The Limburgish dialects lack astandardized form and instead comprise multiple varieties, each with its own distinctive features. A characteristic feature of many dialects of Limburgish is the occurrence of alexicalpitch accent (Franconian tone accent), which these dialects adopted from and share with the adjacentCentral Franconian dialects of German.[5]
In the Netherlands, Limburgish has been officiallyrecognized as a regional language by the Dutch government since 1997. In Belgium and Germany, Limburgish dialects have no formal legal status.
The nameLimburgish (and variants of it) derives only indirectly from the now Belgian town ofLimbourg (Laeboer in Limburgish, IPA: /ˈlæːbuʁ/), which was the capital of theDuchy of Limburg during theMiddle Ages. More directly it is derived from the more modern name of theProvince of Limburg (1815–39) in theKingdom of the Netherlands, which has been split today into aBelgian Limburg and aDutch 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 the wordLimburgish is first attested at the close of the 19th century.[6]
People from Limburg usually call their languageplat,[7] a term also used by speakers ofLow Saxon to refer to their respective dialects.
Overlap and Delimitation between East Low Franconian and Various Definitions of “Limburgish”:
East Low Franconian including transitional dialects, without internal subdivisions.
The "Limburg group" (without internal subdivisions) based on the feature frequency method.
The area where local dialects are defined as "Limburgish" by the Dutch state and protected as regional language.
Definition of Limburgish based on tonality within the broader Dutch language area.
There are various interpretations of the Limburgish dialect area, and its delineation depends on the definition employed.
In everyday usage in the Netherlands and Belgium, the term “Limburgish” generally refers to the endogenous language varieties spoken in the two Limburg provinces. Within Belgian and Dutch Limburg itself, however, a more nuancedsocio-linguistic definition prevails. For most Limburgers, “Limburgish” as such does not exist; instead, speakers primarily identify their individual dialect with their town or region or more generally asplat, the colloquial term for “dialect”. For them, the label “Limburgish” is typically applied to those dialects with which mutual communication is possible without substantial adaptation of one’s own variety. This definition covers most, though not all, dialects spoken within the provinces. For instance, the dialects in the North of Dutch Limburg are not necessarily considered Limburgish, and speakers of theKerkrade dialect — although the speakers themselves classify their dialect as Limburgish — tend to adjust their speech and choice of words when interacting with speakers of the more none-peripheral Limburgish varieties, due to the relatively divergent character of their dialect.[8][9][10]
In administrative law, under the provisions of theEuropean Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, “Limburgish” is defined for the purposes of Dutch legislation as “the regional language which, in various forms, is spoken in the Dutch province of Limburg.”[9][11]
From a linguistic perspective, “Limburgish” has traditionally denoted theLow Franconian varieties spoken between theBenrath Line (maken/machen) and theUerdingen Line (ik/ich). The defining characteristic of these dialects, within this definition, is their partial participation in theSecond Germanic consonant shift, which spread concentrically fromCologne northwestwards, diminishing in intensity, as part of the so-calledRhenish fan. A more recent linguistic definition, which overlaps with but does not fully coincide with the traditional one, delineates Limburgish dialects in the stricter sense on the basis of the distribution oftonal accent within the southeastern Low Franconian varieties.[12]
Regardless of the exact definition used, the termLimburgish itself is specific to the Netherlands and Belgium, where it used by linguists and laymen 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 asLimburgish.[13] In German linguistic discourse too, the term is uncommon with German linguists instead tending to useSouthern Low Franconian (German:Südniederfränkisch), which, depending on the definition used, can refer to the same dialect grouping.
