Talk:Swedish language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Featured article star Swedish language is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2005.
To-do list for Swedish language: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Dialects
    • Structuring of dialect groups
    • Map of dialects
  • Vowel chart
  • Consonant table
  • Phonology
    • Info on phonotactics
  • Add information on morphology
  • Expand Writing system
  • History
    • Runic Swedish - short comment on Old Norse grammar and runes
    • New Swedish - explain changes in grammar and orthography
    • Modern Swedish
  • Grammar
    • Needs better structure and more info.

Last updated by Peter Isotalo 15:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 May 2003 - May 2005

Archive 2 May 2005 - Aug 2006
Archive 3 Aug 2006 - Aug 2007
Archive 4 Oct - Dec 2007
Archive 5 Oct - Dec 2007
About archives • Edit this box
Discussions on Swedish phonology have been moved to Talk:Swedish phonology.

Contents



[edit] Strindberg

Perhaps the article writer's Stockholmian background is the reason why Strindberg is called the most influential Swedish writer of modern Swedish literature? People from other parts of the country might argue it was Gustav Fröding, Selma Lagerlöf, Erik Axel Karlfeldt or Pär Lagerkvist (all of them Nobel laureates). / Fred-J 13:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the issue is really not that any one doubts Strindberg was influential (but rather if he was the most influential) couldn't we just solve the issue by including some of these names as well? I don't think this is really an issue of center vs periphery, though.
Peter Isotalo 11:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
As fond as I am of the works of Lagerlöf and Lagerkvist neither of them can be considered to be as influential as Strindberg; he is to Sweden as Ibsen is to Norway, as Shakespeare is to England. His not having received the Nobel Prize is well known to be the result of his controversial; that is to say, progressive; stands and the conservatism of the Swedish Academy and particularly its secretary at the time.
This is not to disparage the accomplishments of Fröding or Karlfeldt, and a section on the most influential writers of Sweden would be a welcome addition (do not however look to me to do it; I write mainly on ballet.) But to hold that any of them is as influential as Strindberg was -- and is -- would be to place the Bard of Avon in the same rank as Kyd and Marlowe (both of whom I likewise appreciate.) Robert Greer (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly interesting, but it might be out of place here and more at home at Swedish literature.
Peter Isotalo 10:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Jag med. Robert Greer (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robert Greer that Strindberg is the most influential Swedish writer from that era. However, I think it merits a source to say that Strindberg is considered to have initiated Nusvenska.

