We present LuxBorrow, a borrowing-first analysis of Luxembourgish (LU) news spanning 27 years (1999-2025), covering 259,305 RTL articles and 43.7M tokens. Our pipeline combines sentence-level language identification (LU/DE/FR/EN) with a token-level borrowing resolver restricted to LU sentences, using lemmatization, a collected loanword registry, and compiled morphological and orthographic rules. Empirically, LU remains the matrix language across all documents, while multilingual practice is pervasive: 77.1% of articles include at least one donor language and 65.4% use three or four. Breadth does not imply intensity: median code-mixing index (CMI) increases from 3.90 (LU+1) to only 7.00 (LU+3), indicating localized insertions rather than balanced bilingual text. Domain and period summaries show moderate but persistent mixing, with CMI rising from 6.1 (1999-2007) to a peak of 8.4 in 2020. Token-level adaptations total 25,444 instances and exhibit a mixed profile: morphological 63.8%, orthographic 35.9%, lexical 0.3%. The most frequent individual rules are orthographic, such as on->oun and eur->er, while morphology is collectively dominant. Diachronically, code-switching intensifies, and morphologically adapted borrowings grow from a small base. French overwhelmingly supplies adapted items, with modest growth for German and negligible English. We advocate borrowing-centric evaluation, including borrowed token and type rates, donor entropy over borrowed items, and assimilation ratios, rather than relying only on document-level mixing indices.

翻译：本文提出LuxBorrow，一项针对卢森堡语（LU）新闻历时27年（1999-2025）的借用优先分析，涵盖259,305篇RTL文章与4370万词符。我们的处理流程结合了句子级语言识别（LU/DE/FR/EN）与限于卢森堡语句子的词符级借用解析器，运用词形还原、收集的借词登记表以及编纂的形态与正字法规则。实证表明，卢森堡语在所有文档中始终保持为基质语言，而多语实践则普遍存在：77.1%的文章包含至少一种供源语言，65.4%使用三种或四种语言。广度并不意味着强度：中位语码混合指数（CMI）从3.90（LU+1）仅增至7.00（LU+3），表明存在局部插入而非平衡的双语文本。领域与时期汇总显示混合程度适中但持续存在，CMI从6.1（1999-2007）上升至2020年的峰值8.4。词符级适应实例总计25,444例，呈现混合特征：形态适应占63.8%，正字法适应占35.9%，词汇适应占0.3%。最高频的个体规则属正字法类，如on->oun与eur->er，而形态适应在总体上占主导。历时来看，语码转换加剧，形态适应的借用词从较小基数持续增长。法语绝对主导适应项来源，德语贡献适度增长，英语影响可忽略。我们主张采用以借用为中心的评价指标，包括借用词符率与借用类型率、借用项上的供源语言熵以及同化比率，而非仅依赖文档级混合指数。