Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:50, 22 August 2012

Norway C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Denmark B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Languages C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

-en or -et couldn't be from German? Don't they come from the Scandinavian non-neuter or neuter grammar? (Like the Scandinavian definite artivle -en, -et?)

I think, the idea is that these country names have a definite article (as German has before feminine country names).

Hmmm, OK, I understand... Needs rephrasing... Anyway, AFAIK -a is also a definitive article ending, though I think it comes from -a, the old Norwegian feminine ending. (Unlike masc -en and neuter -et.)

This article is to a great extent misleading as to relevant differences between the languages. As of now, the encycopledic value is almost nil. Proper terminology and more general information is needed. The fact that Norwegian and Danish actually belong to seperate branches of the North Germanic languages is not mentioned, the differences explained here are more or less anecdotal and that older Bokmål is more similar to Danish in syntax is also overlooked.

Peter 00:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is completely rubbish that "Norwegian and Danish actually belong to seperate branches of the North Germanic languages". They both belongs to the (East) Scandinavian languages, also known as East North Germanic. Modern Norwegian is actually developed from Danish (they were almost entirely identical written languages until 1907), and can also be seen as a Danish language (if it hadn't been for nationalist issues). The article needs expansion, but the fact that conservative Norwegian is more similar to Danish is actually mentioned, but could be emphasized more. 83.109.161.138 17:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While it's true that the _written_ norwegian was almost identical to written danish until the early 1900's, it is - to use your words - completly rubbish to claim that spoken norwegian is developed from danish. Both norwegian and danish come from a common root, but has evolved in different directions. Mutally understandable, yes, but not the same language - unless you are subscribing to the theory that all the scandinavian languages are just variations of a common, scandinavian language. WegianWarrior 04:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that it's more accurate to say that Norwegian and Danish actually went seperate ways early on but that (standard) Norwegian then became heavily influenced by Danish. But going so far as the anonymous user does and claim that the different standard Norwegian languages belong to either the East or West Scandinavian groups seems really far-fetched. The East/West groups are based on historical classification and hence can't be used for later classifications. The Insular/Mainland classification on the other hand...

Peter 19:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

No matter what the proper way to divide the Scandinavian languages are (I'm not a linguist), at least we can agree that Danish and Norwegian are seperate languages - unlike our anon friend whom grandfathered this discussion =)

However, rereading the article again today; I'm not sure if the claim that the difference in pronunciation between Norwegian and Danish is much more striking than the difference between Norwegian and Swedish is correct. In my experience with danes and swedes (granted, mostly swedes from Båhuslen and Gøteborg-area), the 'sound and feel' of the Swedish language is more 'alien' than the sound and feel of the Danish language. Granted, this may steam from my own Norwegian dialect (Oslo), but I would love to see some references backing that claim.

Anyway, I'm ranting =) WegianWarrior 06:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've seen studies on how well Scandinavians understand each others' languages, and the result was that Norwegian had a very good comprehension of both the other languages while Swedes and Danes were far worse at understanding the other two languages, though I believe they both understood Norwegian better than each other's language. The Danes actually had the worst overall result, closely followed by the Swedes. I think this has far more to do with the fact that Norwegians are in a sort of Scandinavian periphery and haven't enjoyed the same kind of political dominance in the region and therefore follow the politics and culture of Denmark and Sweden a lot closer.

Peter July 3, 2005 20:38 (UTC)

comments removed

These comparisons, if reliably cited, would be highly relevant and illustrative but as they are not cited are open to being removed (showing an example of Scots on the Scots Misplaced Pages for one to make one's own judgement, though possibly of some interest value, is not the same as a reliable source making the comparisons as given in the article (and even if the ref did say so, references to Misplaced Pages are "circular")). The disputed section simply dealt with the comparable levels of mutual inteligibility, so your POV-pushing about whether to call Scots a language or a dialect is utterly irrelevant. There is no dispute that Scots, whatever it is, exists so to refer to it is not to imply any special status and, for what it's worth the distinction between "language" and "dialect" is largely one of status, "language" being a higher status dialect, and is not an indication, consistent or otherwise, of a supposed threshold of difference between linguistic systems. As you have been told at Talk:Scots language, talk pages are not a forum for the expression of your personal opinions on the topic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression and to seek receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." General Assembly of the United Nations 10 December 1948 Misplaced Pages is not exempt from this. Much of the content of Misplaced Pages pages - and especially "talk" pages could be construed as "opinion". Pick up a newspaper and you will see it full of unsourced material and biased opinion.