Fred-J 16:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

An even better question is where did any of the info in that section come from? The current text states:
Many scholars, politicians and other public figures had a great influence on the new national language that was emerging, and among them were also prolific authors like the poet Gustaf Fröding, Nobel laureate Selma Lagerlöf, and controversial writer and playwright August Strindberg.
but my version of Nationalencyklopedin doesn't make any claims about how Strindberg or any other author, for that matter, or how scholars or politicians influenced nusvenska. In NE it states that the language was influenced by urbanization (people moving from rural areas to the cities) and by the mass media (i.e., film, radio, and TV). –panda (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Fred, but the current wording doesn't really say that Strindberg initiated Modern Swedish, only that he was an influential writer.
Peter Isotalo 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If you insist I'll dig out the course materials from the Swedish Institute summer courses I took in '91, '93, '96, '97, '00 and '01; but this is a nonsense argument as it is taking place between what are clearly native speakers of the language who full well know little August's significance to and influence upon modern Swedish even if they do not care to acknowledge it! Robert Greer (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The current problem with the text is not about how influential Strindberg was as an author, but whether or not he influenced nusvenska (1900-present). Contrary to what Peter Isotalo claims, the text does not only state that "he was an influential writer", but instead that he as well as "Many scholars, politicians and other public figures had a great influence on the new national language" (nusvenska). In other words, Strindberg and others actually influenced contemporary Swedish somehow. Currently, there is nothing to substantiate this in the article nor in NE.
If you have a reference that states how Strindberg influenced nusvenska, then please add it. Quoting the relevant text here would also be helpful. But being considered the first contemporary author or an influential author is not the same as stating someone influenced nusvenska. There have been many influential writers in the world but that doesn't mean their writings have directly caused changes to their respective languages.
–panda (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Since there hasn't been any reference added to the contested text, it has now been removed. The authors are mentioned as being important in Swedish literature but their influence on nusvenska has been removed since there is no reference to support this. –panda (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Robert on this one. We're arguing over something that no one actually doubts. The text that is being argued over is also extremely general in its statements. If we can agree that writers "made their mark on Swedish literature", then they obviously had an impact on the language. The formeris, after all, an expression of the latter. This would only be a problem if the text started to discuss the influences in detail.
Peter Isotalo 10:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. Many writers have had a profound impact on literature without having any appreciable effect on the languages they write in (Faulkner comes to mind). The one does not imply the other. --Tkynerd (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
American 20th century authors aren't comparable to Swedish 19th century authors since English is a much more decentralized and more widely-spoken language. The formation of Swedish as a standardized national language has been dictated by the development in a much more confined arena. Besides, we're refering to a collective in which Strindberg is widely recognized as one of the most important Swedish-language authors ever. The article in Nationalencyklopedin about him even claims outright that "Strindberg is the most prominent author in Swedish literature." This could certainly be nuanced, but we're still talking about an author who's influence is difficult to overestimate.
Peter Isotalo 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The Nationalencyklopedin article about nusvenska and the Swedish language also do not mention Strindberg, any author, or any politician as influencing the Swedish language. If it were true, why do you suppose they didn't include it? No one doubts that Strindberg is a "prominent author in Swedish literature." You're extrapolating an influence on Swedish literature to mean someone influenced the Swedish language. Until there is a reference that backs up that claim, it is synthesis of data and should not be included in the article. Wikipedia's policy about this is very clear: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." –panda (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) In spite of being an influential author worldwide, Faulkner did not even have an appreciable effect on U.S. English. (English is not a monolith.) (2) What I've said of Faulkner could certainly be said of any number of authors in smaller languages, such as Strindberg. (3) The essential point, which you seem determined to miss, is that being an influential author does not equal having an influence on a language. The community of speakers of a language (however "language" is defined) is considerably larger than the literary community and much less susceptible to any single influence. --Tkynerd (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
