(Actually, I should have said "Brabantic, Hollandic, and East Flemish dialects" above.)
Low Saxon, dialect or language?
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3
I define Dutch as Low Frankish. And Limburgish is for the overall majority Low Frankish as well. (though you seem to say the contrary) and Dutch Low Saxon is effectivly Dutch with a Saxon substrate right now. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a dialect of Dutch, but there is plenty of ME between them.
>>I define Dutch as Low Frankish. And Limburgish is for the overall majority Low Frankish as well. (though you seem to say the contrary) and Dutch Low Saxon is effectivly Dutch with a Saxon substrate right now. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a dialect of Dutch, but there is plenty of ME between them.<<
My view on this is that Limburgish exists in its own group that straddles the Low-High divide which is distinct from Low Franconian, Low Saxon, and High German. Limburgish is not clearly Low or High as a whole (despite what many Dutch, who would call it "Low", and many Germans, who would call it "High" would say), and yet has its own distinctive features, particularly tone stress, that it shares with no other West Germanic languages, whether Low or High. Consequently, it is best to just categorize it as a group within non-Anglo-Frisian West Germanic all to itself rather than trying to lump it in with some other group such as Low Franconian. As for what to call such a group, the name that I've seen given to this group is "Meuse-Rhenish".
As for "Dutch Low Saxon", I would not call it Dutch with a Saxon substrate but rather Low Saxon with a very strong Dutch superstrate; a substrate would be more equivalent to the situation with English here, where the primary substrate language, German, has been completely replaced rather than gradually assimilated, and yet there are small details with respect to pronunciation, syntax, usage, and so on left behind. As for an example of a substrate to compare such with, one can look at things like North Hollandic, where Frisian was completely replaced and not merely assimilated, and yet details of Frisian pronunciation and vocabulary influenced the Dutch which replaced it in North Holland.
My view on this is that Limburgish exists in its own group that straddles the Low-High divide which is distinct from Low Franconian, Low Saxon, and High German. Limburgish is not clearly Low or High as a whole (despite what many Dutch, who would call it "Low", and many Germans, who would call it "High" would say), and yet has its own distinctive features, particularly tone stress, that it shares with no other West Germanic languages, whether Low or High. Consequently, it is best to just categorize it as a group within non-Anglo-Frisian West Germanic all to itself rather than trying to lump it in with some other group such as Low Franconian. As for what to call such a group, the name that I've seen given to this group is "Meuse-Rhenish".
As for "Dutch Low Saxon", I would not call it Dutch with a Saxon substrate but rather Low Saxon with a very strong Dutch superstrate; a substrate would be more equivalent to the situation with English here, where the primary substrate language, German, has been completely replaced rather than gradually assimilated, and yet there are small details with respect to pronunciation, syntax, usage, and so on left behind. As for an example of a substrate to compare such with, one can look at things like North Hollandic, where Frisian was completely replaced and not merely assimilated, and yet details of Frisian pronunciation and vocabulary influenced the Dutch which replaced it in North Holland.
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3