At the request of one individual I provided links on the talk page to other commentators who also argued against the concept of a Scots language, but these were also erased and without comment. I found the continual erasure of my comments on that talk page extremely upsetting and disturbing. I feel strongly that in order for a main page to be balanced it should include a sensible discussion of the subject, rather than a biased view and an editorial that erases any comments or material that does not support that view. I am very tired and upset about this and will not be commenting further. I am removing altogether any remaining commentary on this subject and I request that I receive no further communication regarding this matter. John2o2o2o (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Written language is not the same as spoken language - rewrite needed

The first paragraph of this article is inaccurate and gives the wrong impression. It's simply wrong that the main differense between "Norwegian *Bokmål* and Standard Danish" (article title) is in pronounciation: Bokmål is a strictly written language. Nobody speaks Bokmål. This article needs to be renamed "Differences between the Danish and Norwegian languages" and restructured/expanded, or it should not concern itself particularly with differences in pronounciation. Bjornarl (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nynorsk or bokmål

It was not mentioned at all about which version of Norwegian is the article. There are obviously two such languages which differ significantly enough to have two Wikipedias. I've heard rumors that speakers of the one can understand Danes much easier than the speaker of the other one (but have no idea which is which). It would be nice of someone scheds more light on this subject. -- Goldie (tell me) 08:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd guess Bokmål, since that was the language first and most affected by Danish. (Later Bokmål has influenced Nynorsk deeply, though). One clear difference between Norwegian and Danish, is that the latter went through a sound shifts where many middle and final consonants were voiced (t-d, k-g, p-b notably). The Norwegian cognates usually retain the original sounds, except for in a few Danish borrowings, often not entering Nynorsk. Examples Bokmål:bedre, Nynorsk:betre (Eng:Better) Bokmål:tegn/tegne (pronounced like /teIn/ ) Nynorsk:teikn/teikne (Eng:(a) sign,draw/sign) 81.232.72.148 16:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyhow, it's important to know that Bokmål/Nynorsk are written forms only, no official spoken standard exists. St12357 (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up

I've removed the cleanup tag and added back in the commented out sections after giving this what largely amounts to a copyedit. I don't know anything about the subject, so I haven't touched the content. I've left the bulleted lists and the table in place. Normally I try to convert lists of that sort to prose, but this strikes me as a situation in which listing becomes appropriate. --Robth 18:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The article has a section on phonology eventhough Bokmål is a written, not spoken, standard. This makes no sense since there is no particular pronunciation associated with Bokmål.

And I still question the merits of this article due to it's overly narrow scope. Comparisons between specific langauges have limited use and I would like to see more time spent improving the far mor relevant articles Danish phonology, Norwegian phonology as well as Danish language and Norwegian language.

Peter 09:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the phonology of Bokmål - yes, it's true, but since we do speak of "Norwegian pronunciation" in general (actually meaning East Norwegian as spoken in Oslo), the same can apply to Bokmål (and even more so, since the opposition Bokmål/Nynorsk is somewhat connected to the opposition Østlandet/Vestlandet). It's as in Swedish: in theory, there are different riksspråksvarianter, in practice people ususally describe rolling r and not the southern version as "standard" Swedish.