English and Swedish are in no way comparable languages in this issue. When a language has only a few million speakers concentrated to pretty much just one country, the literary community will be extremely influential. I disagree with this being a mere extrapolation or synthesis since I have read about particularly Strindberg's influence elsewhere.
Peter Isotalo 08:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you claim you "have read about Strindberg's influence elsewhere", then why have you not added the reference to the article? This issue came up more than 2 months ago. Anyway, an influence on literature does not equate an influence on the language, regardless of whether it is Swedish, English, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, or any other language. –panda (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Because in my experience it seems rather uncontroversial statement and the arguments here are very unconvincing, but I've added a reference to a book written by Olle Josephson to satisfy WP:V.
Peter Isotalo 13:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Please enlighten us on what the source states about how Strindberg, other authors, many scholars, and politicians have influenced the Swedish language, such as with a relevant quote from the book you cited. No need to translate the text to English. All of us discussing this understand Swedish. –panda (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is problably the best illustration:
Av författarna kommer man naturligtvis inte runt Strindberg. I traditionell språkhistoria sätter man gärna gränsen för den moderna svenskan med Strindbergs Röda rummet 1879.
"Among the authors one naturally can not avoid Strindberg. In traditional language historiography modern Swedish starts with Strindberg's Röda rummet from 1879."
Peter Isotalo 10:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course that doesn't necessarily mean Strindberg had an influence on the language. It can, and probably does, simply mean that Strindberg captured what was happening with the language at a point where it makes sense, to historians of Swedish, to draw a line between periods. --Tkynerd (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
1879 is not typically considered a part of nusvenska (1900s), but instead the end of yngre nysvenska/younger New Swedish (1732-1900). The text also does not state how Strindberg influenced the Swedish language, only that the year Strindberg published Röda rummet (1879) is considered the border/limit for modern Swedish. (Why? I assume this is explained in the sentences following that statement.) Also, there's still no reference that verifies how politicians or scholars influenced nusvenska, or how any of the authors mentioned in the article right now (Gustaf Fröding, Selma Lagerlöf, and Strindberg still) influenced nusvenska.
As a side note, it doesn't matter what one Wikipedian considers is "uncontroversial" or "unconvincing" when the "uncontroversial statement" is not a universal, undisputed fact. Don't forget that Wikipedia is for its readers, not just for Swedes or a particular editor.
–panda (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Historical periods don't end or begin from one year to the next, but are gradual changes. Ask any historian. If you have doubts about the referenced book and what it does or doesn't say I can recommend reading it.
Peter Isotalo 21:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That's particularly true of language periods; languages change very gradually for the most part, which is why it virtually never makes sense to say that a single person, even an author, has a significant influence on any language. --Tkynerd (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the development of Modern Swedish was a lot more rapid than in previous periods because of the significant changes in technology and society. However, I really don't see anything indicating that the current wording in any way exaggerates the significance of any individuals. I see no difficulty in finding sources that state that certain authors, especially Strindberg, had a considerable impact on language development. Speaking of which, I just checked Nationalencyklopedin's article on svenska and much to my surprise I found the following passage in the section yngre nysvenska (1732–1900):
Mot slutet av 1800-talet hade Sverige en kår av skönlitterära författare som levde av att skriva och som lästes av landets hela bildade allmänhet. Viktor Rydberg, August Strindberg, Selma Lagerlöf och andra fick genom sina böcker stor betydelse för skriftspråkets utveckling också utanför skönlitteraturen.
"Towards the end of the 19th century Sweden had a body of fiction writers that lived on their writing and these were read by everyone in cultivated parts of society. and other hade a great significance to the development of the written language not just within fiction, but also in other aspects."
