Talk:Norwegian language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Norwegian language article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Norwegian language as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Croatian,  French or Slovenian language Wikipedias.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:language
 language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Names of languages - name of the article

merge & redirect to Bokmaal and Nynorsk? -- Tarquin 16:44 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Use other languages sparingly? There is a fine English word for Bokmål and that is "Dano-Norwegian" ([1]). Couldn't Norwegian language, Bokmaal and Nynorsk and this article all be merged, since they are added together less than half a page? --Gabbe 13:17 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

"Dano-Norwegian" does not seem to please everyone, and "New-Norwegian" sounds a little awkward. I do not claim to understand the political implications (being not Norwegian despite my username), but would suggest that, in the interest of peace and NPOV, we should return to using "Bokmål" and "Nynorsk". Wikipedia:Use other languages sparingly is fine and well, but if the use of English terms causes political or NPOV debates (and besides, I doubt that they are widely used and/or well known) it seems appropriate not to use them. Finally, the article is still a bit stubby and it would be a great idea to have it developed some more (perhaps by a Norwegian?) Kosebamse 14:55 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)
And it is not "Norwegian" and "New Norwegian". Both of the variants (Bokmål and Nynorsk) are Norwegian. - Gustavf Mon Feb 17 16:40:49 CET 2003
I rewrote the part about Bokål and Nynorsk. Gustavf Mon Feb 17 17:05:17 CET 2003
Thanks a lot. Much more informative now and nicely written.Kosebamse 21:37 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)
The terms "Dano-Norwegian" and "New Norwegian" are the official terms in English for Bokmål and Nynorsk whether it pleases people or not. It is those terms that's used in one of the articles refered to at the end of the page (and so used by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Mendalus 15:15, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
For the record. The ISO 639 standard lists a number of language names in both English and French. Norwegian Bokmål and Norwegian Nynorsk are the first alternatives. The US Library of Congress MARC Code List for Languages use the names Bokmål and Nynorsk. There shouldn't be any reason to confuse matters with Dano-Norwegian or New Norwegian Ynh 15:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I dont know much about norwegian, but i think that any ISO standard should overide any "rule" which is not official and certainly does not have consensus. The bellman 23:12, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

There should be some mention of the guy in the photo in the article itself. Who is he? Tuf-Kat

A typical speaker of the Norwegian language, one must presume -- Egil 14:56 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
It is Ivar Aasen, the founder of Nynorsk (New Norwegian) but I see that somebody has added text to the picture now. :) Mendalus 15:12, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

80.202.68.22, as the matter has caused considerable debate earlier, I would like to ask you what you mean by "Dano-Norwegian" as "official english translation" for Bokmål.Can there be such a thing as an official name for a language in another language? Kosebamse 22:34 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

It seems that "Dano-Norwegian" is used in official documents. See for instance this information from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: http://odin.dep.no/odin/engelsk/norway/history/032005-990497/index-dok000-b-n-a.html - Gustavf Mon May 19 2003 08:00 UTC

8/20/2003 If I may ask, what is the language used in old Norwegian Tingboks? Some of these probat records I am investigating date back to the 1600s. I cannot find any word translation charts or dictionaries anywhere for them? deanhostager@mediaone.net

My best guess is Danish, as Norway was a part of Denmark at that time. See article History of Norway. -- Gustavf 06:26, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Actually, Norway have never been a "part of Denmark", but in union with Denmark.
But it was ruled by the Danish Crown for 400 years, so technically it was indeed a part of Denmark.
It was politically part of Denmark, but Norwegians were always a separate ethnic group. Indeed, Danish authorities referred to the area not as "Denmark" but simply as "Norway." Officials did indeed write in Danish, though, to get back to the original question. --Leifern 21:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I notice that the word "Landsmål" doesn't occur in this article at all. My reading leads me to believe that it is an outdated name for Nynorsk. But since this article tells me that Riksmål and Bokmål are not as synonymous as I previously thought, it would be nice if it were discussed here as well. Hippietrail 08:22, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You couldn't possibly have chosen a better looking color for the information box, or what Mulad? ;) 80.202.94.81 07:09, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Regarding use of "Dano-Norwegian", I would rather see the proper Norwegian names for periods and forms of the language used. To people who know the language, these terms have meaning. The Norwegian government probably uses "Dano-Norwegian" in English documents to make matters easier for people who don't speak Norwegian: Somehow I suspect most of us who are viewing this page on Wikipedia have some basis in the language. I doubt many people unversed in Scandinavian languages and history are wading through this sort of topic in the middle of the night.

Otherwise, I am very impressed by this effort. It is the best overview of the evolution of Bokmål and Nynorsk I have read in English.

The last edit states that Norwegian spoken language consists of many different dialects, the majority of which is closer to Nynorsk than to Bokmål, while the previous edit says however, the dialects used in the capital, eastern and southern Norway was ignored. These are two rather radical and completely opposite statements. Can any of them be documented? Otherwise, I think that both statements should be removed. --SAB 13:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

http://www.hivolda.no/index.php?ID=11686 states that 70-75 per cent of the Norwegian population speak a dialect "more closely represented by Nynorsk than Bokmål". Ivar Aasen didn't "ignore" eastern and southern Norway, although he paid little attention to the heavily Danish-influenced language spoken in the city centers. Even today most dialects in southern Norway and the traditional dialects of eastern Norway are much closer to Nynorsk. However, in the urban areas around the capital Oslo, these traditional dialects are being replaced by a spoken variant of Bokmål. An in-depth article explaining the Norwegian dialects is needed, I think. contrapuncti 18:10, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I restructured the article as it was quite difficult to follow. Also tried to make more clear the difference between Landsmål and modern Nynorsk. contrapuncti 11:04, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the highly controversial label "Standard Norwegian" (on the Dano-Norwegian Bokmål). Also, the only meaning of the "Landsmaal" in question was "National language" -- what evil tongues "meant" it to be, is irrelevant. Ei røyst i øydemarki 23:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Translating "Bokmål" to "Standard Norwegian" is not at all good. Both Bokmål and Nynorsk are "standard" languages of Norway. Britannica uses "Dano-Norwegian", but I don't think it's the task of Wikipedia to interpret the name. As pointed out above, Landsmaal unquestionably means "National language". For comparison, nobody would translate the Norwegian "fotball-landslag" (national football team) to "rural football team", although it's technically possible. contrapuncti 19:21, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Du fjernet langt mer informasjon enn bare det, jeg har derfor gjenopprettet siden. "Traditional Standard Norwegian" er faktisk den offisielle engelske oversettelsen av "riksmål" (jfr. Riksmålsforbundets hjemmeside), og "Standard Norwegian" gir mer mening på engelsk enn "Bokmål". Det er en dekkende betegnelse for det språket som omfatter rettskrivningsnormalene bokmål og riksmål. Jeg skjønner ikke hvorfor nynorskfolk er så oppsatt på at "bokmål" og "riksmål" ikke skal oversettes til forståelig engelsk, men det er nærliggende å anta at man ønsker å tilsløre dette språkets posisjon som de facto norsk hovedspråk. Navnet "bokmål" er i seg selv "diskriminerende" mot nynorsk, men nå var engang dette språket her først. Bokmålets og riksmålets navn på engelsk og andre fremmedspråk kan ikke baseres på nynorskhensyn. Å insistere på å bare bruke ignorante, bokstavelige oversettelser som "book language" er direkte usaklig. Og det gir mindre mening for engelske lesere. Wolfram

Ang. landsmål, så er det nok i Oslo flere som forstår det som "rural language" enn "national language". Det var faktisk først på Wikipedia at jeg oppdaget at det nynorskfolk mente, var "nasjonalt språk". Det kan ikke skade å nevne at det kan bety "rural language" også. Wolfram 13:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Ved nærmere ettertanke vil jeg legge til at jeg ikke selv har noe imot begrepet "Dano-Norwegian" som betegnelse på det språket som omfatter både riksmål og bokmål. Språkhistorisk er dette helt korrekt. Men det er neppe en akseptabel oversettelse av navnet "bokmål", som ved en dynamisk og velvillig oversettelse heller betyr netopp "Standard Norwegian". Wolfram 08:49, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how big is the difference but which is the language of http://no.wikipedia.org, Bokmaal or Nynorsk?

