarian properties, such as tonal accents, the pronoun "I" translates as ech or iech, the word "but" most often as awwer, all like Ripuarian. Contrasting, "time" is translated as tied, "to have" mostly as hebbe, "today" as vandag, all typical for Low Franconian.

Noord-Limburgs (also called ik-Limburgs)^[citation needed] is the Dutch term for a group of dialects spoken north of the Uerdingen line, i.e. from just south of Venlo upward to the North in the Dutch province of Limburg. These dialects share many features with both the Kleverlandish and Brabantian dialects and are closer to Standard Dutch than the more southern language varieties (see e.g. Hoppenbrouwers 2001). The term Noord-Limburgs is used by Jo Daan for the entire province north of the Uerdingen line, whereas other linguists use it only for the part that has tonality, the language north of this region then being considered Kleverlandish.

The north border of the Limburgish tonality zone lies a little north of Arcen and Horst aan de Maas and just above the meej/mich isogloss, also known as the "mich-kwartier". This makes this Limburgish isogloss the northernmost of all. Venlo lies between the meej/mich isogloss and the Uerdingen line, so the Venlo dialect is the only one with both forms ik and mich/dich. All dialects in the Dutch province of Limburg spoken north of the tonality border are Kleverlandish in linguistic respect.

The dialects spoken in the most southeastern part of the Dutch province of North Brabant (i.e. in and around Budel and Maarheeze) also have many Limburgish characteristics. An important difference between these dialects and the adjacent ones in the Dutch province of Limburg is, however, that the second-person pronoun gij is here used instead of doe, as in "purely" Brabantian dialects.[39]

Centraal-Limburgs (Central Limburgish) includes the area around Maastricht, Sittard, Roermond, the eastern half of Belgian Limburg, and the Belgian Voeren area, and stretches further Northeast. Belgian linguists ^[citation needed] use a more refined classification. Dutch linguists use the term Oost-Limburgs (East Limburgish) for the form of Limburgish spoken in an area from Belgian Voeren south of Maastricht in the Netherlands to the German border. For them, West-Limburgs (West Limburgish) is the variety of Limburgish spoken in Belgium in the area east of the Uerdingen line, for example in and around Hasselt and Tongeren. It includes areas in Dutch Limburg (like Ool, Maria Hoop and Montfort) and Dutch Brabant. The border of West-Limburgs and Oost-Limburgs starts a little south of the area between the villages of 's-Gravenvoeren and Sint-Martens-Voeren in the Belgian municipality of Voeren.

Meuse-Rhenish

Meuse-Rhenish

Main article: Meuse-Rhenish

Limburgish is spoken in a considerable part of the German Lower Rhine area. This area extends from the border regions of Cleves, Viersen and Heinsberg, stretching out to the Rhine river. Modern linguists, both in the Netherlands and in Germany, now often combine these distinct varieties with the Cleves dialects (Kleverländisch). This superordinating group of Low Franconian varieties (between the rivers Meuse and Rhine) is called Meuse-Rhenish (Rheinmaasländisch).

Both Limburgish and Low Rhenish belong to this greater Meuse-Rhine area, building a large group of Low Franconian dialects, including areas in Belgium, the Netherlands and the German Northern Rhineland. The northwestern part of this triangle came under the influence of the Dutch standard language, especially since the founding of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815. At the same time, the southeastern portion became part of the Kingdom of Prussia, and was subject to High German language domination. At the dialectal level however, mutual understanding is still possible far beyond both sides of the national borders.

The Meuse-Rhenish dialects can be divided into Northern and Southern varieties. Hence, Limburgish is Southern Meuse-Rhenish as spoken in Belgium, the Netherlands and the German Lower Rhine. The Northern Meuse-Rhenish dialects as spoken in the Netherlands and in Germany (a little eastward along the Rhine) are unambiguously Low Franconian. As discussed above, Limburgish straddles the borderline between "Low Franconian" and "Middle Franconian" varieties. These Southern Meuse-Rhenish dialects are more-or-less mutually intelligible with the Ripuarian dialects, but have not been influenced by the High German consonant shift except in isolated words (R. Hahn 2001).^[citation not found]

South Low Franconian

South Low Franconian (Südniederfränkisch, Zuidnederfrankisch) is the term used by dialectologists in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands to describe the dialect group that encompasses the Limburgish varieties of Belgian and Dutch Limburg, and also the closely related dialects in adjacent areas in Belgium (e.g. Eupen in Liège Province) and Germany (stretching from the Dutch border to the Bergisches Land Region near Düsseldorf east of the Rhine).