In the aftermath of the Netherlands’ inclusion ofLow Saxon under theEuropean Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in 1996, the Province of Limburg asked the Veldeke dialect association to investigate to what extent Limburgish could claim the same status.[14] In response, Veldeke established a working group, whose primary task was to examine whether Limburgish met the same criteria on which the earlier recognition of Low Saxon had been based.[14][15]
The working group did not assess Limburgish separately against the relatively limited requirements of the Charter, but instead compared its linguistic features with those of Frisian and Low Saxon, both of which had already been recognized. On the basis of attestations by three external experts, the group concluded that Limburgish fulfilled the criteria at least as strongly as Low Saxon and would therefore qualify for inclusion under the Charter. The working group emphasized that recognition of Limburgish should not be regarded as an intervention in scientific terminology or linguistic practice, but rather as a public-law recognition of cultural variation and diversity within the Limburgish dialects and of their position in relation to Standard Dutch.[15] Accordingly, the group’s advice explicitly refrained from making claims about the status of Limburgish as a “language” or a “dialect,” instead defining it as “the regional language which, in various forms, is spoken in the Dutch province of Limburg.”[15][9][11]
On 1 March 1996, the working group published its “Advice concerning the recognition of Limburgish as a regional language”, which led the Province of Limburg to request that Limburgish be recognized under the European Charter. This request was subsequently granted by the Dutch government in 1997 without further substantive review.[15] As a result, Limburgish became one of five minority languages in the Netherlands recognized under the Charter, alongside the previously recognizedLow Saxon,Yiddish,Sinti-Romani, andFrisian. The dialects and regional languages of Dutch Limburg thus enjoy the same status as Low Saxon, specifically recognition under Part II of the Charter. In contrast to languages recognized under Part III (such as Frisian), those under Part II cannot derive specific legal rights from this recognition. However, it is stipulated that their use must be encouraged by the government.[16][17]The decision to recognize Limburgish as a regional language, as well as the process leading up to it, was not without controversy. Linguist Johan De Caluwe described the recognition of Limburgish as merely symbolic, while theDutch Language Union expressed its dissatisfaction with the fact that it had not been consulted in connection with the request by the Province of Limburg for recognition.[17] The then Secretary-General of the Language Union argued that the Union should indeed have been involved, since Limburgish had always at the very least implicitly been regarded as part of Dutch. Consequently, the argument that Limburgish had nothing to do with Dutch and therefore did not fall within the purview of the Language Union was, in its view, invalid. According to the Language Union, the recognition of Limburgish did in fact constitute a decision concerning Dutch, and it should therefore have been consulted.
Two members of the committee which wrote the advice on the basis of which Limburgish gained recognition, J. Leerssen and A. Weijnen, expressed the opinion that the Dutch Language Union was intrinsically opposed to granting special status to regional languages and that its objections to the regional language status of Limburgish in the Netherlands were primarily due to its possible effects on the complicated linguistic divisions and interests in Belgium.[18]
In 2000, the Dutch government acknowledged that it would indeed have been wiser to submit the Province of Limburg’s request for review to the Language Union. As a result, the Committee of Ministers of the Language Union agreed that any future requests of this nature would be referred to the Union.[15][17] A subsequent request to includeZeelandic as a recognized regional language under the Charter was, as an indirect consequence of this agreement, rejected.[17]
Since 24 December 1990, theFrench Community of Belgium has recognized all indigenous minority dialects that, alongside French, originated within the territory of Brussels andWallonia as “indigenous regional languages.” This decree covers both Romance and Germanic varieties, which means that Limburgish dialects, although not explicitly mentioned in the legal text, also fall under this recognition within the region.[19][20]
In theFlemish Community, where the debate gained momentum following the recognition of Limburgish in the Netherlands, the government sought linguistic advice from, among others, the Dutch Language Union. The request to recognize Limburgish there as well was ultimately rejected in 2000.[17]
The Limburgish dialects are classified as part ofLow Franconian, together with theHollandic,Brabantian,Zeelandic,Flemish, andKleverlandish dialects.[21][22][23][24][25] The varieties of Dutch South and Central Limburg are traditionally regarded as Low Franconian (or specifically East Low Franconian) dialects with a gradual Middle German influence, or alternatively as a group of transitional dialects between Low and Middle Franconian.
