Talk:Regiolekt
Add topicTo whom it may interest
[edit]In regions where the inherited dialect is still used, the distinction between "Dialekt" and "Regiolekt" is fairly clear, even though there may of course exist a continuum between them, as well as between "Regiolekt" and "Standardsprache". The distinction is clear insofar as the linguist can say: This is typical "Dialekt", this is typical "Regiolekt", this is typical "Standardsprache" (as we do in the Rhenish example in the article) ― and everything else is but nuances.
However, the question arises in regions where the original dialects have been lost entirely, whether the "Regiolekt" of such a region should now be considered its "Dialekt". Here, one important criterion, or perhaps the decisive one, is whether the Regiolekt in question contains any systematic features which are not predictable through Standard German, but only through older linguistic stages. For example, Berlin was Low German-speaking until the 18th century; the contemporary speech of the city and its surroundings is an early form of "Regiolekt". Nevertheless it is generally considered a "Dialekt", because it systematically uses ei, au for MHG ī, ū, and ee, oo for MHG ei, ou, a distinction which cannot be predicted through Standard German itself. The Ruhrgebiet, on the other hand, was Low German-speaking until the early 20th century; its contemporary "Ruhrdeutsch" is not considered a true "Dialekt" because no such features exist: There are only unsystematic borrowings from Low German (dat, wat, schwatt, unner) and systematic features which are predictable (e.g. postvocalic pf > pp, other pf > f, coda g > ch).