Even if it's not under the section on nusvenska, it still would have been pertinent for anyone complaining about the lack of information in certain sources to read them in their entirety.
Peter Isotalo 23:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. That's telling, but (1) it doesn't mention nusvenska and (2) it says nothing about the spoken language, which of course is primary. (It would be different if nusvenska were primarily a written language, but it isn't.) --Tkynerd (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No language is primarily a written language, but an extremely important factor of the development into Modern Swedish was that pronunication became heavily influenced by spelling and that the written and spoken language approached one another. It was also the written standard language that formed the basis of Standard Swedish. It's covered in some detail in Josephson and is also described in NE.
Peter Isotalo 05:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In that case, you should explain all that in the relevant passage in the article and use those references. --Tkynerd (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The nusvenska NE article states that the written and spoken language did approach each other and the written language had, in certain aspects, influenced the spoken language but it was "more natural that speech influenced writing", such as the 1906 spelling reform, the verb changes in 1950, text in fiction and the press, etc. To quote NE:
Det redan standardiserade skriftspråket har i vissa avseenden kommit att fungera som modell för rikstalspråket. När ord som glad uttalas med -d och gator med -or så sker detta under påverkan av skriften; i de flesta av landets dialekter heter det sedan länge gla resp. gater. Både ord och syntax i moderna svenskars tal är ofta övertagna från skriftspråket. Men i takt med att dialekterna har försvagats och likheten mellan tal och skrift ökat blir det också naturligare att talet påverkar skriften. Skönlitteraturen har här ibland visat vägen i och med att romantexterna mer än tidigare består av replikskiften som i viss utsträckning speglar naturligt talspråk. Pressen måste skriva enkelt för att nå en så stor publik som möjligt och har i vissa avseenden närmat sig talets stil och ordformer. Eftersom tidningsspråket i dag framstår som svenskt normalspråk påverkar det stil- och språkutvecklingen också inom andra genrer. (Dagspressen hade år 1993 en upplaga på över 4,3 miljoner ex.)
År 1906 bestämdes att skolan skulle stava v och t efter talet (vad, leva, liv inte hvad, lefva, lif; rött, målat inte rödt, måladt). (Senare försök att reformera stavningen på andra sätt i riktning mot talet har dock inte vunnit framgång, se rättskrivning 2.) Runt 1950 gick de allra flesta skribenter över till att använda verbets singularform också vid pluralt subjekt, dvs. man skrev de kommer, vi var, inte längre de komma, vi voro. (I de flesta av landets dialekter hade verbets numerusböjning försvunnit långt tidigare). Vissa av talets kortformer används numera allmänt i skrift (ta, dra, sa, ska m.fl.), och många småord som tidigare mest använts i talspråk har nu blivit gängse i skriftspråket: inte (gentemot ej, icke), bara (gentemot endast, blott) m.fl.
The comments here have been about Strindberg et al and their relationship to nusvenska afterall. For the 3rd time, there's still no reference listed for how several scholars or politicians influenced nusvenska. According to NE, it was the spoken language that influenced politicians and their administrative texts, not the reverse. Also from the nusvenska NE article:
Under efterkrigstiden har statens roll ökat i samhällslivet och den enskilde medborgaren möter allt fler administrativa texter. Det har blivit nödvändigt att lagar och förordningar utformas mera läsarvänligt, och ett stort arbete läggs därför ner på att ersätta det äldre snåriga kanslispråket med mer lättlästa uttryckssätt. Också det talspråkliga umgänget har blivit mer informellt under andra hälften av 1900-talet. Tidigare språkliga markeringar av rang och distans har inskränkts. Se du-tilltal, ni-tilltal.
Språkrådet (formerly Svenska språknämnden) gives an explanation for the Strindberg association with nusvenska, which they state was due to "the renewal of the literary style". So can you equate a renewal of the literary style to a change in the language? And what exactly is meant by a renewal of the literary style?
Skälet att en gång sätta det exakta årtalet 1879 som bakre gräns för nusvenskan var att Strindbergs Röda rummet kom det året och förnyade den litterära stilen. (SPRÅKVÅRD 2007/1, p 42)
Going back to my question: how did the authors influence the language? They didn't seem to be involved in the any spelling reform, according to the rättskrivining article in NE. This can also be seen if you compare Strindberg's play Till Damaskus, published in 1898, to a later edition published in 1915 (after the 1906 spelling reform). So how did they influence the language? According to the NE text above, the written language (via fiction writers and the press) started to be written more like spoken Swedish. (Skönlitteraturen har här ibland visat vägen i och med att romantexterna mer än tidigare består av replikskiften som i viss utsträckning speglar naturligt talspråk. Pressen måste skriva enkelt för att nå en så stor publik som möjligt och har i vissa avseenden närmat sig talets stil och ordformer.) So it would appear that the spoken language influenced the written language (via fiction writers and the press), which then influenced the standard language.
