Talk:North Germanic languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norway Portal
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 quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Swedish ä and Danish silent consonants

Why does Swedish have so many ä's even in words which (as I naïvely assume) never had an a in them (like häst or främmand, cf. hest, fremd in other languages)? And where do those strange (silent?!) consonants in Danish words like kende or bold (if it's written like that, I mean the way they spell ball) come from? Takk.

The Swedish ä:s were pronounced historically, but has later merged with short e:s into the ɛ. For Danish, I think the d:s were pronounced in particular words, historically, (comparing to the cognates in other Germanic languages, but later the spelling spread to many more words, due to hypercorrection. That's just a hunch, though. 81.232.72.53 07:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. (Just checking if I got it right:) So Swedish once had short /e/ and short /E/ (a phoneme split?), written <e> and <ä>. They fell together, but the spelling <ä> was the one which stuck (whereas Danish had never made the difference [in writing], so it simply kept <e>). And: d became silent in Danish, and after that people were confused and started to insert d's a bit everywhere, which usage stuck. Right?
Except... there are words in Swedish with the short e sound and spelt "e", altho it is almost always ä. Bryan 22:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? 惑乱 分からん 17:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, took a long time for me to reply *-_-* . But yeah, that was basically what I meant. Don't know the exact history.惑乱 分からん 14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Danish bold (=ball) is pronounced identically with danish bolt(except sometimes in the end of sentences where the t of the latter is affricated), the d is in other words not silent. There is a homonym bold (archaic, means the same as english bold) which does have a silent d, but it has stød. I haven't checked but it seems that a very large number of silent ds in connection with liquid consonants (l, r) correspond in fact to modern danish stød; jord (=earth), gold (=barren), kold (=cold). The cognates show that the dental stop has been there at some point, but some kind of interaction with stød may have taken place.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Did a preliminary check, silent d occurs only after liquid konsonants and n and/or before s, f.eks. mand(=man) and spids (=sharp point/with a sharp point). So in all cases there is a consonant cluster with a historically dental/apical consonant (r is now a mainly gesture of the larynx, but used to be an apical (trill?/flap?)), so likely an assimilation has taken place between dental voiced stop (d) or dental voiced spirant (the soft d) and homorganic consonants. The ones that occur between a vowel and s do not (as far as I can judge) generally have stød, mindst (=least) does have stød, but it falls also into the other group.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] west norse/east norse

i've often seen the terms west norse and east norse applied to languages, but i've been unable to find information on whether or not the terms also apply to the peoples who speak those languages. (as in "west norse peoples" and "east norse peoples") Gringo300 09:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The people who spoke Old West Norse are called Norwegians and Icelanders, whereas those who spoke Old East Norse are called Swedes and Danes.--Wiglaf 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes, but are the Norwegians and icelanders called "west norse peoples" and swedes and danes called "east norse peoples"? Gringo300 22:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think they are.--Wiglaf 05:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They're not. St12357 (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In 1200 AD, Norwegian and Icelandic was one and the same language, and Swedish and Danish was one and the same, different from the first mentioned. Back then, a West Norse and East Norse distinction made sense. Today, Icelandic is unintelligible to Norwegians, whereas Danish and Swedish are usually understood. So in 2006, it would be more practical to classify Norwegian as an Eastern Scandinavian (or peninsular Scandinavian). Knut/Norway

Agreed. Bryan 82.44.212.6 22:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] for the readers

For those who may be reading this: User:Kenneth Alan has been adding information to this page. He's in the past shown a tendency to add often controversial views to pages, frequently removing other, quite frequently more mainstream, views. See also here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kenneth_Alan. Lately he seems to be keeping a lower profile and has been less aggressive in his editing. This is good, but I don't believe we're fully there yet (witnessing his activities at Vinland).

So, Kenneth Alan, two points:

  • you still sneak significant quantities of information into an article as minor edits. Minor edits should not be used for such purpose, and I've told you before. Could you please stop doing that?
  • I'm sorry I am forced to ask this, but do you have any references to back up these statements, in particular the following: It is comparatively similar to English and Frisian, with which they share the highest concentration of Non-Indo-European_roots_of_Germanic_languages, also common to the Celtic languages. The latter, Continental Scandinavian, is more influenced most notably by German language and the other Germanic languages with a high concentration of structured form akin to the Italic languages.

