Talk:Swedish language/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Swedish language. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The sample is incorrect!

Latest comment: 16 years ago34 comments7 people in discussion

The sample of swedish, at the bottom of the page (barfotabarn) is incorrectly translated. It should, for example, be: "What was the word" instead of "What was your word" et.c. Shouldn't this be changed?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crakkpot (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where the original translation came from but since I agree with your translation I made the change. Next time, be WP:Bold and make the change yourself. If someone doesn't like it, they'll change it back (and hopefully explain why here). –panda 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I made the translation and I used that wording because it matches the meter of the Swedish version so much better. The difference between "what was it, your word" and "what was the word" is irrelevant in this context and really doesn't matter because the literal translation would actually be "what kind of word was it". The sample section isn't really about language analysis anyway, so I'm changing it back to the version that matches the meter. Peter ^Isotalo 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

How about using the following alternative: "what was it, the word"? It more closely matches the translation and does not alter the meter. –panda 01:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "that word" would be better than "the word" in that case. Peter ^Isotalo 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I assume you'll make the change. –panda 02:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice translation and a nice poem, but verse presents special problems in translation; would a short prose example be more useful? The key word, barfotabarn, is also a rarity; a compound in --o--, compounds in --e-- being more common (fisketur etc.) The only other that comes to mind is the title of Strindberg's Lycko-pers resa and that is hyphenate. Robert Greer (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See #Sample, a few threads down. In short, Peter doesn't think so but I do. I have a different rationale, however. –panda (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the rarity of the title really that much of a problem? In the thread linked above panda has been very insistent about including samples that illustrate the fairly small spelling changes that Swedish has undergone over the last 150 years, something I don't quite agree that the sample section is intended for. Including a work of prose to supplement the poetry would be a different issue, but I really don't think that Pippi Longstocking would be the appropriate choice. Peter ^Isotalo 10:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the sample such a good way of showing written Swedish? It uses one instance of nonstandard spelling, förr'n which one might say with spoken language but isn't the proper way to write. 88.206.128.190 (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it is a good example but the translation but the translation looks correct. In Swedish we often use the determined form where a (native) speaker of English would use a possesive pronoun. Examples: Jag tog på mig skorna -I put my shoes on, Jag parkerade bilen - I parked my car, Han lyfte handen - He raised his hand. 83.226.130.126 (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sample

I'm wondering what the purpose of the "Sample" section is. Including a Swedish poem doesn't really feel relevant since nothing in the article has to do with Swedish poetry. It may be more appropriate to place it in the Nils Ferlin article instead. I was considering replacing it with something more relevant. One example would be to take the first few sentences from the original version of Pippi Långstrump, a version in modern Swedish, and an English translation to show how the Swedish language has changed in the last 60 years. Or use some other text from Project Gutenberg where you can compare it with modern Swedish. Comments? –panda 23:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example text from 1867 that could be very suitable for this:

Det är väl knappast någon botanist, som icke vid sitt första möte med Daggörterna förvånats öfver dessa fina växters ovanliga utseende och märkliga egenheter. På dynor av Sphagnum-mossa utbreda sig täcka rosetter af rödaktiga blad, besatta med röda hår, hvilka sluta i en genomskinlig körtel. Dessa blad äro temligen tjocka och håren, som bekläda dem, utsöndra en klibbig vätska, hvilken såsom silfvertrådar sprider sig på mossan.