Bokmål. --SAB 18:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the Norwegian Wikipedia is not only in Bokmål. All forms of Norwegian, which includes Bokmål, Riksmål, Nynorsk and even Høgnorsk, are used there. However, most of the articles are written in Bokmål/Riksmål, the language used by around 90 % of all Norwegians. Wolfram 18:48, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oslo dialect

I'll probably have to study up on this, but I don't think it's accurate to say that people in Oslo have "abandoned" a dialect and taken up "standard talemål."

First, there are geographical differences. A casual listener will be able to hear differences between someone from Stabekk and someone from Grorud, and I'm sure linguists can pinpoint differences between someone more near each other, e.g., Sandvika and Røa.

Second, even a dialect that is similar to written Norwegian is a dialect. There are idiosynchratic words and idioms, and nobody speaks like a radio broadcaster.

In Britain, to take a parallel, they talk about the influence of RP on the dialects but not that RP itself has become the preferred spoken language.

I attempted to reflect this in my latest edit, but it wasn't very successfull and it's OK that Samuelsen removed it. However, that the traditional dialects of Bærum, Romerike, even Hallingdal are disappearing should be mentioned in the article. As regards the differences between Stabekk and Grorud, they might just as well be regarded as sociolectical. The same applies for Eiganes (Egenes) vs. Storhaug in Stavanger. contrapuncti 12:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Jarle - it used to be that children who grew up in certain towns spoke "stasjonsspråk," an approximation to written language. My grandmother grew up in Eidsvoll; her father was from Skjåk and her mother from Nord-Odal. But she has spoken stasjonsspråk until now, and she's 95. Under "dialect" here in wikipedia, the writers point out that nobody speaks a language, they speak a dialect of a language. Perhaps we should restructure the whole article to explain more about the evolution of, distinctions within, etc., of both written and spoken languages in Norway.--Leifern 23:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Riksmål - feminine

It is not correct that riksmål rejects the feminine form. If you read Riksmålsordboken, they propose that "hytte" be inflected "hytta."

"I nynorsk og dialektene opererer man med tre kjønn: en båt, ei bok og et hus. Det kan man gjøre i bokmål òg. Her kan man imidlertid også velge å bruke to kjønn, dvs. felleskjønn og intetkjønn, jf. en båt/bok/jente og et hus. Og i riksmål er det systemet med to kjønn som benyttes; i sin ”Riksmålsgrammatikk” (s. 81) sier Gorgus Coward at det ikke finnes noen grunn til å bruke den ubestemte artikkelen ei. Men man kan likevel bruke –a i bestemt for hvor man finner det naturlig". [2]

[edit] Unjustified and controversial claims in the section Modern Norwegian

Norwegian spoken language is far more complicated. Most people (70-75 %) speak a dialect which has more in common with Nynorsk than Bokmål, but generally with severe deviations [2] (http://www.hivolda.no/index.php?ID=11686). The reference is to an unjustified claim in an article by the Ivas Aasen institute, an institution that from its name cannot be expected to hold a neutral point of view.

The Ivar Aasen institute is part of the University College of Volda. The professor who wrote the article is a respected expert in the field, and I really can't see why he would be biased. Except for the cities of southern and eastern Norway the dialects are closer to Nynorsk. I don't think that is disputed at all, but I may be wrong. contrapuncti 15:29, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Then I would like to see the original reference for the claim. I couldn't find anything by reading the titles in Walton's list of publications at (http://www.hivolda.no/index.php?ID=10469&lang=nyn). Perhaps you could show me? As for the problem of finding out something like that, it would not be trivial to make a good definition of similarity between languages. You could probably do it in many ways, and choose the one that gives the nicest results. Second, it would not be correct to assume that everybody in an area speaks the same, archetypical dialect. People move around, and the dialects of individuals can be combined, suppressed or watered out. BBB 19:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I vouch for the claim’s correctness as a linguist with Norwegian dialectology as one of my main fields. Some of the most typical language traits that link the majority spoken forms of Norwegian with Nynorsk are:
  1. Use of personal pronoun forms like “e(g)”/“æ(g)”/“ei(g)” rather than “je(g)”; “ho”/“hu” rather than “hun”; “de”/“dykk”/“døkk”/“dokk” rather than “dere”; etc.
  2. Distinctive plural forms marking specific noun classes mainly linked to masculine vs. feminine grammatical gender — thus, many masculine plurals have “-a(r)” or “-æ(r)” in plural vs., typically, “-e(r)” or “-i(r)” in feminine plurals.
  3. Full vowel endings “-ar”/“-ær” rather than reduced “-er” in agens forms of the type “fiskar”, “bakar”, etc.
  4. Full vowel endings “-ar(e)”/“-ære” and “-ast(e)”/“-æst(e)” in comparative and superlative of adjectives, rather than Bokmål type “-(e)re” / “-(e)st(e)”.
  5. Use of the front/central high vowel u in words where Bokmål/Riksmål typically have East Scandinavian forms with back high o: “tru” (v., f.), “bu” (v.), “bu” (f), “bru” vs. “tro”, “bo”, “bod”, “bro”.
  6. Widespread use of -a as a marker of past tense. While this is, strictly speaking, permitted both in Nynorsk and Bokmål (but not in Riksmål with a few exceptions), the typivcally used forms in bokmål are “-et”.
Less dominant, but still widely used language traits include:
  1. present tense forms of strong verbs displaying “i umlaut”, and often also monosyllabic forms: “kjem(er)” rather than “kommer”, “syg” rather than “suger”, etc.;
  2. “-a(r)” as the marker of present tense ending of verbs with “-a” in past tense.
These are just a few examples of many traits with a primarily Nynorsk connection that are extremely widespread in spoken Norwegian outside the larger cities of SE Norway... Many of them in fact even within Oslo... -- Olve 05:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Riksmål has been the de facto standard language of Norway for most of the 20th century, and is the language used by the largest Norwegian newspapers and encyclopedias, a very large proportion of the population of the capital and its surrounding areas, and the Norwegian elite. Insufficient justification is given for this claim.

To whoever put this sentence back in: Who is this Norwegian elite, and how do you know that they use Riksmål? Also, during which period of more that 50 years in the 20th century was Riksmål the de facto standard language, and how do you know? BBB 19:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The claims are controversial in the sense that I find them hard to believe. I will remove the sentences until proper justification can be given.

BBB 13:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, from my viewpoint, having grown up on the eastern suburbs of Oslo, but also on Holmenkollen, hardly a bastion of nynorsk, I do not find these claims at all hard to believe. To the contrary, I feel strongly that there are many aspects of normalized nynorsk that are reflected in the daily spoken word of the rather densely populated suburbs of eastern Oslo. I'd claim that the main reason why people from eastern Oslo feels that nynorsk is rather indigestable is that it is forced upon us in school, and that it deprecated certain contructs that are much used, such as the be-prefix. Also, with [[User::Olve|Olve]]s post, I feel that is quite sufficient justification. Kjetil Kjernsmo 13:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


I think that some of the recent edits by 83.109.177.24 and others at 83.109.*.* are tendentious, and I am tempted to revert. Second opinions? For comparison here are some earlier contributions by the same user: 18 Dec, 9 Dec, 8 Dec, 25 Nov, 17 Nov, 15 Nov, 14 Nov, 13 Nov, 13 Nov, 12 Nov, 12 Nov, 9 Nov, 9 Nov, 8 Nov, 8 Nov, 7 Nov, 23 Oct, 20 Oct, 17 Oct, 15 Oct, 10 Oct, 7 Oct, 6 Oct, 28 Sep, and 24 Sep. It would be helpful if this user would join the talk page as well as the article history openly. --Eddi (Talk) 00:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The tendentious editing continues and the discussion turns harsher, so I won't spend as much time on this article as I would have liked to. --Eddi (Talk) 11:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronouns in Nynorsk

Maybe we should write something about the personal pronouns in Nynorsk and norwegian dialects, they often differ from Bokmål, at least in 2nd person sing/plur. http://home.online.no/~jomagnev/norsk/nynorsk/oversett/nyproreg.html http://www-studnot.hit.no/u971071/dialekter/begrep/perspro.htm

[edit] Genetic classification

Why is West Scandinavian called "insular"? This hardly seems accurate since Nynorsk and earlier forms of West Scandinavian have been spoken in Norway for even longer than they've been spoken in Iceland or the Faroes. (I realize most Norwegians write in Bokmaal. But Norway's population is more than 10 times Iceland plus the Faroes put together!) --Rjp08773 00:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Insular Scandinavian are mainly spoken on islands, unlike Continental Scandinavian, it's not a historical classification, but rather a description of the modern usage. I guess Nynorsk could be controversial to classify, since it has been hugely affected by the Dano-Norwegian Bokmål.