As for Danish phonology, (which is comparable in its depth of detail), I agree that it needs a lot of fixes, but one would need to use the main source (Basbøll) again. --194.145.161.227 10:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Language differences

I'm far from a lanugage expert, so could someone please explain to me why this:

satisified/pleased tilfreds, fornøjet fornøyd, tilfreds

is a difference between Danish and Norwegian? So "tilfreds" means "fornøyd" in Danish and "tilfreds" means "fornøjet" in Norwegian? I'm Danish and to me both words mean more or less the same, at least I'm not really sure I think the difference matters much. With such a long list of relevant differences, I just think this one is a bit far stretched...

Good, long, interesting article by the way...

Perhaps you're right... I just meant that tilfreds is the more usual word in Danish, while fornøyd is the more frequent one in Norwegian. I'm not sure how to put it more clearly though. --194.145.161.227 09:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To me they do not mean the same. Fornøjet is a general state of mind. You are or you are not. Tilfreds is something you are with something specific. You may be tilfreds (satisfied) with the food and utilfreds (dissatisfied) with the service. You can not be fornøjet with something, and you can not be fornøjet and misfornøjet at the same time. I believe (but am far from certain) that in Norwegian fornøyd is used like Danish tilfreds. --Klausok 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

More specifically "tilfreds" means "satisfied" in Danish, and in modern Danish "fornøjet" means "cheerful". (Note however that "fornøjet" is becoming more and more antiquated, with "munter" being the normal modern word for "cheerful".)-- Lars (on a shared IP which is sometimes also used by another Wikipedian) ::: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.157.137.62 (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Kun/Bare

I don't understand this inclusion. Surely both "kun" and "bare" could be used in Norwegian. 惑乱 分からん 17:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Almost anything that is used in one language is used in the other, too. The difference is in terms of frequency and stylistic value. In modern Norwegian, "kun" sounds archaic or otherwise "unusual" in most contexts, and so does "pike". Similarly, Danish does have "jente", it's just not the normal word for "girl".--194.145.161.227 15:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't what is stated in the article. I removed these examples, since it seemed that the situation was unique for Danish:

• kun/bare - in Danish, both words are used, the one meaning roughly "only, solely" and the other "just, merely". In Norwegian, bare is used in both cases.
• lave/gjøre - in Danish both lave or gøre (roughly, "make" or "do") occur, in Norwegian only gjøre is used in equivalent expressions.