Goossens (1965) distinguished the following subdialects:[40]

• ostlimburgisch-ribuarisches Übergangsgebiet (East Limburgish - Ripuarian transitional area; Uerdingen, Düsseldorf, Solingen, Remscheid, Mönchengladbach, Eupen)
• Ostlimburgisch (East Limburgish; Panningen, Krefeld, Dülken, Sittard)
• Zentrallimburgisch (Central Limburgish; Maastricht, Vroenhoven)
• westlimburgisch-zentrallimburgisches Übergangsgebiet (West Limburgish - Central Limburgish transitional area; around and southern of Genk)
  • Tongerländisch (Tongeren)
  • Bilzerländisch (Genk, Bilzen)
• Westlimburgisch (West Limburgish; Veldeke, Hasselt, St.-Truiden, Loon)
• südbrabantisch-westlimburgisches Übergangsbiet (South Brabantian - West Limburgish transitional area)
  • Ostgeteländisch (Beringen)
  • Westgeteländisch (Tienen)

Orthography

See also: Spelling 2003 for the Limburgian dialects

There is no standardized form of Limburgish, nor is there an official standard spelling for the individual Limburgish dialects. The dialect association Veldeke Limburg developed an advisory spelling in 2003 that is endorsed by the Limburgish Language Council and aims at uniformly representing all the sounds that occur within the Limburgish dialects in writing. Although this spelling also does not have official status, it is used within this dialect association as well as for the spelling of bilingual place name signs.[41][42]

Phonology

The sound inventory below is based on the variety of West-Limburgs spoken in Montfort.

Consonants

		Labial	Alveolar	Post- alveolar	Palatal	Velar	Uvular	Glottal
Nasal		m	n		ɲ	ŋ
Plosive / Affricate	voiceless	p	t	t͡ʃ	c	k		ʔ
	voiced	b	d	d͡ʒ	ɟ	ɡ
Fricative	voiceless	f	s	ʃ		x		h
	voiced	v	z	ʒ		ɣ	ʁ
Approximant	central	w			j
	lateral		l		ʎ

• /ɡ/ may not show up in the Hasselt dialect, but is common in other Limburgish dialects, e.g. zègke (Dutch: zeggen) "to say".
• Other Limburgish dialects also have the following sounds: [c] (landj); [ɲ] (tenj, teeth).
• /w/ is realized as [β̞] in Belgian Limburgish.
• [ɫ] is a common allophone of /l/, especially in coda position. It is rare in the Montfortian dialect.
• [ç] and [ʝ] are allophones of /x/ and /ɣ/, occurring in a front-vowel environment. This is termed Soft G in Dutch dialectology.
• [ɦ] is an allophone of /h/. In some dialects, it may be the usual realization of /h/.
• In most modern dialects, /r/ is uvular.

Overall, Limburgish dialects tend to have more consonants than Dutch. They also tend to have more vowels. According to Peter Ladefoged, the vowel inventory of the dialect of Weert is perhaps the richest in the world. It has 28 vowels, among which there are 12 long monophthongs (three of which surface as centering diphthongs), 10 short monophthongs and 6 diphthongs.[43][44]

In most of the Limburgish dialects spoken to the southeast of Panningen—for example those of Roermond, Sittard and Heerlen—[ʃ] appears at the beginning of words in the consonant clusters sp, st, sl, sm, sn and zw. The same sound is realized as [s] elsewhere (e.g. sjtraot/straot, "street"). This is not the case, however, in the dialects of for example Venlo, Weert, Maastricht, Echt, Montfort and Posterholt.