[edit] Former capitalisation of commoun nouns?

I've either read or heard that several Germanic languages besides German used to capitalise all common nouns. In Danish this practice was abolished in a spelling reform in the late 1940s. Can anybody tell me if this was ever practiced in Norwegian and if so when was it abolished? — Hippietrail 06:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Ministry gave permission to not capitalise in 1877. Capitalisation seems to have disappeared around 1907. 12:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute regarding Bokmal

Bokmal, as it is classified differently, seems to be a different language from Norwegian. Sarcelles 00:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What??? Please explain why you think so. I'll remove the disputed tag otherwise, as it seems to be put on for no good reason, or any reason at all. --Leifern 01:07, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

One of the sources supporting my view is [3]. This source has Bokmal as part of what it calls Danish-Bokmal. Regards, Sarcelles 02:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is not a valid argument, and you should read the article, where the issue is discussed at some length. Since the tag is based on ignorance, I am removing it. --Leifern 03:24, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
I recommend that all SIL classifications of seperate languages, especially when it comes to the North Germanic languages, be confirmed by other sources. They seem to be quite prone to taking the word of regionalist activists far too literally and not respecting the terminology used by Scandinavian linguists. The utter nonsense that is "Dalecarlian language" is probably one of the best examples of why SIL's classifications should be view with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Peter Isotalo 13:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Bokmål, as a written language is closely related to danish. Henrik Ibsen wrote his plays in Danish, and they were published in Denmark. As a spoken language it differs markedly. Tonems [4] do not exist in danish, as far as I know. Anyway; a language is a dialect with an army behind it. [[[User:Krivar|Krivar]] 19:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)]
No, Ibsen was an adherent of a distinct Norwegian language, and his writing became increasingly Norwegian with the years. [5] --Leifern 17:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
If there are no other references for the two-fold classification of Norwegian, the info on it should be removed. SIL's classificaitons are often odd and in this instance make absolutely no sense at all. A major influence from a language does not mean one can just reclassify it. It wouldn't be too different from trying to classify spoken Yiddish as Germanic while considering the written language to be Semitic. Unless all Norwegians literally started speaking Danish, with a complete replacement of all vocabulary, grammar and phonology, one can classify Norwegian as both East and West Scandinavian. A written language is always a representation of a spoken language and hence can't change the genetic classification of a language, no matter how heavy the influence from another language is.
Peter Isotalo 02:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
This is where we completely disagree. When people speak only, say, Papiamento, and write only Dutch, does that mean that Papiamento is a West Germanic language? When people speak only Creole and write only French, does that mean that they speak a different language than if the spoke Creole and also wrote Creole? The genetic classification of a language is a very complex process, and at a “micro level” (as with local dialects), languages are frequently relexified and grammatically restructured, since their definition relies by default on fewer differences. In linguistical continua with relatively small language differences (like most of continental Scandinavian; like the Urdu-Punjabi-Hindi continuum in Punjab and the neighbouring areas), the structural “borders” obviously fluctuate. One isogloss is a obviously a minor detail when classifying broader groups of languages. But the more similar the languages are, the more it will turn into significant information. Languages defined linguistically are defined linguistically, not politically. If one wants to skip the linguistical classification in a case where it is so hard to define and rid with doubt as is the case with Norwegian (written, spoken in its various forms), maybe it is better to just (A) leave it out or (B) mark the language as transitional? -- Olve 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I am going to assume that I'm talking to the same user who for some time tried to force unreferenced theories on the now-redirected Scandinavian languages for a very long period. I have in my posession a good deal of linguistic sources that clearly debunks nearly all the claims mentioned above. Here is the list of erroneous claims that would not stand up to even a cursory glance in the most basic of literature:
  • Standard Danish was spoken natively by (most) Norwegians.
    • Pure Danish was never spoken by the large majority of Norwegians, but rather only by the administrative classes. The majority used either genuine Norwegian dialects or a mix of the two. A language often refered to as "Dano-Norwegian" was spoken by a small minority of the educated classes during the latter half of the 19th century. It did influence Standard Eastern Norwegian (standard østnorsk), but was only used by a small percentage of the population during a limited time and was furthermore not even identical to the Danish spoken in Denmark.
  • Modern Standard Norwegian is based upon Danish.
    • To begin with there is no such thing as an official Standard Norwegian. There is, in fact, no spoken Norwegian standard at all. This is a deliberate policy and even if Eastern Norwegian (especially the kind spoken in and around Oslo) is often considered the most obvious standard to most and is the language taught to foreigners, it is still not claimed as an official standard either by gov't or the Norwegian Language Council.
  • Old Norwegian is an extinct language and does not form a base for modern Norwegian.
    • A gross simplification of the actual history of the language. While Norwegian was indeed forced back from the 16th to the 19th century and was largely replaced by Danish as a written language, spoken Norwegian did not become extinct. This could happen if such a change occured in modern times, with high literacy among common people and modern communication, but in these times language simply did not change as rapidly as it does today. Just the fact that all sources (except SIL, with it's very strange theories about separating written standards though they were spoken langauges) are in complete agreement that Norwegian is a West Scandinavian language confirms this.
References:
I once more ask that you stop trying to assert your own very misguided views of the classification and history of the Scandinavian languages and respect policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. I know you have been active for a very long time and should by now have become quite familiar with a whole slew of policies. Next time I encounter this type of behavior from you or anyone hailing from the IP-range 83.109.x.x , I will make a request for arbitration.
Peter Isotalo 16:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I mailed Marit Hovdenak at the Norwegian Language Council about this issue a while ago and received an answer just today. She confirms that the classification of Norwegian should be, regardless of written standard, West Scandinavian. Though I hope that the sources above have been taken seriously, this should definetly settle the dispute. Here is her reply (underlining is mine):
Hei!
Takk for interessant førespurnad, som kom i ferien min. I Noreg er det vanleg å klassifisere både bokmål og nynorsk som vestnordisk. Det står slik under oppslagsordet "vestnordisk" i Bokmålsordboka, Nynorskordboka og Norsk ordbok frå Kunnskapsforlaget. I Kunnskapsforlagets store norske leksikon står det i artikkelen "Nordiske språk": "vestnordisk, som omfatter norsk (med skriftspråksvariantene bokmål og nynorsk), islandsk og færøysk".
Elles har bl.a. Lars S. Vikør komme inn på spørsmålet, også i ting han har skrive på engelsk, jf. nettsidene til Språkrådet. I boka "Språknormer i Norge" av Helge Omdal og Lars S. Vikør skriv den sistnemnde: "Men no har vi i Noreg to standardspråk, bokmål og nynorsk. Er dette to språk, eller berre to målformer, altså former av eit felles norsk språk? Det finst ikkje noko objektivt svar på dette". Forfattaren svarer sjølv at det truleg er mest rett og dekkjande å halde fast på den offisielle termen "målformer".
Konklusjonen min blir då at norsk, både bokmål og nynorsk, bør klassifiserast som vestnordisk.
Vennleg helsing
Marit Hovdenak - rådgjevar
Språkrådet, Postboks 8107 Dep, 0032 OSLO
Gateadresse: C.J. Hambros pl. 5
E-postadresse: marit.hovdenak(at)sprakradet.no
http://www.sprakrad.no el. http://www.språkrådet.no
If anyone who doesn't speak Norwegian needs a translation, just let me know and I'll provide one.
Peter Isotalo 11:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to sum this up, are you seriously claiming that you and your interpretation of SIL's completely unreferenceable classification (which you haven't even understood properly) is right and Encyclopedia Britannica, all major Norwegian encyclopedias, the Norwegian Language Council, Nationalencyklopedin and literally all other linguists in the field are wrong?

