Talk:Standard Swedish/Archive 1

Högsvenska in the eyes of non-Helsinki Finland-Swedes

I can't see that the new introduction has made the definition much clearer. It omits a lot of information (the status of the Finland-Swedish standard language, the definitions that correspond with how NE and linguists define the "rikssvenska" and "högsvenska") and seems to be very focused on primarily defining the difference between the Standard Swedish in Sweden and Finland rather than treating all variations equally. The new definition also blurs the very distinct difference that Swedish linguists make between "dialect" and "regional variation" by using terms like "prestige dialects" and contrasting it to "more genuine Swedish dialects".

It also contains this rather dubiously worded passage:

"Högsvenska would similarly be translated to Standard Finland-Swedish, that however is a controversial term with not only positive connotations as it is often perceived to reflect the arrogance of some influential Swedish speakers in Finland's bi-lingual capital who expected the dwellers of purely Swedophone smalltowns and villages to give up their ancient dialects and follow the example of the capital for better and for worse. In present-day usage, the term dialektfri (finlands-)svenska or standardsvenska would rather be used in a non-pejorative context."

Can you confirm any of these notions of how "högsvenska" is perceived by Finland-Swedish speakers?

Despite several requests for citations for the definition of the concept of Standard Swedish insisted on by Tuomas, I still haven't seen any factual support for it. Could you somehow confirm that you're not simply basing these definitions on your own subjective perceptions on the matter? Can you also explain why you're rejecting the claims of the sources which I based the first definition on? Peter Isotalo 14:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

A week ago, or something like that, I provided you with plenty of examples and your response was TOTAL ignorance. You must understand that this is an effective way to make someone pissed! You can easily convince yourself on many points just by googling a few minutes, and beside that I thing you would gain from attaching SOME confidence to someone who actually did study Swedish as the second domestic language for a couple of years, i.e. to me. Try to remember that Wikipedia is a cooperative venture! /Tuomas 14:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't recall any discussions about the definitions of what "rikssvenska" and "högsvenska" mean nor any proper citations on the matter. Please correct me if I'm wrong and direct me to the above mentioned citations. Or better yet; you could post them here. I'm also sure googling is indeed a good idea, though the onus of supporting your own claims in this matter must be considered your's rather than mine.

Don't play that hypocratic game! I didn't write "proper citations on the matter of rikssvenska", did I? You know perfectly well what I mean, but continue to treat me as shit. And you treat the Finland-Swedes as shit. And as shit you treat the entire generations of Finns who have studied your mother tongue. No-one is expecting you to be grateful, but just don't act as if a nation of five millions don't exist, and in particular: don't try to make Wikipedia pretend that. Do better, or you'll sooner rather than later have lost also the little that's left of your credibility and the respect some people may have left for you. /Tuomas 03:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tuomas, please refrain from making personal attacks. I am making an honest attempt to discuss the matter at hand here, and I don't feel your accusations are either fair or relevant. I have in no way tried to belittle the plight of Finland-Swedish speakers and I don't wish to either. I have tried my best to make the article factual and neutral and I have certainly not failed to mention the Finland-Swedes in my contributions.

I really don't know what discussions you're refering to, though, since I can only recall a rather confused discussion about Swedish phonology before this came up. We have not had a proper discussion of the situation of Finland-Swedish speakers, but I'm giving you an opportunity to explain what you mean and for you to cite sources as I have already done. I'm welcoming your views on the matter, but I'm asking that you do it in a civil and neutral manner. Peter Isotalo 09:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

And I see no merit in comparing our respective command of the Swedish language, since that is not the issue here. The matter at hand is the definition of Standard Swedish and how the terms "högsvenska" and "rikssvenska" relate to it, so let's stick to what's relevant and not wander off into debates about our respective language skills.

While I agree that Wikipedia is indeed a cooperative venture, the concepts of NPOV and the authority of reliable sources must be respected, and I'm sure you can agree on me on that. Peter Isotalo 14:52, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing, Ruhrjung. I tried improving the introduction by shortening it somewhat and attempting to make it less vague. At least that's how I perceived it. Please comment if you find something unclear or if i omitted some vital fact.

Tuomas, I carefully read the statements about how rural Finland-Swedes are perceived by the more urban Swedish-speaking community and I think your comments have some merit. I think they could be worder much better by adhering to a more strict NPOV, though. Don't see it as blatant criticism that I removed them, just the fact that I found them to be a bit too subjectively worded, but that I couldn't see exactly how to improve them because of my limited knowledge of the subject. Is there any chance that you could show any soruces for it? I'm sure there must be plenty of material written on the situation of the Swedish-speakers in Finland and how they perceive each other. Peter Isotalo 20:59, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

The wording for sure could be improved and balanced and... That's the point with Wikis! :-)

--Johan Magnus 14:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Words of advice to young Peter

Your contributions of the recent month here, Peter, call for dozens of comments. Just the sheer number of issues is one of the chief problems, but also the fact that you and your behaviour raises issues of many different kinds, both fundamental factual issues, and details, and also questions of what Wikipedia is and can be. It's hard to know what to use as an entry into this …quagmire in order to arrive at some clarity, but let me try.

I am the first to deplore that social relations between Wikipedians are important, but so they are. The evolvement of Wikipedia articles is driven by the readership's dissatisfaction with an article's current state. Some changes pass seemingly unnoticed, and other changes get amended or reverted pretty soon. Several factors do of course contribute to whether a change gets noticed or not. However, when the situation occurs that two or more contributors advocate wordings that the other party considers dissatisfactory, then a certain amount of Social Skill is necessary for your survival in this environment.

I would personally have preferred a system where changes were pending for, say, a week (at least if resulting in articles beyond, say, 200 characters), during which period it could be registered if notable opposition/dissatisfaction with the proposal was presented, in which case the proposed change would have to be reworked and presented anew. That would, in my hope, have resulted in a focus on the text instead of on the social shortcomings of some Wikipedians whose contributions and knowledge could have been of great value for Wikipedia. But this is not how things work right now.

So your behaviour, Peter, and not only your pure arguments, are crucial for you achieving anything of value here around. Not only does it matter that you've disappointed Tuomas, who has a far longer record here than you have, but you make people attach negative associations to your persona, which is a considerable handicap since in the end, Wikipedia is not about winning disputes against opponents, Wikipedia is about convincing a somewhat greater mass of interested and concerned of whom only the fewest will have energy to follow your reasoning into the details. Deplorably, your apparent credibility and your skill in basic rhetorics are factors beside the substance of your arguments that influence your ability to convince.

It's also important to remember to include the polarities in a wording designed to appear acceptable to the greatest possible readership. Your insistence on purifying the text of what you seemingly consider irrelevant, as for instance points of view that might be more typical in Finland, in Southern Sweden, among foreign students, or among immigrants, does not only taint your persona, it also makes it less likely that the energy you've put into these articles will give any lasting impression on them.

