Thread:User talk:Rua/Limburgish/reply (3)

Ok, sorry for accusing you.

It depends on what you define Middle Dutch as. If you say that terms must have, say, fronting of ū in order to be Middle Dutch, then yes, Limburgish isn't Middle Dutch. But the sources I've consulted consider Limburgish to be a rather divergent dialect of Middle Dutch, and describe the particular sound changes and retentions that occur in Limburgish.

For example, A. van Loey describes the special development of original long â: "In Limburg (en verder noordoostwaarts) is â een geronde ao-klank geworden (dus verschillend van ā)." and also the typical Limburgish lengthening in open syllables when no ending follows: "In het Limburgs vindt men dgl. gerekte vocaal ook in nietgeflecteerde vormen: laem, ghaef" and "In Limburg komt, tengevolge van apocope, gerekte o ook in gesloten syllabe voor: hoel ‘hol’, loef ‘laus’, hoef ‘hof’." The Dutch language history by M.C. van den Toorn, W. Pijnenburg, J.A. van Leuvensteijn and J.M. van der Horst also covers Limburgish variants of Middle Dutch, and even gives a separate paradigm for Limburgish personal pronouns.

The two Middle Dutch dictionaries, VMNW and MNW, also list Limburgish forms as variants, e.g. http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?wdb=VMNW&actie=article&id=ID16242. Notice that it says the oldest attestation is in Limburg.

All this leads me to conclude that the consensus of linguists working on the subject is that Limburgish is a form of Middle Dutch. Wiktionary should follow this consensus, unless there's evidence that something has changed in the prevalent opinion.