Talk:Norwegian language/Archive 1

This page 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 standard pronunciation of "norsk" is [nɔʂk], not [nɔrsk]. Someone correct it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.101.195 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

merge & redirect to

"Dano-Norwegian" does not seem to please everyone, and "New-Norwegian" sounds a little awkward. I do not claim to understand the political implications (being not Norwegian despite my username), but would suggest that, in the interest of peace and NPOV, we should return to using "Bokmål" and "Nynorsk".

Wikipedia:Use other languages sparingly is fine and well, but if the use of English terms causes political or NPOV debates (and besides, I doubt that they are widely used and/or well known) it seems appropriate not to use them. Finally, the article is still a bit stubby and it would be a great idea to have it developed some more (perhaps by a Norwegian?) Kosebamse

14:55 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

And it is not "Norwegian" and "New Norwegian". Both of the variants (Bokmål and Nynorsk) are Norwegian. - Gustavf Mon Feb 17 16:40:49 CET 2003

I rewrote the part about Bokål and Nynorsk. Gustavf Mon Feb 17 17:05:17 CET 2003

Thanks a lot. Much more informative now and nicely written.Kosebamse 21:37 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

The terms "Dano-Norwegian" and "New Norwegian" are the official terms in English for Bokmål and Nynorsk whether it pleases people or not. It is those terms that's used in one of the articles refered to at the end of the page (and so used by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Mendalus 15:15, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For the record. The ISO 639 standard lists a number of language names in both English and French. Norwegian Bokmål and Norwegian Nynorsk are the first alternatives. The US Library of Congress MARC Code List for Languages use the names Bokmål and Nynorsk. There shouldn't be any reason to confuse matters with Dano-Norwegian or New Norwegian Ynh 15:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I dont know much about norwegian, but i think that any

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

A typical speaker of the Norwegian language, one must presume -- Egil 14:56 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

It is Ivar Aasen, the founder of Nynorsk (New Norwegian) but I see that somebody has added text to the picture now. :) Mendalus 15:12, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

My best guess is Danish, as Norway was a part of Denmark at that time. See article History of Norway. -- Gustavf 06:26, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, Norway have never been a "part of Denmark", but in union with Denmark.

But it was ruled by the Danish Crown for 400 years, so technically it was indeed a part of Denmark.

It was politically part of Denmark, but Norwegians were always a separate ethnic group. Indeed, Danish authorities referred to the area not as "Denmark" but simply as "Norway." Officials did indeed write in Danish, though, to get back to the original question. --Leifern 21:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bokmål. --SAB 18:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I attempted to reflect this in my latest edit, but it wasn't very successfull and it's OK that Samuelsen removed it. However, that the traditional dialects of Bærum, Romerike, even Hallingdal are disappearing should be mentioned in the article. As regards the differences between Stabekk and Grorud, they might just as well be regarded as sociolectical. The same applies for Eiganes (Egenes) vs. Storhaug in Stavanger. contrapuncti 12:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Jarle - it used to be that children who grew up in certain towns spoke "stasjonsspråk," an approximation to written language. My grandmother grew up in Eidsvoll; her father was from Skjåk and her mother from Nord-Odal. But she has spoken stasjonsspråk until now, and she's 95. Under "dialect" here in wikipedia, the writers point out that nobody speaks a language, they speak a dialect of a language. Perhaps we should restructure the whole article to explain more about the evolution of, distinctions within, etc., of both written and spoken languages in Norway.--Leifern 23:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Ivar Aasen institute is part of the University College of Volda. The professor who wrote the article is a respected expert in the field, and I really can't see why he would be biased. Except for the cities of southern and eastern Norway the dialects are closer to Nynorsk. I don't think that is disputed at all, but I may be wrong. contrapuncti 15:29, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Then I would like to see the original reference for the claim. I couldn't find anything by reading the titles in Walton's list of publications at (http://www.hivolda.no/index.php?ID=10469&lang=nyn). Perhaps you could show me? As for the problem of finding out something like that, it would not be trivial to make a good definition of similarity between languages. You could probably do it in many ways, and choose the one that gives the nicest results. Second, it would not be correct to assume that everybody in an area speaks the same, archetypical dialect. People move around, and the dialects of individuals can be combined, suppressed or watered out. BBB 19:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I vouch for the claim’s correctness as a linguist with Norwegian dialectology as one of my main fields. Some of the most typical language traits that link the majority spoken forms of Norwegian with Nynorsk are:

1. Use of personal pronoun forms like “e(g)”/“æ(g)”/“ei(g)” rather than “je(g)”; “ho”/“hu” rather than “hun”; “de”/“dykk”/“døkk”/“dokk” rather than “dere”; etc.
2. Distinctive plural forms marking specific noun classes mainly linked to masculine vs. feminine grammatical gender — thus, many masculine plurals have “-a(r)” or “-æ(r)” in plural vs., typically, “-e(r)” or “-i(r)” in feminine plurals.
3. Full vowel endings “-ar”/“-ær” rather than reduced “-er” in agens forms of the type “fiskar”, “bakar”, etc.
4. Full vowel endings “-ar(e)”/“-ære” and “-ast(e)”/“-æst(e)” in comparative and superlative of adjectives, rather than Bokmål type “-(e)re” / “-(e)st(e)”.
5. Use of the front/central high vowel u in words where Bokmål/Riksmål typically have East Scandinavian forms with back high o: “tru” (v., f.), “bu” (v.), “bu” (f), “bru” vs. “tro”, “bo”, “bod”, “bro”.
6. Widespread use of -a as a marker of past tense. While this is, strictly speaking, permitted both in Nynorsk and Bokmål (but not in Riksmål with a few exceptions), the typivcally used forms in bokmål are “-et”.

Less dominant, but still widely used language traits include:

1. present tense forms of strong verbs displaying “i umlaut”, and often also monosyllabic forms: “kjem(er)” rather than “kommer”, “syg” rather than “suger”, etc.;
2. “-a(r)” as the marker of present tense ending of verbs with “-a” in past tense.

These are just a few examples of many traits with a primarily Nynorsk connection that are extremely widespread in spoken Norwegian outside the larger cities of SE Norway... Many of them in fact even within Oslo... --

Olve

05:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

BBB 13:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not a valid argument, and you should read the article, where the issue is discussed at some length. Since the tag is based on ignorance, I am removing it. --Leifern 03:24, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

I recommend that all

Dalecarlian language

" is probably one of the best examples of why SIL's classifications should be view with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Peter Isotalo

13:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bokmål, as a written language is closely related to danish. Henrik Ibsen wrote his plays in Danish, and they were published in Denmark. As a spoken language it differs markedly. Tonems [4] do not exist in danish, as far as I know. Anyway; a language is a dialect with an army behind it. [[[User:Krivar|Krivar]] 19:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

No, Ibsen was an adherent of a distinct Norwegian language, and his writing became increasingly Norwegian with the years. [5] --Leifern 17:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

If there are no other references for the two-fold classification of Norwegian, the info on it should be removed. SIL's classificaitons are often odd and in this instance make absolutely no sense at all. A major influence from a language does not mean one can just reclassify it. It wouldn't be too different from trying to classify spoken Yiddish as Germanic while considering the written language to be Semitic. Unless all Norwegians literally started speaking Danish, with a complete replacement of all vocabulary, grammar and phonology, one can classify Norwegian as both East and West Scandinavian. A written language is always a representation of a spoken language and hence can't change the genetic classification of a language, no matter how heavy the influence from another language is.

Isotalo

02:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This is where we completely disagree. When people speak only, say,

Olve

21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to assume that I'm talking to the same user who for some time tried to force

Scandinavian languages

for a very long period. I have in my posession a good deal of linguistic sources that clearly debunks nearly all the claims mentioned above. Here is the list of erroneous claims that would not stand up to even a cursory glance in the most basic of literature:

• Standard Danish was spoken natively by (most) Norwegians.
  • Pure Danish was never spoken by the large majority of Norwegians, but rather only by the administrative classes. The majority used either genuine Norwegian dialects or a mix of the two. A language often refered to as "Dano-Norwegian" was spoken by a small minority of the educated classes during the latter half of the 19th century. It did influence Standard Eastern Norwegian (standard østnorsk), but was only used by a small percentage of the population during a limited time and was furthermore not even identical to the Danish spoken in Denmark.

• Modern Standard Norwegian is based upon Danish.
  • To begin with there is no such thing as an official Standard Norwegian. There is, in fact, no spoken Norwegian standard at all. This is a deliberate policy and even if Eastern Norwegian (especially the kind spoken in and around
    Norwegian Language Council
    .