From svenska växternas naturhistoria I by C. F. Nyman (1867) –panda 01:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the section is to provide an example of how contemporary Swedish might look like, not to show historical change (that's what "History" is for). This article is about Swedish, which means that either prose or poetry is valid to use as an illustration Ferlin is very well-known in Sweden and Barfotabarn is among his most famous works. The poem is pretty, brief and written in a quite simple language. It represents contemporary Swedish very well despite being over 70 years old. Peter ^Isotalo 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The name of the article is "Swedish language" and it includes text about the history of the language as well as its current state. I can't help thinking that the only reason you're opposed to such a change is because you added the Barfotabarn text, versus actually considering what would be relevant for the article. –panda 04:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've given you relevant arguments of the merits of switching a short poem for an excerpt from a childrens' book as well as pointing out that "Sample" is not intended to serve as an extension of "History". See other language FAs if you don't believe me. As for voicing your assumptions about my intents, I can only recommend you to not assume bad faith. Peter ^Isotalo 12:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is your argument against an excerpt from a children's book? Because the text quoted above doesn't come from a children's book. You're welcome to list a other language FAs for me to look at. Considering that at least half of the article is about the language's history, I see no reason to not use historical text. –panda 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The language FAs can be found at here. There are only 9 of them so far that deal with individual languages. The text you've quoted above is highly inappropriate for our purposes since it's excruciatingly dull, written by a literary nobody, is grammatically outdated and uses archaic orthography. Peter ^Isotalo 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Witten by a literary nobody"? That's an amazingly strong claim. Care to back that up? The whole point is that it uses archaic orthography. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything to compare it with modern Swedish. –panda 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, panda, you're citing an obscure botanist who's not even famous enough to be in NE. The notion that the sample section be used for historical comparison is entirely your idea. I've worked on many language articles before, including several FAs, but I've never seen anyone suggest it be used in this way. If you really want to champion this novelty, you should at the very least be prepared to suggest decent texts. Peter ^Isotalo 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the above text then there's always Pippi. :) If you know so much about FAs then do this article a favor and help it satisfy the current FA criteria. –panda 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you intentionally ignoring me, panda? I just told you that this is entirely your idea. It has never been applied to any previous FA and there's no suggestion by Project Languages template or any other recommendations that it be used in this way. Peter ^Isotalo 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're opposed to the idea because you claim it is "entirely" my idea? Two language articles with FA status compare the older and newer version of the language: Gwoyeu Romatzyh and Taiwanese (linguistics). So it's not an entirely unknown idea. Only Turkish language and Ido contain poems, but Ido also has en excerpt from a children's book: The Little Prince. So on the topic of including an excerpt from a children's book, that's been done. Most of the FA language & linguistics articles don't have any sample text. Irish phonology and Laal included some sample text from everyday speech. Laal even included a literal translation along with the normal translation, which I recall someone tried to add to the Barfotabarn excerpt, but you reverted.[1] Besides Swedish, what other languages do you know of that have changed the spelling/writing of words in the last 60 years? I know of one, but it's already listed here as one of the ones that compare the older and new version of the language. –panda 05:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to switching poetry for excerpts from a children's book because I don't believe it's an improvement. And my last reply was really just a reaction to the fact that you appeared to suggest that any opposition to your suggestions on how to alter the article would automatically conflict FA standards. The FA articles on languages (not just linguistic topics) use poems in most cases (you forgot Tamil, btw). As for Laal, this is a language spoken only by a few hundred people without a literary tradition. Using everyday sentence in this case is a perefectly acceptable compromise. As for Irish phonology, this is an article describing the sounds of Irish, and the nature of the discipline pretty much requires that this be made with everyday language, not formal readings.

As for adding very awkward literal translations, I find it mildly irrelevant since Swedish is very similar to English (unlike Laal). Applying to poetry makes is even more awkward. Peter ^Isotalo 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to second Peter's view here. I don't see that switching the sample to either of the proposed alternatives would be an improvement. henrik•talk 12:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) How would an excerpt from a more well-known Swedish author not be an improvement for the article? Especially when it can demonstrate something (spelling changes) that is not possible with the current text? You still haven't answered my question above: do you know any other language that has changed the spelling/writing of words in the last 60 years than the ones mentioned above? –panda (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

To me, replacing a short, very pretty poem with a random snippet from a children's book would be setting a tone not appropriate in an encyclopedic article. I don't believe that Lindgren's fame in this case is a relevant argument.