Since Peter claims that Josephson also explains the contested text, it would be pertinent to let us know what it says so that we can all analyze the contents better. Keep in mind that not everyone has access to every reference that someone may list and it's courteous to cite relevant passages when asked to do so, instead of assuming that everyone can get a copy of a book and read it at will.
Some of the confusion in the article may be related to the English translations for nysvenska and nusvenska used in Wikipedia. Nusvenska should be called "Contemporary Swedish" or "Present-Day Swedish" (called "Modern Swedish" here) and nysvenska should be called "Modern Swedish" (called "New Swedish" here), according to Norstedts Swedish-English dictionary, the Nordic Language Secretariat, and Birger Winsa's extensive overview of the Swedish language (html or PDF). The rather unfortunate direct translation used in this article should be fixed immediately, as well in the New Swedish article and the Modern Swedish redirect (which require an admin's help).
–panda (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The reference has been there for quite a while now, but you appear not to be willing to read it despite the fact that it's a common book available in most public libraries. I also don't see anything actually contradicting the current text. Written language was simplified, but there's also the aspect of speech being influenced by the written language, the phenomenon called läsuttal (literally "reading pronunciation"). The claim that policy influenced politicians doesn't make much sense, though. Policy isn't a separate entity that dictates its own contents, but is formulated by politicians influenced by popular opinion to one degree or another. I'm sure we could add more detail to the text, but I don't really see any problem with the verifiability.
Peter Isotalo 10:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Which reference are you referring to? You didn't add a reference to the contested text until 13:25 on 2 March 2008, which does not make it something that "has been there for quite a while now". And you have continued to refuse to post any useful text from that reference, but instead keep assuming that all others who ask for quotes are "not ... willing to read it despite the fact that it's a common book available in most public libraries." I've already explained that "not everyone has access to every reference that someone may list and it's courteous to cite relevant passages when asked to do so, instead of assuming that everyone can get a copy of a book and read it at will." So perhaps you could try being courteous and post some useful quotes instead of attacking another editor who is interested in having an academic discussion.
I would recommend re-reading my comments above since you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. For example, I never claimed that "policy influenced politicians" nor anything even remotely similar. NE makes it clear that during the nusvenska period, the spoken language had a larger role than the written language on the Swedish language, even if the written language may have influenced the spoken language to some degree, as well as that "many scholars, politicians and other public figures" did not influence nusvenska. Perhaps you don't understand the issue here...?
–panda (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Detail discussions aside, I really don't see how any of your quotes contradict the current article contents. An absence of corroboration of very specific statements (or virtual duplication of statements) in source A does not mean that those statements in source B are dubious. If anything, one should at least attempt to read source B before demanding specific citations. I get the impression that what you're asking for more is more detail, but I don't agree that the veracity of the article is a problem. Since you're making extremely narrow interpretations based on rather selective readings of certain sources, I really recommend doing more research to get a broader sense of the topic. For example, if you agree that written language is an aspect of language, then implying that literary development isn't language change makes very little sense.
Peter Isotalo 13:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have to put it this way but it's very naive and ignorant to believe that a book written in Swedish is "a common book available in most public libraries." The majority of books written in Swedish are not available in most public libraries of the world. The fact that you have yet to produce a useful quote from your reference seems to indicate that there is no text in that reference that would back-up the contested statement. The one quote that you thought may have, doesn't actually say anything relevant. –panda (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Your suspicions and invectives are your's to deal with, panda. Other than that I really don't see any problem here. Until you can point to actual contradiction that aren't dependent entirely on your own personal interpretations, you'll have to do you own homework.

