Talk:Swenglish

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I wrote this article – corrections welcomed

I wrote this article about Swenglish. I am pretty much of a Swenglish speaker so I think there's alot of spelling mistakes and so on. Due to that I am a Swenglish speaker I can't look at this with English eyes and listen to it with English ears, so corrections and so on are welcomed. Both on my language and Swenglish in general. // Limpan 12:29, 13 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "mejla" and "printa" really are examples of bad swedish. They are so common now, they should be considered swedish words... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.113.113 (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree when it comes to "mejla", but I've never heard anyone say "printa". "Skriva ut" is the only term I've heard in Swedish. - Gustav — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.203.210 (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Printa etc are bad Swedish :)

Printa, mejla etc are deprecated. TNC at http://www.tnc.se which is the closest we come to an authority on technical/computing-related words do not list them. Scanner, by the way, is also deprecated and skanner/bildläsare are recommended instead. Personally I still use scanner, but anyway... Since we have excellent and short words in Swedish for many (but not all) computer-related words, why not use them? Also, I very rarely hear or see the word printa. Mejla is however rather common, at least in spoken Swedish. In written Swedish I think it is somewhat less common.

Did a revamp of the Swenglish page. Hopefully it looks a bit better now, and perhaps even is a bit more readable... 81.200.161.74 12:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Use of the word "deprecated" (= strongly disapproved of) to mean "no longer current" is to be deprecated! -- Picapica 12:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everything is Microsoft's fault. They have higher prices for Swedish-language office software than English-language versions, so many companies buy the English version. Therefore Swedish people say "printa", "sejva", "spellchecka" because that is what is written on the menu. Furthermore they encourage separate words even if it is not correct Swedish. For example "brunhårig" means brown-haired, while "brun hårig" means brown and hairy. "djupfryst" means deep-frozen while "djup fryst" means deep and frozen. Since combined words are not always included by the spell-checker people are encouraged to write separate words. This tendency to write incorrect separate words should be mentioned in the article, since it comes mainly from English. BIL 01:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider "printa" bad Swedish, but with "mejla" I would. The difference? One is using an English word and adding an ending to it based on Swedish grammar, while the second is changing the word to somethign looking more Swedish based on the pronunciation, "mejla" should, in my oppinion be "maila". 81.225.4.31 14:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Do you spell "fotölj" as "fauteuille" as well in Swedish? Adopting the spelling to Swedish standard is hardly unusual. - Gustav 83.255.203.210 (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]

Poor Quality

This entire article needs a rewrite... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.47.220.223 (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are always quite welcome to make any improvements you see fit. --EldKatt 13:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just made a few improvements. Someone still needs to address the question of whether svengelska (in the sense of laughably bad English spoken by Swedes) is a real phenomenon, or just a joke created by supercilious Englishmen. "Raping at dinner?" I'd be willing to bet no Swede has ever said such a thing. The English, on the other hand -- when they bother to learn foreign languages at all -- have surely said "Det är på mig!" (what I call engska) when they're offering to treat. --Cultural Freedom talk 19:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I added in the article, Swinglish (note that I DON'T write Swenglish) is actually a real phenomenon which affects people from a Swedish and English-speaking background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.132.139 (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False friends, "fart controllers"

Those examples, fart, prick, etc. are classical examples of what a Swedish person might say, but really.... Has anybody ever made those mistakes for real? They've always seemed like jokes to me, like it would be funny if someone would actually say that, or simply as examples of Swedish words that native English speakers may find funny. "Infart", anybody?