If a popular conception conflicts radically with established scholarly views, then it's a far more efficient method to mention both – the less judgemental the better, don't underestimate the intelligence of the reader!

March 13-18, Tuomas made some pretty thorough presentations here at the talk page at Talk:Swedish phonology as responses to your requests. It's true that you can say that he didn't give you exactly what you had craved for, but this he also stated clearly together with his explanation. It's easy to arrive at the interpretation that you had lost the interest almost before you'd made the requests. In any case, it seems as if you did not take his effort seriously. Actually, it's easy to get the impression that you ignored him and his work. Maybe you have reasons to do so, but it is hard to know for us outsiders; but in any case, people don't like the feeling of being dismissed after exertions, and without approving Tuomas' behaviour, his reactions probably appears quite natural and easy to understand for on-lookers. Particularly after your recent treatment of my edits, it's easy for me to identify with him, and on issues where I'm only vaguely knowledgeable, as for instance with regard to "högsvenska", I would without any doubt tend to assign much more credibility to Tuomas' proposals than to your.

Do I need to be more specific? I'm afraid so.

Above you write:

Thank you for contributing, Ruhrjung. I tried improving the introduction by shortening it somewhat and attempting to make it less vague. At least that's how I perceived it. Please comment if you find something unclear or if i omitted some vital fact.

Do you believe in your own words?

You had in the article changed:

Standard Swedish denotes Swedish as a standardized language, i.e. how it is taught to students of Swedish. [ … ] Standard Swedish is primarily a written language, and standardization by (semi-) official authorities regards the written language. Contrary to the situation in for instance Britain and Germany, prestigeous spoken language, as it appears in nationwide radio and television networks, is rather to be categorized to either of a few distinct prestige dialects; a situation that may be a minor nuisance for non-native speakers. [ … ] While the written language is highly standardized, the situation with regard to Swedish pronunciation is more complicated. Standard Swedish has a number of regionally bounded varieties that may be perceived as the most prestigeous dialect within each their region. In Sweden, these prestige dialects are typically denoted as Standard Swedish ("rikssvenska") contrasted against the more genuine Swedish dialects.

into:

Standard Swedish denotes Swedish as a spoken and written standard language in Sweden and Finland. [ … ] The mindset of most speakers of Swedish is that Standard Swedish is primarily a written standard language. [ … ] the various regional variants are often refered to as "dialects".

From focusing on the limited standardization of Swedish compared with certain other more standardized language, and where the difference between a standardized written Swedish and non-standardized spoken language is stressed, you propose a text that equals the degree of standardization of written and spoken language, although it admits that most speakers disagree. Your version also re-defines Finlandssvenskt standardspråk och Sydsvenskt riksspråk from standard language to dialect.

It may well be so that you are factually correct and I am factually wrong on these specific points, but by describing your edit as "attempting to make it less vague" when in fact you change the meaning into its opposite on at least two points, you appear to me as either mocking or just generally dishonest. None of which is serving to increase my confidence for you and your contributions, nor does it contribute to a cooperative mood among involved contributors.

Besides, I question the usefulness of a separate article for "Standard Swedish". In my opinion, the article on the Swedish language ought to have Standard Swedish as its scope.

--Ruhrjung 10:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
[ this comment was written before I'd seen Peter's comment of 09:40 above ]

Considering the confusion we're experiencing while editing this article, I think a separate article is quite merited. There's still plenty more to add to this, I might add. Like, for example, making a list of the main regional variations.

But I don't really know how else to edit than to present my proposal and then politely ask for a dialogue. To the best of my knowledge, the degree of standardization in your examples (British English and French), is about as varied as Swedish, though the official policy might say otherwise. I made the changes because I felt it did clarify (mostly on the grounds of the sources I've cited), and that's why I'm trying my best to encourage you to reinsert anything that has been omitted.

Please take my words at face value and take my invitation for dialogue seriously. This is not an attempt to simply nit-pick or provoke an edit war and cartainly not an attempt to express chauvinism. I certainly assume good faith on your part, and I'm sure you can return that favor. Peter Isotalo 11:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

You can maybe do at least two things:

1. Try not to change too many things at the same time, particularly not if they attract opposition (or can be expected to do so). If you have raised a question, and leave it for shorter or longer time, explain that you do so and explain why.
2. Take the efforts by others seriously, pay attention to what may have taken hours or maybe full work days to write, and do your best to try to understand what and why other contributors aim at. Assume that others are at least as intelligent as you are (also if they a few times have proven the opposite, they may have had a bad day), although with other background knowledge.

...and of course, assume good faith until you have strong reasons not to. In my opinion, LRC, Ish, Steve, Johan, and Tuomas all have demonstrated more commitment to valuable studies than I have; and none of them deserve to be ignored.

--Ruhrjung 17:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Note

The title of William S. Burroughs's poeme is:

Words of advice for young people.

/Tuomas

Standard languages or prestige dialects

To move towards the tangible, we could consider the situation with the concepts:

• Uppsvenskt riksspråk, in English maybe Central Swedish standard language
• Sydsvenskt riksspråk, in English maybe South Swedish standard language
• Finlandssvenskt standardspråk, in English maybe Finland Swedish standard language

One may characterize them as prestige dialects, but from comments and edits it seems as if there are some opposition against such a characterization. Peter writes:

The new definition also blurs the very distinct difference that Swedish linguists make between "dialect" and "regional variation" by using terms like "prestige dialects" and contrasting it to "more genuine Swedish dialects".

One may characterize them as standard languages, but as far as I understand they are very similar in their written forms, why it seems a bit farfetched to call them different standard languages, and there is no institution or body that standardize them as spoken languages, which makes me less than enthusiastic for such a categorization. Nevertheless, I am aware that some Swedes (including some writers on linguistics) would use that terminology.

I believed that prestige dialects was a more scholarly term and that the contemporary correct usage of dialect is similar to a geographically bounded variety (linguistics), while the usage of the term dialect for exclusively low-status varieties is un-scholarly.

To me this seems as we in the English Wikipedia ought to prefer the term prestige dialect rather than "spoken regional standard language".

Try to convince me otherwise!

--Ruhrjung 17:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

This is to a certain degree a question of English usage, and I can not comment on that. I agree with you (if I understand you correctly), that Wikipedia actually has some liberty to chose English terms, since they can not be that very established in English.

However, I do not immediately support the choise "XXX Standard". For Finland, with their Högsvenska and (I would guess) a more standardized demand on employees of TV/radio, it may apply, but the very point here is (also according to you!) that in Sweden there is no spoken standard, and then it's stupid to use terms that would suggest so. :-)

I edited the article on dialect slightly just recently, and strictly speaking the term accent (linguistics) may be used, but I do not propose it. Accent is a concept too openended towards low-prestige speech.

On the other hand, "XX Standard" would have the advantage to be parallells of the different American standards. There is a pedagogic point in that, although surely not sufficient to convince you. But "XXXX Prestige Dialect" is unbearable. It's scary to the mind and ugly to the eye. It can't be used.