Inhistorical linguistics, the Limburgish dialects are included withinOld Dutch (more specificallyOld East Dutch) andMiddle Dutch.[26][27][28][29][30] Within the latter, Limburgish is grouped together with Flemish, Brabantian, Hollandic, and eastern Dutch dialects.[28] Linguistic features in historical Dutch texts that are considered characteristic of Limburgish are referred to as Limburgisms.[31] This term should not be confused with an alternative definition of Limburgism, in which it denotes interference phenomena between dialect and the Dutch standard language.[32]
The linguistic diversity within the Dutch province of Limburg is considerable, since the varieties spoken in North Limburg share many features withBrabantian andKleverlandish dialects and differ markedly from those of South and Central Limburg. In Belgian Limburg, with the exception of part of the Voeren region,East Limburgish is not spoken; instead, West andCentral Limburgish varieties are found. The dialect group spoken in the central part of the province of Limburg represents the transition toward South Brabantian.[33]
The Limburgish dialects are intersected by various isoglosses, both in east–west and north–south directions, and therefore constitute only a limited linguistic unity.[34] One of the most significant of these isoglosses is thePanningen Line, which roughly separates the western and eastern Limburgish dialects. These Limburgish dialects represent the southeasternmost varieties of the Dutch language area.[35][36][37]
Because of the adoption of some features associated with theSecond Germanic consonant shift, the Limburgish varieties were sometimes seen asWest Central German, and as such, as part ofHigh German.[38][39] This difference is caused by 19th and early 20th century German linguists defining a High German variety as one that has taken part in any of the first three phases of the High German consonant shift.
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 ofIngvaeonic features) is different from the modern modern dialectal dichotomy between Western and Eastern Low Franconian, which is based on the presence or absence ofHigh German features in Low Franconian, which did not occur until the advent of the Middle Dutch period.[40][41]
After the third century, the dynamics between theGermanic peoples and the Romans along the lower course of the Rhine began to change. Whereas in earlier centuries relations had primarily consisted of trade with occasional raids, the crises that increasingly beset the Roman Empire led to larger numbers of Germanic groups settling on the left bank of the major rivers. These tribes most likely spoke dialects that had developed fromWeser-Rhine Germanic, which by the fifth century had merged into what is known asOld Frankish.[44][45]
The cultural predominance of the Romans nevertheless remained significant, manifesting itself in a relatively gradual transformation of the linguistic landscape and in the adoption of numerous Latin loanwords, particularly in formerly strongly Romanized areas where these Germanic peoples settled. As a result, compared to all other West Germanic varieties, the Limburgish dialects and those of the adjacent Rhineland contain the greatest number of early Latin loanwords, and for a long time, bilingual Romance–Germanic language islands continued to exist in parts of Limburg.[46] The region around Sint-Truiden and the area between Aachen and Vaals, for instance, were only definitively Germanized after the tenth century. Traces of this linguistic development remain, such as in the village ofCadier en Keer near Maastricht, where Cadier represents the Romance evolution and Keer the Germanic evolution of the original Latin wordcalidarium (a heated bathhouse).[47]
Beginning in the sixth century, theSecond Germanic Sound Shift spread northward from southwestern Germany. This development caused Old Frankish to split into a non-shifted variety (Old Dutch, also known asOld Low Franconian) and several shifted varieties: the dialects ofOld High German spoken in and around theMiddle Rhine. The later Limburgish dialects trace their origins to the eastern branch of Old Dutch. Some of the earliest known Dutch texts are written in this variety, such as the famousWachtendonck Psalms of the tenth century.
Both East and West Old Dutch contributed to the formation of Middle Dutch, but after the thirteenth century, features characteristic of Flemish and Brabantine (both western dialects) became dominant in the written record. Although Middle Dutch appears relatively homogeneous in writing, this is not assumed to have been the case in the spoken language.[48] Limburgish constitutes one of the five principal dialect groups of Middle Dutch.[49][50]
TheMiddle Dutch Limburgish dialects were marked by features of the Second Germanic Sound Shift, which had spread northwestward from the city ofCologne. A specific example is the presence of the ik–ich isogloss in Middle Dutch varieties of Limburgish, whereas the shift from ik to ich had not yet taken place in Old East Dutch (the direct predecessor of the present-day dialects in central and southern Limburg).
Traditionally, the Battle of Worringen (1288) is seen as a turning point in the linguistic history of the Limburgish dialects. Following this battle, the Limburg region reoriented itself: the old Duchy of Limburg, the County of Dalhem, and what is now Dutch South Limburg — collectively known as the Lands of Overmaas — came under the rule of the Duchy of Brabant. Instead of looking primarily to nearby German cities, the region shifted its economic and cultural orientation westward, toward the flourishing Brabantine cities and, further afield, toGhent,Bruges, andYpres in Flanders.[51] With the dominance of the Brabantine dialects (the so-called Brabantine expansion), developments in the opposite direction set in: typically Middle Dutch sound changes — such as final devoicing, assimilation, and vowel reduction — spread west-to-east, counteracting the earlier High German influence. The adoption of Brabantine features occurred earliest and most strongly in the dialects west of the Meuse, notably in present-day Belgian Limburg, Maastricht, and Weert.[52]
When, in the early sixteenth century, the first extensive attempts were made to standardize Dutch, Brabantine provided the main basis. After thefall of Antwerp during theEighty Years’ War, however, the cultural, political, and economic center of gravity shifted to the Northern Netherlands, especially to the province of Holland. The result was thatHollandic — though still influenced by Brabantine — acquired a dominant role in the formation of the Dutch standard language, particularly in pronunciation. Consequently, the Limburgish dialects have left relatively few traces in Standard Dutch. By contrast, the Dutch standard language has exerted an increasing influence on Limburgish, particularly since the nineteenth century, as the dialects have moved progressively closer to Standard Dutch[53]
The earliest texts written in a Limburgish dialect date from the nineteenth century. A precursor is theSermoen euver de Weurd (“Sermon on the Words”), composed in Maastricht dialect in 1729. Pioneers in the documentation of Limburgish dialects included Pieter Willems (1840–1898), professor atLeuven University but born and raised inMaastricht, and Joseph Schrijnen (1869–1938), professor first in Utrecht and later in Nijmegen. Their research was, as was common at the time, conducted primarily through written questionnaires.
In the twentieth century, with the rise of radio and television as new media, marked differences arose in the extent to which dialects were spoken in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany. In Belgium, the South Low Franconian dialect lost ground to so-calledVerkavelingsvlaams, while in Germany theRhineland regiolect increasingly took hold.[54] The linguistically Limburgish dialects in Germany are also subject to the influence of the German standard language. Under the influence of Cologne broadcaster WDR, Ripuarian accents have been spreading on the left bank of the Rhine, at the expense of the traditional Limburgish and Kleverlandish dialects.[54]
In 2012 it was concluded that dialect use in both Limburg provinces as well as in the adjacent Rhineland has been declining with each generation.[55][56]
A 2021 study by dialect societyVeldeke Limburg found that 67% of the inhabitants of Dutch Limburg reported speaking Limburgish fluently. However, there were marked discrepancies by age group: among the youngest cohort surveyed (18–34 years), only 52% reported fluent command of the dialect. More than half of Limburgers expected that the use of Limburgish dialects would decrease in the future, while only 4% believed it would increase.[57]
Alongside Standard Dutch, approximately 57% of Limburgish parents spoke Limburgish with each other in 2003; the percentage who also spoke Limburgish with their children was somewhat lower. This finding corresponds to earlier studies from the 1990s, which indicated that parents tended to consider Standard Dutch more appropriate for addressing their children.[55] Within the Netherlands, dialect use is relatively highest in Limburg.[29] In areas that experienced strong migration flows from other parts of the country, such as the Limburg mining district, the use of the local dialect has weakened. The urban dialect ofHeerlen reflects this most clearly, largely due to the higher socio-economic status of Standard-Dutch-speaking migrants in the first half of the twentieth century.[8] In western South Limburg and Central Limburg, Limburgish continues to be spoken relatively most frequently.[56] While the use of Limburgish dialects as spoken language has consistently declined, written use of Limburgish has increased significantly, a trend attributed to the rise of the internet and a reduction in illiteracy.[58]
In Belgian Limburg, various studies have likewise revealed a correlation between age and the proportion of Limburgers who are dialect speakers. For instance, inBilzen (located betweenHasselt andMaastricht), 42% of the population still reported speaking dialect, though this percentage varied substantially by age. Among those over 55 years of age, 60% spoke dialect; among those aged 25–54, this declined to just over 40%; and in the under-25 group, only 11% spoke the local dialect.[59]
