Talk:Swedish language/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The sample is incorrect!

The sample of swedish, at the bottom of the page (barfotabarn) is incorrectly translated. It should, for example, be: "What was the word" instead of "What was your word" et.c. Shouldn't this be changed?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crakkpot (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where the original translation came from but since I agree with your translation I made the change. Next time, be WP:Bold and make the change yourself. If someone doesn't like it, they'll change it back (and hopefully explain why here). –panda 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I made the translation and I used that wording because it matches the meter of the Swedish version so much better. The difference between "what was it, your word" and "what was the word" is irrelevant in this context and really doesn't matter because the literal translation would actually be "what kind of word was it". The sample section isn't really about language analysis anyway, so I'm changing it back to the version that matches the meter. Peter Isotalo 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
How about using the following alternative: "what was it, the word"? It more closely matches the translation and does not alter the meter. –panda 01:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I think "that word" would be better than "the word" in that case. Peter Isotalo 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I assume you'll make the change. –panda 02:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a nice translation and a nice poem, but verse presents special problems in translation; would a short prose example be more useful? The key word, barfotabarn, is also a rarity; a compound in --o--, compounds in --e-- being more common (fisketur etc.) The only other that comes to mind is the title of Strindberg's Lycko-pers resa and that is hyphenate. Robert Greer (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
See #Sample, a few threads down. In short, Peter doesn't think so but I do. I have a different rationale, however. –panda (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Is the rarity of the title really that much of a problem? In the thread linked above panda has been very insistent about including samples that illustrate the fairly small spelling changes that Swedish has undergone over the last 150 years, something I don't quite agree that the sample section is intended for. Including a work of prose to supplement the poetry would be a different issue, but I really don't think that Pippi Longstocking would be the appropriate choice. Peter Isotalo 10:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the sample such a good way of showing written Swedish? It uses one instance of nonstandard spelling, förr'n which one might say with spoken language but isn't the proper way to write. 88.206.128.190 (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it is a good example but the translation but the translation looks correct. In Swedish we often use the determined form where a (native) speaker of English would use a possesive pronoun. Examples: Jag tog på mig skorna -I put my shoes on, Jag parkerade bilen - I parked my car, Han lyfte handen - He raised his hand. 83.226.130.126 (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sample

I'm wondering what the purpose of the "Sample" section is. Including a Swedish poem doesn't really feel relevant since nothing in the article has to do with Swedish poetry. It may be more appropriate to place it in the Nils Ferlin article instead. I was considering replacing it with something more relevant. One example would be to take the first few sentences from the original version of Pippi Långstrump, a version in modern Swedish, and an English translation to show how the Swedish language has changed in the last 60 years. Or use some other text from Project Gutenberg where you can compare it with modern Swedish. Comments? –panda 23:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example text from 1867 that could be very suitable for this:

Det är väl knappast någon botanist, som icke vid sitt första möte med Daggörterna förvånats öfver dessa fina växters ovanliga utseende och märkliga egenheter. På dynor av Sphagnum-mossa utbreda sig täcka rosetter af rödaktiga blad, besatta med röda hår, hvilka sluta i en genomskinlig körtel. Dessa blad äro temligen tjocka och håren, som bekläda dem, utsöndra en klibbig vätska, hvilken såsom silfvertrådar sprider sig på mossan.