--Johan Magnus 14:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, until someone comes with a better proposal, I'm a supporter of

• Central Swedish Standard
• South Swedish Standard
• Finland Swedish Standard

Exactly how to draw borders and make distinctions is no uncomplicated matter.

--Johan Magnus 09:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, you open up for the opposition

Central Swedish Standard <---> Central Swedish Dialects etc?

(I'm not arguing that we must have such articles.)

--Ruhrjung 17:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I must stress that there is no such a thing as a "Central Swedish Standard" opposed to, for example, "South Swedish Standard"; there's "rikssvenska", and that's it. Standard Swedish is the standard language based on Central Swedish dialects which has evolved into the national langauge since the late 19th century. All other variations, like norrländska, skånska (not the dialect group) and even stockholmska are just that; varieties, not independent standards. I'm still not sure about the status of Finland Swedish, and I'm not sure exactly how we should handle it in the article. Again, some sources on that matter would be great since the one's we've presented so far have been too vague and simply speculating and voicing our respective opinions on the matter won't suffice.

I think we should consider simply not having a list at all, since the regional varities can be very hard to accurately pinpoint and are very general in nature. I suggest we give examples of the major ones as well as the major stadsmål, the varities specific to major cities like "göteborska", "stockholmska" and "malmöitiska" (not sure about how to express that one properly), but don't attempt to make a definitive list unless we actually have a source on the matter.

Please see Standard Mandarin for a fairly good analogy of another standard language and how the use of it is highly varied. Eventhough Standard Mandarin has an actual official codified standard (based on [[Mandarin (linguistics)|Mandarin), unlike Standard Swedish which is only a semi-official standard, it still is a good comparison. I might've been unclear about this before, but just like no one actually speaks Standard Mandarin natively, no one really speaks Standard Swedish natively. That it's the dominant form of speech in media and in formal situations doesn't mean that people actually use it in other contexts, like for example with friends or relatives. In more intimate situations people tend to use nonstandard language with far more differing realizations of phonemes. That's more an issue of phonetics, and I'm not sure how to describe it properly in phonology. Just like Standard Swedish, Standard Mandarin also has regional variations, although they're far more differentiated in China, where in some situations speakers of Standard Mandarin simply can't understand each other. Native speakers of Standard Swedish rarely, if ever, experience those kinds of problems. Peter Isotalo 19:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Can you maybe come up with a better proposal?

A proposal, I mean, that you believe I could find better.

(BTW, standard languages, and standard dialects, are varieties per definition.)

--Johan Magnus 07:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I've read through most of the Talk:Swedish phonology and Talk:Standard Swedish but I am not entirely sure why you guys are arguing. Like the unsigned complaint at the end of one of the talk pages also suggest, there are more onlookers who appear to be a little confused, me included. So we're gonna find out what the crux of the matter is. Let's disregard the article contents for a bit and focus on the people involved. I'd like the guys who are arguing to post here, stating their opinions about the other people in this dispute. It's gonna be civil and free of any personal attacks.

I'd like to know:

1. Whether it is possible to work together at all.
2. What it's gonna take for everyone to respect everyone else.

When we have worked out our opinions and come to an agreement between ourselves if we can work together collectively, then we start to focus on the article content.

I'd like:

1. People to explain their stance and eventual problems with the articles as they are right now.
2. People to not edit the articles before they have come to some sort of compromise about what exactly they want them to say.

There seems to me to be large possibilities for a compromise here. Make me understand what the actual problem is. How to do that? Discuss in a friendly manner about your problems first with eachother, then about the content. If there are no problems between you, just content disputes, then we will simply move on to that at once.

So, I'd like your input and suggestions about what we can do about this situation. No suggestion is stupid or insignificant. I'd like to know! Inter\^Echo 19:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here are my views on what the facts are:

• Swedish has only one spoken and written standard language, Standard Swedish (rikssvenska in Sweden, högsvenska in Finland). The written language is more or less 100% uniform. The spoken standard language is orginally based on dialects in Central Sweden that have been "exported" to various regions and have been "regionalized" through the influence of dialects. These in turn are called regional variations (regionala varianter).
• Dialects of Swedish are not the same as regional variations of Standard Swedish, but rather linguistically separate entities that have a history that can be traced back to Old Norse.
• Most people are unaware of the linguistic terminology and refer to the regional variations as "dialects". I have nothing against mentioning this in this article and that's why I started it, but I think the linguistic terminology should be used throughout the article and preferably in other articles about Swedish because it seems to me as the most NPOV and the least confusing.
• The term prestige dialect is not ideal to use in this context because "standard language" is in almost all cases by definition a prestige dialect, and the same is true here. Using the term would imply that there in fact are other standard languages based on other dialects.
• The term standard language does not in itself hold a POV. That standard languages exist is undisputed and that they are the offspring of some dialects that have been seen as more prestigeous than other is not saying that low-prestige dialects are worthless. It simply reflects a social hierarchy of which language is only a conduit. Linguistics is about analyzing language, not making judgements on its underlying motives.

There are some slight disagreements about Swedish phonology too, but I think most of it has to do with this issue, and I think we should start by sorting this dispute out. There are still things that need to be sorted out about the finer points of Swedish phonology, but that can be dealt with later. Peter Isotalo 20:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

So the crux of the problem here, in your opinion, is that the article should analyze the language and distinguish between regional variations and dialects? Inter\^Echo 00:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, precisely that. There should be a general summary of differences between the variations, but since these almost exclusively phonological, the more complex differences should be noted in Swedish phonology. I also feel that just like högsvenska, rikssvenska should be a redirect here, not a disambiguation that describes about the same things as this page does. Peter Isotalo 11:07, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Like I have suggested below, what about having different sections for the two countries, then a Main article reference in the phonology section which refers the standard stuff you describe, but will reference the main article for more information. Inter\^Echo 11:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. What Ruhrjung is pointing out about Standard Swedish in Finland below is very relevant information to the article and not an isolated case, and I'm glad he brought it up. Language minorities often have a tendency to go a lot farther in standardizing their language because of real or perceived threats of being ousted by the majority language. Since Swedish in Sweden isn't threatened by a bigger language it is easier to allow a plurality within the standard language, even if this is still limited to relatively small phonetic variations and very minor variations in syntax and vocabulary; it's safe to say that any native Swedish speaker can understand any other Swede unless one of them is speaking a genuine dialect. Peter Isotalo 12:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

As a student of Swedish, and an inhabitant of Sweden during four years, my view is that the English Wikipedia article on the Swedish language must be primarily aimed at a non-Swedish readership (including the ethnic Finns of Finland who have studied mandatory Swedish and — until this year — been required to pass a rather qualified Swedish exam to get high-school diploma and enter university). Hence a view on Swedish compared to relevant neighbouring languages (as Danish, Norwegian, English, French, German - and Finnish) that all have either influenced or been influenced by Swedish, or both, is my mental starting point. Hence I also think that Wikipedia pragmatically can serve an important function as an amendment to text books on Swedish (and teachers in Swedish) by stressing a few aspects of Swedish that often arrive as nasty surprices once you've accustomed yourself to the language for some years already, although it maybe was parenthetically mentioned somewhere in the lower level textbooks.