(The Norwegian equivalent "lage" is used in certain situations like "lage mat" (make food) and "lage et kunstverk" (make an artpiece). 惑乱 分からん 07:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about "kun", which is practically obsolete, so I'm going to re-insert it with a slight change in wording. As for lage, it does occur in Norwegian, but it's used in many more expressions in Danish. "Hvad skal vi lave?" "what shall we do/occupy ourselves with?". Since I find it difficult to specify the difference more precisely now, I'm leaving it here. --194.145.161.227 12:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your source for "kun" being obsolete in Norwegian? Google.no gives over 14 million hits, when searching through the websites of major newspapers such as Dagbladet, Verdens Gang and Aftenposten I get more than 10.000 hits on each. ordnett.no or Bokmålsordboka doesn't mention anything about it being archaic or obsolete. Maybe all of these sites aren't referring to adverbial kun, but most of the first hits are. It isn't used in "proper" Nynorsk or Swedish, though, but the article is about Bokmål. 惑乱 分からん 14:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a point there. But I think that the google search is more reliable if whole phrases are used: compare for instance this Norwegian google search for "har bare to" (13,900 hits, ) vs "har kun to" (873 hits, ). My Engelsk-Norsk Ordbok (HarperCollins Publishers, 1998) doesn't mention "kun" as a translation of "only". My Norsk-Russisk Ordbok (Zhivoy Yazyk, 1998) expressly calls "kun" obsolete. This (rather basic) Norwegian-English dictionary doesn't even have an entry on "kun". And I would have sworn that it occurs very rarely in the Norwegian texts that I have read (starting with basic textbooks and ending with, well, not so elementary texts). Still, you're right in that "kun" does appear to be used much more freuqently than I had realized (and than I have been taught). I have changed the wording again in a way which I hope addresses your concerns. --194.145.161.227 15:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust an Internet dictionary, since they often lack common words. The written sources are more problematic, but I'd guess Zhivoy Yazuk misunderstood something. My first language is Swedish, though, not Norwegian, so I cannot really claim to know a native Norwegian's connotations of the word, just that it's "fairly" common, even in Bokmål. "kun har to" still gets more hits in Norwegian than English equivalents such as "merely has two", "have merely two", etc. (My father is Norwegian, and I go over to Norway every year, mostly reading some Norwegian comics, newspapers etc. during my stays.) I'd hope for more native speakers' view of the matter. 惑乱 分からん 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the average native speaker would just say that kun is less common and more Danish/bokmaalish than bare, which is pretty obvious, anyway. It's clear that it's not strictly "obsolete". We can ask on the Misplaced Pages:reference desk/language, if you insist, but I doubt that there is much to be gained in this way. As for "have merely two", it's clear that it would be very infrequent: "merely" is closer to the Danish use of "bare" ("simply") than to kun ("only", "solely"). --194.145.161.227 13:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhmm, I just don't know if the difference in usage is notable enough to be relevant. I'd say in Norwegian at least, "kun" means "merely"/"solely" and "bare" "only"/"just". 惑乱 分からん 16:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the exact use of "kun" in modern Norwegian, but my point was that English "merely", unlike Danish "kun", isn't quite a synonym of "only", and "have merely two" sounds a bit weird. "I am merely a humble Wikipedian" is a fine sentence, but "I've got merely one house" (as opposed to two houses) isn't something you'd normally say. You'd say "only one house". In the same way, in Danish, "jeg er bare en ydmyg IP-bruger", but "jeg har kun ét hus" (as opposed to to huse). What you said above decribes, IMO, not so much the meaning as the stylistic difference between the words (as "merely" and "solely" are more, err, highbrow words than "only"/"just", in the same way as "kun", like other Danish forms, is naturally more highbrow than "bare"). --194.145.161.227 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So what you mean is that "kun" in Danish is used to emphasize that there's one single thing or matter being discussed? 惑乱 分からん 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sort of, although it doesn't have to be one. I can't think of better example sentences, I should have to find some old exercise book of mine to get some proper ones. "Bare" tends to be more more like "simply", "helt enkelt", while "kun" is pretty straightforward in stressing something and excluding everything else. "Det er kun John" = "it's John and no one of the others". "Det er bare John" = more like "it's simply/just John (so there's nothing to worry about)". At least that's what I remember from what I've been taught when studying Danish. When studying Norwegian, I was never taught about "kun" at all, except when someone mentioned it as an old-fashioned version of "bare".

Somebody has tried to explain the difference here. --194.145.161.227 23:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Some info about Norwegian here, not very helpful, though. If we'd want a thorough answer, I guess we'd have to e-mail the Norwegian Language Council. 惑乱 分からん 08:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we do that? I didn't know. Yes, I think the link yuo gave shows that in Norwegian as in Danish, "kun" still means strictly "only" and may not be used for things like "simply" and what not; "bare", on the contrary (and unlike Danish), can be used in all cases, with both meanings, although it might be typical for prices. I'll mail my ex-teacher (a native Norwegian) and ask her what she feels about it. --194.145.161.227 09:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, just send an e-mail to "sporsmal at sprakradet dot no". So what you mean is that in Danish, which of "kun" or "bare" that should be used, depends on the situation, while in Norwegian, "bare" could always be used, although the connotations are slightly different. Btw, I've seen "kun" in written Nynorsk, for instance on Nynorsk Misplaced Pages, but since I couldn't find it in the (afaik) largest free Nynorsk dictionary online , I suspect it's a danicism/bokmålism. Btw, if it'd matter, I know several native Norwegians. 惑乱 分からん 12:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I got Spraakraadets answer. I wonder whether it's legal to post the entire answer or if there are copyright issues involved (don't laugh). Anyway, the first two sentences were

"Kun" har en mye mer avgrenset bruk enn "bare". "Kun" regnes som nokså alderdommelig, og det kan alltid byttes ut med "bare"."