Vowels

Monophthongs of the Maastrichtian dialect, from Gussenhoven & Aarts (1999:159)

Diphthongs of the Maastrichtian dialect, from Gussenhoven & Aarts (1999:159)

Monophthongs

Short vowels Front Central Back Unrounded Rounded Close i y u Close-mid ɪ ʏ ə ʊ Open-mid ɛ œ ɔ Open æ ɑ

Long vowels Front Central Back Unrounded Rounded Close iː yː uː Close-mid eː øː oː Open-mid ɛː œː œ̃ː ɔː ɔ̃ː Open æː æ̃ː aː ɑː ɑ̃ː

• /ə/ only occurs in unstressed syllables.
• /øː œː uː/ are realised as [øə œə uə] before alveolar consonants.^[citation needed]

Diphthongs

The diphthongs /iə ø eɪ æɪ uɪ ɔɪ aɪ ou/^[clarification needed] occur, as well as combinations of /uː ɔː ɑː/ + /j/. /aɪ/ only occurs in French loanwords and interjections.

/ou/ is realized as [oə] before alveolar consonants. /eɪ/ can be realized as [eə] or [ejə]. In the dialect of Geleen, /eː/ is realized as [iɛ] and /oː/ as [ɔː]. In many dialects such as that of Maastricht and Sittard, the long vowel /aː/ in Dutch cognates is most of the time realized as [ɒː], as in nao ("after", "to, towards"). The Standard Dutch equivalents are na [naː] and naar [naːr].

In about 50 Belgian Limburgish dialects, the rounded front vowels /y, yː, ø, øː, œ, œː, œy/ are unrounded to /i, iː, ɪ, eː, ɛ ~ æ, ɛː, ɛi/ in most native words. They are retained in French loanwords such as dzjuus /dʒys/.[45]

Tone

Further information: Tone (linguistics)

Extent (orange) of the region where a pitch accent was historically used in The Benelux, France and Germany

Tone contour in dragging tone

Tone contour in push tone

The pitch accent means having two different accents used in stressed syllables. The difference between these two accents is used for differentiating both various grammatical forms of a single lexeme and minimal tone pairs one from the other.[46]

With specific regards to Limburgish, these two accents are traditionally known as sjtoettoen ("push tone") and sjleiptoen ("dragging tone"). For example, [daːx˦˨˧] daãg with a dragging tone means "day" in Limburgish, while in many Limburgish dialects [daːx˦˨] daàg with a push tone is the plural form, "days" (in addition, [daːx] can also be articulated in a neutral tone as a third possibility. In this case, it means "bye-bye" ["good day"]). In the preceding example, the difference is grammatical, but not lexical. An example of a lexical difference caused only by tone is the word [biː˦˨] biè which is articulated with a push tone and means "bee", which forms a tonal minimal pair with [biː˦˨˧] biẽ, which is articulated with a dragging tone and means "at". This contrastive pitch accent also occurs in Central Franconian dialects spoken to the southeast of Limburgish.

Other Indo-European pitch accent languages that use tone contours to distinguish the meaning of words that are otherwise phonetically identical include Lithuanian, Latvian, Swedish, Norwegian, Standard Slovene (only some speakers), and Serbo-Croatian. This feature is comparable to tone systems as found e.g. in Chinese or many languages of Africa and Central America, although such "classical" tone languages make much more use of tone distinctions when compared to Limburgish.[47]

Historically, pitch accent in Limburgish and Central Franconian developed independently from accent systems in other Indo-European languages. While contrastive accent can be reconstructed for Proto Indo-European, it was completely lost in Proto-Germanic.[48] Its reemergence in Limburgish (and Central Franconian) was phonetically triggered by vowel height, vowel length, and voicing of a following consonant, and became phonemic with sound changes that must have occurred after 1100 CE such as lengthening of short vowels in open syllables, loss of schwa in final syllables, devoicing of consonants in final position, and merger of vowels that had been distinct before.[49]

Particular local features

Bitonality

It has been proven^[according to whom?] by speech analysis that in the Belgian Limburgish dialect of Borgloon, the dragging tone itself is bitonal, while it has also been proved that this is not the case in the adjacent Limburgish dialects of Tongeren and Hasselt.