Peter Isotalo 19:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have understood the SIL classification very well. You may want to have a look at the Norwegian Wikipedia article on Norwegian language: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsk_språk -- 83.109.174.112 21:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Skandinaviske språk klassifiseres gjerne i to grupper: vestskandinavisk (insulær) og østskandinavisk (kontinental). Klassifikasjonen er basert på fonologiske forandringer fra norrønt. For eksempel heter det bru i vestskandinaviske språk, men bro i østskandinaviske språk. Derfor regnes islandsk og færøysk til vestskandinaviske språk, mens svensk og dansk regnes til østskandinaviske språk. En slik klassifikasjon er ikke særlig relevant for norsk som helhet, fordi grensen mellom vest- og østskandinavisk går tvers gjennom det norske dialektkontinuumet. Det nærmeste en kommer å klassifisere norsk på dette nivået, er å sortere standard sørøstnorsk inn under østskandinavisk, og de fleste vestnorske dialekter inn under vestskandinavisk.
I've taken it up at the talkpage already. The statement (that Norwegian has a two-fold classification) is completely unreferenced. Please read the policy pages Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources. You can't use another Wikipedia as a source, even if it's in Norwegian. Moreover, West/East is not the same thing as Insular/Mainland; they're completely different ways of classifying the languages. It's a misinterpretation and nothing else. Not even SIL makes this mistake.
Peter Isotalo 22:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Peter: Except for the fact that the terms West/East and insular/mainland are a bit sloppily used in the quote from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia article, the description is actually pretty accurate there. It basically states that the East/West dichotomy is problematic in connection with the language/s / language forms of Norway. You insist that you and supposedly all linguists (except for the ones you disagree with) are right in that Norwegian is by definition Western Scandinavian. But much more important than what you feel is what linguistical criteria you rest your argument on. As a linguist with solid knowledge about Norwegian dialectology I know very well that many sources contain a high number of mistakes. Many of these mistakes are quoted and consolidated — like, e.g. the generally circulating maps showing the distribution of [r]/[ɽ] from Old Norse (rð). In that case, a mistake in transferring the data from the “Dialect synopsis” to the first-published map by I. Christiansen was never revised/corrected before publishing, and the map has been re-published as part of several volumes on Norwegian dialects. I could therefore provide several academic sources showing that the [r] pronunciation is the only one used in the county of Møre og Romsdal with the exception of Aure and, as far as I can remember, Smøla) — despite the irrefutable fact that the [ɽ] pronunciation is found as the main pronunciation or as the pronunciation in a significant group of words in at least 6 more municipalities! There are scores of these blunders spread through uncritical copying to be found in the Norwegian language literature — usually not through malintent, but rather from being a bit too sloppy on checking the actual contents of one’s sources critically. Which leads to my main question to you, Peter:
On what exact structural elements do you base your claim that Norwegian language is, as a whole, West Scandinavian? Citations, even quotes, are useless unless they are actually based on something. What facts do you base your opinion on?
It would also be useful if you could inform us about your academic background in the topic of Norwegian language with its dialectology and history, BTW. (And I am not saying that only Norwegians can discuss Norwegians. I am asking what level and type of knowledge you have in the current subject because this is of relevance to our discussion and because I sense a possible discepancy between your level of assertiveness and your seeming lack of factual arguments beyond enumerating encyclopaedia articles (who says that encyclopaedias are academically waterproof?) and leaning on an e-mail message from a member of a language usage council for a question about language typology.) -- Olve 16:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Where's your own argumentation! How are mistakes in unrelated isogloss maps concerning the prevelance of retroflex flaps relevant to this discussion and how does it prove not only that all sources except SIL are wrong in this context but that you're right? Better yet, what's your own support for reclassifying (some) dialects of Norwegian from West to East Scandinavian? You need to explain how a diachronic classification can be altered merely because of influence from a closely related language, not claim that I'm not a linguist and hence shouldn't assert what other sources (falsely) claim. Did Norwegian dialects evolve from Old East Norse? If so, why should Norwegian be reclassified?
Please don't confuse this with any kind of dislike for academic nuancing. I'm certainly aware that language classification is merely a simplification and I welcome contributions from scholars in the subject, but this is an encyclopedic article, not a linguistic paper. This is not the place for new scientific theories. And bashing the validity of so many encyclopedic articles (written by linguists) as well as the linguistic competence of members of the Norwegian Language Council is hardly becoming either a Wikipedian or an academic...
Peter Isotalo 17:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Unless some new argumentation or source material is presented either by the anon or by Olve, I'm going to revert the confusing double classification in the infobox and remove the {{disputed}}-template. Please do not violate policy by auto-reverting. Present plausible sources and argumentation if you want to contest. And that means proper argumentation, not fault-by-association, rehashing old arguments or (worst of all) demand that I present further argumentation. The sources are on the table, SIL is very lonely and very disputed and no other references have been cited.
Peter Isotalo 14:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Classification has now been reverted. I've also removed the unofficial regulator of Riksmål, since this is a completely unofficial standard and the Norwegian Academy is already a member of the Norwegian Language Council. Mention this in the text, but please don't put in the infobox as though it had official sanctioning. There has been some pretty obvious attempts to push the prominence of Riksmål. Start with actually providing reliable figures of it's usage instead of constantly mentioning it together with Bokmål as the majority language, as though they were one and the same.
Peter Isotalo 10:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orzetto's original research

Orzetto has been trying to insert the following into this article:

... Dialects are in some cases so dissimilar as to be unintelligible to unfamiliar listeners; this is especially true of dialects of internal, mountaineous areas. ...
Norwegians usually pride themselves with the cultural wealth of their different dialects, but this diversity is actually not particularly conspicuous, especially when compared to countries of similar size. In particular, Norwegians tend to speak their own dialect anywhere they are in the country, and can usually communicate with only minor hindrance. Such an ease of communication between dialects would be unthinkable, for instance, in Italy. Enthusiasm for the usage of dialect in spoken language is often tied to support of the usage of Nynorsk in writing.

It may be your personal observation that "Norwegians pride themselves with (sic) thei cultural wealth...etc.) but it's not a fact. Norwegian public policy favors cultural diversity, but I don't know that Norwegian public opinion has any particular view about just how diverse things are. As a matter of fact, I think most Norwegians feel that they belong to a very homogenous society. I'm not going to verify whether Italy's dialects are more diverse than Norwegian dialects, but Italy is a much larger country that Norway, so the comparison is false. --Leifern 11:05, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

What makes the Norwegian dialects special is that they are actively used. While in most countries dialects are left for circles of persons who can understand them, Norwegians use their dialects in their professions and when talking to strangers: university professors, politicians, TV anchormen all speak in their dialects while delivering lectures, speeches or news. Norwegians will more rather go over to English than speak "plain" Norwegian when a foreigner has problems understanding their dialect (this has not prevented xenophobic groups from complaining that immigrants don't speak Norwegian good enough). It could be suggested that the liberality in the verbal usage of dialects has reflected itself in writing, as Norwegians generally write with relatively bad spelling, when compared to speakers of languages with similar spelling difficulties and similar education level.