I am just lazy. I have it on automatic and sometimes forget to take it off. You did not appear to notice that, or if you did, you are deliberately not noting that. Sometimes, I feel like I have to keep it on, though, because of YOU specifically stalking every contribution I make like you're my mother. Go away, please.

I know, you want me to hold the burden of proof. Anglo-Frisian and Old Norse have the most extreme maritime influences, including those Non IE Roots discussed on the Talk:Germanic languages page where you bureaucratically assaulted me also. As formerly stated(before Diderot POV pushed the article with a massive edit) on the Non IE Roots page([1]), Celtic is another language group holding a considerable amount of Non IE Roots. Apart from any Basque influences, Celtic seems to have Non IE terms concentrated mostly in the British Isles, where they were joined by the Anglo-Frisians and Norse. It is blatantly clear to anybody that the Mediterranean influence on High German is astounding. The older Nordic and Germanic writings appear less structured and thought out, but the more evolution into current speech, the tongues have been so standardised by latinisation, especially. One cannot seriously refute that the Anglo-Frisian and West Norse tongues follow the least marked latinising structures on their tongues of the Germanic languages(and especially borrowing scientific terms), apart from writing them in latin script, with a few native letters especially in Icelandic to this day. The Baltic East Norse tongues gained a considerable conversion by the influence of the Low German speakers of the Hanseatic League in their everyday life, most notable in the Hanseatic Cities, like Visby on Gotland. Since High German has been standardising itself all throughout Germany, having a marked effect upon such others as Austrian and Swiss German, all the dialects of Germany and even in Eastern Europe are suffering at the officialisation and BBC type overtaking. See the German language page for more information in this regard. To let your paranoid self know that it's ok, I haven't edited there, because that's not my area of specific study, although it's helpful to know. Lord Kenneð 07:47, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

"The latter, Continental Scandinavian, is more influenced most notably by German language and the other Germanic languages" This is probably true, anyway...

Uff-da! You guys are so serious! I got a chuckle out of the saying that "Norwegian is Danish spoken in Swedish". When I was in Norway, I was amused to find that the news had Swedish subtitles...very helpful (!)

My Mexican co-habitant refers to Norwegian as German spoken by a Chinese. Danish is Norwegian spoken without moving the mouth. Swedish is Norwegian spoken by Marsians. Knut/Norway

[edit] Text from Scandinavian languages and some beef

Ok, some pointers about the articles:

  • I removed {{Scandinavia}}. The tendency to insert article series templates in every imaginable type of article is not ideal. The scope of these should be narrow (preferably only history) and should adhere to the standards of other articel series templates. The fact that it collides with language infoboxes and uses non-standard terminology makes the article look very messy.
  • The inclusion of the SIL-classifications of Swedish dialects as separate languages is very questionable. Just the fact that SIL tends to clump together local dialects and make up terminology or their own ("Dalecarlian") is enough to validate its removal. SIL is out on a limb here and are as far as I know not supported by Scandinavian linguists.

The following text was moved from Scandinavian languages (now a redirect):

The Scandinavian languages are the three mutually intelligible North Germanic languages spoken in Scandinavia: Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. They are related to, but not intelligible with, the other North Germanic languages spoken outside Scandinavia (like Icelandic). In some cases the differences between the languages are smaller than the differences between the dialects within one of the languages. The three languages, or four, since Norwegian is actually two different languages, are therefore sometimes considered to be only one language.
All North Germanic languages diverged from Old Norse about a millennium ago, but the three Scandinavian languages were later strongly influenced by Low Saxon (German).
Norwegian diverged from the common Danish-Swedish language but was during middle ages heavily influenced by Danish, while still retaining its pronunciation which is common to Swedish. This has lead to the complicated situation that, to put it simple, Danish distinguishes itself from Swedish and Norwegian by its distinct pronunciation, Swedish by its vocabulary, and Norwegian by its grammar. The differences are though small enough for the Scandinavian people to be able to understand the other languages in written form, and with some difficulty, particulary with Danish, also in spoken form.
Differences between the Norwegian and Danish languages