Steeper fall

Other research has indicated that the push tone has a steeper fall in the eastern dialects of Limburgish (e.g. those of Venlo, Roermond and Maasbracht) than it has in western dialects. In addition, both the phonetic realisation and the syllable-based distribution of the contrasts between push and dragging tone seem to be mora-bound in the eastern dialects only. This has been examined especially by Jörg Peters.[50]

Diphthongization

Moreover, in some dialects such as that of Sittard and Maastricht, especially the mid and high vowels tend to diphthongize when they have a push tone. So in the dialect of Sittard keize means "to choose" while in the dialect of Maasbracht no diphthongization takes place, so keze means the same here. This difference has been examined in particular by Ben Hermans and Marc van Oostendorp.[51]

Other examples include plural

• [stæɪn˦˨˧] steĩn "stone"
• [stæɪn˦˨] steìn "stones"

and lexical

• [ɡraːf˦˨] "grave"
• [ɡraːf˦˨˧] "hole next to a road"

Verbs distinguish mood with tone:

• [weːʁ˦˨˧ˈkɪ˦˨və˧] "We conquer!"
• [weːʁ˦˨˧ˈkɪ˦˨˧və˧] "May we conquer!"

The difference between push tone and dragging tone may also purely mark grammatical declension without there being any difference in meaning, as in the dialect of Borgloon: gieël ("yellow", with dragging tone) as opposed to en gieël peer ("a yellow pear", with push tone). This tonal shift also occurs when the adjective gets an inflectional ending, as in nen gieëlen appel ("a yellow apple").[52]

In some parts of Limburg, the tonal plural is being replaced with the Dutch forms among the younger generation, so that the plural for daag becomes dage ([daːʝə]).

Samples

The sample texts are readings of the first sentence of The North Wind and the Sun.

Phonetic transcription (Hasselt, West Limburgish)

[də ˈnɔːʀdəʀˌβɛntʃ˨ ən də ˈzɔn | βøːʀən ɑn dɪskəˈtɛːʀə | ˈeː˨vəʀ ˈβiə vɔn ɪn ˈtβɛː ət ˈstæʀ˨əkstə βøːʀ || ˈtuːn ˈkum təʀ ˈdʒys ˈei˨mɑnt vʀ̩ˈbɛː˨ | ˈdiː nən ˈdɪkə ˈβæʀmə ˈjɑs ˈɑːn˨ɦaː][53]

Orthographic version (Hasselt, West Limburgish)

De naorderwèndj en de zon weuren an disketaere ever wieë von hin twae het sterrekste weur, toên koem ter dzjuus eejmand verbae diê nen dikke, werme jas àànhaa.^[citation needed]

Phonetic transcription (Maastricht, Central Limburgish)

[də ˈnoːʀ˦dəˌβɪnt˦ æn də ˈzɔn ɦɑdən ən ˈdʀœkə dɪsˈkʏsi ˈøː˦vəʀ də ˈvʀɒːx | ˈβeː vaːn ɦynən ˈtβijə də ˈstæʀ˦kstə βɒːʀ | tun ˈʒys iːmɑnt vøːʀˈbɛː˦ kɒːm | deː nən ˈdɪkə ˈβæʀmə ˈjɑs ˈɒːnɦɑt][54]

Orthographic version (Maastricht, Central Limburgish)

De noordewind en de zon hadde en drökke discussie euver de vraog wee vaan hunen twieje de sterkste waor, toen zjuus iemand veurbij kaom dee nen dikke, werme jas aonhad.^[citation needed]

Grammar

Nouns

Gender

Limburgish has three grammatical genders. In some of the Limburgish dialects^[which?], den is used before masculine words beginning with b, d, h, t or with a vowel and in many other dialects der is used before all masculine words. In most dialects, the indefinite article is eine(n) for masculine nouns, ein for feminine nouns and ei or 'n for neuter nouns. Without stress, these forms are most of the time realized as ne(n), n and e.

Plural

For some nouns, Limburgish uses simulfixes (i.e. umlaut) to form the plural:

• broor – breur (brother – brothers)
• sjoon – sjeun (shoe – shoes): note this can also be 'sjoon' with sjtoettoen (pushing tone).

For some nouns, there exists a separate conjugation as well:

• thoos - turrest - tezennest / tehurrest - tozzest - toerrest - tehunnest (my home - your home - his home / her home - our home - their home)

Plural and diminutive nouns based on Umlaut start to prevail east towards Germany. However, towards the west, the phonemic distinction between dragging and pushing tone will stop just before Riemst.[55]

Diminutives

The diminutive suffix is most often -ke, as in Brabantian, or -je/-sje after a dental consonant. For some nouns an umlaut is also used and in breurke for 'little brother' and sjeunke for 'little shoe'.