As for spelling changes, there are probably hundreds of examples. Danish made å official in 1948, German has gone through several more recent spelling changes (most of them hotly disputed), the Russian alphabet lost four letters after the Russian Revolution, Japanese and Chinese have gone through huge changes during the 20th century and Korean dropped hanja almost entirely and went over to hangul. If we dare to stretch the timeframe just a wee bit more, languages like Turkish and Vietnamese have even switched to entirely new forms of writing systems. The spelling changes in Swedish during the last 60 years have been very insignificant. Peter ^Isotalo 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the languages you've mentioned:

The Danish language article mentions the å issue, and does not include a sample text but does show an example of å vs aa in use.
The German spelling reform of 1996 is mentioned in the German language article with many comparisons given in the German spelling reform of 1996 article.
The changes to the Russian alphabet are shown with sample texts both with and without the removed letters.
The different ways of writing Japanese are shown in Japanese writing system with sample texts written in all the methods.
The changes to the Chinese language are shown and compared in Gwoyeu Romatzyh with sample text written in both methods.
Comparisons of the Korean writing systems are shown in Korean language, with more found in Hangul.
Turkish language compares the old and new systems.
Vietnamese language gives an example text from one of the old systems, translated to modern Vietnamese and English.

Looking at other Wikipedia articles only confirms that comparisons are relevant and should be shown.

In comparison, spelling changes to the Swedish language are only mentioned briefly in the Modern Swedish section. However, you can see the old spelling used in classic Swedish literature and in some specific instances today, such as af.

I personally don't have anything against using text from another Swedish author or poet that does show the spelling changes. Another example would be August Strindberg's Svenska öden och äfventyr. This is an important part of the Swedish language that should be included in the article. –panda (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess we still disagree, panda. The Danish example is given a proportionally tiny amount of space in the relevant article, and the German spelling changes are more recent and more prominent for a reason. All the other examples are vastly more influential on the language than anything that has happened in Sweden the last few centuries. And what should be noted, is that many of the articles you cite are not main articles on languages, but sub-articles on alphabets and writing systems.

But I'm still at a loss as to why this is a dispute over the sample section. You could just as well add this information to other, more appropriate, sections instead of hammering on this one moot point. Peter ^Isotalo 11:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You've seemed to have made a gross over-generalization about main articles vs sub-articles seeing how Korean language, Turkish language, Vietnamese language, Norwegian language are all main articles and the different forms are used in Japanese language, Standard Mandarin, and Chinese language. Also, there is no article called Swedish writing system, nor should there be since it's not as extensive a change as other languages that have one. Nor is this about letters disappearing from the Swedish alphabet, so it shouldn't go in Swedish alphabet.

The points you've ignored are that it can be found in classic Swedish literature, it is an important part of the history of the Swedish language and mentioned in NE, and there's no reason to not show an example of it here, especially since comparisons are apparently normally shown in language articles in Wikipedia. Your reason for keeping the current text has simply boiled down to "I prefer poetry in a FA article", which is also fine with me. But I think the text should demonstrate the spelling changes that have happened in the recent history of the Swedish language and August Strinberg's text is certainly a good example of this. –panda (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You've stated the same basic opinion in many different ways, panda. Unfortunately I find your arguments far more persistent than convincing. Peter ^Isotalo 07:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And "Unfortunately I find your arguments far more persistent than convincing." So what do you propose? Only listening to your own opinion or can you work towards a compromise? –panda (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested many compromises (expanding "History" or "Writing system", for example) but you'e rejected them all. It appears you seem Hell-bent on altering the sample section to the exten that you're willing to change your arguments to suit your goals. I simply don't agree that your suggestions are improvements and neither does henrik. Maybe it's time you considered conceding a point. Peter ^Isotalo 14:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please show me a diff where I have rejected expanding "History" or "Writing system", or where you even mentioned expanding "Writing system" until now. You "seem Hell-bent on" not "altering the sample section to the exten [sic] that you're willing to change your arguments to suit your goals." For example, first you claim that "Ferlin is very well-known in Sweden and Barfotabarn is among his most famous works"[2] as a rationale for using his text and that Nyman's text shouldn't be used because it was "written by a literary nobody",[3] but when Lindgren is brought up you claim "I don't believe that Lindgren's fame in this case is a relevant argument."[4] It is relevant when it suits your case but not when it doesn't? You didn't even understand what the changes were about and still argued against them when you stated that Nyman's text "is highly inappropriate for our purposes since ... [it] is grammatically outdated and uses archaic orthography",[5] which was the whole purpose of that text. That Henrik has agreed with you about almost everything in this article only makes him look like part of a tag team and definitely not an independent third opinion. So you're set on only allowing changes to this article on your terms? –panda (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Strindberg