Peter Isotalo 14:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standard Norwegian

It is a point worth mentioning that the terms Riksmål, Bokmål, Neo-Norwegian/Nynorsk, Høgnorsk do not refer to a spoken language. They are written forms of the Norwegian language. The Norwegian language is spoken using a wide variety of dialects. It is officially written in either Bokmål or Nynorsk but there are no real speakers of Bokmål or Nynorsk. The forms riksmål and høgnorsk are unofficial written forms used by people in opposition to the official forms. So it is not correct to say that Høgnorsk is used for political reasons while riksmål is not. And it is not correct to say that Bokmål/Riksmål is "Standard Norwegian". If such a thing excists it is bokmål and nynorsk Inge 02:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To say that no one actually speaks a standard language is not entirely correct. No one actually speaks it natively, since it is merely a formal compromise, but it's most certainly spoken. I'm not terribly knowledged about the various standard variants of Norwegian, though, so I'll leave that to you to edit, Inge.
Peter Isotalo 19:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
There is no standard Norwegian spoken by anyone. All Norwegians speaks a dialect, not a standard language. In other words: Norwegian has no formal compromise speaking language.

[edit] Fanter

FanterMay I suggest (to someone more qualified than me on the editing bit...) changing the word "fanter" as description of the speakers of "traveller Norwegian"; it is somewhat negatively loaded, or at least a bit outdated... I believe "tater", plural "tatere" is more common and considered more correct in todays Norwegian.--80.203.77.139 23:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)Asbjørn

[edit] East/West - Bokmål/Nynorsk

Can someone show me references for classifying the different Norwegian standard languages as belonging to different branches of the phylum?

Peter Isotalo 14:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is the standard model, reproduced in the article on the three continental Scandinavian languages in Comrie's The Languages of the World. It may represent some wishful thinking on the hands of the Nynorsk partisans, in that the penetration of Danish and general Scandinavian vocabulary has affected Nynorsk deeply. Nynorsk is in itself a rather nostalgic concept from the heyday of romantic nationalism, and reflects a desire to distance itself from Danish. Smerdis of Tlön 15:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is this an opinion shared among Scandinavian linguists in general?
Peter Isotalo 19:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I placed Norwegian only among the West Scandinavian languages for now, until someone actually presents some reasonable reference to the contrary.
Peter Isotalo July 6, 2005 12:55 (UTC)
Isotalo asked: Is this an opinion shared among Scandinavian linguists in general? I answer: while I am far from certain, I have gotten the impression that linguists in general regard Nynorsk and Bokmål to belong to different branches of the east+south vs. west+north fork of North Germanic. Later borrowings and nationalism prove little, since they don't affect taxonomy. But since I have no references, I'll surf around a little and see what I can find. Otherwise I regard Nynorsk and Bokmål as separate (political) languages – and should be regarded as such in the list of North Germanic languages. It's incorrect to treat Nynorsk and Bokmål as Norwegian, it doesn't adher to the general opinion among nonlinguists. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 11:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Request for Comments

Someone posted an RfC on whether there should be a separate page for Scandinavian languages, and stating that some people consider Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish all to be dialects of one language. I don't know much about North Germanic languages, but will comment anyway. It sounds as though there are reasonable differences of definition and terminology as to what constitute the separate languages, and any statement made neutrally that some people hold a particular opinion (such as that there is one Scandinavian language) are within the scope of NPOW discussion of different POVs.

I would suggest leaving the redirect, and adding any additional POVs. I think that cleanup would also be in order.