Adjectives

According to their declension, Limburgish adjectives can be grouped into two classes. Adjectives of the first class get the ending -e in their masculine and feminine singular forms and always in plural, but no ending in their neuter singular form. When combined with a masculine noun in singular adjectives may also end on -en, under the same phonological conditions which apply to articles. To this class belong most adjectives ending on a -ch[t], -d, -k, -p, -t or -s preceded by another consonant or with one of the suffixes -eg, -ig and -isch. The other declension class includes most adjectives ending on -f, -g, -j, -l,-m,-n, -ng, -r, -w or -s preceded by a vowel; these adjectives only get the ending -e(n) in their masculine singular form.

When used as a predicate, Limburgish adjectives never get an ending: Dee mins is gek (Maastrichtian: "That man is crazy"). Except for neuter adjectives which sometimes get -t: "'t Eint of 't angert", though this is dying out.

Pronouns

Personal pronouns

	Subject				Object
	Venlo	Roermond	Weert	Maastricht	Venlo	Roermond	Weert	Maastricht
First person singular	ik	ich		iech	mich			miech
Second person singular	doe		dich	diech	dich			diech (especially in Maastrichtian)
Third person singular masculine	hae			heer	häöm (also dem in the dialect of Roermond)
Third person singular feminine	zie, het		zeuj	zie, zij	häör, häöm		heur	häör
Third person singular neutral	het				het
First person plural	weej	veer	vae	veer	ós			us
Second person plural	geej	geer	gae	geer	óch		uch	uuch
Third person plural	zie		zeuj	die	häör		hun

Possessive pronouns

	Singular masculine	Singular feminine	Singular neuter	Plural
First person singular	miene(n)	mien	mie	mien
Second person singular	diene(n)	dien	die	dien
Third person singular masculine	ziene(n)	zien	zie	zien
Third person singular neutral	ziene(n)	zien	zie	zien
Third person singular feminine	häöre(n)	häör	häör	häör
First person plural	ooze(n)	oos (Maastrichtian: eus)	ós (Maastrichtian: us)	oos (Maastrichtian: eus)
Second person plural	eure(n)	eur	eur	eur
Third person plural	häöre(n) (easterly) / hunne(n) (westerly)	häör (easterly) / hun (westerly)	häör (easterly) / hun (westerly)	häör (easterly) / hun (westerly)

In the masculine singular forms of mien, dien, zien and oos, final -n is added under the same phonological conditions which apply to articles and adjectives. Deletion of the final -n in the neuter forms of mien, dien, zien no longer occurs in the dialect of Venlo and is also disappearing in the dialect of Roermond.

Demonstrative pronouns

The most common demonstrative pronouns in Limburgish are:

Singular masculine	Singular feminine	Singular neuter	Plural	Translation
deze(n)/dizze(n)	dees/dis	dit	dees	this/these
dae(n) (Maastrichtian: dee)	die	det (Venlo, Roermond, Weert), dat (Maastricht)	die	that/those

Vocabulary

Most of the modern Limburgish vocabulary is very similar to that of Standard Dutch or to that of Standard German due to a heavy influence from the two. However, some^[vague] of the basic vocabulary is rooted in neighboring Central German dialects.

Historically, the vocabulary of the varieties of Limburgish spoken within current Belgian territory has been more influenced by French than that of the Limburgish dialects spoken on Dutch and German soil, as appears form words such as briquet ("cigarette-lighter"), camion ("truck") and crevette ("shrimp"). The language has similarities with both German and Dutch, and Hendrik van Veldeke, a medieval writer from the region, is referred to as both one of the earlier writers in German and one of the earliest writers in Dutch.

See also

• Limburgish Wikipedia
• Southeast Limburgish

Notes

1. Limburgish is pronounced /ˈlɪmbɜːrɡɪʃ/ LIM-bur-ghish, whereas Limburgan, Limburgian and Limburgic are /lɪmˈbɜːrɡən/ lim-BUR-gən, /-ɡiən/ -⁠ghee-ən and /-ɡɪk/ -⁠gik, respectively.