They explained that "kun" can replace "bare" only in some of the meanings listed in item 1 of the "bare" entry in Bokmaalsordboka. They said that "kun" is pretty usual in a marketing context (salgssammenheng), in front of sums of kroner and numbers, but otherwise is typical for literary or archaic (gammelmodig) style. --194.145.161.227 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you could post it on the talk page, but rephrase it before adding it to the article. 惑乱 分からん 17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

E-mails

Don't know whether the person from Spraakraadet who wrote it to me wants to have her name published. Here is the text.

"Kun" har en mye mer avgrenset bruk enn "bare". "Kun" regnes som nokså alderdommelig, og det kan alltid byttes ut med "bare". Du behøver altså ikke å bruke det i det hele tatt. Dersom du ser på artikkelen "bare" i Bokmålsordboka, er det bare (!) i et par av eksemplene under betydning 1 at oppslagsordet kan byttes ut med "kun":

boka kostet kun 98 kr (nokså vanlig bruk i reklame, i butikker osv.) det er kun noen dager siden (mindre vanlig) det er kun meg (virker nokså søkt)

Det er kanskje det at "kun" er så kort og dessuten har en litt spesiell stilistisk valør, som har gjort ordet så populært i salgssammenheng. Det brukes nokså mye foran kronebeløp og talluttrykk ellers. Ellers brukes det oftest i en litterær eller gammelmodig stil, og mindre i vanlig fortellende eller sakspreget stil, vil jeg tro, uten at jeg har gransket det nøye.

Vennlig hilsen

A Norwegian teacher of mine wrote (I guess, part of her answer is a quote from a dictionary):

kun har mye smalere bruksomraade enn bare. kun er adverb, bare kan være baade adverb og konjunksjon

kun = ikke mer enn Eks.: kun for inviterte; herresokker - kun kr. 10,-

bare (adv)=

• (1) ikke annet enn; ikke mer enn; ikke flere enn;
• Eks.: Han heter Per Kristian, men vi kaller ham bare Per; Takk for hjelpen! Bare hyggelig!; Det er bare ett minutt igjen,; vi kan bare beklage.; man må bare gi seg over; jeg skal bare låse opp døra; det er ikke dårlig bare det; det manglet bare at han gikk hen og skadet seg; det skulle bare mangle!;
• (2) foran et ledd for å gjoere det ubetydelig: det var bare katten som mjauet;
• (3) for å uttrykke forbehold: jeg er enig, det er bare det at...; jeg kan bare ikke begripe at..;
• (4) for å understreke: bare for å gjøre det helt klart; det er bare ikke mulig; det er ikke bare bare å åpne forretning
• (5) for å uttrykke ønske: den som bare visste.. bare du ikke faller!
• (6) oppmuntrende: bare sett i gang! Nå skal du bare se hvor lett det er;
• (7) forsterkende: du skal bare ikke bry deg! (konj.) betingelse: bare jeg får ro, skal jeg gjøre det! han løper bare han får se hunden.

I de tilfeller du kan bruke både kun og bare, virker kun mer gammeldags. Du vil imidlertid ofte se det i butikkvinduer når det er salg!

Haaper dette var til litt hjelp!

Thanks. By the way, I corrected the ae/oe/aa's into Norwegian æ/ø/å's. 惑乱 分からん 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reflexive pronoun

It is stated, that the Danish reflexive pronoun "sig", unlike its Norwegian countarpart, is not appliable to subjects in the plural, and in this context, the example "han vasker sig, han vasker seg/de vasker dem, de vasker seg" (da,no/da,no) is given.

As an everyday speaker (being quite Danish myself) and avid user of the language, I should like to point out that this statement is rubbish and has no connection with any sort of reality that I've ever encountered. Actually, "de vasker dem" in Danish is almost incomprehensible, at least without some specification as to who "dem" are, those whom "de" are washing, as it could never be the subject.

Excuse my bitterness, but I find the reflexive pronoun to be an excellent feature of any language, and as it is a common mistake of more unexperienced Danes to use a demonstrative in place of a reflexive, let us not lead any more astray.

Peter Bruun (donpedro55@gmail.com)

Thank you very much for that contribution, you are quite right. That was my mistake (as I am not a native speaker of Danish and I believed that I was quoting from memory something that I obviously remembered incorrectly). The information will be corrected. --194.145.161.227 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Word list

Some of the words listed as spacial for Norwegian are in common use in Danish.

away - væk - bort, (vekk): bort is quite common (though maybe not quite as common as væk)

be correct, hold true - passe - stemme: stemme and passe are about equally common

to comb (verb) - kæmme sig - gre seg: kæmme is somewhat archaic. Rede is the usual word

everywhere - alle steder - overalt: while you may say "alle steder" (all places), overalt is more common

difficult - svær - vanskelig - vanskelig is quite common

floor (storey) - sal - etasje: "Sal" is only used in addresses and the like. "Etage" is the generic word. E.g. "Jeg bor på 2. sal" I live on the 3rd floor, but "et femetagers hus" a house of 5 floors.

last year - sidste år - i fjor: i fjor is quite common

--Klausok 11:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the vocabulary section is questionable. It's trying to emphasize differences which isn't that accentuated. Otherwise, just Be bold! 惑乱 分からん 18:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the list should be split in two - a list of words that just have different frequencies in the two languages and a list of words that are definitely different. The problem is that the boundary isn't that clear. But the first type of differences is rather relevant. For example, Google in Danish gives 131,000 Danish hits for "i fjor" vs 3,300,000 for "sidste år", while there are 4,670,000 Norwegian hits for "i fjor" vs 458,000 for "siste år" (it's true that the phrase "siste år" can occur in other meanings, but this should have made it more common in Norwegian, too). I can assure you that when a person actually studies the languages as foreign, this quantitative difference becomes qualitative - as a beginner in Norwegian, you learn "i fjor"; as a beginner in Danish, you learn "sidste år".--194.145.161.227 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point, but that would make the article more complex... 惑乱 分からん 00:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sample Translations

I'm looking at the two Georg Brandes translations, and they don't seem comparable to me in the manner they were no doubt intended. They are obviously translated from English separately by two different translators of very varying levels of skill. If the purpose of this section is to show how similar the two languages are, then I've rewritten the Danish translation in a way which is far more like the Norwegian translation:

I 1877 forlod Brandes København og bosatte sig i Berlin. Hans politiske synspunkter gjorde imidlertid at det blev ubehageligt for ham at opholde sig i Preussen, og i 1883 vendte han tilbage til København, hvor han blev mødt af en helt ny gruppe forfattere og tænkere, der var ivrige efter at modtage ham som deres leder. Det vigtigste af hans senere arbejder er hans værk om William Shakespeare, som blev oversat til engelsk af William Archer, og som straks blev anerkendt.

I think most Danes will agree that the above is as natural sounding as the previous translation, while being much closer to the Norwegian. --Skjald

I came into the talk page to do exactly the same thing as you've done here, Skjald, since the differences between the sample texts seem to suggest that there are many more differences between Bokmål and Danish than is actually the case.

As Skjald's translation shows, the Bokmål text is actually correct Danish but for spelling differences and the words "der" and "sin", that in this context should be "hvor" and "deres" in Danish.

Since nobody has adressed this as of may 12th 2007 I've taken the liberty of simply adding Skald's translation, so there are now two Danish samples. It's definately not an optimal solution, so maybe someone would like to rewrite the section so it is more elegant but without arbitrary(? - see below) differences between the sample texts?

By the way, Skjald, I'm guessing that the Bokmål article on Brandes was translated from the Danish one.