• Old Norwegian is an extinct language and does not form a base for modern Norwegian.
  • A gross simplification of the actual history of the language. While Norwegian was indeed forced back from the 16th to the 19th century and was largely replaced by Danish as a written language, spoken Norwegian did not become extinct. This could happen if such a change occured in modern times, with high literacy among common people and modern communication, but in these times language simply did not change as rapidly as it does today. Just the fact that all sources (except SIL, with it's very strange theories about separating written standards though they were spoken langauges) are in complete agreement that Norwegian is a West Scandinavian language confirms this.

References:

• Kristoffersen, Gjert The Phonology of Norwegian
• Nationalencyklopedin, article norska
• Ethnologue

I once more ask that you stop trying to assert your own very misguided views of the classification and history of the Scandinavian languages and respect policies such as

request for arbitration

.

Isotalo

16:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I mailed Marit Hovdenak at the

Norwegian Language Council

about this issue a while ago and received an answer just today. She confirms that the classification of Norwegian should be, regardless of written standard, West Scandinavian. Though I hope that the sources above have been taken seriously, this should definetly settle the dispute. Here is her reply (underlining is mine):

Hei!

Takk for interessant førespurnad, som kom i ferien min. I Noreg er det vanleg å klassifisere både bokmål og nynorsk som vestnordisk. Det står slik under oppslagsordet "vestnordisk" i Bokmålsordboka, Nynorskordboka og Norsk ordbok frå Kunnskapsforlaget. I Kunnskapsforlagets store norske leksikon står det i artikkelen "Nordiske språk": "vestnordisk, som omfatter norsk (med skriftspråksvariantene bokmål og nynorsk), islandsk og færøysk".

Elles har bl.a. Lars S. Vikør komme inn på spørsmålet, også i ting han har skrive på engelsk, jf. nettsidene til Språkrådet. I boka "Språknormer i Norge" av Helge Omdal og Lars S. Vikør skriv den sistnemnde: "Men no har vi i Noreg to standardspråk, bokmål og nynorsk. Er dette to språk, eller berre to målformer, altså former av eit felles norsk språk? Det finst ikkje noko objektivt svar på dette". Forfattaren svarer sjølv at det truleg er mest rett og dekkjande å halde fast på den offisielle termen "målformer".

Konklusjonen min blir då at norsk, både bokmål og nynorsk, bør klassifiserast som vestnordisk.

Vennleg helsing

Marit Hovdenak - rådgjevar

Språkrådet, Postboks 8107 Dep, 0032 OSLO

Gateadresse: C.J. Hambros pl. 5

E-postadresse: marit.hovdenak(at)sprakradet.no

http://www.sprakrad.no el. http://www.språkrådet.no

If anyone who doesn't speak Norwegian needs a translation, just let me know and I'll provide one.

Isotalo

11:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Skandinaviske språk klassifiseres gjerne i to grupper: vestskandinavisk (insulær) og østskandinavisk (kontinental). Klassifikasjonen er basert på fonologiske forandringer fra norrønt. For eksempel heter det bru i vestskandinaviske språk, men bro i østskandinaviske språk. Derfor regnes islandsk og færøysk til vestskandinaviske språk, mens svensk og dansk regnes til østskandinaviske språk. En slik klassifikasjon er ikke særlig relevant for norsk som helhet, fordi grensen mellom vest- og østskandinavisk går tvers gjennom det norske dialektkontinuumet. Det nærmeste en kommer å klassifisere norsk på dette nivået, er å sortere standard sørøstnorsk inn under østskandinavisk, og de fleste vestnorske dialekter inn under vestskandinavisk.

I've taken it up at the talkpage already. The statement (that Norwegian has a two-fold classification) is completely unreferenced. Please read the policy pages

Wikipedia:Cite sources

. You can't use another Wikipedia as a source, even if it's in Norwegian. Moreover, West/East is not the same thing as Insular/Mainland; they're completely different ways of classifying the languages. It's a misinterpretation and nothing else. Not even SIL makes this mistake.

Isotalo

22:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Peter: Except for the fact that the terms West/East and insular/mainland are a bit sloppily used in the quote from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia article, the description is actually pretty accurate there. It basically states that the East/West dichotomy is problematic in connection with the language/s / language forms of Norway. You insist that you and supposedly all linguists (except for the ones you disagree with) are right in that Norwegian is by definition Western Scandinavian. But much more important than what you feel is what linguistical criteria you rest your argument on. As a linguist with solid knowledge about Norwegian dialectology I know very well that many sources contain a high number of mistakes. Many of these mistakes are quoted and consolidated — like, e.g. the generally circulating maps showing the distribution of [r]/[ɽ] from Old Norse (rð). In that case, a mistake in transferring the data from the “Dialect synopsis” to the first-published map by I. Christiansen was never revised/corrected before publishing, and the map has been re-published as part of several volumes on Norwegian dialects. I could therefore provide several academic sources showing that the [r] pronunciation is the only one used in the county of Møre og Romsdal with the exception of Aure and, as far as I can remember, Smøla) — despite the irrefutable fact that the [ɽ] pronunciation is found as the main pronunciation or as the pronunciation in a significant group of words in at least 6 more municipalities! There are scores of these blunders spread through uncritical copying to be found in the Norwegian language literature — usually not through malintent, but rather from being a bit too sloppy on checking the actual contents of one’s sources critically. Which leads to my main question to you, Peter:

On what exact structural elements do you base your claim that Norwegian language is, as a whole, West Scandinavian? Citations, even quotes, are useless unless they are actually based on something. What facts do you base your opinion on?

It would also be useful if you could inform us about your academic background in the topic of Norwegian language with its dialectology and history, BTW. (And I am not saying that only Norwegians can discuss Norwegians. I am asking what level and type of knowledge you have in the current subject because this is of relevance to our discussion and because I sense a possible discepancy between your level of assertiveness and your seeming lack of factual arguments beyond enumerating encyclopaedia articles (who says that encyclopaedias are academically waterproof?) and leaning on an e-mail message from a member of a language usage council for a question about language typology.) --

Olve

16:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Where's your own argumentation! How are mistakes in unrelated isogloss maps concerning the prevelance of

diachronic

classification can be altered merely because of influence from a closely related language, not claim that I'm not a linguist and hence shouldn't assert what other sources (falsely) claim. Did Norwegian dialects evolve from Old East Norse? If so, why should Norwegian be reclassified?

Please don't confuse this with any kind of dislike for academic nuancing. I'm certainly aware that language classification is merely a simplification and I welcome contributions from scholars in the subject, but this is an encyclopedic article, not a linguistic paper. This is not the place for new scientific theories. And bashing the validity of so many encyclopedic articles (written by linguists) as well as the linguistic competence of members of the Norwegian Language Council is hardly becoming either a Wikipedian or an academic...

Isotalo

17:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless some new argumentation or source material is presented either by the anon or by Olve, I'm going to revert the confusing double classification in the infobox and remove the {{disputed}}-template. Please do not violate policy by auto-reverting. Present plausible sources and argumentation if you want to contest. And that means proper argumentation, not fault-by-association, rehashing old arguments or (worst of all) demand that I present further argumentation. The sources are on the table, SIL is very lonely and very disputed and no other references have been cited.

Isotalo

14:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Classification has now been reverted. I've also removed the unofficial regulator of

Norwegian Language Council

. Mention this in the text, but please don't put in the infobox as though it had official sanctioning. There has been some pretty obvious attempts to push the prominence of Riksmål. Start with actually providing reliable figures of it's usage instead of constantly mentioning it together with Bokmål as the majority language, as though they were one and the same.

Isotalo

10:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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

... Dialects are in some cases so dissimilar as to be unintelligible to unfamiliar listeners; this is especially true of dialects of internal, mountaineous areas. ...

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

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

What makes the Norwegian dialects special is that they are actively used. While in most countries dialects are left for circles of persons who can understand them, Norwegians use their dialects in their professions and when talking to strangers:

anchormen all speak in their dialects while delivering lectures, speeches or news. Norwegians will more rather go over to English than speak "plain" Norwegian when a foreigner has problems understanding their dialect (this has not prevented xenophobic groups from complaining that immigrants don't speak Norwegian good enough). It could be suggested that the liberality in the verbal usage of dialects has reflected itself in writing, as Norwegians generally write with relatively bad spelling

, when compared to speakers of languages with similar spelling difficulties and similar education level.

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

I agree with Leifern that news anchors don't speak dialect. (How could they? They are reading most of their lines.) The same goes for actors in most theater plays. But it is true that dialects (with or without modifications of the most discrepant words) are dominant in almost every area where Norwegian is spoken (i.e., not just read or recited). This important point of Orzetto's should definitely be mentioned in the main article about Norwegian language, to emphasize that knowledge of dialects is crucial to anyone who wants to understand spoken Norwegian.