Until well into the eighteenth century, the Limburgish elite associated the Limburgish dialects with the lower classes and regarded them as subordinate and inferior to written and cultural languages such as Dutch,German, and especiallyFrench.[60] In the nineteenth century, appreciation for Limburgish dialects grew in a cultural-historical sense, though their socio-linguistic status remained low.[61] This lower prestige contributed in South Limburg to the emergence ofKoelhollands (Limburgish: 'Coal Dutch' a play on both the Dutch wordsteenkolenengels and the coal mining industry then present in the area): a sociolect formed through the blending of Standard Dutch and Limburgish dialects, as parents believed their children would have better opportunities if they spoke Standard Dutch.[62] In surveys conducted in 1987 and 1997, many speakers of Limburgish dialects nevertheless identified these as their first language.[9][63]
In Belgian Limburg, the status of Limburgish dialects is clearly demarcated in socio-cultural terms, both positively and negatively. The dialect is the language of informal situations, village life, the workplace, carnival, and folklore, but it is also considered the language of older and less educated people.[64] Within several Limburgish dialects, especially urban ones, class distinctions can also be discerned. Although less pronounced than, for example, in the dialect spoken inThe Hague, both the Roermond- and Maastricht dialect exhibitupper andlower class variants. Speakers of upper-class Maastricht-variety, for instance, use significantly more French loanwords.[65]
Within the Dutch dialect renaissance that began in the early 1990s, Limburgish has held a prominent place, particularly through the music ofRowwen Hèze. The band, popular throughout the Netherlands and Belgium, has played a major role in destigmatizing dialect use in the arts, in increasing the visibility of Limburgish among a wider audience, and has developed into an emblem and expression of pride in Limburgish identity.[66][67]
The degree to which speakers of various Limburgish dialects perceive them as part of a shared “Limburgish” or identify themselves as belonging to a “Limburgish-speaking community” varies considerably. Dialect diversity is traditionally greater among Belgian Limburg dialects than among those of Dutch Limburg, and as a result, Belgian Limburgers generally do not perceive themselves as speaking one and the same language. With the exception of the Maasland region, many Belgian Limburgers do not readily regard their dialects as part of a broader Limburgish construct that also encompasses the varieties of Dutch Limburg.[68]
In Germany, dialect awareness is lowest, and speakers there do not use any overarching term (“Limburgish” or otherwise) for the dialects that could linguistically be seen as Limburgish.[69] By contrast, dialect awareness is relatively high in Dutch Limburg, although even there most people identify the term “Limburgish” primarily with their own local dialect.[9]
The dialects of Dutch Limburg have been converging. The dialectologist Toon Weijnen (1909–2008) demonstrated in 1939 that internal differences between Dutch Limburgish dialects had decreased, possibly as a result of increased mobility.[70] Conversely, since the late nineteenth century, dialects on either side of the national border have been diverging under the influence of Standard German and Standard Dutch. In 1995, it was concluded that dialect speakers from Germany and the Netherlands, unless restricting themselves to very limited topics that could be covered using the older shared vocabulary, could no longer converse across the border without some knowledge of the other standard language.[71]
The Limburgish dialects do not constitute a unified language, which means that Limburgish texts are always written in a particular dialect, with spelling conventions often varying from one individual to another. The Limburgish dialect association Veldeke has, however, developed an orthographic system intended for all dialects, with the aim that the same sound be represented in the same way across dialects. This system is known as the Veldeke spelling. The first version was published in 1928, followed by revisions in 1952, 1983, and 2000.[72] Although the spelling system has no official status, it is often described as “officially promoted,” as it is used by both theRaod veur ’t Limburgs and the Veldeke dialect association.[73]The Veldeke spelling is also employed, for example, on bilingual place-name signs in Dutch Limburg. The most recent version of the spelling dates from 2003.
In 1994, the regional journalist Paul Prikken (1946–2013) developed his own standard form, calledAlgemeen Geschreven Limburgs (“General Written Limburgish”), which he proposed in his dictionaryDe taal van de Maas and used for his columns in the newspaperDe Limburger between 1995 and 2004. This form gained little traction. A proposal to adopt it at the provincial level was rejected.[74] Radboud University, Catholic University of Leuven, Veldeke Limburg, and the Belgian province of Limburg opposed the introduction of a standardized written language, arguing that it would not benefit the great diversity of Limburgish dialects.[75]
Overall, Limburgish dialects tend to have more consonants than Dutch. They also tend to have more vowels. According toPeter 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.[76][77]
In most of the Limburgish dialects spoken to the southeast ofPanningen—for example those of Roermond, Sittard and Heerlen—[ʃ] appears at the beginning of words in the consonant clusterssp,st,sl,sm,sn andzw. 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.[clarification needed]
The diphthongs/iəøeɪæɪuɪɔɪaɪou/[clarification needed] occur, as well as combinations of/uːɔːɑː/ +/j/./aɪ/ only occurs in French loanwords andinterjections.
