Talk:Swedish language

Untitled

Discussions on Swedish phonology have been moved to Talk:Swedish phonology.

Official status

For some reason, Sweden was placed above Finland in the list of countries where Swedish is official. Such lists are alphabetical, (see German language or Spanish language) so I changed the order here.JdeJ (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of speakers

We need to establish a consensus for how to accurately present the number of speakers. The latest suggestion[1] is a step in the right direction, but it's very much a guesstimate. The number of native speakers of Swedish in Finland seems accurate since the figure comes from an official statistics bureau. The figure from Ethnologue is unreliable, however. Ethnologue does not conduct statistical studies and the cites no external sources in this case. The conclusion in the footnote mixes native and non-native; living in Sweden is not synonymous with being a native speaker of Swedish. I checked the article "svenska" in Nationalencyklopedin, and noticed that they have added more detailed statistics. Their figures puts the number of native speakers at 8.5 million in 2007, breaking them down in the following way:

• Sweden: 7.7 million
• Finland: 295,000
• US: 101,000
• Norway: 43,000
• UK: 32,000
• Germany: 30,000
• Spain: 17,000
• France: 15,000
• Denmark: 11,000
• Canada: 9,000
• Australia: 6,000
• Switzerland: 6,000
• Belgium: 5,000
• Italy: 3,500

These figures are interesting and seem quite believable to me. The US figure seems very high, but it could be plausible since US culture has a firm basis in Sweden and there might still be a lot of emigration there. I have no idea what the source is for these figures, though. There's a bibliography at the end of the article, but none of the titles seem to have anything to do with statistics, and the most recently published source is from 1999.

I think the biggest problem is that we need a stricter division between native and non-native speakers, especially when it comes to Finland. If we include the large proportion of native Finnish speakers that can speak Swedish, we're probably talking about an additional million. And what about Denmark and Norway? At least half of all Norwegian speakers could be considered to be more or less fluent in Swedish.

Does anyone else have ideas on how to handle this or suggestions about reliable sources?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Finland counts as Swedish-speakers those Finns who self-identify as finlandssvenskar. That means they self-identify as native speakers of Swedish, although many are completely bilingual. On the other hand, Swedish has been an obligatory language at comprehensive school since 1970 and at high school since 18th century. Every Finn who is less than 40 years old has at least rudimentary Swedish skills. In addition, every Finn who has a higher education should be capable of speaking and writing Swedish at satisfactory level. However, this statistic is not followed by the authorities. --MPorciusCato (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Something in the back of my head tells me that has been an EU publication (circa 2007? possibly prepared for the Commission) on the number of native speakers of the various official EU languages within the union, as well as the number of people who speaks/understood the languages. Its publishing was probably related to EU's (over?)ambitious goal that all citizens should know (at least) two foreign languages to a level where they can engage in an everyday conversation. Although the data probably only would refer to the number of speakers inside EU, this would cover most Swedish-speakers, and also contain data that could be of use for other articles. I don't remember the exact title or have a link, but perhaps it could be unearthed by some Googling? I did browse it online at some time, as I recall. Tomas e (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I appreciate the initiative! You are right that my guess is very rough, but it seemed to me that the old figure was way too high, so i whipped up a new estimate with the limit amount of data/time i had. If you have a better idea how to come up with a reliable number, go for it! -- Uluboz (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Finnish and Swedish

I just saw a show where someone spoke a language that, as he explained, originated because people couldn't speak either Swedish or Finnish very well. Therefore they came up with that language which is apparently some sort of mix of the two. His flag was from top to bottom white-blue-yellow. Can anyone tell me where he was from? Mallerd (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

He was referring to Meänkieli which is spoken on the Finnish-Swedish border in the Torne Valley. It's basically a dialect of Finnish with a lot of Swedish influences that has been defined as a separate language because of repressive Swedish policies towards Finnish-speakers during the 20th century.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much :D Mallerd (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Genders

Aren't the "n" and "t" words considered genders (grammatically)? That's what I always thought (Swedish being my native tongue). MagnusW (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe the article claims otherwise?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Vocabulary changes?

I think these edits by 83.255.33.190 (talk) are problematic for several reasons:

• How is it relevant that some post-1950s Swedish loanwords from English are ultimately (arguably) of Scandinavian origin?

Varför är det inte relevant, att orden har lånats åt bägge håll? Ett typiskt intressant faktum som platsar alldeles utmärkt i sammanhanget som jag ser det. Om du inte känner till att ett stort antal engelska ord härstammar från skandinavien så se t.ex viking age (eller gör som jag, läs en bok om engelskans bakgrund och utveckling, kan rekommendera t.ex Baker: The English language). 83.255.33.190 (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the section is about the vocabulary of Swedish, talking about loanwords from Swedish in other languages is out of place there. We could have a section on the influence of Swedish on other languages, but that would have to include ombudsman and smörgåsbord and so forth. This section mentions the influence of other languages on Swedish. Talking about the influence of Swedish on other languages is WP:OFFTOPIC. Gabbe (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's by no means off topic, the words mentioned are loanwords in Swedish, no reason at all to include ombudsman etc. 83.255.34.156 (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Electricity" is a somewhat misleading example of a French loan word in Swedish

Varför det? Det är ett av tusentals franska låneord och lär ursprungligen ha kommit in i svenskan med Gustav III i formen elektrifiera. Det är minst lika vardagligt som de övriga. Jag listade ursprungligen (för några år sedan) betydligt fler ord, men de blev tyvärr borttagna, kanske av dig. 83.255.33.190 (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The three examples already given are clear and listing them is concise and to the point. Adding more clutters the article, and risks making it WP:TLDR. And while the word elektricitet does come from French, it's arguably more of a New Latin loanword. As such, I'm not saying it's incorrect, it's just a bad example. Gabbe (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That really was an overly rigid and narrow-minded perception of what constitutes "clutter". We can only hope that you wont't destroy too many other constructive and informative edits on Wikipedia with that kind of extreme minimalist attitude... and, for actual bad examples, please see below... 83.255.34.156 (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The compound phrases weren't incorrect, and were meant to be "extreme" to illustrate that point.

Det finns ingen vits med påhittade extrema exempel. Det är naturligtvis bättre att visa ett par mer typiska sammansatta ord i svenskan, åtminstone om man vill ge en verklig bild av språket! Om den "dåliga stavningen" syftar på nagellackborttagare så sök på ordet, det finns det med. 83.255.33.190 (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The WP:Talk page guidelines say to "Use English", so please do so. If you feel capable of editing the article in English you are also capable of discussing your edits in English. --Futhark|Talk 11:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Nagellackborttagningsmedel" is not a "made up" example, but a rather common word. Also, the whole point of "produktionsstyrningssystemsprogramvaruuppdatering" is for it to show a hypothetical example. Abbreviating it changes the point of listing it. Of course we could change it to show an example of a word that's actually been used, like "Nordöstersjökustartilleriflygspaningssimulatoranläggningsmaterielunderhållsuppföljningssystemdiskussionsinläggsförberedelsearbeten". Would that be better? Gabbe (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, if that example is real, it's plain retarded (just like the old one). Why not include other kinds of bad or silly usage of Swedish as well? Give us that really perverted image of the Swedish language... and put it under Vocabulary, to make the confusion complete. 83.255.34.156 (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So I've reverted per WP:BRD. Gabbe (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And oh, the bad spelling was a reference to the lowercase "scandinavian" and "swedish". Gabbe (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What a shame! Certainly a good reason to revert the whole thing... 83.255.34.156 (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(Objection: please use English in English Wikipedia, most editors don't speak Swedish! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

Mistranslation

One of the words used as examples of Swedish grammar is mistranslated. The word “kavaj” only refers to the jacket part of a suit. If you don't want to replace the word “suit” you may replace “kavaj” with “kostym”. It is Swedish for “suit” in this sense of the word. Yes, the two words are inflected the same way.

2010-03-08 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Right! Now corrected, although mannen i grå kostyms hatt is so complex so as to occur very rarely in either spoken or written Swedish. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know where in this talk to address this but mannens i grå kostym hatt; "the man's in a grey suit hat" doesn't make any sense, it ought to be mannens grå kostym hatt; "the man's grey suit hat" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kille200 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrase mannens grå kostym hatt ("the man's grey suit hat") is ungrammatical. You could say mannens grå kostymhatt ("the man's grey suit-hat"), but then it would mean "the grey suit-hat belonging to the man". The sentence mannens i grå kostym hatt ("the man's in grey suit hat") is the formal (albeit archaic) way of saying "the hat belonging to the man in a grey suit". For another example, the proper way of saying "the cap belong to Charles XII" would be Karl:s den tolfte mössa rather than Karl den tolfte:s mössa which most people say nowadays. Gabbe (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

'External links' requires a cleanup

The 'external links' section is slowly becoming a link repository, and I have just reverted an edit that added more. The links should be checked for quality and usefulness, and the descriptions should be more encyclopaedic—"only disadvantage - lack of examples of words usage" is unnecessary commentary. Also, why are there two 'references' sections? Hayden120 (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhm... There is only one section called "References".

Peter ^Isotalo 18:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not on my computer. There is one below 'notes', and other at the very bottom of the page that only contains one link. Hayden120 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Escaped my notice. Obviously just a misguided attempt to display a straightforward external link.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Colon usage

The article reads:

The colon is used with numbers, such as 10:50 kronor ("10.50 SEK"); for abbreviations such as 3:e for tredje ("third") and S:t for Sankt ("Saint");

What other kinds of numbers is the colon used with, except for price tags (as shown in the example) and timestamps? HannesP (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

For the rest, colon is used as in English, like the previous sentence says. The paragraph does not explain how English uses it. At the very least a link is needed. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

F.ex. Colon_(punctuation)#Usage. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't quite answer my question. The article claims that it's used with numbers in general, but I can't think of any other instances other than "10:50 kronor" and "klockan 13:37". HannesP (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It says "with numbers", but not "in general". What do you feel that a "general" interpetation of usage would be with the current wording, though?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer an exhaustive list of the contexts where a colon is used as a number separator, instead of the open-ended phrase ‘such as’ that might lead the reader to believe that the colon is used — for example — as a decimal separator // HannesP (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A full description of colon usage doesn't seem all that appropriate here. Possibly in Swedish orthography, but certainly not in the main language article. It might even be a good idea to condense the orthography section and focus more on general traits than specific examples.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The article on Swedish orthography was redirected to the heading Swedish alphabet three years ago, when its contents did not extend behind a presentation of the character repertoire. In the interim, a detailed section has been added to it on, "Spellings for the sje-phoneme /ɧ/", for which the original heading would be clearly the more appropriate. Perhaps it's now time to revert to it and migrate the material in the present article that might be better placed and elaborated upon there. A section on punctuation would be appropriate in that context, with the colon being one of several characters that would require at least some explanation. --Futhark|Talk 08:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubious terms

A few dubious terms occur in the section Classification:

"Continental Scandinavian languages" vs. "Insular Scandinavian languages"

"a common Scandinavian language"

These terms need to be attested by sources. The subdivision of East Scandinavian (mutually intelligible, including Bokmål, Swedish, Danish and Scanian) vs. West Scandinavian (generally not mutually intelligible, including Faroese, Icelandic and local Nynorsk block dialects - Nynorsk is an artificial language) is the generally accepted division scheme. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a page from Uppsala University that mentions this classification (in Swedish). Norwegian is historically a West Scandinavian language, which is why there is a need for this second classification based more on intelligibility.

Andejons (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The section already says just that:

In the established classification, it [Swedish] belongs to the East Scandinavian languages together with Danish, separating it from the West Scandinavian languages, consisting of Faroese, Icelandic and Norwegian.

To the best of my knowledge this is not a controversial statement.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sole administrative language of Finland?

Certainly Swedish was not SOLE administrative language of Finland until 1902. Finnish (and sometimes even Russian) were used in administrative affairs in Finland already in the latter part of 19th century. 62.78.196.51 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronouns

This section doesn't make sense to me:

Swedish pronouns are basically the same as those of English but distinguish two genders and have an additional object form, derived from the old dative form, as well as a distinct genitive case. Hon ("she") has the following forms in nominative, genitive, and object form:

hon - hennes - henne

1. What's meant by "same as those of English"?
2. Why does it say "but distinguish two genders"? Doesn't English too...?
3. Why does it say "additional object form"? What is it added to? Doesn't English have object forms as well?
4. Why is only the inflection for "hon" given?
5. Isn't it a bit inaccurate to use the term "genitive" rather than "possessive" or something like that, considering the status of cases in Swedish?

I suggest that this entire section be removed from the article. ~ HannesP (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than remove the section altogether, I've tried to tweaked the paragraph for clarity. Switching from the description "basically the same as", to "similar to those of English" will make the section less disputable. I agree that long lists of examples should be removed, but it's therefore quite logical not to provide inflections for all the pronouns. Hon is merely an example. Full tables can be covered in Swedish grammar.

Thanks for pointing out the vagueries. If you see any others, don't hesitate to specify them here or to correct them yourself.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Scanian flag

What relevance does the Scanian flag have in the article? It is grouped together with the Swedish flag to the left and the Ålandic flag to the right to form some kind of Swedish language troika. I am not claiming anything about the Scanian dialects and whether they form a language, are Danish or Swedish, just that it seems odd to use the Scanian flag to represent the Swedish language. Ålandic makes some sense though, but wouldn't the Swedish and Finnish flags do the work? JiPe ( 193.10.117.138 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC) )

The layout of Template:Swedish language topics should be discussed at the template's own talkpage, not in the articles that it happens to be placed in.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I know the red and yellow flag does not refer to Scania, but most people would make that connection. It's the confusing use of it in the article I question, not the validity of the flag troika itself.

Analogous example. Say I question a link to a Wikipedia article on zebras in the article. Wouldn't it be appropriate to discuss the link in the article's talk page rather than in the talk page of zebra?

JiPe (193.10.116.207 (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC))

I understand your concern about the confusion with the Scanian flag, but this isn't just a single wikilink, but an entire set of links. The template is included in a dozen different articles, so this definitely is an issue to be discussed at the template talkpage. But I see that you've already started a discussion over at Template talk:Swedish language topics, so I'll give my opinion on the issue there.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Is everything okay now? Hayden120 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation request

Hi! Could someone help with the correct Swedish pronunciation with IPA of the names Robert (Robin) Sanno Fåhræus and Johan Torsten Lindqvist? It would make a lot of help for the article: Fåhræus–Lindquist effect and later in the biographical articles of the two scientists. Pls answer on the page Wikipedia talk:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board Thanks, Timur lenk (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Explanation request

In the text there is reference to "the spelling reform of 1906". It's possible that I just missed that, but a quick search on the page for "1906" or "reform" showed nothing relevant. If there was some official spelling, then I think it should be directly referred to, showing what were the reasons given, what were the differences made, who decided these differences and how was it "policed". State intervention in a language tell you a great deal about how a country thinks of its language and culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorvikian (talk • contribs) 02:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe it might be an interesting addition to Swedish orthography, but the impact wasn't really that massive. Swedish Wikipedia has an article on the reform, though: sv:stavningsreformen 1906.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Romani words

There are some words from Romani in Swedish, with "tjej" perhaps the best known. The question is whether the words are many or important enough to be mentioned. There are surely words borrowed from tens of languages, all of which cannot be mentioned. We need a source on the Swedish language mentioning the Romani words as important. --LPfi (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Dunno, really. But it's a good example of borrowing from a "resident" foreign language which isn't one of the major European languages. It's also a fairy good example of a source language for slang that is today considered common colloquialisms.

Best way to find out is probably to verify what the source says about it.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)