--Verdlanco\^talk 14:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Diversity of dialects: I know Norwegians take this awfully personally, but Norwegian dialects are not really that impressively different. Norwegian mountaineous geography played only a marginal role—the main role is the one of seafaring (most people live on the coast or in the vicinity), that gave rise to a series of mutually intelligible dialects on the coast (possibly with the exception of the areas closest to Denmark), and more particular ones in internal, mountaineous areas. Considerable diversity is in my opinion an overstatement, since someone from Lindesnes can talk in his own dialect with someone from Hammerfest only with minor hindrance. In my comparison with Italy I actually weighed for the population. The dialects of Sondrio and Bergamo are completely different, for instance, and surely not mutually intelligible; this even though the cities are in two neighbouring areas. Furthermore, a more spread population is more likely to foster dialects than a more densely packed one: see Denmark. Indeed, the most peculiar dialects arise in some small villages, not in Oslo—amount of speakers is therefore not necessarily important.

Popular view: I got the suspect you were an emigrate and got it right—you live in New Jersey, right? Well, it seems that dialect usage is on the rise over here. As an Italian in Norway, I am regularly amazed at people talking dialect without first checking that the audience understand it. Older people actually seem to try to speak bokmål, but younger are more "careless" if you allow me the term. I actually thought I may be biased (maybe everybody speaks dialect, and it's just Italy that speaks the same language all over?), but I regularly ask people from other (mostly European) countries, and no one has indicated a similar usage of dialect anywhere. I have personally and multiple times experienced Norwegians rather speaking English instead of comprehensible bokmål, when they noticed I could not understand their dialect. It seems it is sort of embarassing to pronounce bokmål "as it is written". It should actually be noted that this might have had fatal consequences in a number of cases, since medical personnel from abroad is often trained in Oslo with "norskkursnorsk", and then sent in some province where no one seems to speak the language they learnt (I read something about it in the Aftenposten some months ago). Again, the differences among Norwegian dialects are not big, but are enough of a hindrance for a foreigner (especially because there are no or few textbooks about how to understand them!).

I don't know how it should be called if it is not "pride" (I did not want to use "parochialism" or plain "illiteracy"), since all the Norwegians I know have confirmed this custom of "speaking each with his/her dialect". FYI, I live in Trondheim.

Speakers modifying their language: they might modify their language, but they do not always use "standard" bokmål or nynorsk (except NRK). Please try to grab a Internet edition of TV2's news. Call it what you want, it's not bokmål (and it would be weird if it were nynorsk, since nynorsk supporters normally speak dialect by principle; and that's not NRK, where a nynorsk quota is mandated). I have, time and again, witnessed lectures at university level in dialect, with comical effects when a professor from Stavanger did not understand that "korsen" in trøndersk was "korleis" in his dialect and started a long series of "Kva?"/"Ka?". There are indeed people, in the cities, whose dialect is negligibly different from bokmål, but I have never observed large changes by people with "stronger" dialects. And before you contest: yes, Norwegians (on average) have terrible spelling. I have corrected a series of reports handed in by students (3rd year undergraduate), and was amazed at how bad they write. And I'm still a foreigner here, so I don't look at things like prepositions, which I would probably get wrong anyway. On the other hand, I noticed a correlation between interest in nynorsk and better writing skills (even in bokmål), possibly because nynorsk users are (again, on average) more interested in languages. --Orzetto 21:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Korsen? Isn't it kåssen or kossen?

The spelling and meaning of this word varies between dialects. In the meaning "how" some spellings / pronunciations are "hvordan", "kordan", "korleis", "koss", "kossen", and "korsen". In the meaning "what kind of" some pronunciations are "hvilken", "kvafor" "kaffor", "kva", "kvaslags", "kaslags", "kasla", "korleis", "kass", "koss", "kossen", and "korsen". The 'rs' is pronounced 'sj'. The 'rd' may be pronounced in one or two distinct sounds. --Eddi (Talk) 18:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm Orzetto's claim of Norwegian dialects not being all that varied, something I myself had previously assumed. This is a quote from the introduction to The Phonology of Norwegian by Gjert Kristoffersen (pg. 7):

...the variation among Norwegian dialects and accents, Standard Østnorsk included, seems small compared to what one finds in other European languages. Speakers of different Norwegian dialects have therefore small problems in understanding each other.

I think we can assume that Kristoffersen is not including second language speakers of Norwegian in his description. Even the most diligent of foreign language students can often have difficulties in understanding the very distinct rural dialects if not used to hearing them.