Latest comment: 16 years ago53 comments7 people in discussion

Perhaps the article writer's Stockholmian background is the reason why Strindberg is called the most influential Swedish writer of modern Swedish literature? People from other parts of the country might argue it was Gustav Fröding, Selma Lagerlöf, Erik Axel Karlfeldt or Pär Lagerkvist (all of them Nobel laureates). / Fred-J 13:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the issue is really not that any one doubts Strindberg was influential (but rather if he was the most influential) couldn't we just solve the issue by including some of these names as well? I don't think this is really an issue of center vs periphery, though.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As fond as I am of the works of Lagerlöf and Lagerkvist neither of them can be considered to be as influential as Strindberg; he is to Sweden as Ibsen is to Norway, as Shakespeare is to England. His not having received the Nobel Prize is well known to be the result of his controversial; that is to say, progressive; stands and the conservatism of the Swedish Academy and particularly its secretary at the time.

This is not to disparage the accomplishments of Fröding or Karlfeldt, and a section on the most influential writers of Sweden would be a welcome addition (do not however look to me to do it; I write mainly on ballet.) But to hold that any of them is as influential as Strindberg was -- and is -- would be to place the Bard of Avon in the same rank as Kyd and Marlowe (both of whom I likewise appreciate.) Robert Greer (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting, but it might be out of place here and more at home at Swedish literature.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jag med. Robert Greer (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robert Greer that Strindberg is the most influential Swedish writer from that era. However, I think it merits a source to say that Strindberg is considered to have initiated Nusvenska.

Fred-J 16:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

An even better question is where did any of the info in that section come from? The current text states:

Many scholars, politicians and other public figures had a great influence on the new national language that was emerging, and among them were also prolific authors like the poet Gustaf Fröding, Nobel laureate Selma Lagerlöf, and controversial writer and playwright August Strindberg.

but my version of Nationalencyklopedin doesn't make any claims about how Strindberg or any other author, for that matter, or how scholars or politicians influenced nusvenska. In NE it states that the language was influenced by urbanization (people moving from rural areas to the cities) and by the mass media (i.e., film, radio, and TV). –panda (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fred, but the current wording doesn't really say that Strindberg initiated Modern Swedish, only that he was an influential writer.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you insist I'll dig out the course materials from the Swedish Institute summer courses I took in '91, '93, '96, '97, '00 and '01; but this is a nonsense argument as it is taking place between what are clearly native speakers of the language who full well know little August's significance to and influence upon modern Swedish even if they do not care to acknowledge it! Robert Greer (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The current problem with the text is not about how influential Strindberg was as an author, but whether or not he influenced nusvenska (1900-present). Contrary to what Peter Isotalo claims, the text does not only state that "he was an influential writer", but instead that he as well as "Many scholars, politicians and other public figures had a great influence on the new national language" (nusvenska). In other words, Strindberg and others actually influenced contemporary Swedish somehow. Currently, there is nothing to substantiate this in the article nor in NE.

If you have a reference that states how Strindberg influenced nusvenska, then please add it. Quoting the relevant text here would also be helpful. But being considered the first contemporary author or an influential author is not the same as stating someone influenced nusvenska. There have been many influential writers in the world but that doesn't mean their writings have directly caused changes to their respective languages.