Incidentally, it seems interesting to me that the Bokmål sample is so close to correct Danish. I wonder if the Danish sample text is similarly close to correct Bokmål (and that the differences between the Bokmål sample and the original Danish sample are then more or less arbitrary)? I mean, could the Danish sample pass as correct Bokmål if you changed the spelling and "hvor" and "deres"? If this is not the case, then maybe the differences between the original sample texts aren't so arbitrary as they seem to a Dane like myself. In that case maybe Danish is somehow "broader" than Bokmål, i.e. allowing more wordings with the same meaning than Bokmål? And in that case maybe this is something that should be adressed in the article? (Or maybe - and perhaps more likely - I'm just rambling.) ;)-- Lars (on a shared IP sometimes also used by another wikipedian) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.157.137.62 (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm neither Norwegian nor Danish, but I think the Norwegians wouldn't normally use "dog". As for the rest, I suppose that all of it or almost all of it would be correct bokmål, but the seemingly arbitrary differences are interesting because they might show what the editors thought was "stylistically" appropriate in each language. --91.148.159.4 10:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Going the other way and "translating" the original Danish text word for word the way it could be written in Norwegian bokmål it would be:

I 1877 forlot Brandes København og bosatte seg i Berlin. Hans politiske synspunkter gjorde dog at Preussen ble ubehagelig for ham å oppholde seg i, og han vendte i 1883 tilbake til København, hvor han ble møtt av en helt ny gruppe av forfattere og tenkere, som var ivrige etter å motta ham som deres leder. Det viktigste av hans senere arbeider har vært hans verk om William Shakespeare, som ble oversatt til engelsk av William Archer og med det samme ble anerkjent.

However, personally I would not say this is how it should be translated if you wanted the flow of the words to sound like a normal and modern Norwegian text. But that might have something to do with the long and complex sentences in the original Danish text. That said, the above should be grammatically correct bokmål, and nobody should be able to complain about the spelling for moderate bokmål. The allowed alternative spellings I can find for bokmål in general are «bosette» or «busette», «ble» or «blei», «en gruppe» or «ei gruppe», «senere» or «seinere».

On the other hand, there might be grumblings about the use of a couple of the words or the sentence structure sounding a bit awkward. I would agree that «dog» is not very common in modern Norwegian, but it is not unheard of. You can still bump into it from time to time depending on what you read or who you talk to. But it is probably the most "unknown" of the words in the Danish text. The most obvious would be (in this context) to change it to «imidlertid». Similar other "small" changes could be done to other parts of the text to make it sound more natural, but then you gradually start to (more or less) mess up the original Danish text in regards to sentence structure. And I think the question here was to show where Danish and Norwegian is different/similar in spelling, not how a text should be written to sound normal in either language. Or did I read it wrongly? -Laniala (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The changes by 80.167.218.195

I have undone most of these, and these are the reasons:

• Middagsmad means dinner, the main meal of the day, no matter when it is taken. Not lunch.

• Kort (short) is not used of people

• Iblandt means among, not sometimes.

• Padde means amphibium, not specifically toad.

• Styg in the sense ugly is quaint. A word used in fairy tales. It is highly unusual to hear it in everyday conversation.

• Vanlig is not a Danish word at all.

• Galt in the sense wrong is only used in a few stock frases.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Klausok (talk • contribs)

Ortography issues

Danish/Dansk (b, d, g)

b: Våben p, Æble p, Reb p

d: Fod t, Mad t

g: Sprog none (NaN), Frankrig none (NaN), Østrig none (NaN), Bruger none (NaN), Bog k (buk) (k) (NaN), Frugt i (fruut) (u) (NaN), Syg ck (sek) (k) (NaN), Pige none (NaN), Rigs none(NaN)

Why does Dansk (Danish) have b, d og g, not p, t, k, g to replace (c)k (Boog, Sig) t (Food, Mad) and p (Weabon, Abble, Robe).