Peter Isotalo 07:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The normal process of peer review is questioning someone's interpretation of a reference, and not to blindly accept that just because a reference was added, it was added appropriately. The issue here isn't my personal interpretation of anything, especially since I'm not the one editing the article. When two editors (Tkynerd and I) both point out a problem with a quote that you presume backs up a claim, then the appropriate reaction is to produce another quote that backs up the claim, instead of assuming that everyone should "do [their] own homework". That kind of infantile attitude isn't appropriate for a collaborative encyclopedia and is definitely not considered acceptable in the academic world. –panda (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The one isolated quote that I presented hasn't been refuted by anything you have quoted. In fact, it's even corroborated by Staffan Hellberg's article in Språkvård[1] that you quoted earlier and more or less by the NE text. Quoting sources you can't be bothered to read but still feel confident enough to criticize is very, very time-consuming. I'm not going to waste my time copying large chunks of texts for someone who can't produce tenible arguments or reasonable interpretations of sources.
Peter Isotalo 07:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you still don't understand the issue here. That quote doesn't back-up the following claim in the nusvenska portion of this article:
Many scholars, politicians and other public figures had a great influence on the new national language that was emerging, and among them were also prolific authors like the poet Gustaf Fröding, Nobel laureate Selma Lagerlöf, and controversial writer and playwright August Strindberg.
If we remove "and controversial writer and playwright August Strindberg" from the above text, then the quote doesn't apply at all. Neither does Hellberg's nor the NE article back-up that claim. The NE article actually says it was the spoken language that influenced nusvenska and Hellberg's only states the same thing as your quote, nothing relevant. No one is asking for you to copy "large chunks of texts", only the necessary text that actually backs-up that claim. If it is so clearly stated in the reference you listed above, then it shouldn't require "large chunks of text". As a reminder, claiming that another editor "can't produce tenible arguments or reasonable interpretations of sources" is inappropriate for a collaborative encyclopedia and would fall under personal attacks. –panda (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
None of the texts you've quotec contradicts anything in the article. If you wish to complement the text with commens about the spoken language, then do so yourself instead of attacking the current wordings or sources you haven't yet to read. Written and spoken language are two aspects of the same thing and they are not mutually exclusive. Describing changes in one does not exclude descriptions of the other. And I'd really advise you to rethink the idea that any and all facts can be supported with brief quotes. All statements can't necessarily be summarized in easily-digested snippets of text.
And if you're going to characterize my criticism of your methodology and interpretation of sources as personal attacks, then have a long hard look at the various descriptions you've applied directly to me in the last few posts. Adjectives like "naive", "ignorant" and "infantile" beg for lengthy explanation if you're really serious about discussing personal slights.
Peter Isotalo 12:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be under the misapprehension that it is the responsibility of other editors to either check your sources themselves, or blindly accept them. We are, of course, obligated to do neither. It is your responsibility to convince us if you want to achieve consensus on this point, which is the only way the passage you want can remain in the article. --Tkynerd (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The "do your own homework"-argument is really secondary to this dispute, even if I find the harsh demands from panda rather exasperating. The fact remains that there is no actual disagreement between the sources panda has quoted and the statements made in the article.
Peter Isotalo 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about you people, but I was taught in school (last year) that Röda Rummet significantly influenced the swedish language. I don't know if it's correct, but couldn't it be like a circle? I mean, the spoken language influences Strindberg who writes Röda Rummet, which influences both written and spoken language? And so it continues, in a circle? Could that be possible? ☺ Spiby ☻ 14:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Spiby: My question about Strindberg has been how did he influence the Swedish language, not if he did. How he did has yet to be explained beyond my analysis of the NE nusvenska article, which could benefit from some corroboration. Also, the issue here isn't only about Strindberg, but rather the entire sentence in the nusvenska section that states:
Many scholars, politicians and other public figures had a great influence on the new national language that was emerging, and among them were also prolific authors like the poet Gustaf Fröding, Nobel laureate Selma Lagerlöf, and controversial writer and playwright August Strindberg.
Peter: The "do your own homework" claim you repeatedly make is the primary excuse you have used in content disputes to avoid explaining disputed text, so it's not "secondary to this dispute." And really, is asking for a reasonable quote from a book considered "harsh demands" now a days? When NE claims that A led to B which led to C but the text here claims B led to C, then that doesn't contradict the sources I've listed but it's about as incorrect as stating the Swedish flag is blue -- it doesn't tell the entire story. Why don't you explain which part does not contradict the text instead of claiming it repeatedly with no explanation? That would build dialog instead of the "stalemate" that you claim.
Regarding your comment that "Adjectives like 'naive', 'ignorant' and 'infantile' beg for lengthy explanation", they were explained when I made them and apply to everyone, not necessarily just you. OTOH, you assume things about me that I've never stated or are based on your personal opinion such as "you appear not to be willing to read it despite the fact that it's a common book available in most public libraries", "you're making extremely narrow interpretations", and "someone who can't produce tenible arguments or reasonable interpretations of sources". These are, in the mildest case, examples of assuming bad faith and at their extreme, personal attacks.
–panda (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The way Strindberg and others influenced Swedish is rather obviously through writing and making policies. None of the sources you cite don't contradict this in any way whatsoever. At most they describe other aspects of language change, but in many instances you've chosen to simply ignore those passages that actually agree with what has already been written.
As for what you describe as personal comments, they're not actually examples of bad faith, but really just vehement disagreement with how you interpret sources and lack of general knowledge of the topic. That you have good intentions does not mean that you are automatically right.
Peter Isotalo 12:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If it's so obvious how Strindberg and others influenced Swedish through writing and making policies, then it shouldn't be so difficult to give some examples of how and what part of the Swedish language this affected. It's not obvious to me. If the passages I've cited are "passages that actually agree with what has already been written" then cite them and let me know what it is that I've "chosen to simply ignore" since I don't know which ones you are referring to. Since the text I've cited is already a part of this thread, it's a simple matter of copying and pasting the text.
BTW, once again you've displayed another example of assuming bad faith by assuming "you've chosen to simply ignore those passages that actually agree with what has already been written." Obviously I can't be ignoring something that I'm not aware of. Assuming good faith has nothing to do with whether you or I are "automatically right" about anything. I highly recommend reading WP:AGF to learn what it is about. –panda (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There are no passages to cite in response to your question since none of your quotes actually disagree with anything stated in the article. All the other sources do is describe other aspects of language change, often in addition to mentioning the literary development already mentioned. Your repeated queries about exactly how this and that person affected the language are really not possible to reply to without directing you to read large bodies of literature. You're perfectly welcome to voice skepticism to the conclusions of prolific authors (which is what is summarized in this article), but if this is to affect article content then you need to produce statements from other authors or scholars (ie reliable sources). What you're doing in this thread is merely to repeat your own personal skepticism because you don't have access to all the specific details.
Peter Isotalo 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? "There are no passages to cite..."? You just wrote that I've cited "passages that actually agree with what has already been written" so please explain which passages I've cited agree with what has been written. This is a simple matter of copy-and-paste so that everyone can understand what you mean. –panda (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(back to the left) I have tried to browse through all the exchange of views above and quickly check up a few online Swedish-language sources on the subject. I note the following:

  • The two actual years mentioned are usually 1879 (Strindberg's Röda rummet) and 1906 (the spelling reform), often together with a statement about a broader change in "1880s" or "just before 1900" or something like that. Describing it like a gradual process with 1879 & 1906 as two important years marking approximately the beginning and the end of the process seems reasonable to me.
  • While Strindberg's novel is mentioned in many sources, statements on Strindberg usually say something like "The earliest literary work connected with Nusvenska is Röda rummet, which broke ground for a new literary style in Sweden", and actually not stronger statements like "Strindberg created Nusvenska" or "Strindberg was the most influential figure in Nusvenska". Perhaps it would be easier to go with the book and it's year as a description in the article, and just mention that Strindberg was the author?
  • I think it is a bit unnecessary to term Strindberg controversial in connection with this article. He was definitely controversial in his time, but he's been staple fare so long with Swedish literature scholars and schoolchildren that the term feels misplaced to me. On the other hand "radical writer" or "politically radical writer" would be more timeless epithets that would seem fitting to him & NPOV.

Tomas e (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think I need to point out that although this began as a debate over the prominence of Strindberg, I believe that issue to be largely resolved since Strindberg is mentioned among other authors and public figures. It has now moved on to a slightly unfocused disagreement over whether change in literature means a change in language and whether written or spoken language should be focused on.
  • Language historians would probably not agree that any particular process of language change ended in 1906. One article that panda brought up puts the dividing line around 1945 and the source I have quoted, written by Josephson, puts a dividing line at around 1970.
  • I agree that "radical" is a better term for contemporary readers and I changed it according to your suggestion.
Peter Isotalo 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Which article did I bring up puts the dividing line around 1945? Tomas makes a good point about the years for nusvenska and it would make sense to include all of the relevant dates, especially since they're all verifiable. –panda (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The article I'm referring to is the one from Språkvård that you cited a while ago. It's the one where the last sentence of the first paragraph reads "Staffan Hellberg [...] puts the limit for Contemporary Swedish at 1945" (my translation).'
Peter Isotalo 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The article states:
Staffan Hellberg, en av författarna till Svenska Akademiens grammatik, sätter gränsen för nutidssvenskan vid 1945.
The article also differentiates between nutidssvenska and nusvenska. So they're talking about two different time periods of the Swedish language. It gets very confusing if you translate nutidssvenska and nusvenska to English since both could be translated as contemporary Swedish but apparently refer to different time periods of the Swedish language. –panda (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
On second glance, I see that Hellberg writes:
Här kommer jag att argumentera för att den nutida svenskan, nusvenskan, just nu ska räknas från 1945.
so he is arguing that nusvenska should start from 1945. Interesting that he points out Astrid Lindgren as being one of the pioneers of modern Swedish:
Astrid Lindgren, 100 år i år, var bland mycket annat också en av pionjärerna för modern svenska. Det år Pippi Långstrump kom ut tog TT bort verbens pluralformer, Expressen slog igenom, och andra språkhistoriskt viktiga förändringar kan dateras till samma tid. Staffan Hellberg, en av författarna till Svenska Akademiens grammatik, sätter gränsen för nutidssvenskan vid 1945.
Something I have noticed is that nusvenska is not acknowledged in all sources that discuss the history of the Swedish language. Some books stop at nysvenska so that everything from 1732 onwards is a part of nysvenska, e.g., (1) Vikør, Lars S. (1993) "The Nordic Languages", Oslo: Novus Press, p 48. (2) Norde, Muriel (1997) "The History of the Genitive in Swedish: A case study in degrammaticalization." Amsterdam: vakgroep Skandinavische taal- en letterkunde, p 15. The 2nd reference cites Wessén, Elias (1968) "Svensk språkhistoria I: Ljudlära och ordböjningslära" for the period divisions and notes that nusvenska is used in Wessén's book, but not in that book. So it seems various scholars don't agree about the time frame for nusvenska. –panda (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enclitic s