References

1. Limburgish at Ethnologue (18th ed., 2015) (subscription required)
2. "Limburgish". Ethnologue.com. Retrieved 23 August 2017.
3. Moseley, Christopher; Nicolas, Alexandre. "Atlas of the world's languages in danger". unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 2022-07-11.
4. Hammarström, Harald; Forke, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin; Bank, Sebastian, eds. (2020). "Limburgan". Glottolog 4.3.
5. Frens Bakker, in: Onze Taal 66, ""Wat is Limburgs?" 1997, page 109: "bij zowel het Nedersaksisch als het Limburgs gaat om een groep nauw verwante dialecten die sterk van de nationale standaardtaal verschillen en nauwelijks hebben bijgedragen aan het ontstaan van die standaardtaal." (Both Low Saxon and Limburgish are a group of closely related dialects that differ greatly from the national standard language and have hardly contributed to the origins of that standard language.)
6. Peters, Jörg (2007). "A bitonal lexical pitch accent in the Limburgian dialect of Borgloon". ResearchGate.
7. Frans Debrabandere: Limburgs etymologisch woordenboek: de herkomst van woorden uit beide Limburgen, Davidsfonds, 2011.
8. Saiegh-Haddad, Elinor; Laks, Lior; McBride, Catherine (2022). Handbook of Literacy in Diglossia and in Dialectal Contexts: Psycholinguistic, Neurolinguistic, and Educational Perspectives. Springer Nature. p. 220. ISBN 978-3-030-80071-0.
9. Koninkrijksrelaties, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en (2020-07-14). "Erkende talen in Nederland - Erkende talen - Rijksoverheid.nl". www.rijksoverheid.nl (in Dutch). Retrieved 2023-06-11.
10. Jürgen Erich Schmidt: Historisches Westdeutsch/Rheinisch (Moselfränkisch, Ripuarisch, Südniederfränkisch). In: Sprache und Raum: Ein internationales Handbuch der Sprachvariation. Band 4: Deutsch, Berlin, 2019, p. 528.
11. Marijke van der Wal en Cor van Bree, Geschiedenis van het Nederlands, Houten, 2008, p. 109.
12. Niederländische Philologie, FU Berlin: Structuur en geschiedenis van het Nederlands: Een inleiding tot de taalkunde van het Nederlands; Diversiteit van het Middelnederlands, 2022 (link) [at least in parts, namely for pictures, based on Wikipedia/Wikimedia]
    "Structuur en geschiedenis van het Nederlands :: Niederländische Philologie FU Berlin". neon.niederlandistik.fu-berlin.de. Retrieved 2023-06-11.
13. "Littérature en langues régionales". Objectif plumes (in French). Retrieved 2023-06-11.
14. Rob Belemans at DBNL. "talig-erfgoedbeleid | Rob Belemans Van Hilepani tot Hasselt → Charters, conventies, taalpolitiek en immaterieel erfgoed, Faro. Tijdschrift over Cultureel Erfgoed. Jaargang 2". DBNL (in Dutch). Retrieved 2023-06-11.
15. Janssens, Jozef D. (2007). "In de schaduw van de keizer: Hendrik van Veldeke en zijn tijd (1130-1230) /". lib.ugent.be. Retrieved 2023-06-11.
16. "Wij spreken Limburgs maar de Taalunie wil dat niet weten" (PDF). 2023-01-07. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-01-07. Retrieved 2023-06-11.
17. "Wij spreken Limburgs - Petitie24.nl". www.petitie24.nl (in Dutch). Retrieved 2023-06-11.
18. Koninkrijksrelaties, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en (2019-11-27). "Convenant inzake de Nederlandse erkenning van de Limburgse taal". zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl (in Dutch). Retrieved 2023-06-11.
19. Wijngaard, H. H. A. van de (1996). Een eeuw Limburgse dialectologie (in Dutch). Vereniging voor Limburgse Dialect- en Naamkunde. ISBN 978-2-87021-057-4.
20. Jonghe, A. de (1943). De Taalpolitiek van koning Willem i in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden, 1814-1830, de genesis der taalbesluiten en hun toepassing, door A. de Jonghe ... (in Dutch). Steenlandt.
21. H.K.J. Cowan: Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde. Jaargang 71, Leiden, 1953, pp. 181.
22. Structuur en geschiedenis van het Nederlands, Niederländische Philologie FU Berlin. neon.niederlandistik.fu-berlin.de.
23. Maes, Ulrich. "De regenboogkleuren van Limburgs taal" [The rainbow colors of Limburgish language] (PDF) (in Dutch). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-12-31.
24. Belemans & Keulen 2004, p. 21.
25. "Streektaal". D66limburg.nl (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2004-11-21.