Scottish Gaelic has a g taken over k: an Danmhairg/Denmarg

Welsh has a d taken over t: yr Eidal/Idaly

Somali has a b taken over p: Abriil/Abril —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiet Nam (talk • contribs) 08:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a Danish sound shift. Check out the article on Danish language. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

ie in Norsk

Why does Norsk have ie (Algerie/a ia, fri(e) i, histori(e) i, famili(e) i, komedi(e) i), not (Algeria, fri, histo/uri, famili, ko/umedi)

Dansk: Algeriet/n, fri(e), histori(e), famili(e), komedi(e), not Algerien, fri, histo/uri, famili, ko/umedi

Svensk(a) incorrect: Algeriet/n, fri(a), histo/uri(a), familj/i, not Algerien, fri, histo/uri, famili

Svensk(a) correct (but incorrect): ko/umedi

Français(e): Algérie, libre, histoire, famille, comédie

May someone please change these incorrect names/words from ie (Algeria, fri, histuri, famili and kumedi), pretty please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiet Nam (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably because we pronounce it like «ie,» not «ia.» Algerie is pronounced with a long i sound («Algerii»). Frie, historie, familie, komedie are pronounced with «ie» sound (hi-sto-ri-e). 88.91.12.14 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dansk nd og Norsk nn (Sicilianu nn)

Why does Norwegian have nn while Danish has nd.

Example: kende (kjenne), dende (denne), en mand (en mann), manden (mannen), vand (vann).

Norwegian having nn, nn belongs to Sicilianu (Sisilia/ensk) (Sicilian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiet Nam (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what you're asking about, but I believe the different standards are due to Danish hypercorrection. The *nd and *ld were in a few cases historical, but weren't pronounced anymore, and instead on settling on an ortographical spelling with n/nn and l/ll, a spelling originated on the belief that the alternative spelling with d would be more valid. It's a little bit of guesswork, though, and although I'm interested in languages, I'm not an expert on Danish language history. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Danish and Norwegian <y>-Ortography_issues-2009-05-04T17:02:00.000Z">

When I listen to a Dane pronouncing y, it sounds like the German ü or the French u. On Misplaced Pages, all of these sounds are represented phonetically with . It also represents the Norwegian y, but I don't get that, 'cause it is clearly different from the sounds mentioned above. It's not easy for me, not knowing too much about IPA, but could be more accurate? Aleco (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)"> ">

Depends on the word. In open syllables (i. e., syllables ending in vowels), German and Norwegian have the closed (or high, or narrow-constriction) and, if stressed, usually phonetically lengthened that sounds like French <u>, but in closed syllables (i. e., syllables ending in consonants), you get the open (or low, or wide) and shortened indeed, but again, both in German and in Norwegian; only French lacks this sound. However, as closed/long and open/short correlate (i. e., the closed or narrow vowel is always long, while the open or wide vowel is always short), you can also note the phonemes down as /y/ for , and /y:/ for , which may be the source of your confusion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first user that the Danish sounds like German and more or less like French, while the Norwegian one is a bit different, although the difference is definitely not one of openness as he supposed (not vs ). I suspect that it's more a matter of degree of frontness - the Norwegian one is more fronted and has less tightly compressed lips in order to be distinguished as clearly as possible from the central as in hus, whereas the German and French ones are somewhere in-between the two. The Danish one is either like the German and French ones or perhaps a bit more central than them, I'm not quite sure.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

male — malte/mol

The past tense ‘mol’ is a valid alternative to ‘malte’ in Norwegian (and apparently used to be possible in Danish as well), but not in the sense ‘to paint’. Appropriate senses for the ‘mol ’form include ‘to grind’ and ‘to purr’ . The easiest solution would be to remove ‘mol’. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.132.35 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• C-Class Norway articles
• Unknown-importance Norway articles
• WikiProject Norway articles
• B-Class Denmark articles
• Unknown-importance Denmark articles
• All WikiProject Denmark pages
• C-Class language articles
• Low-importance language articles
• WikiProject Languages articles