“Variety” doesn’t imply status as a dialect or as a language; it’s neutral in this regard, that’s why I used it.
More specifically, I see it as an Ingvaeonic variety; yes, like English, it’s also an Ingvaeonic variety. I agree with you that “nesting” it within Standard German would be incorrect.
we need taxa for the taxonomy god
While this doesn’t apply in this specific case, since Low Saxon is clearly sitting within its taxon, keep in mind that the taxonomy god is still Armok - it still demands blood. The blood of people furiously arguing if some variety belongs to taxon A or taxon B, when the variety shows intermediate traits.
I see this all the time when people talk about the Romance varieties, trying to lump Aragonese into either Ibero-Romance or Gallo-Romance; or Venetan into either Gallo-Italic or Italo-Dalmatian.
“Variety” doesn’t imply status as a dialect or as a language; it’s neutral in this regard, that’s why I used it.
More specifically, I see it as an Ingvaeonic variety; yes, like English, it’s also an Ingvaeonic variety. I agree with you that “nesting” it within Standard German would be incorrect.
While this doesn’t apply in this specific case, since Low Saxon is clearly sitting within its taxon, keep in mind that the taxonomy god is still Armok - it still demands blood. The blood of people furiously arguing if some variety belongs to taxon A or taxon B, when the variety shows intermediate traits.
I see this all the time when people talk about the Romance varieties, trying to lump Aragonese into either Ibero-Romance or Gallo-Romance; or Venetan into either Gallo-Italic or Italo-Dalmatian.