Talk:Norwegian language struggle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Norwegian language struggle 2 Counter trends 3 Issues 4 Quote 5 Background 6 Samnorsk 7 How 8 Sample 9 Mellomnorsk

[edit] Norwegian language struggle

Shouldn't the Norwegian Language Struggle be named det Norsk målstræv in Norwegian? -Ebbe

That would be "det norske målstrev" (little n). But I've never heard anyone talk of it this way. -wilsonsamm

Congratulations on a very good article on the Norwegian språkstrid. Much of the text ought to be included in the article on Riksmål instead of the present confusion caused by contributors with private axes to grind. In the meantime, I look forward to your next installment on the language conflict following the reforms of 1938. Roede 07:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Contgratulations from me as well. Though not at all badly biased to start with, I hope my slightly different perspective is appreciated. Not that it really matters, but I'd like to be a nice guy. Plutix 08:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter trends

I have read some articles (which I haven't been able to retrace) regarding the current counter trend of regionalisation taking place in Europe as a reaction to globalisation. That is the evolving trend of putting more emphasis on ones own regional culture and heritage rather than a national or European culture. In simple terms it is regarded as cool to have regional traits while being a modern, urban person. I don't know how prevalent this trend is, but one of the articles noted the affect this trend is having/would have on the future of modern Norwegian. I found that interesting at least so if sources could be tracked down maybe something could be added to the future section of the article to balance out the "fear of English" part. Inge 13:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I see this all over fora, boards etcetera, that people gladly emphasise their own regional dialects in their writing. But not as much in formal writing/standard orthography, where these differences are much more subtle because the permissible variations of orthography are much subtler. For example, in written bokmål you can choose whether or not to use the feminine gender, whether to write bro or bru &c &c &c. I've lived in Kongsberg and in Hordaland, and I can tell from which of these two places a text in bokmål comes from. Well that's my view. Sorry I can't back it up or anything...

[edit] Issues

I am delighted others are contributing to this article, as it's an involved subject that's important to understanding Norwegian culture and politics. Here are some issues we need to resolve together:

• When we start referring to various written languages with different names, e.g., when does the written language cease being Danish and start becoming Dano-Norwegian, or for that matter the difference between "dannet dagligtale," Oslo west dialect/sociolect, "stasjonsspråk," etc.

One must separate between what the parties in the language struggle called the languages, and what they are called in the scientific literature. Following 1814 it soon became apparent that calling the written language Norwegian was outrageous, and I'm told there were protests from Denmark (no references, I'm afraid). The name Danish was not very popular among its proponents (for nationalistic reasons, I presume), so various euphemisms were used, like vårt almindelige bogspråg, modersmålet and riksmål. The Landsmål-side called it by its real name, Danish, and this is currently uncontroversial, I think. Not until 1907 did it become a Norwegian language. Dannet dagligtale was the name used for the spoken language by it's proponents. I belive målfolk called it dansk-norsk or norsk-dansk. Today all names are used in the literature when discussing the 1800s, but with regard to contemporary language, standard østnorsk is the most common term. The term Riksmål, or more precicely 'Rigsmaal', was suggested by Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson in 1899. It was also used in Denmark for what I believe is currently called Rigsdansk. It was officially adopted in 1907. Riksmål is generally used by it's proponents for both the written and spoken language, but otherwise I think it is mostly restricted to the written language. There is really very little difference between modern moderate Bokmål and the spoken Dano-Norwegian in the 1800s, but Dano-Norwegian is not much used with regard to contemporary language, as it still is a sensitive issue. Bokmål, Riksmål, dannet dagligtale, and standard østnorsk are all terms that have their obvious use, but the only common name for all of these I can think of that excludes Nynorsk and the dialects is Dano-Norwegian. Plutix 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Basis for landsmål - my understanding is that Aasen studied dialects from Vestlandet far more intensely than those from Østlandet, or for that matter the valleys of Sørlandet. We should be precise about this.
• Evolution of nynorsk. I know very little about this, but it looks like it's changed quite a bit since Aasen's time.
• Origins of dialects and Danish, etc. I thought Old Norse was in fact the origins for all Scandinavian languages, and it wouldn't be correct to say that Norwegian dialects are more closely related to Old Norse. On the other hand, there is this concept of mellomnorsk, which probably is more closely related to the dialects than it is to riksmål or the urban dialects.