26. "Limburgse taal". Jean Robert Opgenort.nl. 2003-12-01. Retrieved 2012-06-25.
27. "Limbörgse Academie". limburgs.org (in Dutch). Retrieved 2013-08-26.
28. MAATSCHAPPELIJKE PRESENTIE EN STATUS VAN HET LIMBURGS, archived from the original on April 30, 2007
29. Geert Driessen (2012). "Ontwikkelingen in het gebruik van Fries, streektalen en dialecten in de periode 1995-2011" (PDF). its-nijmegen.nl. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-10-28. Retrieved 2013-08-26.. Alternative URLs: geertdriessen.nl→PDF, researchgate.net
30. "Lowlands-L Anniversary Celebration". Lowlands-l.net. Retrieved 2012-06-25.
31. Gussenhoven & Aarts (1999), p. ^[page needed].
32. "Editie 9 - Stad en land > Taal in stad en land". intermagazine.nl. 14 July 2006.
33. "Limburgismen in het handschrift-Borgloon". Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde. 123: 298–332. 2007. hdl:1887/14150.
34. Frens Bakker, in: Onze Taal 66, ""Wat is Limburgs?", 1997
35. Siegel, Jacob S. (2018). Demographic and Socioeconomic Basis of Ethnolinguistics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. p. 313. ISBN 978-3-319-61776-3.
36. "Erkenning van het Limburgs" (in Dutch). taalunieversum.org.
37. Rob Belemans, Ronny Keulen, Taal in stad en land: Belgisch-Limburgs, 2004, p. 9 and 29
38. R. Belemans, J. Kruijsen, J. Van Keymeulen, Gebiedsindeling van de zuidelijk-Nederlandse dialecten, in: Taal en Tongval, jaargang 50, nummer 1, 1998, p. 25ff.
    • R. Belemans; J. Kruijsen; J. Van Keymeulen. DBNL (Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse Letteren) (ed.). "Gebiedsindeling van de zuidelijk-Nederlandse dialecten" (in Dutch).
    • R. Belemans; J. Kruijsen; J. Van Keymeulen. ReWo (Permanent Overlegorgaan Regionale Woordenboeken) (ed.). "Gebiedsindeling van de zuidelijk-Nederlandse dialecten" (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2019-02-13.
39. "Map". Arielis.com. Archived from the original (PNG) on 2017-08-24. Retrieved 2017-08-23.
40. Jan Goossens, Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen, in: Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter. Jahrgang 30  1965, Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, Bonn, 1965, p. 79-94, esp. Karte 2
41. Frens Bakker: Lies van Limburgse Plaats- en Gemeintenamen in 't Limburgs, Veldeke Limburg, 2002. [Limburgse_Plaats_en_Gemeentenamen_Lmb Archived on juli 6th 2021]. Accessed on February 13th 2023.
42. Pierre Bakkes, Herman Crompvoets, Jan Notten & Frans Walraven: Spelling 2003 voor de Limburgse dialecten Spelling 2003 voor de Limburgse dialecten, pp. 8, ISBN 90-77457-02-X. (in Dutch)
43. Ladefoged, Peter; Ferrari Disner, Sandra (2012) [2001]. Vowels and Consonants (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. p. 178. ISBN 978-1-4443-3429-6.
44. Heijmans, Linda; Gussenhoven, Carlos (1998), "The Dutch dialect of Weert" (PDF), Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 28 (1–2): 109, doi:10.1017/S0025100300006307, S2CID 145635698
45. Belemans & Keulen (2004), p. 34.
46. Shih, Chilin; Sproat, Richard, Book Reviews: Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Studies presented to Gosta Bruce (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 2004-07-31
47. Marc van Oostendorp (November 2004), "Taalvariatie in Nederland: Limburgse tonen" (PDF), Vanoostendorp.nl, retrieved 2017-08-23
48. Harbert, Wayne (2007). The Germanic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 84–88.
49. Boersma, Paul (2017). "The history of the Franconian tone contrast". In Wolfgang Kehrein; Björn Köhnlein; Paul Boersma; Marc van Oostendorp (eds.). Segmental Structure and Tone (PDF). Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 27–97. doi:10.1515/9783110341263-003. ISBN 978-3-11-034126-3.
50. Riad, Tomas; Gussenhoven, Carlos (2007). Tones and Tunes: Typological studies in word and sentence prosody. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-019057-1. Retrieved 2012-06-25.
51. Ben Hermans; Marc van Oostendorp. "Synchrone beperkingen op de Sittardse diftongering" (PDF). Vanoostendorp.nl. Retrieved 2017-08-23.
52. Belemans & Keulen (2004), p. 51.
53. Peters (2006), p. 123.
54. Gussenhoven & Aarts (1999), p. 165.
55. Belemans & Keulen (2004), p. 33.