Actually, that is untrue. Speakers of dialects consistently modify their speech to their audience. While they may maintain enough of their dialect that the listener will know where they're from, their choice of words, pronouncation, etc., will change dramatically if there's a concern about misunderstandings. --Leifern 11:05, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Leifern that news anchors don't speak dialect. (How could they? They are reading most of their lines.) The same goes for actors in most theater plays. But it is true that dialects (with or without modifications of the most discrepant words) are dominant in almost every area where Norwegian is spoken (i.e., not just read or recited). This important point of Orzetto's should definitely be mentioned in the main article about Norwegian language, to emphasize that knowledge of dialects is crucial to anyone who wants to understand spoken Norwegian.
--Verdlanco\talk 14:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Diversity of dialects: I know Norwegians take this awfully personally, but Norwegian dialects are not really that impressively different. Norwegian mountaineous geography played only a marginal role—the main role is the one of seafaring (most people live on the coast or in the vicinity), that gave rise to a series of mutually intelligible dialects on the coast (possibly with the exception of the areas closest to Denmark), and more particular ones in internal, mountaineous areas. Considerable diversity is in my opinion an overstatement, since someone from Lindesnes can talk in his own dialect with someone from Hammerfest only with minor hindrance. In my comparison with Italy I actually weighed for the population. The dialects of Sondrio and Bergamo are completely different, for instance, and surely not mutually intelligible; this even though the cities are in two neighbouring areas. Furthermore, a more spread population is more likely to foster dialects than a more densely packed one: see Denmark. Indeed, the most peculiar dialects arise in some small villages, not in Oslo—amount of speakers is therefore not necessarily important.
Popular view: I got the suspect you were an emigrate and got it right—you live in New Jersey, right? Well, it seems that dialect usage is on the rise over here. As an Italian in Norway, I am regularly amazed at people talking dialect without first checking that the audience understand it. Older people actually seem to try to speak bokmål, but younger are more "careless" if you allow me the term. I actually thought I may be biased (maybe everybody speaks dialect, and it's just Italy that speaks the same language all over?), but I regularly ask people from other (mostly European) countries, and no one has indicated a similar usage of dialect anywhere. I have personally and multiple times experienced Norwegians rather speaking English instead of comprehensible bokmål, when they noticed I could not understand their dialect. It seems it is sort of embarassing to pronounce bokmål "as it is written". It should actually be noted that this might have had fatal consequences in a number of cases, since medical personnel from abroad is often trained in Oslo with "norskkursnorsk", and then sent in some province where no one seems to speak the language they learnt (I read something about it in the Aftenposten some months ago). Again, the differences among Norwegian dialects are not big, but are enough of a hindrance for a foreigner (especially because there are no or few textbooks about how to understand them!).
I don't know how it should be called if it is not "pride" (I did not want to use "parochialism" or plain "illiteracy"), since all the Norwegians I know have confirmed this custom of "speaking each with his/her dialect". FYI, I live in Trondheim.
Speakers modifying their language: they might modify their language, but they do not always use "standard" bokmål or nynorsk (except NRK). Please try to grab a Internet edition of TV2's news. Call it what you want, it's not bokmål (and it would be weird if it were nynorsk, since nynorsk supporters normally speak dialect by principle; and that's not NRK, where a nynorsk quota is mandated). I have, time and again, witnessed lectures at university level in dialect, with comical effects when a professor from Stavanger did not understand that "korsen" in trøndersk was "korleis" in his dialect and started a long series of "Kva?"/"Ka?". There are indeed people, in the cities, whose dialect is negligibly different from bokmål, but I have never observed large changes by people with "stronger" dialects. And before you contest: yes, Norwegians (on average) have terrible spelling. I have corrected a series of reports handed in by students (3rd year undergraduate), and was amazed at how bad they write. And I'm still a foreigner here, so I don't look at things like prepositions, which I would probably get wrong anyway. On the other hand, I noticed a correlation between interest in nynorsk and better writing skills (even in bokmål), possibly because nynorsk users are (again, on average) more interested in languages. --Orzetto 21:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Korsen? Isn't it kåssen or kossen?
The spelling and meaning of this word varies between dialects. In the meaning "how" some spellings / pronunciations are "hvordan", "kordan", "korleis", "koss", "kossen", and "korsen". In the meaning "what kind of" some pronunciations are "hvilken", "kvafor" "kaffor", "kva", "kvaslags", "kaslags", "kasla", "korleis", "kass", "koss", "kossen", and "korsen". The 'rs' is pronounced 'sj'. The 'rd' may be pronounced in one or two distinct sounds. --Eddi (Talk) 18:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I can confirm Orzetto's claim of Norwegian dialects not being all that varied, something I myself had previously assumed. This is a quote from the introduction to The Phonology of Norwegian by Gjert Kristoffersen (pg. 7):
...the variation among Norwegian dialects and accents, Standard Østnorsk included, seems small compared to what one finds in other European languages. Speakers of different Norwegian dialects have therefore small problems in understanding each other.
I think we can assume that Kristoffersen is not including second language speakers of Norwegian in his description. Even the most diligent of foreign language students can often have difficulties in understanding the very distinct rural dialects if not used to hearing them.
Peter Isotalo 23:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
As a Norwegian and a linguist, I can also confirm Orzetto's claims. The differences is more in vocabulary and syntax than in phonology. I write radical Bokmål and speak slightly radical generic south-eastern. I've lived in the eastern parts of Norway, and in Trøndelag (the middle), and in Finnmark (farthest north), and in Bergen (west), so I think I ought to be qualified to say something about how norwegians speak. Generally, the trønder dialects add more retroflex and palatal sounds, and some have true tonal words, as the toneme on a word is compressed into one syllable after apocope (chopping off the last vowel if not followed by consonant). The northern and (south)-western parts of Norway uses a different intonation-system; a more European sounding one instead of going up at the end of sentences which is the norm in the east and the middle. All the dialects disagree on how to pronounce /r/ it seems. Oh, and there are people (not immigrants) who claim not to understand dialect but all Norwegians I know personally (including yours truly) considers such people to be either chauvinsts who are a waste of good carbon or slightly on the mentally retarded side. Anyway, AFAIK, Norwegian dialects are still taught in high school, there have even been tv game shows where the premise was "name the dialect".
As for terrible spelling, when I was in school, if I misspelled something I was corrected with an easily visible red mark. When a younger relative of mine started school, this was no longer pedagogically correct, apparently. Now, how do you suppose kids are to learn what is right when neither the good bits nor the bad bits are pointed out to them? Furthermore, the people becoming teachers for children in Norway today are more often, excuse the expression, from the bottom of the barrel. They can't spell and they can't add, so how are they supposed to be able to correct the kids' assignments? Send answers on a postcard to the Ministry of Education :) and I remind everyone there's an election in Norway this year. --Kaleissin 19:21:06, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
I doubt the accuracy of the claim made in the example of the university lecturer, as the word how would normally be precisely "kossen" (or "koss") in the Stavanger dialect. Still, I agree with the general sentiment that Norwegians at least try their best to avoid standardising their spoken language, and such standardisation (known as "knoting") is indeed regarded as embarrassing in large parts of the country. There are probably two reasons for this: Firstly, as the main article states, there is actually no formal spoken standard, and hence Standard Østnorsk is not regarded as having a higher status than any other version of spoken Norwegian, in contrast to the situation in many other countries. Secondly, the centre/periphery conflict in Norway has never been particularly focused on politics (e.g. autonomy) or economics, but has instead focused rather exclusively on culture, and especially language. Hence, the freedom to speak one's own dialect is seen as intrinsic both to the individual's identity and to the defense of regional interests against the political domination of the centre. In other countries, similar struggles have more commonly taken political or economic forms.
It should be noted that dialects are increasingly being written in their own right, particularly as a result of text messaging and e-mails, where young people usually write in dialect rather than in bokmål or nynorsk. This is often mistaken for poor spelling by older people, but it is actually not, as it is not an attempt at writing standardised Norwegian. However, problems do occur when "SMS language" influence more formal writing, which is probably one reason for an increasing number of spelling errors in student essays and even job applications. Toao 08:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riksmål

It seems a bit strange mentioning this unofficial standard as being regulated by the Norwegian Academy in the infobox, when the academy is already represented in the Norwegian Language Council. I removed it from the infobox when updating it to the proper template, but it is still mentioned in the lead.

Peter Isotalo 17:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The Norwegian Language Council is regulating Bokmål and Nynorsk, but not Riksmål. Hence, it is irrelevant that the Academy "already" is represented in the Language Council which is regulating completely different spelling standards.
Who are you? --Kaleissin 10:10:22, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Kaleissin, he's a Norwegian anon user who refuses to sign his post. He's been around for at least a year.
Anon, Riksmål is not official and is viewed as merely a conservative variant of Bokmål (or in some cases just the older name of that variant). If the Norwegian Academy is a part of the Language Council, like the Swedish Academy, then we don't need to list it. If you look at the text, it already features Riksmål as being a lot more prominent than it really is. You've been reminded several times to cite sources, so please revert your changes. Show that you're interested in participating in reasoned discussion before making edits like these.
Peter Isotalo 06:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separating the written standards

Bokmål and Nynorsk are now separate articles, though only stubs right now. Considering that the biggest single section of this article is taken up by discussions of the various written standards its probably prudent to start describing the standards in more detail in separate articles. Especially considering that there is a lot of information that still needs to be added on dialects, phonology, grammar and to some extent history.