From svenska växternas naturhistoria I by C. F. Nyman (1867) –panda 01:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the section is to provide an example of how contemporary Swedish might look like, not to show historical change (that's what "History" is for). This article is about Swedish, which means that either prose or poetry is valid to use as an illustration Ferlin is very well-known in Sweden and Barfotabarn is among his most famous works. The poem is pretty, brief and written in a quite simple language. It represents contemporary Swedish very well despite being over 70 years old. Peter Isotalo 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The name of the article is "Swedish language" and it includes text about the history of the language as well as its current state. I can't help thinking that the only reason you're opposed to such a change is because you added the Barfotabarn text, versus actually considering what would be relevant for the article. –panda 04:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've given you relevant arguments of the merits of switching a short poem for an excerpt from a childrens' book as well as pointing out that "Sample" is not intended to serve as an extension of "History". See other language FAs if you don't believe me. As for voicing your assumptions about my intents, I can only recommend you to not assume bad faith. Peter Isotalo 12:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Is your argument against an excerpt from a children's book? Because the text quoted above doesn't come from a children's book. You're welcome to list a other language FAs for me to look at. Considering that at least half of the article is about the language's history, I see no reason to not use historical text. –panda 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The language FAs can be found at here. There are only 9 of them so far that deal with individual languages. The text you've quoted above is highly inappropriate for our purposes since it's excruciatingly dull, written by a literary nobody, is grammatically outdated and uses archaic orthography. Peter Isotalo 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
"Witten by a literary nobody"? That's an amazingly strong claim. Care to back that up? The whole point is that it uses archaic orthography. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything to compare it with modern Swedish. –panda 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, panda, you're citing an obscure botanist who's not even famous enough to be in NE. The notion that the sample section be used for historical comparison is entirely your idea. I've worked on many language articles before, including several FAs, but I've never seen anyone suggest it be used in this way. If you really want to champion this novelty, you should at the very least be prepared to suggest decent texts. Peter Isotalo 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If you don't like the above text then there's always Pippi.  :) If you know so much about FAs then do this article a favor and help it satisfy the current FA criteria. –panda 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you intentionally ignoring me, panda? I just told you that this is entirely your idea. It has never been applied to any previous FA and there's no suggestion by Project Languages template or any other recommendations that it be used in this way. Peter Isotalo 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You're opposed to the idea because you claim it is "entirely" my idea? Two language articles with FA status compare the older and newer version of the language: Gwoyeu Romatzyh and Taiwanese (linguistics). So it's not an entirely unknown idea. Only Turkish language and Ido contain poems, but Ido also has en excerpt from a children's book: The Little Prince. So on the topic of including an excerpt from a children's book, that's been done. Most of the FA language & linguistics articles don't have any sample text. Irish phonology and Laal included some sample text from everyday speech. Laal even included a literal translation along with the normal translation, which I recall someone tried to add to the Barfotabarn excerpt, but you reverted.[1] Besides Swedish, what other languages do you know of that have changed the spelling/writing of words in the last 60 years? I know of one, but it's already listed here as one of the ones that compare the older and new version of the language. –panda 05:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm opposed to switching poetry for excerpts from a children's book because I don't believe it's an improvement. And my last reply was really just a reaction to the fact that you appeared to suggest that any opposition to your suggestions on how to alter the article would automatically conflict FA standards. The FA articles on languages (not just linguistic topics) use poems in most cases (you forgot Tamil, btw). As for Laal, this is a language spoken only by a few hundred people without a literary tradition. Using everyday sentence in this case is a perefectly acceptable compromise. As for Irish phonology, this is an article describing the sounds of Irish, and the nature of the discipline pretty much requires that this be made with everyday language, not formal readings.
As for adding very awkward literal translations, I find it mildly irrelevant since Swedish is very similar to English (unlike Laal). Applying to poetry makes is even more awkward. Peter Isotalo 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I would have to second Peter's view here. I don't see that switching the sample to either of the proposed alternatives would be an improvement. henrik•talk 12:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) How would an excerpt from a more well-known Swedish author not be an improvement for the article? Especially when it can demonstrate something (spelling changes) that is not possible with the current text? You still haven't answered my question above: do you know any other language that has changed the spelling/writing of words in the last 60 years than the ones mentioned above? –panda (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

To me, replacing a short, very pretty poem with a random snippet from a children's book would be setting a tone not appropriate in an encyclopedic article. I don't believe that Lindgren's fame in this case is a relevant argument.
As for spelling changes, there are probably hundreds of examples. Danish made å official in 1948, German has gone through several more recent spelling changes (most of them hotly disputed), the Russian alphabet lost four letters after the Russian Revolution, Japanese and Chinese have gone through huge changes during the 20th century and Korean dropped hanja almost entirely and went over to hangul. If we dare to stretch the timeframe just a wee bit more, languages like Turkish and Vietnamese have even switched to entirely new forms of writing systems. The spelling changes in Swedish during the last 60 years have been very insignificant. Peter Isotalo 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the languages you've mentioned:
Looking at other Wikipedia articles only confirms that comparisons are relevant and should be shown.
In comparison, spelling changes to the Swedish language are only mentioned briefly in the Modern Swedish section. However, you can see the old spelling used in classic Swedish literature and in some specific instances today, such as af.
I personally don't have anything against using text from another Swedish author or poet that does show the spelling changes. Another example would be August Strindberg's Svenska öden och äfventyr. This is an important part of the Swedish language that should be included in the article. –panda (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess we still disagree, panda. The Danish example is given a proportionally tiny amount of space in the relevant article, and the German spelling changes are more recent and more prominent for a reason. All the other examples are vastly more influential on the language than anything that has happened in Sweden the last few centuries. And what should be noted, is that many of the articles you cite are not main articles on languages, but sub-articles on alphabets and writing systems.
But I'm still at a loss as to why this is a dispute over the sample section. You could just as well add this information to other, more appropriate, sections instead of hammering on this one moot point. Peter Isotalo 11:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You've seemed to have made a gross over-generalization about main articles vs sub-articles seeing how Korean language, Turkish language, Vietnamese language, Norwegian language are all main articles and the different forms are used in Japanese language, Standard Mandarin, and Chinese language. Also, there is no article called Swedish writing system, nor should there be since it's not as extensive a change as other languages that have one. Nor is this about letters disappearing from the Swedish alphabet, so it shouldn't go in Swedish alphabet.
The points you've ignored are that it can be found in classic Swedish literature, it is an important part of the history of the Swedish language and mentioned in NE, and there's no reason to not show an example of it here, especially since comparisons are apparently normally shown in language articles in Wikipedia. Your reason for keeping the current text has simply boiled down to "I prefer poetry in a FA article", which is also fine with me. But I think the text should demonstrate the spelling changes that have happened in the recent history of the Swedish language and August Strinberg's text is certainly a good example of this. –panda (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You've stated the same basic opinion in many different ways, panda. Unfortunately I find your arguments far more persistent than convincing. Peter Isotalo 07:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And "Unfortunately I find your arguments far more persistent than convincing." So what do you propose? Only listening to your own opinion or can you work towards a compromise? –panda (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested many compromises (expanding "History" or "Writing system", for example) but you'e rejected them all. It appears you seem Hell-bent on altering the sample section to the exten that you're willing to change your arguments to suit your goals. I simply don't agree that your suggestions are improvements and neither does henrik. Maybe it's time you considered conceding a point. Peter Isotalo 14:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Please show me a diff where I have rejected expanding "History" or "Writing system", or where you even mentioned expanding "Writing system" until now. You "seem Hell-bent on" not "altering the sample section to the exten [sic] that you're willing to change your arguments to suit your goals." For example, first you claim that "Ferlin is very well-known in Sweden and Barfotabarn is among his most famous works"[2] as a rationale for using his text and that Nyman's text shouldn't be used because it was "written by a literary nobody",[3] but when Lindgren is brought up you claim "I don't believe that Lindgren's fame in this case is a relevant argument."[4] It is relevant when it suits your case but not when it doesn't? You didn't even understand what the changes were about and still argued against them when you stated that Nyman's text "is highly inappropriate for our purposes since ... [it] is grammatically outdated and uses archaic orthography",[5] which was the whole purpose of that text. That Henrik has agreed with you about almost everything in this article only makes him look like part of a tag team and definitely not an independent third opinion. So you're set on only allowing changes to this article on your terms? –panda (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)