I'm a native speaker of Swedish, and I was rather surprised to see "mannen i grå kavajs hatt" cited as a normal sentence. If forced to use it, I would write or say "mannens i grå kavaj hatt", this being the way it has been hammered into me by my teachers ("it is the man's hat, not his suit's!"). In practice, both variants cause consternation, are strongly discouraged in writing and cause raised eyebrows in speech. I'd like to change the text, but I'd like your opinions first. Lenborje (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the impression that the text actually states that the example is common, but that the usage of the enclitic s that you find to be erroneous to be the favored one for most people. The classic example of where to place the possessive -s is usually kungens av Danmark bröstkarameller ("the King of Denmark's [hard] candies"). As far as I know, the placing of the genitive suffix after the primary noun (kungen) is considered rather contrived, and no amount of old-fashioned hammering from school teachers is going to change that. It has grammatical logic going for it, but extremely few people would actually use that form. The problem here is not that people are abusing their own langauge, but the idea that grammar is always logical and consistent.
Peter Isotalo 13:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meant to be?

Quoting the article, paragraph 3: "The standard word order is Subject Verb Object, though this can often be changed to stress certain words of phrases."

I think this is meant to be: "The standard word order is Subject Verb Object, though this can often be changed to stress certain words or phrases." Wanderer57 (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compound nouns?

The sentence "Compound nouns take their gender from the head, which in Swedish is always the last morpheme" makes little sense to me (as a non-syntactician, mind you). Elements of compound nouns need not be monomorphemic: at least in German, Antrittsvorlesung is compounded of Antritt and Vorlesung, the latter being trimorphemic (vor-les-ung). The gender of the compound noun is indeed taken from the head (Vorlesung), but not from the last morpheme -ung, which is not only (arguably) semantically empty, but also does not command gender as such. Thoughts? JREL (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dagö Swedish speaking?

From the 13th to 20th century, there were Swedish-speaking communities in Estonia, particularly on the islands (e.g., Hiiumaa, Vormsi, Ruhnu in Swedish: Dagö, Ormsö, Runö, respectively) along the coast of the Baltic, which today have all but disappeared.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Gutnish rather than Swedish spoken in Dagö? Of course, in the later part of the period 13th to 20th century this doesn't matter much due to swedification, but in the early part Old Gutnish wasn't a dialect of Old Swedish, but its own dialect of Old Norse. You wouldn't e.g. claim Old Swedish was generally spoken in Iceland in the 13th century, would you? // Jens Persson (217.208.138.35 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Scanian dialects

I have now twice removed the following section placed under "Dialects":

A note of importance should also be made to that of the accents from Scania in southern Sweden. Almost every town and or city in this region have their own way of speaking and pronoucning words. Almost everyone who has grown up in this area can tell just from an accent which town an other person grew up in. For example, people from Lund or Malmö might identify a person from Staffanstorp or Veberöd just by the way they pronounce different words, or create sentences, although these towns are located just 10km away from each other. This is quite extraordinary and people often make jokes among each other about how the way they pronounce words, or say certain things. However, swedes who in grow up in other parts of Sweden, often can not distinguish between these different accents (or dialects) although they will always be able to determine that the person is from Scania. People from other parts of Sweden often have trouble understanding dialects from Scania, especially the older generation, but to a lesser degree the younger generation which nowadays to a larger extent speak Standard Swedish with a bit of an accent.

First off, this claim of uniqueness concerning the dialect situation in Scania is entirely unreferenced (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). If Scanian dialects are this unique, there should be no prioblem verifying the claim with a reliable source. I don't know the details of the linguistic situation in Scania, but I do know that the ability to recognize dialects from neighboring towns or even villages can be found all over Sweden (see for example Elfdalian). The latter is also a very good example that Scanian is in no way unique in being difficult to understand for people from other parts of Sweden. In fact, Scanian is most likely fairly easy to understand for just about any Swede. While I'm sure there are certain people in Lund and Malmö that can identify the birthplace of another person by their dialect, I doubt this is applicable to even a significant minority of the population. Also, I'd recommend reading the article Standard Swedish a bit closer. By the linguistic definition of that term, the majority of Scanians could be considered speakers of the standard language.

Peter Isotalo 15:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)