Peter Isotalo 18:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


On 24 Sept 2005 I created an entry for Høgnorsk as one did not exist. I provided only a brief overview but will expand when I get a chance and encourage others to expand this also. I think it's great that Bokmål and Nynorsk have their own entries. I plan to make an entry for Riksmål as the current search re-directs the user to this (Norwegian Language) entry. Sooner or later, should Riksmål lack an entry, people will be fussy over it. If anyone believes Riksmål should not have its own entry, please let me know. I just fear that its advocates will be cross if it doesn't while now Høgnorsk does!

I agree with Peter that seperate articles should be the way to go in providing more detailed information about the variants of Norwegian language. Certainly, a better way than arguing here over them. Riksmål, I might add to the comments above, is a precursor to contemporary Bokmål . . . anyone who favours Riksmål over Bokmål or Høgnorsk over Nynorsk is just using a more exacting form of the same language, really.--Mike 06:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please sign and date all entries, and avoid ad hominem attacks

I've been asked to comment on the acrimony that is breaking out on this page, but I have to say it's almost impossible for me to follow the discussion, due to User:83.109.189.71's posts being unsigned, undated, and all over the place. 83.109.189.71, there are two ways of signing and timestamping your contributions:

1, you type four tildes in a row, like this ~~~~. When you save, they will automatically be converted to your signature (in this case, your IP) plus date .
or 2, you click on the next but last in the row of buttons at the top left of the edit field, the one that looks like a little piece of handwriting, and that will type the four tildes for you.
For my part I like 2, most people seem to prefer 1; but anyway, please enable discussion on this page by using one of them!

I'm afraid I haven't been able to invest enough time and energy to read this whole discussion by following the History tab, so it's a bit hazy to me. One thing stood out, though, when I dipped into the History: 83.109.189.71's attempt to shoo off qualified contributors for not being Norwegian. Please be advised that this attitude is unacceptable. Anybody can edit Wikipedia, and the only relevant criterion for contributing to an article is knowledge of the subject, not membership of any special ethnic or linguistic group. Peter Isotalo is obviously at home with the literature on the subject, so please don't use ad hominem attacks to try to drive him or other knowledgeable non-Norwegians off. Altogether, a civil tone promotes article growth better than personal attacks do. I notice with regret that Eddi seems to be withdrawing because of the unpleasant tone, I suppose referring to statements like "You are lying again" from 83.109.189.71 :-(. That is not the way to build Wikipedia:Consensus. Also, to accuse individuals and organizations who disagree with you on linguistic subjects of hidden political motives only makes your own case look bad. To accuse Peter Isotalo of having "no knowledge of the history of Scandinavian languages in general and Norwegian in particular" makes it look worse. You might want to take a look at the Featured articles on linguistic subjects that he has been the main author of here at the English Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 17:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I am also withdrawing, together with Eddi — but Peter (whose competence in Norwegian dialectology is not documented anywhere, as far as I can see) is a main source of the problems and unpleasant tone of this discussion. Respectfully, a Norwegian lingust and ethnomusicologist with solid competence on Norwegian dialectology. (I can send you transcripts from the University of Oslo and University of Trondheim through e-mail if you need to see documentation.) Olve 20:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
No need, Olve. Just give me your real name and I'll check with my professor and project-group. Another Norwegian linguist, Kaleissin 22:26:35, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
This is not an academic discussion forum. We have policies for how to properly support disputed article content and we certainly don't accept academic titles as an argument. Kaleissin is new, so he might not have a good grip on this, but Olve, you should damned well know these things by now. If not, please read the following policy pages:
Peter Isotalo 23:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
While we're at it, some more guidelines for all of us: --Eddi (Talk) 00:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I chose to withdraw from the whole discussion back then (citing published and/or publically available primary and secondary sources, which I did, wasn’t good enough when I did it, it seemed) and hence I didn't read the “kind” words by Peter until now... (sigh) -- Olve 20:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop diddling with the infobox please

One of the genetic classification lines keeps changing from North to North Germanic and back, at least once a day. This looks unprofessional. Settle for one or find something else to edit please! --Kaleissin 10:07:28, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

The anon user who keeps reverting at least two other users (in other articles as well) refuses to discuss the issue nor to acknowledge the problem with prioritizing cosmetics over stating the obvious and has already violated 3RR, but it seems rather fruitless to ask for a block, so I've taken the issue up at here.
Peter Isotalo 12:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I think they'd rather have such problems over there but maybe this is silly enough for the main page: "it's spelled with 'o'! no, it's spelled with 'ou'! your father smelled of elderberries!" etc.
Anyway, the Ethnologue is a known splitter. The good thing with that is if some cook does a drive-by to split even further, it's easy to shoot him/her down, since not even SIL splits that much... --Kaleissin 14:36:53, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
I thought this user would give up when being reverted by so many other people, but obviously we're dealing with a hardliner. I've made a report here. I picked Swedish language because it was the only clear 3RR made today. Please add any further violations if you see them.
Peter Isotalo 15:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Or perhaps the more reverters, the funnier it is. You have stated that this is a minor issue, so why not be the grown up and leave it? Although not ideal, I think we can live with the classification Germanic - North - Norwegian instead of Germanic - North Germanic - Norwegian. In this case there's little room for misunderstanding. You may keep up the war elsewhere, but we can do without an "awarded edit war". --Eddi (Talk) 17:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
My view of Wiki is also that pure wiki-interal conflicts should effect articles as little as possible. To concede a reasonably important layout issue because of just one very stubborn and uncivil user might seem like the easy way out, but not in the long run. If we do that, we're editing only to please an editor, not readers, something I absolutely detest. And how reasonable is it that 5+ people should let one person without any semblance of arguments have his way? If there was some good reasoning behind, I would concede, but this is clearly just a personal whim.
Peter Isotalo 20:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Eddi. I got so sick of trying to discuss with you (Peter) when you spread the discussion (but refused to give any justification of your POV beyond quoting tertiary quotes and one e-mail from an irrelevant official organ) out over (as far as I know) three different wikipedias that I decided to withdraw from this article altogether for a while. (As for my arguments for classifying Norwegian as a mix of East and West Scandinavian, you will find plenty of them in my discussion with you on nn:. Or was on no:? Or both?) The senseless fight over North vs. North Germanic (who cares!) should illustrate pretty well what I mean here.... I am sorry to say that as long as Peter runs his crusade here, I will opt to stay out. Respectfully, -- Olve 20:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Have you even read your own posts here? You lambast me for doing the only reasonable thing expected from a layman discussing these things at Wikipedia, namely citing sources and then demand that I do the very thing we're not allowed to do here on Wikipedia, namely present arguments based on "linguistic reality", i.e. original research. You can't expect to be taken serious with these kinds of wild accusations, especially not when you're completely ignoring the fact that the very user that has been bitterly fighting to impose the views I'm opposing not only resorts to constant incivilities and exhibits a particularly poor knowledge of Scandinavian linguistics, but also has a history of a severe Scandinavist POV at Talk:Scandinavian languages as well as Scandinavia and has shown what seems to me as a tendency to exaggerate the importance and prominence of Riksmål as often as possible.
I'm going to make a short summary of the arguments that you've presented on this page so far:
  • there are inaccuracies in Norwegian dialect data, even if they're not in the least related to this discussion.
  • the Norwegian Language Council can in no way be considered a reasonable source when judging the merits of classifying Bokmål and Nynorsk as separate spoken languages which would be classified as East and West Scandinavian respectively nor to determine if Norwegian should generally be given a diachronic classification as being West Scandinavian (even if this is nuanced in the article)
  • citing general sources like EB is not acceptable, but rather uncited linguistic arguments should be offered to counter your equally uncited counterclaims
Try to keep in mind that the discussions over at no.- and nn.wikipedia may not be accessible or even known to the people who are following this discussion. Still, you've not done much better on the Norwegian pages, Here's a rough summary:
  • some dialects of Norwegian are difficult to classify along the West/East axis (but only those bordering Swedish have been briefly mentioned)
  • vague arguments that explain how very nuanced and complex spoken languages actually are
If you feel I've misrepresented your views, please present them the way you feel is more accurate. Don't expand further on how upset you are about my not respecting your academic prowess, because it's not helpful nor enlightening. Structure your argumentation and focus on that which is presently relevant. Don't go off on sidetracks about general fuzziness of language defintion and such things; both myself and others here are aware that these things aren't cut-and-dry. Just explain exactly what you feel is wrong about the current wording of the article or the infobox and how and why it should be changed. Or just make the edits yourself and explain them briefly (preferably with sources) here on the talkpage.
Peter Isotalo 23:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Peter, You win! So I therefore concede defeat and will now stop reverting. -- Anon 08:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Skanwiki