We generally don't like the word stressing unless it has a neutral meaning, which I suspect is what you have in mind, but would you mind to elaborate a little on that? Inter\^Echo 09:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I interpret this "stressing" as mention prominently where it may be relevant, which may result in some repetitions. If so, I agree. This is an important feature of spoken Swedish that better is to be compared with differences between Australian, British, and American English than with patois. /Tuomas 10:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Swedish phonology#Proposal for improved intro is in line with my understanding of stressing. --Ruhrjung 07:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

In other words, I agree with some of the other contributors, that the lacking standardization of spoken Swedish, as it appears in radio/tv/film (the, in my opinion, large differences between prosody, diphtongs, /r/- and /sje/-sounds), belong to the most important aspects that have to be covered by these articles. And I do not at all agree that this is a field of issues that should or could be removed as Wikipedia:original research. It's rather than original research an issue of contextual translation, where the aspects that appear self-evident for (many) native Swedish speakers must be expressed explicitely when writing for a non-Swedish readership. It may, however, require a certain amount of linguistic knowledge to reach the standard we wish for Wikipedia articles. (In fact, I guess that such removals wouldn't survive for many months, given Wikipedia's current popularity, since this is aspects that many non-Swedes are intrigued by. So, in other words, it's important to get a version that is so good that scholarly unqualified simple students of Swedish like myself do no longer feel the urge to contribute with our individual understandings, misinterpretations and confusions.)

How do you propose something like that can be achieved? Post your suggestions and let's see if the others like them. Inter\^Echo 09:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm not quite sure what you ask about, but if you ask about how to execute a "contextual translation", then it suffice to take care and avoid giving the impression that the spoken language is more standardized than it in fact is. I made a proposal in February, that I however have done nothing to follow up on - partly due to my feeling of being unsufficiently knowledgeable, partly due to lack of time/insentives:

What about three columns for pronounciation in the tables, one for high-status Götalandsmål, one for "equalized" Finland-Swedish (that according to my perception phonetically would cover also the high-status Norrland-variety rather well), and one for high-status Svealand pronounciation?

--Ruhrjung 07:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The division of Standard Swedish into these three very general varieties has no support in sources of any kind (including Leionen quoted by Tuomas in other areas). It's a very crude simplification and leaves out several very distinct and important varieties like norrländska, dalmål and gotländska. None of these can simply be considered to be varieties of these three subdivisions. Peter Isotalo 14:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

It's truly amazing how much of misinterpretation that can be stuffed into 60 words, like above!

Now, let me see if I get you right here: Are you arguing that people in Dalecarlia, when switching to their best intelligible Swedish, should strive to adhere to other norms (another standard dialect) than people in for instance Nericia? Which are the borders of their habitat? How many are they? The same applies for Gotland and Norrland of course.

I do really not think that anyone has argued that Dalmål be a variety of Central Swedish Standard. Quite the contrary. Dalmål and Central Swedish Standard are different varieties of Swedish. But they are connected. The connection is that some speakers of Central Swedish Standard speak Dalmål when they don't speak standard language. And similarly, that Central Swedish Standard is the standard language of the speakers of Dalmål. The same can not be said with regard to speakers of Finland Swedish Standard or South Swedish Standard, although there exists border cases.

With regard to South Swedes I can think of at least two distinctive features that would result in either a larger or a more limited population and area. According to a compendium I got from a Swedish teacher of mine (with reference to Elert, C-C. (1994): Indelning och gränser inom området för den nu talade Svenskan - en aktuell dialektografi) it seems as if your statement that there should be no support in "sources of any kind" is ...a bit unfortunate:

• Förutom genuina dialekter finns det tre stora standardspråksvarianter samt, som vardagsspråk för merparten av befolkningen, mer dialektnära varianter av standardspråk. Standardspråksvarianternas tydliga funktion är i kontakter med dem som kommer från andra delar av språkområdet, t.ex. i tal som riktar sig till hela nationen.
  • centralsvenskt standardspråk (5-7 milj.)
  • sydsvenskt standardspråk (2-4 milj.)
  • finlandssvenkskt standardspråk (300.000)
• Genuina landsbygdsdialekter beskrivs i regel som enhetliga inom områden med gemensam kyrka (socken). Stadsdialekter förändras mera och är svårare att definiera mot det dialektnära standardspråket. Skillnader mellan stadsdelar är beskrivna för vissa städer.
• Det dialektnära standardspråket definieras i regel med hjälp av landskapsgränser och naturliga hinder som skogar och sjöar. Uppgiften om antalet varianter av dialektnära standardspråk kan variera kraftigt mellan olika författare, men inom området för centraltsvenskt standardspråk får man räkna med minst fem tydligt åtskilda varianter: Östgötiskt, gotländskt, öst-svealändskt (öst-mellansvenskt), norrländskt och väst-svealändskt bergslagstalspråk.
• Ett västgötiskt området (inklusive Göteborg) har en satsmelodi som påminner om den sydsvenska, men sje- och r-ljud kan anpassas till centralsvensk standard, dit det oftast räknas av språksociologiska skäl. Det kan också räknas för sig, jämte sydsvenskt och centralsvenskt standardspråk, och kallas då "västmellansvenskt standardspråk" (2 milj.). Dess södra gräns går genom norra Halland, nordvästra Småland och följer Vättern. I norr sträcker det sig till Värmland.

--Ruhrjung 20:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ruhrjung, if you only had presented this source at once, it would've been a lot easier to discuss.

When should I have done that? The day after you changed a wording that had stood the test of time? Sorry, Peter, it doesn't work that way. If you are sure that something that has been accepted by all other contributors over the years must be wrong, then you are the one who is supposed to present sources that the rest of us can go home and check (given they look promising). I provided you with a reference (Elert!) as soon as this was doable for me, and now you blame me for having made the discussion complicated! ;-)) --Ruhrjung 15:54, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

And please avoid the snide rhetoric. It doesn't fit well with your ambitions to seem wise and experienced.

You can not be unaware of the situation that more than one Wikipedian here see you as a real pain in the ass. Given my awareness of this, I can not take your further comments (above and below) seriously. I have absolutely nothing against you, personally, but much, much against your style here. --Ruhrjung 15:54, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

This is a very interesting source, though, and I think we're finally ready to make an attempt at a proper edit. I'll make a first draft later today based on this and the other sources and then we'll work from there. Please feel free to edit and make comments, but just please keep the level of civility a bit higher than before and stop trying to assume bad faith. As long as you just back up your claims, you'll find me a lot easier to deal with. Peter Isotalo 03:51, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is no exact quote from Elert (1994). I read it yesterday. In fact a fairly short chapter in a book Kulturgränser - myt eller verklighet? Inst. för nordiska språk, Umeå universitet edited by Lars-Erik Edlund. But Elert might be the main source, maybe.

