This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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 | Thomas.Wtalk 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. Ters (talk) 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 first language) 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 | Thomas.Wtalk 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? --Cornellier (talk) 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. Ters (talk) 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.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Without sources, it should definitely be removed (as I have done multiple times). --Njardarlogar (talk) 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).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 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. Ters (talk) 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. --Hordaland (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
"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. GeneCallahan (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@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 Language Council of Norway, 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 they (correction: some of them) 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). --Hordaland (talk) 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? Ters (talk) 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. :) --Hordaland (talk) 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.) Ters (talk) 17:49, 29 September 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)
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)
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)