I hope this isn't too off topic--is the Skanwiki project successful in terms of mutual intelligibility between Norwegian, Danish and Swedish? Just curious...does it hint at any trends to come in terms of greater integration (esp. online) between the languages? Thanks! --Dpr 17:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

One place to ask could be the village pump at meta:Skanwiki/Tinget, or one of the local places sv:Wikipedia:Bybrunnen, da:Wikipedia:Landsbybrønden, no:Wikipedia:Tinget, or nn:Wikipedia:Samfunnshuset. --Eddi (Talk) 12:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian phonology

I have changed the list of phonemes in this article. For instance, I have changed the phonemes "ʋ, w" into "ʋ, v", because no Norwegian dialect uses the w-sound. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allmektige.peder (talk • contribs) 13:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC).

That is not correct, actually. During my field work in the Nordmøre region, I have encountered plenty of people who have [w] as an allophone of /v/ after consonants like /k/, and especially before low vowels ([kwɑk:s] ‘wasp’; [kwæk:sɔtʰ:] ‘annoying’). A few individuals even used the [w] allophone more-or-less universally in their speech. -- Olve 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I am surprised to find the /v/-phoneme classed as an approximant in this article. I have always thought of it as a voiced labiodental fricative - a voiced twin to the /f/-phoneme, and that is also what I learnt at university. Would anyone like to defend the claim that /v/ is most commonly an approximant in Norwegian? (Barend 16:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC))
I would. :-) To start with, compare the voiced labiodental fricative in typical English Vatican with the voiced labiodental approximant in typical Norwegian Vatikan. Also note the tendency amongst Norwegians whose English is semifluent to pronounce English vs to laxly. A special case, however, is the older Oslo upper-class tendency to emphasize the fricative element of vvvv — saying, sort of, sovvve instead of the sove eller sova (with an approximant) of more typical working class speech. -- Olve 04:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
OK...So it may, in some speakers, not be as much of a fricative as it is in some other languages - but it's far far from as much of a continuant as the /w/ in English, I'm sure you'll agree. So what is it closest to, an approximant or a continuant? And, more to the point, what is it common practice to refer to it as among linguists? Is it not common practice to say that Old Norse had a /w/-phoneme, a continuant, which developed into a /v/-phoneme, a fricative in the late Norse period? That is certainly what I have read in all the language histories I have seen.
By the way, I have always interpreted the Norwenglish ws (Watican, Wenus, etc.) as over-compensation - they know there is a /w/-phoneme they're supposed to use, but they don't quite know when to use it so they use it everywhere. Like slavic speakers who use a definite article on every noun when they speak English. (Barend 13:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

This article is superb as an introduction to Norwegian, I am most impressed by how organized, informative and neutral it is. But I have to stress a point related to the paragraph on Norwegian phonology; the toneme ("pitch accent") system is quite restricted in Norwegian. To the best of my knowledge, only a handful of words are affected by this phenomenon, the only one that I can think of (except for the one already mentioned) which is "tanken" ("the thought") with accent 1 vs. "tanken"("the tank") with accent 2. Of course, some dialects in Norway may have, for all I know, more words affected by this phenomenon, but I can't recall ever to have heard of any more than the two words already mentioned. Thus I think it's proper to stress this more clearly in the article itself, because it can easily give the impression that this is a prominent aspect of spoken Norwegian, which it hardly is. (Mogura 13:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

Peder says: Here are some more examples of words separated by tones: bønner ("beans", tone 1) - bønder ("farmers", tone 2); voksen ("grown-up", 1) - voksen ("the wax", 2); øke [øːcə] ("increase", 1) - øket (the t is not pronounced) [øːcə] ("the old bad horse", 2); loven ['lɔːʋən] ("the law", 2) - låven ['lɔːʋən] ("the barn", 1). Peder.holman 08:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Farmers" is written "bønder" but pronounced "bønner" (tone 2) in many dialects. In those dialects where this "d" is pronounced, however, "bønner/bønder" are not homonyms. BTW, "bønner" (tone 1) can also mean "prayers". --Eddi (Talk) 01:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"Skapet"/"skape"(the closet/create), "bordet/borde" (the table/ to board a ship). But most important in "substantive/verb-pairs" like; "limet/lime" (the glue/(to) glue), "seilet/seile" (The sail/(to) sail), "skrivet/skrive" (the script/write), "bygget/bygge" (the building/build), "hoppet/hoppe" (the (Ski)jump/ to jump, also mare(horse)) and many many more... --Njård 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I might also add that I found the characterization of spoken Norwegian having a singing tone surprising. My English teacher, for instance (who for the record speaks fluent Norwegian, lest there be any doubt about that), has claimed that Norwegian phonetically has a flat and monotonous quality about it . My own belief is that it is the speakers of Western dialects and especially Northern dialects that primarily have this quality of varying, "singing" pitch, though I'm no expert at this. So is the general statement that spoken Norwegian is distinct by its singing quality accurate? (Mogura 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

Actually, west/northern spoken Norwegian has a pretty ordinary European sounding sentence pitch (\|\) -- while the pitch of eastern spoken Norwegian is very unusual (\-/), especially as it goes up - and stays up - on/after the most stressed word in the sentence. Much like Valley Girl-speak from the US in fact. Ordinary sentence ends on an up-pitch, and questions end with a higher up-pitch. Btw, I've noticed something weird: when speaking English, my voice is much darker than when speaking Norwegian. I wonder how common that is? --Kaleissin 22:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the Tonemes section, could someone provide an IPA transcription of the two example words "bønner/bønder" (at least in the dialect for which they are homonyms)? --Torgo 09:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be rather pointless, as IPA wasn't designed to show something on a word that changes the pitch contour of the entire clause: the toneme "rubs off" on its unstressed neighbors you see. In general, IPA isn't very good with intonation. Maybe I should make some recordings and make pitch-diagrams? Hmmm.... --Kaleissin 23:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

People have counted 2400 minimal pairs (pairs distinguished only by homonyms) in standard bokmaal (some guy called Kloster-Jensen, 1958, I can give more references if anyone doubts it). However, it's true that Norwegian is understood without tonemes. Concerning the "singing pitch": A toneme distinction exists in almost all Norwegian dialects, it just sounds different in different regions. As for what SOUNDS like singing - well, from my experience I would say that Eastern (including Oslo) Norwegian sounds much more peculiar and "singing" to a foreigner's ear than West and North Norwegian. And East Norwegian is the variety linguists usually describe as standard Norwegian and teach at school. Another thing is that Norwegian people usually believe that "other" dialects sing, but not their own. And yet another thing is that the last thing a foreigner learns, even when he/she is fluent in Norwegian or even a teacher, is the toneme distinction. --85.187.203.123 22:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Article could do with some orthography information for consonant phonemes. 80.229.160.150 16:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


As I read the article, "(den store) skjelven" is claimed to be T1 as with "båten" and "bilen." This is incorret. As far as I know, there is no such thing as "en skjelv(e)" (m) in any Norwegian dialect known to man. This word can only be T2, and even then it would hardly be acceptable in modern Norwegian as it is formed in a rather archaic fashion (along with such words as "ødslen" (n) from "ødsle" (v) and "streben" (n) from "strebe" (v)). However, "det store skjelvet" (neutrum) is T1 - but that is a different word.

Also, it could be worth noting that the tone tends to depend on the compound of the word: "Bønder" and "bønner" are pronounced the same (the d is silent), but the tone makes the meaning different. When words are added, this changes: "tomatbønner" could mean BOTH "tomato beans" and "tomato farmers", as the latter part of the word now follows T1. The tone also depends om the form: "øksen", "huset" and "brevet" (the axe, the house the letter resp.) are all T1, but "øksene" (pl) can only be T2; "husene" and "brevene" (pl) could be either T1 or T2. In other words: When syllables are added, the tone often changes. But including this in the article would possibly add too much complexity to it. Note: I am no linguist, so I could very well be wrong - in that case I apologize. 129.177.156.50 20:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samnorsk

The Samnorsk section seems to indicate that Samnorsk's failure was ultimately the result of campaigning by a few opponents. As I've come to understand it, though, the Samnorsk reform involved actively forcing schoolchildren to write in various dialectical forms and tinkering with local place names, and thus failed partly due to being overly prescriptive and excluding. While I'm no expert on the subject, I think the reform could well have succeeded if it had actually included any of the written languages it was meant to replace. Rōnin 00:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, after rereading it, it doesn't seem that bad. Rōnin 00:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General confusion about the dialects

The intro is completely out of context. After reading it, I was still thoroughly confused on: (1) how many distinct forms of the language there are, (2) whether they're spoken differently, written differently, or both, (3) how different they are, and (4) where this mess came from. (Farther down, the article says that question 1 had no answer, but it would have been nice to know this to begin with.) --Smack (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(1) There are two forms that are "official" and taught in school, bokmål and nynorsk. Then there are urban snobs insisting that people use riksmål (which on inspection mostly seems like bokmål with less variety) and rural snobs that insist people use høgnorsk (which on inspection mostly seems like nynorsk, but on speed). Once upon a time there was an effort to combine bokmål and nynorsk into samnorsk. Like most fairy tales it happened a long time ago and is somewhat irrelevant today. So: the number is at least 2. Dialects are spoken and afaik there are no standards. (2) They are written differently. There are no standards for spoken Norwegian. (3) Where they differ would take some rather looong wordlists to show. (4) The wonderful mess is due to (i) the urban snobs in the south liking Danish so much they kept using it after the Danes handed Norway over to the Swedes (but they kept Greenland, the bastiches) (ii) Ivar Aasen and those who agreed with him, who prefered that Norwegian wrote (note, wrote) something that more closely resembled how most Norwegians spoke at the time, and writing closer to Norse; and finally (iii) later attempts at reconciling the two variants. Those of group (i) who thought bokmål started to look too much like nynorsk, forked off riksmål; those of group (ii) who thought nynorsk started to look too much like bokmål, forked off høgnorsk. I kinda like the road not taken, (iv), writing Norwegian much, much, much closer to Norse, this also had its adherents at the time (i) and (ii) got started. All of this is of course due to nationalism. Much better to quarrel about how to write the definite form of girl (jenten or jenta) than to fool around with wars and imperialism, wouldn't you say? For the record, I am an intellectual snob who talks Eastern Norwegian and writes "radikalt" bokmål, that is: jenta, broa, hoppa, skøyt instead of jenten, broen, hoppet, skjøt. --Kaleissin 23:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
(the girl, the bridge, the jump, shot ("shoot" in past tense)) 惑乱 分からん 08:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About.com

This article appears to be almost identical to an article at about.com. I have no idea which came first, or if there is an agreement between the two websites to share (I would assume not), but I thought I would bring up this issue.

About.com is one of Wikipedia's mirrors. Anyone can mirror Wikipedia under the GNU Free Documentation License. 85.166.252.226


[edit] "Nasjonal Samling"'s 'efforts' during the Occupation (WWII)

Would it be an idea to add a section about "Nasjonal Samling"'s (National Community) "efforts" to merge bokmaal and nynorsk into one during the German occupation (WWII)? Official NS documents are a rather interesting mix of bokmaal, nynorsk and what seem to be their own inventions...

User:Koppe 16:30, 6 November 2006 (CET)

The Norwegian government had that goal before and after the war. Any spelling changes/reforms enacted by NS during the war was reversed when the legitimate government returned. I think that NS' efforts in the field of language politics was such a small side track and so soon forgotten that it does not warrant any mention here or in the Nasjonal Samling article.Inge 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It is mentioned, and I think could be expanded in the article on Norwegian language struggle. But Inge is right, the efforts were of trivial linguistic or political significance. The only funny part was the comment that "Nå skal nu hete no." --Leifern 16:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consonants

There are several phonetic trends related to consonants that probably need to be described better in the article. Ones that come to mind include:

  • Skarring - I'll see if I can the map, but this is a fairly recent trend, originating in France as for everyone else. I don't know if it's still gaining - I certainly know several people with parents from Southern Norway that use it, though they were raised in Western parts of Oslo.
  • Kj - as is pointed out, this seems to be falling into disuse, though I'm not clear whether that's limited to the Oslo region
  • Østfold l - I have noticed this among kids in Bærum and confirmed it with a linguist I'm familiar with. I have no idea whether anything's been written about it. It's a mystery what that phoneme should gain popularity, but it seems to be the case.

Does anyone have more information? --Leifern 14:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

The section on vowels shows how the orthography corresponds to the pronunciation. Would it be too much to ask for something of the kind to be done with the consonants as well? 213.249.135.36 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That might make for maybe too long an article even staying to one dialect. While standalone consonants map almost one to one, there are the typical germanic consonant/letter-clusters like skr, skv, rfts etc, and special rules for some borrowed words... though it would probably not be as hairy as a thorough overview of English =) Kaleissin 18:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split from main article

Me and another editor (Mike Dillon) have been discussing, and we agree that the "Sound systems" section is substantial enough to be split into its own separate article entitled "Norwegian phonology", which happens to be a redirect at this point. Many languages already have their own articles on phonology, some not even as long. I would like to get some feedback before I proceed with anything, though, seeing as this would greatly affect the article. --Wikiwøw 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I say go ahead and do it. Like you said, most languages have separate phonology articles.
Incidentally, the section could use some cleanup. I don't like how the vowels are presented; I'd like something similar to the vowel table at German phonology instead. I'm also suspicious of some of the phonetic values of the vowels; for instance, I think what the article describes as being [ø] is actually [œ] for most speakers. Also, the consonant table describes [ɽ] as being phonemic, but as far as I know it's merely a common allophone of /l/ (and of /ɖ/ in some dialects). But I'm no expert, so I won't change these things myself. Magnus Bakken 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with the split. Go for it. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've done it, but as of now, it's merely a copy of the what used to be in the "Sound system" section. With some expert help on the subject, it should become more substantial on its own. --...Wikiwøw 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation differences between bokmål and nynorsk

I think that a clear presentation of such differences would be very interesting indeed. As a foreigner, I'd like to use the nynorsk rules; but, are they different from the rules that are given here? Thank you very much. 87.1.91.25 03:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say your pronunciation of words is influenced by your dialect or sociolect. I do not think there are any different "pronunciation rules" between bokmål and nynorsk. But then again the majority of nynorsk users come from Western Norway, and the spoken language there is very much assosiated with nynorsk. One major difference between West and "the rest" is that the western dialects often have a uvular r, and that the retroflex consonants are seldom used. But I am no expert. - Jonashm

[edit] /sr/ → [retroflex/postalveolar]

Before this edit, /s/ + /ɾ/ fit the rest of the pattern by becoming retroflex ([ʂ]). Now it states that this combination becomes domed postalveolar [ʃ] The editor who made this change seems to not have explained their edit anywhere. Is there a compelling reason to keep it as is or should we restore the earlier symbol? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vowel quadrilateral?

I think the vowels should be organised in a vowel quadrilateral. Anyone agree/disagree? (Sorry if I am doing something wrong here) Jonashm

[edit] How

How come the Norwegians didn't try what the Icelanders did: use the ancient Old Norse written langauge after independence? Norway had their own written tradition before Danish conquest, why didn't try to use their last written form for their current langauge? A reponse on my talk page would be great appreciated. Thank you!100110100 02:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/r/Talk%7ENorwegian_language_6598.html"