Claes-Christian Elert seems to be a fairly productive writer, not the least after his retirement from a chair in phonetics (Umeå University) in 1988. /Tuomas 08:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With regard to historical standardization of spoken Swedish, this is not really an area where I'm particularly competent, but I think its both relevant and interesting to note that the Finland-Swedes were much more aiming at a unified spoken high-language than were the Sweden-Swedes. In my opinion, it's not so much a matter of national pride than of factual correctness to mention Finland-Swedish standardization in an article on Standard Swedish, and to sum it up, I am generally a bit troubled by a fear that these articles, like certain textbooks, would take a Stockholm-Uppsala centered stance that in my opinion is an oversimplification and disservice towards the reader when Sweden's second and third largest metropolitan areas and the Swedish spoken in Mainland Finland are granted secondary or tertiary importance. In other words: I think these articles ought to cover Swedish primarily as it appears in more formal registers. Town dialects, rural dialects, etc, might be of some interest, but in articles of their own.

We really don't want to fork an article into too many sub articles. What about including sections for the different places, such as Sweden in one section and Finland in another? Inter\^Echo 09:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not really understanding what would be won by emphasizing the differences between rikssvenska and finlandssvenska since 1/ I understand it as that rift is diminishing, partly due to the common legal language that's a consequence of the EU membership, partly due to active efforts in Finland to counteract a process of division; and 2/ I perceive the differences within finlandssvenska and rikssvenska to be much greater than the differences inbetween.

I think the forking at Swedish language#Dialects is of the right magnitude. The rural and urban dialects may have some kind of curiousity value, but in my opinion, they ought to be mentioned only parenthetically and/or to illustrate aspects of the hight-status varieties that stand in some relevant and interesting relation to the corresponding dialects of lower register.

By the way, I forgot to express my admiration for your effort here, Inter!

--Ruhrjung 07:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The article Swedish phonology differs from what I've learned on several points, and in most cases I think Tuomas' (and others') proposals seem sound.

--Ruhrjung 09:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as there has been no new developments for 2 days, and that Tuomas seems uninterested (I left a note on his talk page about this), I am open for suggestions on what you guys think you should do. There are 2 people who have discussed the situation so far. If we leave out the people who maybe has little interest, maybe you two can work out how the articles should look? Inter\^Echo 07:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not uninterested. But now and then there are other more fun things to do in life.

I am not a Linguist, rather I'm a user of linguistics, and I do not hold myself to be a good judge on what linguist schoolars fancy this season (or decade). But I did an attempt some weeks ago to read up on the subject, including works relied on by Isotalo (as Engstrand (2004) and the Swedish National Encyclopedia). And my comments on relevant talk pages were intended to meet Isotalo's repeated requests for schoolarly backing up of statements. My disappointing experience was that there were no responses. Virtually none at all. Not from anyone!

With the exceptions for the existence of Isotalo's sound files, I was about to write that I saw no forward progress of these pages after the discussion on Talk:Swedish language#Rinkebysvenska, where Isotalo's arguments had some merits, but in fact I do hold the current state of Swedish language[1] to be a slight improvement, that I guess is rather an effect of reactions on Isotalo than of his actual additions. The Swedish phonology article, on the other hand, would gain from being reverted to its status before the split off. After that, improvements according to proposals put forward on the talk page could be done. I do not know if it's right to interpret the silence several proposals have been met with (a trend striking all serious contributors, I would say) as lack of enthusiasm, lack of opposition, lack of support, or as anything else.

I think it seems fairly obvious that Isotalo is by far the boldest of the involved editors. Other might have proposed the split offs at the talk page instead. I am not sure whether I believe this boldness and its results to be good or bad, but several separate sub-pages clearly increases the probability of incoherence between the different articles, and Isotalo's style does in no way improve the cooperative climate here.

Forking articles may not always be desirable, but in some cases neccessary for various reasons. In this case I am unsure about whether or not this was a good idea, but seeing as we now have 2 articles, we should make the best of it. Inter\^Echo 10:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With regards to "facts" and established views, whether scholarly or not, I'm not impressed by Isotalo. There is a chance he just don't get it, but as things looks right now, I'm not the one to explain to him. I do so far only exceptionally agree with anything he's expressed in connection with Westeuropean languages, on the NPOV concept, on what constitutes a personal attack, etc., etc. However, there is also a chance that he is just deliberatly playing games with Wikipedia. Trolling, flamebaiting, call it what you want. His addition of a significantly un-Finland-Swedish language file to illustrate the pronunciation of Helsingfors (i.e. the pronunciation in Stockholm, not in Helsingfors) hints rather in direction of the second alternative, but I'm not sure this example harms Wikipedia — it might as well, sooner or later, make some Helsinki-Swede aware of the need for a better recording. :-)

Actually I can come up with an example of this very problem. I sometimes look upon as anon editors americanify an otherwise

english article by switching i.e spesialisation to spesialization. Is this good or bad? There is a discussion going. :But I havent checked up on what they have found, so I cant say. The point is that it seems to me this is somewhat the same problem :albeit in a lesser degree. What about some suggestions for how it should be done by all sides here? Inter\^Echo 10:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think most (or all) of the propositions I've made here (on these articles and talk pages) are more merited than those made by Isotalo. Specifically, I think for instance that my proposal to use the IPA-symbol / ʃ / on a phonemical level to indicate what the Swedes call the /sje/-sound to be worth considering. Its use would connect to the phoneme's relations to other Germanic languages. The different realizations, including [ ɧ ], must reflect later developments.

Someone else chip in here if you wish and discuss this proposition. Inter\^Echo 10:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I read the talk page (I've not done any book reading in this field recently, myself), I think it's demonstrated that the [ ɧ ] is not that populat or wellknown or unambiguos that its use in this international context would be motivated. So far I right now can remember, I've seen / ʃ / in text books on Swedish and my German-Swedish lexicon uses the same symbol. --Ruhrjung 07:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have several very authoritive sources¹ that all clearly state that /ɧ/ is a distinct phoneme in Swedish (with allophones in other varieties and dialects). [ʃ] does exist as an allophone of /ɧ/, but mostly just in Finland Swedish. */ʃ/ simply doesn't exist as a native Swedish phoneme. The notation in your dictionary, Ruhr, is most likely intended for speakers of German to more easily grasp the concept of this phoneme by approximating to the closest German equivalent. I agree that we should point out that the Swedish fricatives can be hard for foreigners to discern, but I can't see any point in simplifying the phonology to include non-Swedish sounds just to make it easier for non-native Swedes to understand it.

