| Revision as of 14:13, 13 May 2018 editLargoplazo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers119,870 edits →Lead length: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:27, 14 May 2018 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,962 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Norwegian language/Archive 2) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| |archive = Talk:Norwegian language/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Norwegian language/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Native to "parts of Sweden"? == | |||
| The claim that the Norwegian language is native to parts of Sweden has been removed a number of times, but is added back again every time. Based on what? There's a dialect continuum in certain areas along the long common border between the two countries, but the language spoken on the eastern side of the border is no more Norwegian than the language spoken on the western side of the border is Swedish, and I have never ever seen anyone claim that the Swedish language is native to parts of Norway... - '''Tom''' | ] ] 18:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Since Sweden has acquired and kept parts of Norway in wars of old, but not (at least significantly) the other way around, it is perhaps not so strange that this only goes one way. I'm not sure to what degree what is spoken in those regions can be considered Norwegian, since Norwegian has certainly changed since those wars and those regions have certainly been swedified over time. If it is, then Danish should perhaps also be a native language in Sweden, since Scania was also lost by Denmark-Norway to Sweden at the same time. There seems to be some variation between language articles as to whether "native to" refers to current usage, or historical use. English and Spanish simply don't use this field at all. ] (]) 19:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::The dialects of Swedish spoken in Jämtland/Härjedalen and Bohuslän are definitely not Norwegian, nor is the dialect of Swedish commonly spoken in Scania Danish (we're talking about areas that were annexed by Sweden more than 350 years ago). And ''"Native to"'' of course refers to areas where the language is spoken natively (i.e. as ]) by people who are not recent or fairly recent immigrants, unless you claim that Norwegian-speakers are the native (i.e. pre-Columbus) population of parts of the American Midwest (see the infobox in the article...). - '''Tom''' | ] ] 20:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Native to" needs a definition, and both of these statements need referencing. The numbers in the mid-eastern US is tiny, and I think to say it's native to there is nostalgic thinking. If you used the same yardstick on English you'd have to say it's native to dozens of countries. There are 5-6000 Norwegians working in the oil industry in Houston. There are three quarters of a million Britons in Spain. What does that imply? --] (]) 22:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When I look up ''native'' on this very wiki, I get two possible relevant definitions. One definition looks just one generation back, another goes much, much longer. This wiki's article for the Portuguese language follows the first definition, while the article for the French language follows the latter (with a note about current usage being different). Minor border adjustments are not taken into consideration, nor is Southern Belgium or Monaco(!). As mentioned, English and Spanish mostly avoids the issue altogether by using "Region" rather than "Native to". English uses similar wording to French, while Spanish follows Portuguese. So it does not appear to me that one interpretation is more obvious than the other, which might be why there is disagreement as to where Norwegian is native. (One could perhaps argue that Norwegian is native to Strömstad according to both definitions, but I mention this only because I find the idea amusing, not as a serious argument.) Another reason for why someone insists stating that Norwegian is native to Sweden and not the other way around might simply be editing bias. That the editor is not interested in contributing to the article about Swedish. I haven't checked the edit history. ] (]) 05:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think we need a good source before we even discuss adding this piece of information. I don't see any sources, so our own speculations on what could possibly be meant are not all that useful.] · ] 06:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Without sources, it should definitely be removed (as I have done multiple times). --] (]) 07:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looking at the literature on linguistic minorities in Sweden I find no mention of a Norwegian minority (Finnish, Sami, Meänkieli, Romani, Yiddish, immigrant languages - no Norwegian).] · ] 07:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::I doubt the Scandinavian countries would define any Scandinavian language as a minority language. The language barrier is too weak for that. I think there actually is an agreement that speakers of these languages are treated equally in some way(s). Although I've never heard them being mentioned as a minority, there might be more Swedish speakers in Norway than any other language except Norwegian and Sami. They may however not count anyway since they might still be Swedish citizens working in Norway under EEA rules. ] (]) 15:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| : There are far more people from Poland in Norway than Swedes or any other outside nationality. Of course the Poles are learning Norwegian while Swedes seldom are. --] (]) 02:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Very Strange Sentence == | |||