–panda (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been any reference added to the contested text, it has now been removed. The authors are mentioned as being important in Swedish literature but their influence on nusvenska has been removed since there is no reference to support this. –panda (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Robert on this one. We're arguing over something that no one actually doubts. The text that is being argued over is also extremely general in its statements. If we can agree that writers "made their mark on Swedish literature", then they obviously had an impact on the language. The formeris, after all, an expression of the latter. This would only be a problem if the text started to discuss the influences in detail.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Many writers have had a profound impact on literature without having any appreciable effect on the languages they write in (Faulkner comes to mind). The one does not imply the other. --Tkynerd (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

American 20th century authors aren't comparable to Swedish 19th century authors since English is a much more decentralized and more widely-spoken language. The formation of Swedish as a standardized national language has been dictated by the development in a much more confined arena. Besides, we're refering to a collective in which Strindberg is widely recognized as one of the most important Swedish-language authors ever. The article in Nationalencyklopedin about him even claims outright that "Strindberg is the most prominent author in Swedish literature." This could certainly be nuanced, but we're still talking about an author who's influence is difficult to overestimate.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Nationalencyklopedin article about nusvenska and the Swedish language also do not mention Strindberg, any author, or any politician as influencing the Swedish language. If it were true, why do you suppose they didn't include it? No one doubts that Strindberg is a "prominent author in Swedish literature." You're extrapolating an influence on Swedish literature to mean someone influenced the Swedish language. Until there is a reference that backs up that claim, it is synthesis of data and should not be included in the article. Wikipedia's policy about this is very clear: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." –panda (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) In spite of being an influential author worldwide, Faulkner did not even have an appreciable effect on U.S. English. (English is not a monolith.) (2) What I've said of Faulkner could certainly be said of any number of authors in smaller languages, such as Strindberg. (3) The essential point, which you seem determined to miss, is that being an influential author does not equal having an influence on a language. The community of speakers of a language (however "language" is defined) is considerably larger than the literary community and much less susceptible to any single influence. --Tkynerd (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

English and Swedish are in no way comparable languages in this issue. When a language has only a few million speakers concentrated to pretty much just one country, the literary community will be extremely influential. I disagree with this being a mere extrapolation or synthesis since I have read about particularly Strindberg's influence elsewhere.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you claim you "have read about Strindberg's influence elsewhere", then why have you not added the reference to the article? This issue came up more than 2 months ago. Anyway, an influence on literature does not equate an influence on the language, regardless of whether it is Swedish, English, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, or any other language. –panda (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Because in my experience it seems rather uncontroversial statement and the arguments here are very unconvincing, but I've added a reference to a book written by Olle Josephson to satisfy WP:V.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Please enlighten us on what the source states about how Strindberg, other authors, many scholars, and politicians have influenced the Swedish language, such as with a relevant quote from the book you cited. No need to translate the text to English. All of us discussing this understand Swedish. –panda (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is problably the best illustration:

Av författarna kommer man naturligtvis inte runt Strindberg. I traditionell språkhistoria sätter man gärna gränsen för den moderna svenskan med Strindbergs Röda rummet 1879.

"Among the authors one naturally can not avoid Strindberg. In traditional language historiography modern Swedish starts with Strindberg's Röda rummet from 1879."

Peter ^Isotalo 10:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course that doesn't necessarily mean Strindberg had an influence on the language. It can, and probably does, simply mean that Strindberg captured what was happening with the language at a point where it makes sense, to historians of Swedish, to draw a line between periods. --Tkynerd (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

1879 is not typically considered a part of nusvenska (1900s), but instead the end of yngre nysvenska/younger New Swedish (1732-1900). The text also does not state how Strindberg influenced the Swedish language, only that the year Strindberg published Röda rummet (1879) is considered the border/limit for modern Swedish. (Why? I assume this is explained in the sentences following that statement.) Also, there's still no reference that verifies how politicians or scholars influenced nusvenska, or how any of the authors mentioned in the article right now (Gustaf Fröding, Selma Lagerlöf, and Strindberg still) influenced nusvenska.