The ambiguity of /ɧ/ is clearly a matter of phonetics, not phonology, and is presented quite well at voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative. Despite the difficulty of clearly analyzing the sound, Swedish phonologies (including those in English) and Swedish phoneticians seem to have no problems with using /ɧ/ for the phoneme in question. Peter Isotalo 14:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

¹Bolander, Funktionell svensk grammatik ("Functional Swedish grammar") (2002)

Engstrand, Fonetikens grunder ("The basics of phonology") (2004)

Garlén, Svenskans fonologi ("Swedish phonology") (1988) [a book intended mainly for teachers of Swedish to foreign students]

The Handbook of the International Phonetical Association (1999) [example written by Engstrandd]

I guess you aren't arguing that the /ɧ/ phoneme should be another phoneme than /ʃ/.

In the talk page to the article on the sound [ɧ] it's clearly indicated that internationally this terminology is not quite as undisputed. We must have the value for the Wikipedia reader at the center of our interest. Phonologically there seems to be a clear relationship between the /sje/-phoneme and the /ʃ/-phoneme of related languages.

Even English-Swedish dictionaries can be found to use the symbol /ʃ/ in tables over Swedish phonemes. If this is to make it easier for the reader to grasp the meaning, then why should Wikipedia make it more complicated for the reader?

--Ruhrjung 20:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

A differentiation between a borrowed /ʃ/-phoneme and a assimilated /ɧ/-phoneme can be made, the former expressed in for instance the realization of words as schnitzel, but this is a fairly marginal phenomen. I wouldn't recommend it to be the basis for choise of symbol. The IPA-definition of [ɧ] makes it not particularly good to use as phoneme-symbol for a phoneme that can be realized along nearly the whole row of fricatives in the IPA-chart.

--Johan Magnus 08:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A dictionary is probably not a very good source for phonology since it's intended to make use of terms fit that of foreign speakers not familiar with the sound. Especially when four other phonologies clearly have no problem whatsoever with using /ɧ/. Not even Leinonen who is actually describing the use of the allophone [ʃ] in Finland-Swedish has a problem using it. That it happens to be hard to pronounce really has nothing to do with its validity as a proper phoneme since a phonology is intended to present the sounds of languages in the way the the native speakers use them.

And, again, try to keep phonology and phonetics seperated. Peter Isotalo 03:51, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. Dictionary usage indicates that it's a usage likely to have been seen by the expected readers of a Wikipedia article. Leinonen, whom I've not read, probably directs himself to a much more limited readership, and at least readers with a much deeper advance knowledge of Swedish. We are not writing a thesis here. --Ruhrjung 15:54, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Isotalo seems to believe that the definition of standard language is uncontroversial and carved in stone. Calvert (1986), Descriptive Phonetics, lists possible criteria for standard pronunciation:
  • What most people say
  • What educated/prestigeous people say
  • What media says
  • What dictioinaries say
  • How words are spelled
  • How words originally were pronunced
  • Intelligibility
  • Beauty

• Isotalo further fancies a definition of dialect that is quite the contrary to what I've been used to. For me, a dialect is any variety that can be geographically defined; and every dialect is more or less influenced from the outside of its boundaries (influence from written languages are typically to characterize as influence from the outside). Dialects are always in the process of change, and this process is chiefly determined by factors related to social prestige. The information most relevant to convey to Wikipedia's readers is not whether Finland-Swedish or Götaland-Swedish are "dialects", but that the speakers in these areas have other standards for how to speak when speaking standard language (in the meaning more intelligible or more prestigeous). Rosengårdssvenska following some patterns of Central Swedish phonology is a typical example of how speech patterns that are considered high-prestigeous in one Swedish-speaking area may be shunned by socially upward mobile people in other Swedish-speaking areas.

But Wikipedia needs one unified article on the subject. What about incorporate a discussion about this in the article, hearing both views on the matter by the both of you? Inter\^Echo 10:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia must also strive for consistency. These articles on the Swedish language can not use another definition of dialect than the Wikipedia article on dialect does, unless this is very clearly indicated. --Ruhrjung 07:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

There is no single clear-cut definition of what a dialect is. Just check out Chinese language with all its variations. Pretty much the same thing with Arabic.

The criteria for what constitutes a dialect varies. If we applied the definition that is most common among linguists to the mainland Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norweigan and Swedish), they would all just be dialects of one another. But still all three are considered seperate languages. If this doesn't bother the Swedish linguists (the issues that are actually disputed among them are not what we're discussing here), why should it bother us? Peter Isotalo 14:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Now, my point was that if we do, this must be very clearly indicated. No, there is no single definition, but as this is a Wikipedia article, why not default to the definition preferred in en:Dialect. Are there any compelling reasons to do otherways. Your comment on Scandinavian languages is correct but I fail to see its relevance here. Our task is to produce a text that is considered correct and pedagogically informative by its readers. (And we can not assume these to be primarily Swedish.) That's a reason to bother.--Ruhrjung 20:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Swedish has one written standard. Isotalo is however wrong (or tendentiously simplifying) when he omits to point out the crucial importance of the written language in the development of prestige dialects (including a Central Swedish Standard). Svealand-Swedish certainly was one of the influences on written Swedish (from medieval writers via Gustav Vasa's Bible in Swedish to the orthography of the compulsory primary schools enforced in Sweden in 1842), but other important influences were that of Low-German, French, Latin grammar, but also prestigeous Götaland-Swedish (Saint Birgitta). (I write this based on what I've learned during my studies of Swedish, in Finland aswell as in Sweden. I believe this to be general schoolbook knowledge, and do not quite understand how Isotalo can take another position, unless there exists some new exciting research that can be quoted, when he writes: The spoken standard language is orginally based on dialects in Central Sweden that have been "exported" to various regions and have been "regionalized" through the influence of dialects.)

Again, what about incorporating both views in a way that satisfies everyone? (Unless some of it is historically incorrect) Inter\^Echo 10:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It may come as a surprise for some non-Swedes, but Swedish culture "stresses" a prestige hierarchy between dialects (and for that matter: languages) that is not totally uniform for all of the Swedish speaking area, but that exists as a generally accepted concept everywhere (maybe uncounciously, but people know about it in any case). According to this, archaic dialects seem typically to be considered less prestigeous. The most positive interpretation I can do of Isotalo's activities here, is that he believes either that the size of the Swedish speaking populations in Finland and in Götaland are neglible, or that he mistakenly believes that they like him consider a Central Swedish Standard to be their standard (which, by the way, is true for some border areas, notably in Ostrobothnia and Ostrogothia).

• As may be clear by now, I consider Swedish to be one language, and spoken standards (as Central Swedish Standard, South Swedish Standard, and Finland Swedish Standard) may well be covered by articles of their own, but by calling one of these *Swedish Standard Pronunciation we express ourself in a way that may be forbearingly overlooked by native Swedish speakers, but that is fundamentally unhelpful to non-natives, and also has a possible unwished effect on the debate in Finland on Mandatory Swedish, where factoids on what is thought outside of Finland always have great appeal.