A more realistic pair of false friends that I think some people actually do get confused is the english word eventually and the swedish eventuellt (possibly) (Entheta 22:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I can't begin to tell you how many Swedish words my mother has made fun of. ('Farthinder', 'beslutsfattare'...) My friend, who is a native speaker of Swedish, has made some mistakes similar to what the article is talking about. However, I do agree- 'eventuellt' seems much more likely than any of the other ones.DTPQueen 21:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I once had a game of table tennis with some Swedes that thought it was hilarious to say "pricks" instead of "prickar" when holding the tally - but the ironic thing is that none of them actually knew what "prick" meant, namely, "gay". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.132.139 (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have heard stories, maybe just stories, about a guy called Jönsson (a normal Swedish name), saying "Hi my name is Jönsson, that is Johnsson with two pricks". (prick means penis not only gay). A manager opened an fair (exhibition), saying "I declare this mess opened". Fair="Mässa" in Swedish. And a group testing Swedish cars in the US. The police showed up in their garage asking what they were doing. "We are screwing with a car". The last one is true, one of the guys told it to the author of the article. -- BIL 22:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't "prick" mean penis, rather than gay? (In an extended sense, "despicable person" or similar...) 惑乱分からん 12:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article in the first place. And the examples I used were made up (raping at dinner etc). No one may have said so or someone did, I don't care. I wrote this article because there were no other earlier adressing this. I wanted to write about what make Swenglish different from English and other local variants. And the Swenglish/Swinglish thing. I think they should be merged if they have not already. In my mind it's written Swenglish. Because neither Swedish or English is spelled Swidish and Inglish, they are only pronunced that way, therfor Swenglish not Swinglish. I would like to see that someone with more language skills than me can add some common mispronunciations. Limpan 13:33 , 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Content from Swinglish

I redirected the recently created Swinglish and I'm pasting the prose content of the article here if anyone wants to include it. Please delete this post after merging the material.

Swinglish is a portmanteau made by mixing the words Swedish (Swedish language) and English (English language). Swinglish, or Swedish English, refers to a linguistic combination of Swedish and English, the Swedish native speakers' version of the English language.

The languages are closely related Germanic languages, and Swedes are taught English in elementary school. In addition, English spoken movies and programmes are not post-synchronised (dubbed) on Swedish television, giving most people the impression that the Swedish are fluent in English. However, listening to a Swede speaking English will reveal this is not always the case. The Swedes and other Nordic people in practice sometimes make systematic mistakes when speaking and writing English.

"Errors" occur mainly in pronunciation, word order and the meaning of words.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swinglish has a bunch of meanings, so I created a disambiguation page. --Cultural Freedom talk 06:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One phenomenon which you failed to mention is the jargon spoken by the children of native Swedish speakers in English speaking countries or vice versa. This is the real Swinglish because it is used as a mother tongue and not simply as a bridge between languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.132.139 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Svengelska" not just English words in Swedish

Svengelska is not just "Swedish with many English words" but is a wider term. It refers to Swedish that is noticably affected (or contaminated, according to the point of view) by English. This includes, for example, literally translating English idiom into Swedish, even if only Swedish words are used. An example (from an English-born judge in the dance programme Lets Dance on Swedish TV4):

English: "You are going from strength to strength"

Svengelska: "Du går från styrka till styrka"

The phrase literally translated into Swedish makes little sense to a Swedish listener. Tamino 20:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Swedish "corrupted" by English was "engska" in Swedish. That's what I've always called it, and heard it called. Either way, it certainly shouldn't be covered by the same word meaning English "corrupted" by Swedish. In one case we're talking about (bad) Swedish, in another (bad) English. "I invite you" (I'll treat) instead of "Jag bjuder" (på en öl) is svengelska. "Vad är uppe?" ("What's up?") is engska. --Cultural Freedom talk 15:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engska? Is that like a reversed form of Svengelska? Never heard it, but why not?... 惑乱分からん 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it's what corresponds to the phenomenon of an English speaker saying Vad är uppe? ("What's up?"). That shouldn't be part of what we describe here as Swenglish, or? (or there was an example of svengelska :) ) --Cultural Freedom talk 06:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I haven't heard the term before... 惑乱分からん 13:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just something my quirky academic friends and I use. I get no hits on Google (aside from typos), so it shouldn't be mentioned here. Either way, a lot of different things are being discussed at once here (English spoken weirdly, Swedish with incorrect English influences, Swedish with now acceptable English influence...), and they should perhaps be organized in a better way. --Cultural Freedom talk 16:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knäckebröd is listed as being 'rye bread', but Knäckebröd is not rye bread, it is 'Crisp Bread' in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.192.37 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you say "crisp bread" in an English speaking country then no one will understand you. Instead, "rye bread" is the appropriate alternative. "Crisp" is a far to broad term to be used on such a specific product name. "Rye" refers to the actual grain that the product is made of which indicates exactly what you are talking about. Rye, unlike crisp, has more specific connotations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.132.139 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "hard bread" must be a better word for knäckebröd notwist (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox Swenglish (svinglish josörbox)

Fri att användas!

swe

Dis josör iss ejbel to contribjot vidd a proffeshonal levell off svinglish änd spik dis längvish ass modertongue.

Aaker 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sänk jo! Hoäver: plis spika littligt englisk! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous! But users who should use it won't. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A thought

Swedish and English has in part different grammar that could cause mistakes when translating. One common thing is to leave out the word "the", whose counterpart "den"/"det" is used only in connection with adjectives in Swedish (like "det stora huset"). Example: "Bilen är röd"→"Car is red"[citation needed]. (In Swedish, definiteness is marked with a suffix.)

This section has to be incorrect. Even though it is true that a suffix is used to mark definiteness ("huset" for "the house") it is incorrect that "den/det" is only used in connection with adjectives. One could say "det huset" instead of "huset" and it has a different meaning ("that house" compared to "the house"). I also disagree that it is a common error to leave out the word "the" notwist (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Swinglish

I do not agree with the definition of Swinglish in this article at all. What is being described in this article is just bad English or Swedish and does not even take into account people who actually speak a genuine mixture of the two languages as their mother tongue, whether it lean more towards Swedish or English. I personally have English as my mother tongue with necessary additional Swedish words in my native vocabulary, something that is closer to any genuine form of Swinglish than the article even mentions. Swinglish is more than bad language. Ozsvensk 217.209.134.72 (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you refer to code switching? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-confidence problem

Due to a recent attempt to add a chart (insufficiently sourced) to this article that was intended to show how great Swedes are at English, these comments:

Whether or not English is spoken and written well can hardly be determined by people who do not speak or write it that well.

Swedes are generally regarded as people who find it very easy to make themselves understood in English, and they do that, while they are unaware of the fact that their educational system basically skips pronunciation when teaching them English (as well as French, German, Spanish etc.). That lack of awareness leads to an overly self-confident attitude which only rarely coincides with the English actually spoken.

Similar over-confidence can cause problems in writing good English, and especially a direct translation of prepositions can lead to misunderstandings which can seriously damage business and social relationships. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right... ReLoader (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Aaker insists on reinstating the chart, where the source link does not work, so the source cannot be checked or verified, I am requesting a third opinion about it's appropriate use in this article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS that user apparently thinks h/s does not need to use this discussion page, but the sarcastic comment of the other user seems to be enough to request 3O on this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference does point to the official european union site hosting a 2005 eurobarometer for european languages; I've been able to download it, and the eu site does fail at times. That said, the graphic is terribly awful: low resolution, full of jpg artifacts, and the pie chart doesn't even show the percentage numbers associated to each sector. It can't stand in the article in this shameful form. The submitter should resubmit the image as a png image, not jpeg; include the actual data that it's trying to display; and cite what page in the document holds the referenced data. Diego Moya (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the link to work, the image information details how the image was made, and seems legit. I don't see anything wrong with the image itself. The concern about the ability of a person to self evaluate their language proficiency is valid, and I would suggest adding a mention to the image caption explaining that the source relied on a survey, rather then some empirical method of determining proficiency. All that said, the other editor should engage you here on the talk page, rather then unilaterally re-adding the image, so that the conflict can be fully discussed and a consensus can be arrived at to resolve the dispute. I will leave them a note asking that they respond here. (responding to third opinion request) Monty ₈₄₅ 21:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the image/chart is the only thing in the whole article that is referenced at all. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point :-) I've now seen that the data percentages are found at the image's description page; that's unacceptable for a pie chart. They should be inserted into the image if it's to convey some visual meaning at all. Failing that, they should be copied into the article's image footer. Diego Moya (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

(Edit conflict) I'm answering the request for a 3rd opinion. I have had no previous contact with any of the editors involved, and while I am generally involved on pages related to second language acquisition on Wikipedia, I have no particular bias regarding this topic. I have no special authority other than being a fresh pair of eyes.

First of all, regarding the inclusion of the chart in the first place; I think that the general level of English in the Swedish population is important background knowledge for this article. Lack of language skill can be a touchy subject, especially when it is a whole country involved, and I think this kind of information is actually essential to avoid point-of-view problems. Whether this information is provided by a chart or not, I think it's important that it's in there. Regarding the chart itself, I think SergeWoodzing is right that it is not sourced well enough. Eurobarometer surveys look eminently reliable - the problem is that I can't tell which part of the document Aaker got the data from. (The supplied link worked for me with no problems, by the way.) I managed to find the 89% claim well enough, but after 5 minutes of searching I still couldn't find the other percentage figures, which I think must be in the middle of the reams of data at the end of the document. After the page numbers of all the figures are made clear, however, I see no problem with including it in the article. As SergeWoodzing says, however, there a problem with calling the chart "knowledge of English in Sweden", as it is self-reported. This should be changed to a more accurate wording, such as "self-reported knowledge of English in Sweden". In the long-run there may be more reliable ways of indicating Swedes' level of English in the article, but for now the chart seems like a good idea.

As to the arguments that the Swedish are over-confident, their educational system neglects English pronunciation, and direct translation can lead to gross misunderstandings; these may well be true, but remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I have no idea how the Swedish language education system works, but I do know that you will need to find some sources to back these claims up before you include them in the article. In fact the only sourced statement in the article at all at the moment is the chart that is the subject of this dispute. A good effort at sourcing this article should be the very first thing on people's minds right now; there's little point having a well-sourced chart if everything else in the article is hearsay. If you want any more specific advice I'll be happy to reply here again. Hope this has been helpful.— — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed! It has never been my intention to include my personal knowledge of education in Sweden, and its effects on English language use, in the article. I mentioned it here only as background info re: my attitude about the chart. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I wasn't trying to suggest that you would bias the article - it's perfectly natural for people to have an opinion on something. The point is that if editors stick to the Wikipedia policies then whatever their opinion is, it won't affect the balance of the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've just noticed that I have a past history with SergeWoodzing, from this 3rd opinion response. I don't think, however, that this affected my neutrality here, not least because I didn't even realise it until now. If this creates any problems for anyone, please let me know. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see that my image has received reactions. As for your concerns, I don't know why some of you are unable to read the pdf-file. On my computer it works perfectly fine. Of course self identified skills are never completely correct, people over and under estimate their language skills all the time. On the other hand, according to this linguist (http://lingvistbloggen.ling.su.se/?p=772) Swedes don't over estimate their English skills more than other Europeans. Please take a look at the chart there which compares the results of the Eurobarometer survey with the results of EF English-poficiency tests. Of course Swedes' level of English cannot and should not be compared with that of native speakers. I'm sorry that I didn't include the full details of the chart in the image and that can only be explained by my own laziness. Finally, I think this chart indeed is relevant to this article because, at the end of the day, it deals with Swedes' way of speaking English. Aaker (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaker, and thanks for your response. I agree, I don't see any reason why Swedes should overestimate or underestimate their English skills more than other Europeans. The Swedes that I have met have all been uncannily good at English, although I met all of them outside Sweden. (One who I asked about it credited it to his watching subtitled American TV shows all the time while growing up. And yes, he did have a slight Swedish accent.) However, they were all very matter-of-fact about their English ability. If you can find a reliable source that deals with the accuracy of self-reporting language skill, then feel free to include it. And after you have found the page numbers for the chart, I think that can go back in too, as I said above. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast reply. Although self-reported language skills correlate strongly with proficiency tests, according to Östen Dahl, the writer of the Stockholm University linguist blog mentioned above, I don't think his comparison can be considered scientific enough to be included as a source here. I've added the page numbers now so I hope the chart can stay. Aaker (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As "self-reported" of course the chart is fine, even helpful.