/ou/ is realized as[oə] before alveolar consonants./eɪ/ can be realized as[eə] or[ejə]. In the dialect ofGeleen,/eː/ is realized as[iɛ] and/oː/ as[ɔː]. In many dialects such as that of Maastricht and Sittard, the long vowel/aː/ in Dutchcognates is most of the time realized as[ɒː], as innao ("after", "to, towards"). The Standard Dutch equivalents arena[naː] andnaar[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 asdzjuus/dʒys/.[78]
Extent (orange) of the region where a pitch accent was historically used in The Benelux, France and GermanyTone contour in dragging toneTone 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 singlelexeme andminimal tone pairs one from the other.[79]
With specific regards to Limburgish, these two accents are traditionally known assjtoettoen ("push tone") andsjleiptoen ("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 inCentral Franconian dialects spoken to the southeast of Limburgish.
OtherIndo-European pitch accent languages that usetone contours to distinguish the meaning of words that are otherwise phonetically identical includeLithuanian,Latvian,Swedish,Norwegian, StandardSlovene (only some speakers),Serbo-Croatian, andPunjabi. This feature is comparable totone systems as found e.g. inChinese or many languages of Africa and Central America, although such "classical" tone languages make much more use of tone distinctionswhen compared to Limburgish.[80]
Historically, pitch accent in Limburgish and Central Franconian developed independently from accent systems in other Indo-European languages. While contrastive accent can be reconstructed forProto Indo-European, it was completely lost inProto-Germanic.[81] Its reemergence in Limburgish (andCentral Franconian) was phonetically triggered byvowel height,vowel length, andvoicing 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 ofschwa in final syllables, devoicing of consonants in final position, andmerger of vowels that had been distinct before.[82]
It has been proven[according to whom?] by speech analysis that in the Belgian Limburgish dialect ofBorgloon, the dragging tone itself is bitonal, while it has also been proved that this is not the case in the adjacent Limburgish dialects ofTongeren andHasselt.
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 bemora-bound in the eastern dialects only. This has been examined especially by Jörg Peters.[83]
Moreover, in some dialects such as that of Sittard and Maastricht, especially themid andhigh vowels tend todiphthongize when they have a push tone. So in the dialect of Sittardkeize means "to choose" while in the dialect ofMaasbracht no diphthongization takes place, sokeze means the same here. This difference has been examined in particular by Ben Hermans and Marc van Oostendorp.[84]
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 grammaticaldeclension without there being any difference in meaning, as in the dialect of Borgloon:gieël ("yellow", with dragging tone) as opposed toen gieël peer ("a yellow pear", with push tone). This tonal shift also occurs when the adjective gets an inflectional ending, as innen gieëlen appel ("a yellow apple").[85]
In some parts of Limburg, the tonal plural is being replaced with the Dutch forms among the younger generation, so that the plural fordaag becomesdage ([daːʝə]).
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)
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]
Limburgish has three grammatical genders. In some of the Limburgish dialects[which?],den is used before masculine words beginning withb,d,h,t or with a vowel and in many other dialectsder is used before all masculine words. In most dialects, the indefinite article iseine(n) for masculine nouns,ein for feminine nouns andei or'n for neuter nouns. Without stress, these forms are most of the time realized asne(n),n ande.
For some nouns, Limburgish usessimulfixes (i.e.umlaut) to form the plural:
broor –breur (brother – brothers)
sjoon –sjeun (shoe – shoes): note this can also be 'sjoon' withsjtoettoen (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 beforeRiemst.[88]
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 inbreurke for 'little brother' andsjeunke for 'little shoe'.
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 apredicate, 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.
In the masculine singular forms ofmien,dien,zien andoos, final-n is added under the same phonological conditions which apply to articles and adjectives. Deletion of the final-n in the neuter forms ofmien,dien,zien no longer occurs in the dialect of Venlo and is also disappearing in the dialect of Roermond.
The greater part of thevocabulary of the Limburgish dialects represents continuations fromOld,Middle, andModern Dutch, but Limburgish, depending on the specific variety, also displays strong influences from German and/or French.