• Comparisons between the different spoken standards belong to the articles on Swedish language and Swedish phonology. Personally, I can accept separate articles on Swedish phonology and Standard Swedish, although I'm far from convinced this is a good solution. Similarly, I'm not convinced that the current state of the article on Finland-Swedish is particularly good. But my general attitude is that Wikipedia doesn't have to be improved promptly.

• Making a conceptual difference between Finland Swedish Standard on one hand and Central Swedish Standard plus South Swedish Standard on the other is a solution that I see few merits in. The differences are no bigger; it contradicts the efforts of the Finland-Swedes to avoid further separation; and the time span of association with a Swedish government is no longer for Jämtland or the Swedish West- and Southcoast than for Finland. Like the Finnish-Swedish border wasn't drawn along linguistic borders, such a division would support false assumptions on the degree of Finnish influence on Swedish in Northsweden. It would also support false assumptions of the unimportance of a South Swedish Standard pronunciation. But I do see two supportive arguments:
  1. Only Finland-Swedish has to struggle against threatening influences from Finnish and necessary adaptions in the fields of governmental language (like Meänkieli in Sweden)
  2. which is why one in the most prestigeous written and spoken Finland-Swedish can find lexical differences from Sweden-Swedish (which is much more rare in the case of written South Swedish Standard, exemplified by the spelling fjor for fjol and the word middag and derivatives for lunch — grammar differences are really small, and of the similar magnitude between all of these three standards)

Whether "I can work together with Isotalo" or not, is more a question of if here will be others to work with. Isotalo has clearly indicated that he doesn't take me or my efforts seriously, so in my opinion, it would rather be a question of if he can start work together with me or not. As things stand right now, I believe it's high time for Isotalo to start doing some serious thinking.

/Tuomas 09:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There has been others to work with in the past, but let's assume that it is possible to find some common ground? Inter\^Echo 13:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I saw no problems until mid-March.

I'm not in any hurry. Improvements can wait.

Common ground with Isotalo depends on Isotalo.

Concillatory appearance is a first but unsufficient step.

/Tuomas 14:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very well. Can Isotalo chip in here with suggestions? Inter\^Echo 10:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here goes:

• The subdivision of Standard Swedish is more complex than just three general standards of "Central", "Southern" and "Finland-Swedish". The use of the term "standard" should be avoided, since these are not in any way codified or officially sanctioned on their own merits. The terms "variety" still seems like the best descrption to me and there are at least three more of these ("norrländska", "dalmål", "gotländska") as well as the city varieties ("stadsmål") spoken in the cities succh as Göteborg, Malmö and Stockholm.
• I can find no major disagreement among linguists on the differences between the terms "regional varities" and "dialects", and this holds true even for one of Tuomas' own sources (Leionen, 2004 [2]). A thorough explanation on the perception of the term "dialect" among laypeople should not be avoided, but it seems that the best way to avoid further confusion is to stick to the terms that have been used by scholars and other encyclopedias for quite some time now. Briefly explaining the quite straight-forward distinction between these terms and avoiding unnecessary use of obscure terms as acrolects or patois seems to me as being least prone to confusion or misunderstanding by the average reader. Trying to abide to the mindset of laypeople (which is mainly based on a misconcpetion of linguistic terms) in this matter seems a lot more prone to confusion than sticking to widely accepted terms among scholars.
• Standard Swedish is according to all sources I can find based on a Central Swedish dialect (or group of dialects centered on Stockholm) which has been promoted as both the written and spoken standard since the late 19th century. As Tuomas points out, this is to a great degree due to the fact that the written language has had great influence on the spoken language. Eventhough there has been influences from other dialects in the past, the base seems to be firmly rooted in the standards of the capital region around Stockholm.
• This subdivision of the standard language and phonologies into seperate articles is not without prior precedent. There are articles for Standard Mandarin, Standard Cantonese and at least ten seperate articles for phonologies for all kinds of languages such as Vietnamese phonology and Portuguese phonology.
• There is an ongoing debate among scholars on how to classify Rinkeby Swedish ("Rinkebysvenska") and its equivalents outside Stockholm. Are they sociolects, mere accents, or further varieties of Standard Swedish? I think it would be appropriate to mention them together with the other city-specific varieties such as "stockholmska" and "göteborska", though not as actual subdivisions of these.

There is one issue where the sources available give no clear indication right now, and that is Standard Swedish in Finland. Whether this is considered to be just another variety to be grouped among the other regional varieties or variety completely seperate seperate from those spoken in Sweden (and maybe containing further subdivisions) is not thoroughly explained anywhere. Peter Isotalo 12:11, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing Tuomas' comment to the above by Isotalo. Inter\^Echo 16:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will. But I'll try to do that when in a good mood. Reading Isotalo's complaint about snide comments from Ruhrjung whom he accuses for trying to pose as more "wise and experienced" than he in fact is, has put me off balance again. This he does for someone who has been around here for years and introduces himself with the words: "My formal education is limited, to express it mildly. I wasn't tuned in on school and homework when I was in that age." In my opinion, anyone can compare Ruhrjung's allegedly snide comments with Isotalo's, and this can only reflect badly on Isotalo. But I feel that I'm equally much an immigrant to the Swedes as is Ruhrjung, and for some Swedes, obviously, immigrants are wrong until the opposite is proven. Even on an international English-language arena. This makes me mad. /Tuomas 08:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inter asked me on #wikipedia to attempt an edit to get things going. I've included the source about the various Standard Swedish varieties in this article, and I've tried to improve Swedish phonology by improving the tables, recording new sounds and including Tuomas' summary, with some changes. You're all welcome to participate in discussing and editing, and please try to include sources to back up your objections or edits. I've made a more detailed summary of the changes at the talkpage.

If we're in total disagreement about the changes, I suggest we simply revert to the state it was before my last edit and we'll see if we can't try to mediate a better compromise. Peter Isotalo 16:05, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Now that the changes are made, I am interested in knowing what the other participants think of them. Inter\^Echo 12:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to see this process. Myself, I feel no great urge to contribute. I get too much of a feeling as if I am preparing for a seminar, and I don't like that feeling. I have generally a bad grip of what has been written in the last 15 years, and too easy to fall in in a pattern of feeling guilt for not having done my homework as good as I would like to give impression of. I also feel that Peter seems suspicious against sociolinguistics in general, and that's bad since I would tend to put sociolinguist views on virtually everything that's disputed here.
--Johan Magnus 14:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for making it seem that way, Johan. I have nothing at all against sociolinguistics and I understand the problems a lot of people have with the concept of standard languages and such. Personally I don't have a problem with the whole idea prestige dialects/standard language versus nonstandar langauge, since I see them as completely different entities. However, since these concepts to exist and even have their own articles here, I don't see why we need to explain the whole thing twice. If we explain the quite common Swedish confusion of "diealect", "language" and "regional variety", I think we've done our best to be NPOV. Peter Isotalo 14:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure there is so much of confusion among Swedes. There is a certain amount of ignorance, for instance with regard to the situation in Finland, that immigrants from Finland may perceive as incomprehensible and deliberatly belittleling given the importance all things Swedish are treated with in Finnish schools and mass media. And some amount of disinterest for aspects relevant for second language learners. Terminology could in general be more coherent, and dialectologists have their peculiar usage of dialect, but I don't believe Swedes (as in laymen) misinterpret eachother that much. Wikipedia must of course be careful not to contribute to confusion and misinterpretations. If important, we must state the obvious. A link to a definition is not enough.