--Leifern 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly: Aren't most of the issues better adressed in other articles? The evolution of Nynorsk and the origins of dialects for example. Secondly(I will engage them anyway :)):Ivar Aasen studied most Norwegian dialects intensly, including østnorsk, and nordnorsk. He travelled extencively, but lived permanently in Oslo. But he put more emphasis on the dialects of vestlandet, the valleys of østlandet and sørlandet in addition to some other areas as he believed they had preserved more of the original Norwegian language. It is possible to say that Norwegian is closer to Old Norse because of a lesser degree of German influence. When it comes to the bokmål evolution scale: I don't like the use of the "term" dannet dagligtale at all. It is not very descriptive and frankly polarising.

We should keep in mind that we have a knowledge of the political, cultural and social contexts non-Norwegian readers most likely don't have. If you put some of the things that have been written about the Norwegian language struggle (not including this article) in to the mind set of many other countries it will seem much more dramatic than it really was/is.

We should also actively avoid a Oslo-centric spin on this article.

To give an example covering both:

Because many countries have a standard for speech it would be good to emphasise that there is no standard Norwegian speech. Many people from Oslo might state that Oslo dialect is the de facto standard Norwegian, but when you ask someone not from eastern Norway that is not the case. The fact is anyway that there is no official standard for speech.Inge 18:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It might get confusing to follow a debate if we put comments inside each others entries. Inge 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should separate the political from the linguistic in this article. But simply describing the language that Bjørnson, etc. wrote as "Danish" will sooner or later result in some kind of controversy here. I don't like the term "dannet dagligtale" either (were those who didn't speak that way somehow "uncivilized?"), but we can use it as a euphemism if nothing else to describe the controversy. I don't think that anyone will argue that Oslo dialect is "standard Norwegian" - I speak it, and a pretty conservative version, too, and I don't think so.

I think we need to cite assertions such as the dialects being closer to Old Norse. All Norwegian dialects have been exposed to outside influences - this needs more research. I don't particularly buy the premise that one dialect is more "authentic" than the other. --Leifern 18:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(standard norwegian)It was not the best of examples perhaps :), but it's good we agree anyway. I have come across such claims both on wikipedia and in real life. (Danish) I too am against describing Bjønsons language as simply Danish. It had its (few) differences from the Danish of Denmark. On the other hand an interesting point is that the terms Bokmål and Nynorsk won over dansk-norsk and norsk by one vote in parliament as late as 1929(sorry, no reference). But my main view is that if we describe its "danishness" well it should hold against the protests which might arise. (dialects) We should make it clear that "Norwegian dialects" covers all variants of spoken Norwegian. Yes, it needs a source if we are to state that this or that dialect is closer to Old Norse, but I think it is fairly uncontroversial that some dialects are more and some less influenced by German, Danish and Swedish. If that makes a dialect more or less authentic, well thats part of the conflict as well.Inge 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the vote in 1929, the real story is given here: Stortinget og språksaken. In short, the proposition to substitute dansk-norsk for bokmål lost by 17 against 18 votes in Lagtinget after the names bokmål and nynorsk had already passed in Odelstinget with 54 against 34 votes. The minority of 34 wanted riksmål and landsmål. The name norsk for nynorsk was never proposed.

In my view, we have two varieties of Norwegian language, Dano-Norwegian and Modern Norwegian. For political reasons, the name Dano-Norwegian is controversial, but it has its uses. Contemporarily, bokmål and standard østnorsk is well established, but these would be anachronistic if applied to the 1800s.

Proponents of Riksmål typically argues that the written language in the 1800s was a common Dano-Norwegian language. This is true in some sense, but linguistically there is no doubt that the written language is based on Rigsdansk which itself is mostly based on the Copenhagen dialect. However, as the cited article shows, there is some precendence for calling Danish language as written by Norwegians in the 1800s Dano-Norwegian in stead of Danish, at least that is what Johan Sverderup did in 1883.