Robert McClenon 23:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As a linguist (I'm about to get my bachelors in Linguistics in a few weeks), I would like to point out there is really no linguistic difference between a language and a dialect. The old joke "A language is a dialect with an army and navy" is pretty close to the formal distinction. Samboy 06:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I was the one who put up the RfC, but the issue was not the status of Danish/Norwegian/Swedish as separate languages, but about an anonymous Norwegian user that has been insisting on keeping a separate article at Scandinavian languages, claiming that the Mainland Scandinavian languages are actually the "true" Scandinavian languages, and that "North Germanic" is somehow a separate term and only used by "some" as a synonym; Faroese and Icelandic are for some reason not Scandinavian according to this user. On top of this the user is also insisting that "Scandinavian" is so widely accepted as a term for a common Danish-Norwegian-Swedish language that this another reason to keep a separate article.
This is as far as I can tell idealist Scandinavist hogwash, and I have cited several sources that confirm the view put forth in this article at Talk:Scandinavian languages along with an ultimatum to either produce proper references or the separate article will become a redirect indefinitely.
Peter Isotalo 20:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I see how this can be confusing for someone not living in or in daily contact with this region. But it is plausible to keep Scandinavian languages separate from North Germanic languages. The reason for this is the fact, that North Germanic languages are also spoken outside of Scandinavia. These are Faroese and Icelandic. If you look at a map, you can clearly see, that neither Iceland nor the Faroe Islands are part of Scandinavia. I'm Faroese myself, and we don't consider us Scandinavians, and I don't think the other Nordics do either. On a side note it's worth to mention the fact, that neither is Denmark, but it used to be right up until approx. 1650 (1814, if you count add the time in which Denmark-Norway existed) Mulder1982 02:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is cleanup needed?

It appears from the discussion in this talk page that this article was previously the object of inappropriate changes by a user who has since been officially been banned for a long period. Is it possible that some of the controversies about this article are after-results of this user or questions about how to clean up his damage? Should a request for cleanup be posted?

Robert McClenon 13:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pluricentric language continuum

I just wondered, since the (continental) Scandinavian languages generally are mutually intelligible (at least when written, or clearly pronounced), would they classify as a pluricentric language continuum (or pluriareal), since there are several written standards? 81.232.72.53 07:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too good at sociolinguistics, but I don't see why they wouldn't. Any reasonably literate mainland Scandinavian can quite easily understand texts written in any of the other two languages.
Peter Isotalo 15:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family tree

Hi!

It appears to be wrong in the Family tree. So here is a new from me (in Southern Sweden) and my friend (in Northern Sweden).

I have changed the text!

Heres the new text!

      • Swedish
        • Sveamål
          • Uppsvenska - (Gästrikland, southern Hälsingland, southeastern Dalarna, eastern Västmanland and north and eastern Södermanland)
          • Mellansvenska - (south and western Södermanland, Närke, big areas of Östergötland, northeastern Småland and Öland)
          • Dalmål - (north eastern Dalarna)
        • Norrländska mål
          • Norrländska - (northern Hälsingland and above)
          • Jämtska - (Härjedalen and Jämtland)
        • Götamål
          • Götamål - (Västergötland, Dalsland, northern Halland, northern Småland and southwestern Östergötland)
          • Värmländska - (Värmland)
        • Östsvenska mål
          • Finland-Swedish (In some coastal areas of Finland)
        • Sydsvenska mål
          • Scanian - (Skåne) A Danish dialect
          • Sydsvenska - (Southern Halland, South and western Småland and Blekinge)
        • Gutnish
          • Gutnish - today considered a dialect of Swedish

Old text before editing!

Swedish Sveamål (in Svealand, Gästrikland and southern Hälsingland) Norrländska mål (in Norrland except Gästrikland, southern Hälsingland; the dialects in Härjedalen and Jämtland (Jamtlandic) may equally well be classified as Trøndersk) Götamål (in Västergötland, Östergötland, Dalsland, Värmland and Småland) Östsvenska mål Finland-Swedish (in some coastal areas of Finland) Sydsvenska mål or Scanian, originally variants of Danish (southernmost part of the Scandinavian Peninsula, called Skåneland); considered by some to be a separate language from both Danish and Swedish Gutnish, today considered a dialect of Swedish

The tree was definitely getting overly specific. I tightened it up so it wouldn't include very localized levels of dialects and I recommend that we stick to that. There are separate articles for both the languages and their dialects in most cases. I can't speak for the Norwegian classification, but the Danish and Swedish dialect groups are taken straight from linguistic literature.
Peter Isotalo 11:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm but that is all wrong, Halland those not speak Scanian, Halland was conquered by Denmark and they speak Göta mål in north and sydsvenska in south, my dialect in western and southern Småland is nearly the same as southern Halland! Better to not write any thing after them if you want it in this way! And Sveamål is also talked in Eastern Östergötland and Eastern Småland.