Isotalo

23:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

As a Norwegian and a linguist, I can also confirm Orzetto's claims. The differences is more in vocabulary and syntax than in phonology. I write radical Bokmål and speak slightly radical generic south-eastern. I've lived in the eastern parts of Norway, and in Trøndelag (the middle), and in Finnmark (farthest north), and in Bergen (west), so I think I ought to be qualified to say something about how norwegians speak. Generally, the trønder dialects add more

palatal sounds, and some have true tonal words, as the toneme on a word is compressed into one syllable after apocope

(chopping off the last vowel if not followed by consonant). The northern and (south)-western parts of Norway uses a different intonation-system; a more European sounding one instead of going up at the end of sentences which is the norm in the east and the middle. All the dialects disagree on how to pronounce /r/ it seems. Oh, and there are people (not immigrants) who claim not to understand dialect but all Norwegians I know personally (including yours truly) considers such people to be either chauvinsts who are a waste of good carbon or slightly on the mentally retarded side. Anyway, AFAIK, Norwegian dialects are still taught in high school, there have even been tv game shows where the premise was "name the dialect".

As for terrible spelling, when I was in school, if I misspelled something I was corrected with an easily visible red mark. When a younger relative of mine started school, this was no longer pedagogically correct, apparently. Now, how do you suppose kids are to learn what is right when neither the good bits nor the bad bits are pointed out to them? Furthermore, the people becoming teachers for children in Norway today are more often, excuse the expression, from the bottom of the barrel. They can't spell and they can't add, so how are they supposed to be able to correct the kids' assignments? Send answers on a postcard to the Ministry of Education :) and I remind everyone there's an election in Norway this year. --Kaleissin 19:21:06, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

I doubt the accuracy of the claim made in the example of the university lecturer, as the word how would normally be precisely "kossen" (or "koss") in the Stavanger dialect. Still, I agree with the general sentiment that Norwegians at least try their best to avoid standardising their spoken language, and such standardisation (known as "knoting") is indeed regarded as embarrassing in large parts of the country. There are probably two reasons for this: Firstly, as the main article states, there is actually no formal spoken standard, and hence Standard Østnorsk is not regarded as having a higher status than any other version of spoken Norwegian, in contrast to the situation in many other countries. Secondly, the centre/periphery conflict in Norway has never been particularly focused on politics (e.g. autonomy) or economics, but has instead focused rather exclusively on culture, and especially language. Hence, the freedom to speak one's own dialect is seen as intrinsic both to the individual's identity and to the defense of regional interests against the political domination of the centre. In other countries, similar struggles have more commonly taken political or economic forms.

It should be noted that dialects are increasingly being written in their own right, particularly as a result of text messaging and e-mails, where young people usually write in dialect rather than in bokmål or nynorsk. This is often mistaken for poor spelling by older people, but it is actually not, as it is not an attempt at writing standardised Norwegian. However, problems do occur when "SMS language" influence more formal writing, which is probably one reason for an increasing number of spelling errors in student essays and even job applications. Toao 08:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The Norwegian Language Council is regulating Bokmål and Nynorsk, but not Riksmål. Hence, it is irrelevant that the Academy "already" is represented in the Language Council which is regulating completely different spelling standards.

Who are you? --Kaleissin 10:10:22, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Kaleissin, he's a Norwegian anon user who refuses to sign his post. He's been around for at least a year.

Anon, Riksmål is not official and is viewed as merely a conservative variant of Bokmål (or in some cases just the older name of that variant). If the Norwegian Academy is a part of the Language Council, like the Swedish Academy, then we don't need to list it. If you look at the text, it already features Riksmål as being a lot more prominent than it really is. You've been reminded several times to

cite sources

, so please revert your changes. Show that you're interested in participating in reasoned discussion before making edits like these.

Isotalo

06:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I agree with

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

I am also withdrawing, together with Eddi — but Peter (whose competence in Norwegian dialectology is not documented anywhere, as far as I can see) is a main source of the problems and unpleasant tone of this discussion. Respectfully, a Norwegian lingust and ethnomusicologist with solid competence on Norwegian dialectology. (I can send you transcripts from the

Olve

20:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No need,

Olve. Just give me your real name and I'll check with my professor and project-group. Another Norwegian linguist, Kaleissin

22:26:35, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

This is not an academic discussion forum. We have policies for how to properly support disputed article content and we certainly don't accept academic titles as an argument. Kaleissin is new, so he might not have a good grip on this, but Olve, you should damned well know these things by now. If not, please read the following policy pages:

• Wikipedia:Cite sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:No original research

Isotalo

23:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

While we're at it, some more guidelines for all of us:

• Adhere to general talk page guidelines

--Eddi (Talk)