The Limburgish dialects, particularly those spoken on the left bank of theRhine, also preserve a relatively large number of old Latin loanwords.[89] The area aroundSint-Truiden in Belgian Limburg has retained the highest concentration ofLatin andOld Romance loanwords.[90]
In Belgian Limburg and Maastricht, French was spoken by the upperbourgeoisie until well into the twentieth century. In the extreme southeast, along the German border (Heerlen and Kerkrade),Standard German was, for a time, better known thanStandard Dutch. With the spread of Standard Dutch through education, many Limburgish words of French or German origin were replaced during the twentieth century by Dutch equivalents. Thus, the characteristically Maastricht termsbrazzelèt (“bracelet”) andhospitaol (“hospital”) have been supplanted byermband andziekenhoes, while the Roermond wordbalt (“soon”) has given way togaw.[16] Conversely, the use of the reflexive pronounzich was found in a 1994 study to be on the increase.[91]
Limburgish dialect dictionaries often exhibit a discrepancy between the forms recorded and the actual spoken language, since many compilers believe that the dialects of the two Limburgs are rapidly deteriorating under the influence of Standard Dutch. This perspective, frequently expressed in the introductions to such dictionaries, has led to a vocabulary selection that is more closely associated with the speech of older generations.[92]
Vocabulary examples of different Limburgish dialects
^Frans Debrabandere: Limburgs etymologisch woordenboek: de herkomst van woorden uit beide Limburgen, Davidsfonds, 2011.
^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.ISBN978-3-030-80071-0.
^abRien van den Berg & Marc van Oostendorp: Dat is andere taal! Streektalen en dialecten in Nederland, Het Spectrum, 2012, "Limburg". (in Dutch)
^abWerkgroep Advies inzake de Erkenning van het Limburgs als Streektaal, 1996, p.2. (in Dutch)
^Cor Hoppenbrouwers: De indeling van de Nederlandse streektalen en dialecten van 156 steden en dorpen geklasseerd volgens de FFM, 2001 (in Dutch).
^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.
^abS. Kroon: Dialect in Limburg, in: Dialect en school in Limburg, 2004, pp. 29 (in Dutch)
^abcdeTaalvariatie en taalbeleid, J. De Caluwe. pp. 112-113/127. (in Dutch)
^Joep Dohmen inNRC Handelsblad: 'Het Limburgs is een echte taal', 12-2-2000, archived on 30-3-2025 (link, in Dutch)
^A. Dassargues: La politique linguistique et culturelle des langues régionales en Belgique francophone de 1990 à 2018; in Synergies Pays Germanophones (2018) pp. 49-62. (in French)
^Littérature en langues régionales (link) (in French)
^Stegeman:Grote geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal, dat men binnen het Nederlands (2021) (in Dutch).
^Hinskens:Wijdvertakte wortels: over etnolectisch Nederland (2016) p.38. (in Dutch)
^Janssens:Het Nederlands vroeger en nu (2005) p.69. (in Dutch)
^Judo:De Zeven Woorden van de Lage Landen (2022) p. 63.
^Hoppenbrouwers & Hoppenbrouwers 2001 - C. Hoppenbrouwers & G. Hoppenbrouwers, De indeling van de Nederlandse streektalen. Dialecten van 156 Dialecten van 156 steden en dorpen geklasseerd volgens de FFM. Assen, 2001.
^abMarijke van der Wal & Cor van Bree,Geschiedenis van het Nederlands, Houten, 2008, p. 109.
^Chris de Wulf: Klankatlas van het veertiende-eeuwse Middelnederlands, Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2019, p.40-42.
^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. Retrieved2023-06-11.
^M. De Vaan: Limburgismen in het handschrift-Borgloon, in: Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse taal- en letterkunde (123), pp. 298-332, 2007. (in Dutch)
^Leonie Cornips: Limburgismen; in: Neerlandistiek, Online tijdschrift voor de Nederlandse taal en cultuur, 2014. (link) (in Dutch)
^J.L. Pauwels en L. Morren: De grens tussen Brabants en Limburgs in België. In: Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 27.2, 1960, pp. 88-96. (in Dutch)
^Rob Belemans, Ronny Keulen,Taal in stad en land: Belgisch-Limburgs, 2004, p. 9 and 29
^R. Belemans, J. Kruijsen, J. Van Keymeulen,Gebiedsindeling van de zuidelijk-Nederlandse dialecten, in:Taal en Tongval, jaargang 50, nummer 1, 1998, p. 25ff.
^Hagen Keller:Strukturveränderungen in der westgermanischen Welt am Vorabend der fränkischen Großreichsbildung. Fragen, Suchbilder, Hypothesen. Die Franken und die Alemannen bis zur "Schlacht bei Zülpich" (496/97). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2011, pp. 581–607. (in German)
^G. Mildenberger:Die Germanen in der archäologischen Forschung nach Kossinna. Germanische Altertumskunde Online: Kulturgeschichte bis ins Frühmittelalter – Archäologie, Geschichte, Philologie. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 2010, pp. 310–320. (in German)
^Maurits Gysseling in: Naamkunde. Jaargang 2. Instituut voor Naamkunde, Leuven / Commissie voor Naamkunde en Nederzettingsgeschiedenis, Amsterdam, 1970, p. 166 (in Dutch)
^Michiel de Vaan: Nederlands-Limburgse toponiemen in de Codex van A. Schrijnemakers en daarbuiten: Cadier en Keer, entry given there (in Dutch)
^ Verslagen en mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse taal- en letterkunde. Jaargang 2008. Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde, Gent, 2008, p. 222. (in Dutch)
^Niederländische Philologie, FU Berlin: Structuur en geschiedenis van het Nederlands: Een inleiding tot de taalkunde van het Nederlands; Diversiteit van het Middelnederlands, 2022(link).Archived on 15-10-2023. (in Dutch)
^Marijke van der Wal & Cor van Bree:Geschiedenis van het Nederlands, Houten 2008, 5:109. (in Dutch)
^Marc van Oostendorp: in: Ons Erfdeel, Jaargang 52, 2009, pp. 64. (in Dutch)
^Belemans, R., & R. Keulen (2004): Taal in stad en land: Belgisch-Limburgs,ISBN9020958550. (in Dutch)
^Johan De Caluwe, Mathilde Jansen, Nicoline van der Sijs, Fieke Van der Gucht: Atlas van de Nederlandse taal: Editie Nederland, 2018, p. 136. (in Dutch)
^Jaarboek van het Limburgs Geschied- en Oudheidkundig Genootschap, Volume 139, Maastricht, 2003, pp. 8-9. (in Dutch)
^Wim Kuipers: Letterbak. Taalkwesties & Limburgs dialect. De Limburger, Maastricht, 1988, p. 23. (in Dutch)
^Herman Crompvoets,Dialect en standaardtaal in Nederlands Limburg (Mededelingen van de Vereniging voor Limburgse Dialect- en Naamkunde, Nr. 43). Hasselt 1987, p.4. (in Dutch)
^E.J. Raskin, in: Neerlandia. Jaargang 101. Algemeen-Nederlands Verbond, The Hague / Brussels 1997, p. 12. (in Dutch)
^ Wim Kuipers: Letterbak. Taalkwesties & Limburgs dialect. De Limburger, Maastricht, 1988, p. 23. (in Dutch)
^Leonie Cornips & Barbara Beckers: in: Het dorp & de wereld. Over 30 jaar Rowwen Hèze, 2015, pp. 247-250. (in Dutch)
^Driessen, G. 2006. 'Ontwikkelingen in het gebruik van streektalen en dialecten in de periode 1995-2003'. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap 1: 103-113. (in Dutch)
^E.J. Raskin, in:Neerlandia. Jaargang 101. Algemeen-Nederlands Verbond, The Hague / Brussels 1997, p. 12. (in Dutch)
^Jürgen Erich Schmidt: Historisches Westdeutsch/Rheinisch (Moselfränkisch, Ripuarisch, Südniederfränkisch). In: Sprache und Raum: Ein internationales Handbuch der Sprachvariation. Band 4: Deutsch, Berlijn, 2019, p. 528. (in German)
^A. Weijnen: Leenwoorden uit de Latinitas stratigrafisch beschouwd, in: Verslagen en mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse taal- en letterkunde (nieuwe reeks). Jaargang 1967. Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde, Gent, 1967. (in Dutch)
^Jan Goossens: Enkele Limburgse leenwoorden uit de Latinitas, in: in Taal en Tongval, Jaargang 21, 1969, pp. 151-159. (in Dutch)
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. Dieplattdůtsche 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, 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.S2CID18527758.
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