Regarding the issue of closeness to Old Norse. Norwegian dialects are developed in Norway under foreign influence, Danish dialects are developed in Denmark under foreign influence. One may have diverged more from Old Norse that the other, but that is not important. The point is that one thought that the language of the sagas, from the period that in national romatic spirit was thought of as Norway's golden age, was extinct, and one believed that the dialects were vulgar versions of Dano-Norwegian. In fact, the conservative P. A. Munch argued for raising a new Norwegian language based on Old Norse. But then Ivar Aasen showed that Old Norse was totally lost, that the Norwegian peasants were in fact the saviours (remember that I'm now speaking from a national romantic perspective) of the language associated with Norwegian greatness. This is what so utterly pissed off the ruling class, that they, with all their cultivation end education, was the portrayed as the traitors of Norwegian culture. This was a really hard blow in the face of the elite, but it was of course out of the question to embrace the language of the lower classes. As P. A. Munch said about the feminine ending -a in Norwegian: "... det platte, aldeles pøbelaktige 'a'" was used "... konseqvent hos den laveste Pøbel i de mere fordærvede Egne". To summarize, Modern Norwegian and Dano-Norwegian may be equally close to Old Norse, but the latter has to a much larger extent evolved outside of Norway.

One further source to the use of standard østnorsk and Dano-Norwegian may be found here (download the free sample): The Phonology of Norwegian Plutix 07:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

Does anybody has the quote from a Labour politician (probably from the 1930s): "it's not important whether one says 'pannen' or 'panna', provided there's something in it? --Explendido Rocha 14:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Found it: Det viktigste er ikke om det heter gryten eller gryta, men at det er noe i den.; just missing the author. --Explendido Rocha 16:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background

Allthough Old Norwegian (gamalnorsk) is more commonly described in English as Old Norse wouldn't it be prudent to start the background with a short mention of that before Middle Norwegian? Old Norwegian differed very little from Old Icelandic (also labelled Old Norse), but it seems a bit odd to start with Middle Norwegian when it is more common in Norway at least to start with Old Norwegian. I also think the sentance "The earliest examples of Norwegian writing are from the 1200s," is a bit misleading. Older Norwegian writing has been found and (if it is insisted on labelling the common language of Iceland and Norway as not Norwegian) some of those findings suggest earlier differences between the language in Iceland and in Norway.Inge 12:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To add to that issue, I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that Norwegian (rural) dialects have their origin in Old Norse any more than Danish, Dano-Norwegian, etc., are. It seems to me that they are evolved from Middle Norwegian (which needs its own article). It appears from what I've read that the Black Plague pretty much wiped out diverging dialects in Norway and possibly all of Scandinavia. All Scandinavian languages are equally descended from Old Norse; but Norwegian rural dialects are the successors of Middle Norwegian. --Leifern 21:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samnorsk

Will Samnorsk ever come about?,--Heegoop, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[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 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sample

I must admit I found the "sample" section a bit confusing seemed to me that the object is to display the differences in language, so I attempted to rectify the fact that nynorsk wasn't represented. Also, if someone has a better synonym for "anerkjent" than "godkjent" or a good synonym for "imidlertid" as it is used here (I personally would simply drop it.) then please, edit. If the purpose of the sample is just to illustrate the difference (or lack thereof) between Danish and Bokmål, then perhaps a better explanation than just "sample". Hinakana 13:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job on including nynorsk in this section. "Han" as an object form seems a little wierd to me, but I trust you to know whether or not this is permissible in nynorsk better than I do.

[edit] Mellomnorsk

I do recall that when I wrote the section on mellomnorsk, I struggled quite a bit to find good sources and a complete account, so what I wrote may be a bit disjointed. I have in vain tried to find the reference about the last written example from 1583, though I a) doubt that I pulled it out of thin air; and b) must have found it in one of the sources I listed below. In reading a couple of other sources, 1583 is clearly far into the tail end of mellomnorsk as a written language; Aschehougs Norgeshistorie illustrates the final transition to Danish with a letter written by archbishop Olav Engelbrektsson dated Jul 15, 1523 that was very close to standard Danish of its time. The book points out that Engelbrektsson wrote in mellomnorsk until his elevation to bishop, so we are definitely looking at the mid-16th century as the end of written mellomnorsk. --Leifern 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)