| "As of June 5, 2005, all feminine nouns could once again be written as masculine nouns in Bokmål, giving the option of writing the language with only two genders – common and neuter." | |||
| First of all, typical language changes do not occur on a single day. If there was some piece of legislation passed that day, that should be mentioned here. But even if that is the case, that does not mean the language itself underwent a fundamental change that day. And the claim that nouns "could once again" be written in a particular way is not backed up by any reference to when they previously could be written that way. ] (]) 14:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| : {{Ping|GeneCallahan}}, your reactions are reasonable! The sentence should explain the situation (better) and there should be a reference. I should imagine that ''Språkrådet'', the official ], made a decision on that day. I'll see if I can find and add a reference for that (in Norwegian) and improve the sentence. Thank you for pointing this out! | |||
| : Many sections in the article are marked as needing refernces. :( | |||
| : As is mentioned in the article itself, "The now-abandoned official policy to merge Bokmål and Nynorsk into one common language called Samnorsk through a series of spelling reforms has created a wide spectrum of varieties of both Bokmål and Nynorsk." It also, naturally enough, created controversy. Users of Bokmål are a large majority and I'm sure <s>they</s> <small>(correction: some of them)</small> objected strongly to being forced to become a written language with three rather than two noun-genders whenever that occurred (prior to June 5. 2005). --] (]) 19:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :: I get the impression that most Bokmål users use three genders. Although the counting reform has been rather successful, I doubt "they" (this is spanning generations) started using the third gender just because of a writing reform, but rather have always used them in speech, even when they were not allowed to write them. So did really "all" Bokmål users object to the third gender in writing? Your last statement can be read that way. Or was it perhaps just a vocal minority that was used to only having two genders in their dialect/sociolect? ] (]) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Sorry for suggesting "they objected strongly" was meant to include ''all'' Bokmål users. (Corrected above.) Neither all Bokmål nor all Nynorsk users are as engaged or as vocal as some of us are, of course. I do, however, know some who never would say ''sola'' nor ''boka''. :) --] (]) 16:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, I wasn't saying that they don't exist, I just started questioning what I thought I knew. (Personally, I'm in principle a three-gendered Bokmål user, although which gender I use for the words in question here may vary, even within the same sentence. I'm a victim of the Norwegian language war.) ] (]) 17:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Norwegian and Google Translate == | == Norwegian and Google Translate == | ||
Revision as of 00:27, 14 May 2018
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Norwegian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Norwegian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers
Links from this article with broken #section links : |
Norwegian and Google Translate
So what dialect does Google Translate Use? Myrrhfrankincensegold (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Dialects are spoken. Nynorsk and Bokmål are written. They use Bokmål. They try to translate from Nynorsk (to, for example, English). The result is often not good (and sometimes is hilarious). --Hordaland (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
section: Danish to Norwegian. Split?
At the top of the section "Danish to Norwegian" there is a box, dated January 2017, where it says: "It has been suggested that this article be split into a new article titled Samnorsk. (Discuss.)"
The "Discuss" link sends one here, but no one has started a discussion nor explained why it has been "suggested" that the article should be split. If you are the one who added the proposal, you should start a discussion here or remove the notice. --Hordaland (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
"disputed" in the infobox
There are no language "disputed", please remove that. Jeblad (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think they are there to reflect that Norwegian can either be considered as belonging together with Swedish and Danish, with which it is mutually intelligible, or as belonging together with Icelandic and Faroese, which share a more recent common origin. But it seems then somewhat odd to put it above "Continental Scandinavian", as the Norwegian language conflict is not in any way about where Continental Scandinavian belongs within North Germanic. Just having Continental Scandinavian there is picking sides in the "conflict". Ters (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Norwegian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724185459/http://www.apollon.uio.no/vis/art/1998/1/dialekt to http://www.apollon.uio.no/vis/art/1998/1/dialekt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Lead length
To reiterate what I just included in edit summaries when I added the {{Lead too long}} tag, as it's involved enough to mention here: The lead contains four paragraphs that are all primarily, or almost entirely, about the breakdown between Bokmål and Nynorsk. Meanwhile, the section dedicated to Bokmål and Nynorsk consists of only two short paragraphs. Taking MOS:LEADLENGTH into consideration, even if several general observations associated with Bokmål and Nynorsk and other breakdowns of the language merit mention in the lead, their coverage there should be tightened up considerably, with the details moving to the body of the article. Largoplazo (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Categories: