Talk:Brunost/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cheese or not?

"Gjetost"(goat cheese) or "brunost" (brown cheese) is not REALLY a cheese, by normal definitions, but a milk product. Rather, gjetost and brunost is made of the left over materials from normal cheese production. Real cheese is in Norwegian named "gulost" (yellow cheese).

The "normal definition" of cheese is surprisingly expansive. For instance, ricotta cheese, like gjetost, is made from whey. Sneftel 07:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

---

"Gjetost" is dano-norwegian gibberish, and the official word from the official Norwegian dictionary is "Geitost". see Bokmålsordboka for more info

---

Not being Norwegian, I find the whole dispute between bokmål and landsmål or nynorsk or whatever it's called these days somewhat amusing. Nonetheless I think the comment above is likely to offend somebody, being blatantly of the POV of bokmål proponents. (No need to use the word "official" twice there.) A whole wiki article could be written up about about this issue as it is somewhat interesting. Having been in northern Sweden, "gjetost" was the usual spelling I came across (at least on the packages it was sold in). 130.94.162.64 01:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course the comment is offensive. That's why it's not in the main article. However, in essence the poster is correct - the term gjetost is used very infrequently in Norway, while geitost is the term found in most writing, on products, and in dictionaries. -- Ranveig 18:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I just don't like the attitude of whoever anonymously and unilaterally changed the name of the article and posted that comment (about "dano-norwegian gibberish"). It's "I'm right and everyone else is not only wrong but an idiot to boot." That attitude comes across pretty clearly no matter what language you speak. Yes, I know that comment isn't in the article, but it's what I found when I tried to figure out why the title had such an odd spelling. 130.94.162.64 03:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Mainly correct in facts, but the appropriate Norwegian spelling of the animal is "gjet" = goat, hence "gjetost", I think.

What would happen to the good old song, known to so many children, should one change to the modern "geit" - the rhyme would simply disappear: "Å jeg vet en seter, med så mange gjeter ..." Kittybrewster 12:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That depends on your pronunciation of seter. In my dialect, it rhymes perfectly with geiter PRB 08:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The official spelling of goat is «geit» in both standards of Norwegian. Old songs are of course kept as they are until their wording becomes old-fashioned enough to sound like gibberish. I think we're still a long way away from that with the song you mentioned. :-) -- Ranveig 13:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem with the "official spelling of goat is geit" argument is that we're not really discussing what the official name for "goat" is at all. We're discussing whether the word "gjetost" is used by any significant number of people, (regardless of what goats are called according to government officials) to describe what most people call "geitost". Case in point; Gamalost. "Gamal" is not the official word in either nynorsk or bokmål, but TINE sells it by that name. And it is commonly known by that name. So is anyone going to advocate removing the "gamalost" entry based on the "geit+ost" logic?

Hmm, well, speaking however from a North American perspective, maybe it's just coincidence but I've only ever seen it spelt "Gjetost" . . . so I'm not sure if I can agree that it's an inarguable idea to have changed the name of the article. In the case of Geitost versus Gjetost, I think it's simply not so cut and dry as to which term is the common usage, and my own (albeit potentially myoptic) experience points rather strongly in the favour of Gjetost. Phil Urich 05:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can show that there is precedence in the use of gjetost rather than geitost in English, then it should b changed back. Geitost is however the correct for in both Bokmål and Nynorsk, as stated above. Most Norwegian-americans left migrated before the norwegianisation-reforms of bokmål, thus do they often tend to use arhcaic spelling. In modern Norwegian gjetost is in fact "dano-norwegian-gibberish", althougt I would not use such an expression.--Njård 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"official word from the official Norwegian dictionary"

Norway has an official dictionary? — who regulates it? Does it cover all dialects?

To add to the current discussion, I've only come across it spelt gjetost (ROI), once gjetöst, but that source also claimed it was from Sweden.

Njál 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Norway has an official language council [1], it regulates both [Nynorsk] and [Bokmål]. The dialects are only used in spoken form or informal writing (Chating, notes, SMS-messenges etc. between friends and family) and has because of this no standard spelling. The ö in Gjetöst, as in your example is not even a nowegiab letter, nor would a swede spell it like that, it is pronounced and written OST in both countries.--Njård 08:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

True. But quite apart from the fact that it does not actually have any powers over Wikipedia (and quite apart from the fact that we Norwegians seem to always think that if the government says something, it must be correct), it does not describe the reality of the Norwegian language, merely how they would like it to be. And Wikipedia is all about how things *really* are. Including what words and terms subversive elements of the population, with utter disregard for official policy, may use. Oh, and as previously mentioned, geitost/gjetost are independent terms that may develop along their own paths. They are not in any way automatically linked to the words that were once used to create it. So trying to disect the word will not yield much useful knowledge or insight.

This discussion really made me laugh, although I can see it strikes many as important—and it is. "Gjetost" and "geitost" are definitively not independent terms, but synonymous words from different historical periods of time. If it's a Norwegian cheese, when referring to the Norwegian name of that cheese, the correct Norwegian and official spelling should also used—and not some ancient relic of a word. Anything else would just be cheesy... As for how things really are, that's about as close as it gets.

I don't speak "Bokmål" myself. I speak a Norwegian dialect. But well over 80 percent of Norwegians have aggreed to write "Bokmål". That's called a consensus. A thing I believe Wikipedians have a certain amount respect for. It simply isn't possible to make one generic language to accommodate every Norwegian dialect, and that's why there's a competing language to "Bokmål" (i.e. "Nynorsk"), and also why they both are officially monitored (not governed). The same thing goes for English (except for official monitoring). Why else can you hear Americans everywhere rant at strange slang-words with "Speak English!"

Incidentally, when Norwegians refer to English or American artefacts by their English names, they do so with modern English (American or Oxford), and not so with Old English—even though that more closely resembles the Old Norse, which, also incidentally, had a profound effect on how modern English is both written and spoken today. Things change, they say, and things change for a reason. I'm pretty sure most English speakers are pretty happy about not having to speak Old English anymore (except for the odd Tolkien buff), as we Norwegians are happy for not having to speak Old Norse. Very happy! The syntax was terribly difficult. –Kebman 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Geitost??

Geitost is a sub-genre of brunost. Why is brunost redirected here? The english word for nn:Geitost is Chèvre cheese, which has little to do with brunost. This article is about brunost, not geitost. --Tannkremen 00:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree Acidburn24m 01:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I definitely agree too, brunost (brown cheese) is the superior category, while geitost is a type of brunost. Who came up with this nonsense? I hope no Norwegian? Anyway, the article should be called either brunost or brown cheese. Oh and by the way, comparing this article to the Norwegian one I find lots of inconsistencies and what I'm guessing are plain errors too. Someone should take a look at the Norwegian article and clean up the English one. Jonmagne 04:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brunost. 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/20101008045555/http://www.dagbladet.no:80/dinside/2003/08/15/376020.html to http://www.dagbladet.no/dinside/2003/08/15/376020.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)