My many years of professional experience on this subject have produced a very firm opinion that a vast majority of Swedes indeed do overestimate their knowledge of English and that they by and large are not interested at all in correct pronunciation of English or any other language foreign to them. Anyone who has dealt with Swedes speaking English, and wants to be honest and helpful not just polite and rosy, knows that pronunciation is unusually poor. Not listening and learning from television and other entertainment, where English is correctly pronounced, is the habit, as well as using English as some sort of entertainment or game themselves, betwixt each other, which tends to make such bad habits an accepted social norm. I am sincerely sorry if these facts, as I have come to see them, offend anyone reading this, but it is very important, in my opinion, especially for young Swedes facing a future of tough international competition in an increasingly global world, that all Swedes become aware of these more-or-less serious communication problems, stop ignoring them, often intentionally, and begin to keep them in mind, creatively and conscientiously, one of these decades. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can not use you as a source (although I agree on most of your points, being a Swede myself). Moreover, this is not a forum for general discussion. Aaker (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not try to reprimand me here, "Aaker"! Nothing I have written here is inappropriate, so none of it deserves your reprimand. It all goes to my motivation in this discussion. I am a North American. As a "Swede myself [yourself]" you are probably less than fully qualified to judge the way Swedes use and misuse English, and frankly that makes me less than interested in whether or not you think "most of" my expert opinion (not all of it) is correct. I have listened to Swedes talk uneducated and/or arrogant nonsense about the English language for 49 years now, and the attitude is a huge problem here on English WP, so I hope you will forgive the rather harsh tone of this. Cordially (anyway), SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to reprimand you. I am reprimanding you. Your comment was inappropriate because it doesn't ad anything of value to the article (only your personal opinions). Please stop your ad-hominem arguments and foolish "naming within quotes", and accept the fact that Swedes are not English native speakers and will hopefully never be. Your attitude is HIGHLY arrogant and your 49 years are as irrelevant as my nationality or my user name. As for the Swedes' English pronunciation/vocabulary/grammar/reading skills/listening skills/spelling/whatever they are of course really bad compared to English native speakers. Who has ever said anything else? It is really arrogant expecting that people in other countries should speak your language at same level as native speakers. If you really suffer that much from poor English you will continue suffering the rest of your life because the majority of English speakers are not natives and our share is growing. By the way, I think the overwhelming majority of North Americans have really lousy Swedish skills. Med vänliga hälsningar, Aaker (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your intentional reprimand isn't working, sorry.

"foolish" and " HIGHLY arrogant" (directed at me) are a personal attacks and you raised your voice - neither is allowed. Fair warning (this is not Swedish WP where you can get away with that kind of stuff incessantly if you are well-connected there).

English is an international language, and obviously (to most people) it is important, to everyone in the world, that it should function as well as possible to communicate internationally. Swedish is insignificant. Who cares about North Americans in regard to Swedish? Who cares (relatively speaking) about Swedish at all, except when it fouls up English?

Write to somebody who cares about those opinions of yours, or not at all. Just a friendly suggestion so you don't keep wasting your time and others'.

And get real! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I raised my voice because you did (ad hominems etc.). Swedish is significant in Sweden and I think its speakers actually care about it. I seriously don't think we have any reason to this issue any more. What should discuss, instead, is how we can improve the article. Aaker (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all of that, I fully agree. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]