Euverlèk:Kirchröadsj versjèl tösje versies

Naar navigatie springen Naar zoeken springen
149 bytes toegeveug ,  5 maanden geleden
gein bewirkingssamevatting
:::::: De meeste mensen in Keulen, Aken of Bonn hebben echter ook geen idee wat "Ripuarisch" is. Dat is een uitsluitend taalwetenschappelijk begrip dat nergens inheems is.
:Either way it is unreasonable to have articles in Kerkraads split between two Wikipedias. It's not even that speakers of the Kerkrade dialect consider their dialect to be a separate language, it's that they are ''unaware'' of the existence of Ripuarian. It is precisely for this reason that articles in Kerkraads should be moved to the Kölsch (Ripuarian) Wikipedia, and so should articles in other dialects ([[Bóchezer]], [[Brókkelzer]], [[Völzer]] and [[Jömelejer]], if articles in the last one aren't there already), that are classified as Ripuarian by linguists. What we have now is, in my opinion, unacceptable. Would you accept articles in Brabantian here? What about Low Saxon? According to [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meuse-Rhenish-nl.png this map], Limburgish is spoken in a small southeastern part of North Brabant. If a Brabantian WP was ever created (or if it already has, I dunno), would it be acceptable for speakers of those dialects to submit articles written in their dialect to that Wikipedia, rather than here?
:Even better: Would you accept articles written in Luxembourgish? After all, it's a Central Franconian language variety, as is the Kerkrade dialect.
:However you choose to handle this situation, having articles written in one and the same language variety (the Kerkrade dialect of Ripuarian) split over two Wikipedias is the worst possible solution. It's not even that speakers of Kerkraads consider it to be a separate language (so that the situation is unlike Serbo-Croatian), it's that they're unaware of the correct linguistic classification. Even ''Kirchröadsjer Dieksiejoneer'' says that the dialect is a Ripuarian one and not Limburgish. [https://www.herzogenrath.de/icc/assisto/med/cff/cff20f79-e1d5-6c31-e32d-c9240a35f7b8,11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111.pdf Here], on the official website of the German town of Herzogenrath it clearly says that the two towns share the same dialect. Then why don't you also allow the Aachen dialect here? Isn't it as similar to the Kerkrade dialect as other Ripuarian varieties spoken in the Netherlands? After all, you already allow editors to write in a dialect that is used in Germany (in addition to the Netherlands, yes, but still).
:Ripuarian lacks proper government recognition in the Netherlands. In that regard it seems to be the same as Zeelandic and Brabantian, except that it is - wrongly - treated as "Limburgish". I know that there are bilingual signs in Kerkrade, just as there are in Maastricht - but that doesn't make the legal classification of the few Ripuarian dialects spoken in the extreme south of the province as "Limburgish" linguistically accurate. In fact, we really just have to refer to the situation with Serbo-Croatian in the former Yugoslavia to see that politics is the enemy of science when it comes to linguistics. Also, remember that Limburgish is also spoken in Belgium, where it has no government recognition - so why should that be a deciding factor on anything?
23

bewirkinge

Aafkomstig van Wikipedia, de Vriej Encyclopedie. "https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:MobielVerschillen/445694"

Navigatiemenu