Sources

• Bakkes, Pierre (2007). Mofers Waordebook. Stichting Mofers Waordebook. ISBN 978-90-9022294-3.
• Belemans, Rob; Keulen, Ronny (2004). Belgisch-Limburgs (in Dutch). Lannoo Uitgeverij. ISBN 978-90-209-5855-3.
• Driessen, Geert (2012): Ontwikkelingen in het gebruik van Fries, streektalen en dialecten in de periode 1995-2011. Nijmegen: ITS.
• Frins, Jean (2005): Syntaktische Besonderheiten im Aachener Dreilãndereck. Eine Übersicht begleitet von einer Analyse aus politisch-gesellschaftlicher Sicht. Groningen: RUG Repro [Undergraduate Thesis, Groningen University] (in German)
• Frins, Jean (2006): Karolingisch-Fränkisch. Die plattdůtsche Volkssprache im Aachener Dreiländereck. Groningen: RUG Repro [Master's Thesis, Groningen University] (in German)
• Grootaers, L.; Grauls, J. (1930). Klankleer van het Hasselt dialect (in Dutch). Leuven: de Vlaamsche Drukkerij.
• Gussenhoven, Carlos; Aarts, Flor (1999). "The dialect of Maastricht" (PDF). Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 29 (2). University of Nijmegen, Centre for Language Studies: 155–166. doi:10.1017/S0025100300006526. S2CID 145782045.
  • "Alternate text" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-06-12. Retrieved 2009-07-12.
• Gussenhoven, C.; van der Vliet, P. (1999). "The phonology of tone and intonation in the Dutch dialect of Venlo". Journal of Linguistics. 35: 99–135. doi:10.1017/S0022226798007324. S2CID 18527758.
• Peters, Jörg (2006). "The dialect of Hasselt". Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 36 (1): 117–124. doi:10.1017/S0025100306002428.
• Staelens, X. (1989). Dieksjneèèr van 't (H)essels. Nederlands-Hasselts Woordenboek (in Dutch). Hasselt: de Langeman.

Further reading

Aarts, Flor (2019), Liergaank Mestreechs: 'ne Cursus euver de Mestreechter Taol, Maastricht: Walters

• Bakkes, Pierre (1999), "Roermond" (PDF), in Kruijsen, Joep; van der Sijs, Nicoline (eds.), Honderd Jaar Stadstaal, Uitgeverij Contact, pp. 251–262
• Janssens, Guy (1999), "Tongeren" (PDF), in Kruijsen, Joep; van der Sijs, Nicoline (eds.), Honderd Jaar Stadstaal, Uitgeverij Contact, pp. 263–271
• van der Wijngaard, Ton (1999), "Maastricht" (PDF), in Kruijsen, Joep; van der Sijs, Nicoline (eds.), Honderd Jaar Stadstaal, Uitgeverij Contact, pp. 233–249
• van Oostendorp, Marc (2001). "The phonology of postvocalic /r/ in Brabant Dutch and Limburg Dutch". In van de Velde, Hans; van Hout, Roeland (eds.). 'r-atics: Sociolinguistic, phonetic and phonological characteristics of /r/. Brussels: Etudes & Travaux. pp. 113–122. ISSN 0777-3692.

External links

• On Limburgish Tones (in Dutch)
• Map of dialects spoken in Dutch Limburg
• Limburgish Wiktionary – De Limburgse Wiktionair
• Limburgish Academy Foundation (Stiechting Limbörgse Academie) with dictionaries Limburgish-Dutch, Limburgish-English, Dutch-Limburgish and English-Limburgish and a history of the Limburgish language
• Veldeke Genk (in Genk dialect and Dutch)