--Johan Magnus 08:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rikssvenska vs högsvenska

I remove the following:

Among linguists the term "riksvenska" refers only to the standard language evolved from the dialects around the capital of Stockholm mainly in the mid-19th century and its various regional variations.

As far as I understand from talkpages (and my own limited knowledge), this is wrong. Linguists do in fact also use the term to indicate the Swedish spoken in Sweden as opposed to the Swedish spoken in Finland.

--Ruhrjung 16:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

dialect

I remove the following:

The term "dialect" is only used by scholars to denote the "genuine" Swedish dialects that have a linguistic history that can be traced back to Old Norse.

Although it from the context could be concluded that "...only used by Swedish scholars..." this is far from an ideal wording. I insert instead:

Some Swedish speakers, including leading dialectologists, reserve the term Swedish dialect for what they consider genuine rural dialects uncompromised by influence from the standard language.

As this is an article on Swedish Standard Language, I can't see what the dialects "genuine dialects" have here to do. I remove the following:

Genuine rural dialects are generally uniform with the area of the Swedish socken . City dialects are undergoing rapid changes and are much harder to distinguish from the standard language. Differences between individual buroughs is not uncommon in the larger cities like Gothenburg, Malmö and Stockholm.

The divisions between dialectal standards are generally defined by the borders of the old Swedish lands and natural boundaries like forests and rivers. The actual number of individual dialectal standards is disputed and different sources will give widely differing figures. At least five Central Swedish varieties exist:

• östgötskt
• Gutnish
• Eastern Central Swedish
• norrländskt
• Western Central Dalecarlian

Most of the content is already in Swedish language, where it belongs (at least until an article on Swedish dialects is created).

--Ruhrjung 16:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Ruhrjung removed the passage about the dialectal varieties that was in his own source and I don't really know why. This is a very important part of Standard Swedish and not mentioning the subdivisions like norrländska or östgötska is leaving out information about something like 1/4 of the speakers. These are not dialects, but rather more localized standard varieties. They're refered to as dialects in Swedish language but both Engstrand and Elert seem to agree that they're not. It's also quite specifically mentioned that they're mostly considered subdivisions of the Central Swedish by Elert.

Result of mediation

Ref. Rikssvenska vs Høgsvenska and dialect. Feel free to comment on these changes, as I am interested in knowing where you guys stand on this situation now. Inter\^Echo 12:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Current (my) version is far from perfect, but better than the previous. :-)

--Ruhrjung 13:34, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. :> Any other comments? Inter\^Echo 22:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am unconvinced of the good idea in having both a Swedish language article and one Standard Swedish article, however the wordings with respect to rikssvenska and högsvenska here are now OK. In my opinion, the current version of the article on rikssvenska looks clearer with the ordered list, but on the other hand: Wikipedia ought to prefer (and prefers at least in theory) articles with English names instead of articles in foreign names. It might be time for redirecting rikssvenska here, and to consider integrating some content that has been lost in the edits back and forth.

Indeed we prefer articles with english names as opposed to localized names. It is the english WP after all. :-) A redirect and then incoporate that content into a main article is a good idea. Inter\^Echo 08:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "There is however no common agreement on how such a rikssvenska should sound. What appears as rikssvenska for one Swede may appear dialectal for another." may appear slightly anti-Swedish in its appearent bias, but factual, that's undisputable, and it explains the issue at stake (i.e. what students of Swedish may perceive as disturbing lack of standardized pronunciation).

What is, is. Do it. Inter\^Echo 08:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "The direct translation of "Standard Swedish", standardsvenska, has a slightly different meaning and is not much used, and then primarily in linguistic contexts." raises the question: How is then standardsvenska defined.

Constructive discussion is welcome here. Inter\^Echo 08:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The English style and prose can surely be improved. But that must be made by more qualified souls.

The history section is the least discussed, and I guess some more reading would be required until I would feel prepared to make changes there. I don't know if I ever will.
--Johan Magnus 06:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we make a redirect of rikssvenska, since the article is really nothing buth a wiktionary definition right now? It doesn't seem as if we need to elaborate all that more on a Swedish term when he have this article to do it in. Högsvenska is already redirected here, by the way.

• Sounds good to me. A Wikitionary definition will eventually end up on VfD by somebody who is not familiar with your discussions. Inter\^Echo 08:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• There are inconsistencies in Swedish phonology in the smaller table with an overview of general differences in realizations.
  • The use of /ʃ/ instead of /ɧ/ doesn't seem to be quite merited. All general phonologies of Swedish use /ɧ/ and [ʃ] is only one of the somewhat less common realizations in Central Swedish and Finland Swedish. The only source I've seen use /ʃ/ is Leinonen, but he writes almost exclusively about Finland-Swedish varieties and dialects, not Swedish in general. He is also not consistent in his use of the term (most of the time he uses "sje-ljud" or even "/sje/"). Leinonen's work is also not a general phonology, but rather an in-depth phonetic study of two specific phonemes. The realizations in the table for Central and Southern Swedish seem somewhat off too. I'm not sure [ʃʷ] actually occurs in Central Swedish, [xʷ] seems to me to be a confusion with [ɧʷ] and [χʷ] is a voiceless uvular fricative that is as far as I know only used in typical immigrant varities like Rinkebysvenska and Rosengårdssvenska, though without labialization. [fʷ] seems completely wrong, since /f/ is a seperate phoneme and probably stems from the confusion we had about the labialization of /ɧ/ in Talk:Voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative. I would appreciate specific citings from the sources that were used to choose these characters and why they should be used instead of the terminology and characters that are all but completely unanimous in the general phonologies.
  • /ç/ is used instead of /ɕ/ eventhough [ç] is a fairly uncommon realization and [ɕ] is used almost exclusively in all varieties, including Finland-Swedish. /ɕ/ is also the character used in all the phonologies I've referenced.
  • Using terms like /sje/ and /tje/ somewhat demands of the reader to be acquianted with Swedish orthography, though if they're actually used in English language literature I'm okay with it. Otherwise I think we should stick to the IPA.

Peter Isotalo 09:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• If this is the case, maybe an explanation should be written about it for the unindulged (like myself). Inter\^Echo 08:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• You mean explaining that /ɧ/ and /ɕ/ are the most most commonly used? Peter Isotalo 09:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)