You can't write Landskap after Dialect mål! They does not go after Landskap!

And one thing you most now, Is that there is no Småland dialect! Småland is Splitered as all other Landskap. Krantz Krantz 17:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The dialects of Halland and Blekinge belong to the same dialect group as that of Skåne. The locations you removed are just rought locations and they're all correct because they're approximated. And neither Götaland, Svealand, Norrland nor Finland are provinces (landskap). Please don't remove them. They're relevant information.
sources: Nationalencyklopedin and Petterson's Svenska språket under sjuhundra år (p. 185)
Peter Isotalo 22:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to change any more! I am very disappointed on you! Lisen on this page and you will understand me more. http://swedia.ling.umu.se/ southern Halland is part of southern and western Småland. Landskap or Landsdel can't be used!!! Please also look on the other areas! I have also taken a look on the other pages on wikipedia and thouse are better Krantz Krantz 04:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really? So which are these other pages? I'm disappointed that you don't take the sources I cited seriously. There's nothing at Swedia that contradicts them nor my additions.
Peter Isotalo 03:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that the Götamål in Halland are not existing? And here is one of the places on wikipedia that is correct! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sm%C3%A5land

Borders between dialects are always transitional. They don't simply change completely from one town to another, but rather gradually shift from one area to another. As pointed out, the locations for each dialect grou are approximations and are focused on the main areas of the various dialect groups.
Also, please don't try to use wikipedia articles as sources, because they simply aren't. You need external sources if you want reliable references. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more info. I would also recommend reading a few basic books on both Swedish and general dialectology.
--Peter Isotalo 17:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Halland definitely is a transitional area between Sydsvenska (or "Östdanska" from a Copenhagen-centered viewpoint rather than a Stockholm-centered one) and Götamål. The border between the two dialect areas can actually be pinpointed down to Varberg. Look e.g. in Bengt Pamp's book Svenska dialekter (reference) or any relevant scientific article. (There is a heavy clustering of isoglosses going through the vicinity of Varberg, the most prominent ones being the isoglosses for "thick l" and "throaty r".)
"Jämtska - (Härjedalen and Jämtland)"
I wonder why someone would call the dialects spoken in Härjedalen "Jämtska". Not even all dialects spoken in the Landskap Jämtland are called "Jämtska"/"Jämtmål". There's a significant difference between Härjedalsmål and Jämtmål. But I agree that it's a bit Stockholm-centered to define Norrländska as all dialects spoken in the desk product "Norrland" which has no real historical significance. Jämtmål and Trönderska are closer than Jämtmål and Kalixmål in almost all respects, God damn it!
Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 21:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] East/West - Bokmål/Nynorsk (again)

I still think it is misleading to present Norwegian (as the language[s] spoken in Norway today) as a West Scandinavian language. It is correct that historically it has been so, but the language spoken today (except some dialects in the westernmost fjords of the country, and even these are increasingly influenced by Bokmål) is more correctly classified as East Scandinavian. It has been formed through generations of Danish administration, and bears little resemblance of the ancient Norwegian language that was closely related (and mutually intelligible) with Icelandic. 129.241.87.222 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC) (Hanno)

According to setled linguistic conventions Norwegian is geneaologically West Scandinavian and that is what this term is supposed to describe. Norwegian will always be West Scandinavian. That is also the reason why the terms Insular and Continental Scandinavian (as demonstrated in Germanic languages) were invented. They could be used to better describe the situation today. PS The language traits you may refer to as "some dialects in the westernmost fjords of the country" are also found in evry part of Norway. The Bokmål written standard is also a West Scandinavian language.Inge 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scandinavian languages (again)

I see that there has apparently been discussion about whether to have a separate page on the Scandinavian languages, meaning Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish. I'm too lazy to read through all of it, but I think it should be mentioned somewhere that S + N + D are commonly referred to as the Scandinavian languages (in opposition to Icelandic and Faeroese). See for example

[edit] "Nordic languages" vs. "North Germanic languages"

