This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark 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.
@Peter Isotalo:: Maybe you should read the article about "Skånska" on the Swedish WP a bit more carefully, because it deals with both "old Scanian" and modern "Swedified" Scanian, just like Scanian dialects here on en-WP. And as it says on sv-WP in the article about "Skånska": "Andra dialekter i Sydsverige såsom blekingska, sydlig småländska och sydlig halländska är besläktade med dialekterna i Skåne och de brukar alla traditionellt sett räknas till sydsvenska mål, en indelning baserad på bland annat gemensamma drag i uttal, böjning, ordbildning och syntax." Which means that until there is a separate article about South Swedish dialects here on en-WP, Scanian dialects, which also mentions other dialects in southern Sweden, is the best we've got, and a lot better than a redlink. --Rullebör(snacka me maj) 23:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)'
The part you quote explicitly says that Scanian "traditionally is considered to be part of the South Swedish dialects". Links on Wikipedia are indeed supposed to give the best possible guidance for readers, but if you have two separate topics, you can't associate one with other. That one of the topics doesn't have an article yet doesn't change anything. Red links have a purpose too.
Please don't present Scanian or any other South Swedish dialects as "separate from Standard Swedish". Read up on how Standard Swedish is actually defined, and keep in mind that Scanian is not more unique than many other Swedish dialects. If you want to claim anything you have to present sources that actually say what you put in the article. You can't simply draw your own conclusions (original research).
@Peter Isotalo: The comment "Scanian is not more unique than many other Swedish dialects" shows a shocking level of ignorance. Scanian is very different from Standard Swedish (by the definition of a "standard language" that is common in the English speaking world), as can be clearly seen in the article about Scanian dialects, with a large number of references. Rullebör(snacka me maj) 17:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that Standard Swedish is not at all what you think it is. Read the article and the refs. It includes what is today referred to as regular "skånska" or "östgötska". It is not simply the Central Swedish ("mellansvenska/sveamål") that is the most common prestige dialect spoken on tv and radio.
Claiming that Scanian is different from Standard Swedish means it's different from all standardized dialects. I recommend reading up on this more carefully.
@Peter Isotalo: And I recommend that you read the posts you reply to, before replying. In this case the part about "a standard language by the definition that is common in the Engish speaking world", with internal link and everything, because this is, after all, the English language Wikipedia. And by that definition the differences in prosody, inflection, syntax etc clearly show that Scanian does indeed differ from "standard" Swedish.
I also want to point out that you have now made three reverts to the article in less than 24 hours, and would normally be given a 3RR-warning for it, but I'll let it pass. For now. Just don't do it again. --Rullebör(snacka me maj) 18:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Standard languages are defined quite differently. It can be either spoken or written languages, and there are different degrees of tolerance for what it considered a standard. The general public and linguists also usually have very different definitions. You can't refer to a blanket description of a standard language and apply it in all cases. This is described in some detail in Standard Swedish, a term which has multiple meanings and . Swedish linguists use the term standardsvenska rather than rikssvenska, and tend to define it as basically any form of Swedish that is understood throughout the entire country. The idea of a completely "neutral" Swedish with no geographical relation is not recongized. The terms mål/bygdemål or dialekt are reserved for more archaic or rural forms of Swedish that differ considerably from the standard language. For references on this, see Handbook of the IPA (Engstrand 1999; p. 140-41), Språkets enhet och mångfald (Dahl 2000; pp. 121-26) or Fonetikens grunder (Engstrand 2004; p. 120).
The problem is that you have added information about a difference from a completely unspecified definition of Standard Swedish. There is nothing about this in the sources and nothing that implies that South Swedish dialects are especially unique.