What is the current situation concerning nomenclature? Wouldn't the contemporary English term "Nordic languages" mean the languages spoken in the geographical area called the Nordic countries (see e.g. [2], [3]) whereas the English term North Germanic or Scandinavian languages would be the linguistic term defining a language group? I believe the nomenclature has changed since the 19th century and should also not be confused with the nomenclature in the North Germanic languages themselves or an old German nomenclature? Clarifer 07:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the English usage, but in Swedish we always use the word nordiska språk, i.e. Nordic language.Aaker (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think "North Germanic languages" is considerably more appropriate because it's considerably more specific. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
In Norwegian "Nordisk" (Nordic) includes Finland, while "Skandinavia" does not. Therefore "Nordic languages" includes Finnish and Sami. St12357 (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. We're editing the ENGLISH language version of Wikipedia and NOT the Scandinavian / Nordic Wikipedias. There are plenty of semantic mismatches between these as has already been noted (in e.g. Scandinavia). We should stick with the English language semantics and render irrelevant any other semantics. I believe that the English term "Nordic countries" refers to Scandinavia + Iceland + Finland. "Nordic languages" in English therefore means all the languages spoken in the "Nordic countries". "North Germanic languages" on the other hand means indisputably the national languages of Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark (+ associted territores). Am I correct or totally wrong? Clarifer (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Nordic definitely includes Finnish, and perhaps Saami and Kalaallisut too. It is North Germanic because it is the northernmost group of daughter languages of proto-germanic. Animosity towards germans is not an excuse for twisting terms. Remember also that germans do not own Germanic.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classification citation request

Classification says:

The relationship can be very asymmetrical. One source claims that while Norwegians understand almost 90% of spoken Swedish, Swedes understand only about 50% of spoken Norwegian.

Sounds quite preposterous to me. While it may actually be based on some truthful and serious research, my experience say that I (a Swede) understand considerably more than tiny 50%. A citation is heavily needed, since the cited text or author may have tested a lot of Swedes and Norwegians on pretty elaborate texts and speaches, that got a statistics of 90% vs. 50%. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 11:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable Border Theory...

"a large percentage of the Norwegian population lives near Sweden, while no main population centres of Sweden lie near the Norwegian border"

True, but surely that would mean that the Norwegians were not influenced by the Swedes along the border in the same way that the Swedes are not influenced by the Norwegians! If they live near a border with very few people on the other side then it's very unlikely that it would influence their language, surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.120.10 (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact you're wrong because if you live near the border you can receive television and other media such anf go shopping in the other country. Hence many Norwegians watch Swedish television because they can receive it and understand it. Aaker (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North Germanic, not Scandinavian, languages

The heading of this page is "North Germanic languages", not "Scandinavian languages", and there are at least four reasons why this should be and why the page should not use "Scandinavian languages" to refer to the North Germanic languages in the text, generally, or why a more sensitive discussion of the socio-political context of this use be introduced. First, from a language family perspective, there is Germanic, North Germanic and the East Scandinavian branch of North Germanic and West Scandinavian branch of North Germanic. There is no single language nor single grouping within the Germanic language group that is called "Scandinavian" and is distinct from "North Germanic". Since "North Germanic" exists as an accepted term, and "Scandinavian" is biased and misleading for a variety of reasons (see below), the more neutral term should be preferred (even if the less neutral term is often used). Second, there have been two language groups on the Scandinavian peninsula since pre-historic times - North Germanic and Sami. The term "Scandinavian" to refer exclusively to the North Germanic languages is simply incorrect from a geographic perspective. Again, since there is a neutral and established term "North Germanic", this should be used whenever possible. Third, there has been a well-documented power imbalance in Scandinavia between the North Germanic peoples and the Sami peoples, in which the North Germanic peoples have officially marginalized and and tried to eliminate the Sami culture and languages. These State-designed, official assimilation policies have been called "Norwegianization" and "Swedishization" (and "Russification" and "Finnishization" in Russia and Finland), and the process in Norway was particularly brutal at times and spanned from the mid-1800s to the 1970s. This cultural and language elimination attempt included denying children the use of their mother tongue, forced relocation to boarding schools, property sale only to Norwegian-speaking people with Norwegian names, etc. The coopting of the term "Scandinavian" to refer only to the North Germanic people is one way of the more subtle ways of eliminating the Sami and marginalizing them via language use - when one associates "Scandinavian" only with the North Germanic peoples, then the Sami essentially disappear from Scandinavia. Again, since there is a term "North Germanic", that covers the appropriate languages, is geographically appropriate and is politically neutral, it should be used instead of "Scandinavian" to refer to the North Germanic languages of Scandinavia. It is a fact, given the polital history of Scandinavia, that "Scandinavian" is often used for the North Germanic languages and many references of this type may be found, but that does not make it either right or innocent/neutral. I will admit that it may be appropriate to have a few lines in the text laying out some of the problems outlined above (if that is the concensus among the editors of this page), but that seems well off topic and can be easily avoided by simply using "North Germanic". If the goal of Wikipedia is to be both accurate and neutral, then "North Germanic" should be used and "Scandinavian" avoided. This is, of course, my opinion - but it is an opinion supported by 1) the facts, 2) the availability of a neutral term, 2) a sensitivity to the political situation in Scandinavia, and 3) the righteous indignation of one whose own Sami family has been victim of Norwegianization policies. I do not expect anyone involved in building the Wikipedia pages about Scandinavia to try to change the past, to try to right past wrongs, or to present falsehoods on Wikipedia, but I do expect the editors of these pages to show neutrality and sensitivity if possible. "North Germanic" is neutral, "Scandinavian" is not. Peace. --Bruvssa 22:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "Nordic", as in "Nordic Countries", uncontroversially includes Finland and thus it is also incorrect and misleading to use it to refer exclusively to the North Germanic languages. As with "Scandinavian", this may be a common use, but it is not neutral and should be avoided so as to not encourage misleading and biased "common usage". There is a valid, neutral term available - "North Germanic". Anyone who insists that "Nordic" or "Scandinavian" be used to refer to North Germanic languages without an appropriate discussion of the difficulties of this usage is clearly biased toward the Germanic peoples of Scandinavia.--Bruvssa 23:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bruvssa, I understand that you have objections against the general usage of Scandinavian, but a Wikipedia article has to abide by the policy WP:NPOV. Moreoever, if Scandinavian is generally used in a certain way, a Wikipedia article has to follow this usage not only because it is according to the policy of NPOV, but also because it helps the generally uninformed reader to understand the text and to verify its information.--Berig 08:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the terminology for the Scandinavian languages forming the North Germanic branch

The reasons this Wikipedia article needs to cover the term "Scandinavian languages" as well as the term "North Germanic languages" are as follows:

  1. REDIRECT. The article Scandinavian languages redirects here.
  2. COMMON USAGE. It is an extremely common term (perhaps the most used) and part of a long established terminology for these languages and the sub-groups that branches off it, as reflected in the Encyclopædia Britannica entry[4]:

    "Scandinavian languages: languages forming the North Germanic branch of the Germanic languages. The modern standard languages are Danish, Swedish, Norwegian (Dano-Norwegian and New Norwegian), Icelandic, and Faroese. These languages are usually divided into East Scandinavian (Danish and Swedish) and West Scandinavian (Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese) groups.

    Wikipedia users who encounter the term "Scandinavian languages" in sources or in real life will need to be able to find the term here, and have it presented as it is reflected in scholarly sources and in professional life and publications. A person with a "Professional Certificate in Scandinavian Languages" [5] will likely be expected to have competence in one of the languages of the North Germanic branch. Universities around the world award degrees in "Scandinavian languages"[6] and give courses at "Department of Scandinavian languages"[7]. Degrees in "North Germanic languages" seem more rare[8].
  3. LINGUISTICS TERMINOLOGY. In linguistics, the genetic sub-groups are referred to as "East Scandinavian" and "West Scandinavian", not "East North Germanic" and "West North Germanic". The syntactic sub-divisions are "Insular Scandinavian" and "Continental Scandinavian", not "Insular North Germanic languages"[9] and "Continental North Germanic languages"[10] (at least, I can't find sources meeting WP:V using these terms doing a quick Google search, so I intend to remove them from the article). "North Germanic" is a term from historical linguistics, meant to demonstrate the genetics of these languages and is mostly used when focusing on the North Germanic roots of these languages. In other aspects of language research, such as investigations into the Scandinavian dialect continuum[11] and in comparative linguistics, when the differences between the modern standardized languages are in focus, other terminology is used, with terms long established for these branches of linguistics.
  4. HISTORICAL ASPECTS. The name Scandinavia in its current form is not an indigenous (Germanic or Uralic) term for the area or even an official term for the territory, making it rather static and essentially dependant on its unofficial historic use; it emerged as we know it as a name used by Pliny to introduce one of the islands of the Germanic tribes to his Roman readership. To me it is therefore rather unsurprising that it has come to denote the languages that together form a "North Germanic" branch on the "Germanic language tree", considering both how the name first emerged and how it was used when it reappeared as a common name for the three colonizing countries during the period of romantic nationalistic "pan-Scandinavism".
  5. PRESCRIPTIVE DEFINITION. Attempting to change the use of the terms "Scandinavian languages" and "Nordic languages" and making Sami part of the "Scandinavian languages" or "Nordic languages" is totally undesirable in my view for two reasons: <1> From a pan-Sami perspective, calling Sami languages "Scandinavian" would appear exclusionist, as the languages are not limited to Scandinavia or the Scandinavian peninsula, but are indigenous to a much larger area, stretching down the Kola peninsula. The people of the eastern regions might not self-identify as "Scandinavian" at all.[12]. <2> Using "Scandinavian languages" about Sami languages would appear to assist in creating more imbalance between the majority and minority languages in the Nordic countries by blurring the uniqueness of Sami - having Sami absorbed into or included under an umbrella concept that is already in use in many branches of linguistics for the majority languages is confusing and not at all conducive in protecting and cherishing the unique status and indigenous roots of Sami, anymore than assimilation of Sami culture into the majority culture by calling it "Swedish or Finnish culture" or whatever, in order to make sure that it is represented. I think that might be the reason the Sami Parliament of Sweden, to pick one example, appears intent on stressing the individuality and unique status of Sami as a separate group, rather than including Sami languages into the concept "Scandinavian languages",[13] and this may also be why there seems to be no desire to blur the borders between the two language groups.
  6. POV ACCUSATIONS. It also seems problematic to accuse the wide range of scholars, institutions and organizations using the term "Scandinavian languages" of being "biased", "not innocent" and favoring "Germanic people", based on their use of the term "Scandinavian languages". The term in its current meaning is used by many (perhaps most) international scholars of linguistics, including Sami scholars and spokespersons, often when describing Sami languages vs. Scandinavian languages:
  • Torunn Pettersen for the Nordic Sami Institute in "Data collection and disaggregation on indigenous peoples: Stakeholders in data production and usage." Pre-sessional paper by for the United Nations, Division for Social Policy and Development Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, January 2004: "the concept stakeholder seems to be a word that has no clear and obvious meaning. One point is that we have no corresponding term in the Scandinavian languages or in Sami".[14].
  • The Sami Parliament of Sweden: "A language with deep roots".Sápmi: Language history.
  • Sammallahti, Pekka, 1990. "The Sámi Language: Past and Present". In Arctic Languages: An Awakening
  • Holmberg, Anders and Christer Platzack (2005). "The Scandinavian languages". In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, eds Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. (online excerpt at University of Durham).
  • Einar Haugen. The Scandinavian languages: An introduction to their history. London: Faber and Faber, 1976.

Pia 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the rationalizations for scanian understanding of danish.

So, obviously contact is a major issue, and also Copenhagen being the closest metropolis only adds to this. That is all well and good, but there's also the historical issues; scania has been part of sweden proper for only three hundred years (since 1719) and before that a dominion of sweden for only sixty years (since 1658). Before that, into prehistoric times, the area was danish, and it's language was regarded as a dialect of Danish (although not a high-status one). Given that contact alone would probably account for the intelligibility if scanian had been originally a swedish dialect this language-historical context should not be given major weight, but I don't see how it can be left out entirely.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)