As a side note, it doesn't matter what one Wikipedian considers is "uncontroversial" or "unconvincing" when the "uncontroversial statement" is not a universal, undisputed fact. Don't forget that Wikipedia is for its readers, not just for Swedes or a particular editor.

–panda (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical periods don't end or begin from one year to the next, but are gradual changes. Ask any historian. If you have doubts about the referenced book and what it does or doesn't say I can recommend reading it.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's particularly true of language periods; languages change very gradually for the most part, which is why it virtually never makes sense to say that a single person, even an author, has a significant influence on any language. --Tkynerd (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the development of Modern Swedish was a lot more rapid than in previous periods because of the significant changes in technology and society. However, I really don't see anything indicating that the current wording in any way exaggerates the significance of any individuals. I see no difficulty in finding sources that state that certain authors, especially Strindberg, had a considerable impact on language development. Speaking of which, I just checked Nationalencyklopedin's article on svenska and much to my surprise I found the following passage in the section yngre nysvenska (1732–1900):

Mot slutet av 1800-talet hade Sverige en kår av skönlitterära författare som levde av att skriva och som lästes av landets hela bildade allmänhet. Viktor Rydberg, August Strindberg, Selma Lagerlöf och andra fick genom sina böcker stor betydelse för skriftspråkets utveckling också utanför skönlitteraturen.

"Towards the end of the 19th century Sweden had a body of fiction writers that lived on their writing and these were read by everyone in cultivated parts of society. and other hade a great significance to the development of the written language not just within fiction, but also in other aspects."

Even if it's not under the section on nusvenska, it still would have been pertinent for anyone complaining about the lack of information in certain sources to read them in their entirety.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's telling, but (1) it doesn't mention nusvenska and (2) it says nothing about the spoken language, which of course is primary. (It would be different if nusvenska were primarily a written language, but it isn't.) --Tkynerd (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No language is primarily a written language, but an extremely important factor of the development into Modern Swedish was that pronunication became heavily influenced by spelling and that the written and spoken language approached one another. It was also the written standard language that formed the basis of Standard Swedish. It's covered in some detail in Josephson and is also described in NE.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you should explain all that in the relevant passage in the article and use those references. --Tkynerd (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The nusvenska NE article states that the written and spoken language did approach each other and the written language had, in certain aspects, influenced the spoken language but it was "more natural that speech influenced writing", such as the 1906 spelling reform, the verb changes in 1950, text in fiction and the press, etc. To quote NE:

Det redan standardiserade skriftspråket har i vissa avseenden kommit att fungera som modell för rikstalspråket. När ord som glad uttalas med -d och gator med -or så sker detta under påverkan av skriften; i de flesta av landets dialekter heter det sedan länge gla resp. gater. Både ord och syntax i moderna svenskars tal är ofta övertagna från skriftspråket. Men i takt med att dialekterna har försvagats och likheten mellan tal och skrift ökat blir det också naturligare att talet påverkar skriften. Skönlitteraturen har här ibland visat vägen i och med att romantexterna mer än tidigare består av replikskiften som i viss utsträckning speglar naturligt talspråk. Pressen måste skriva enkelt för att nå en så stor publik som möjligt och har i vissa avseenden närmat sig talets stil och ordformer. Eftersom tidningsspråket i dag framstår som svenskt normalspråk påverkar det stil- och språkutvecklingen också inom andra genrer. (Dagspressen hade år 1993 en upplaga på över 4,3 miljoner ex.)

År 1906 bestämdes att skolan skulle stava v och t efter talet (vad, leva, liv inte hvad, lefva, lif; rött, målat inte rödt, måladt). (Senare försök att reformera stavningen på andra sätt i riktning mot talet har dock inte vunnit framgång, se rättskrivning 2.) Runt 1950 gick de allra flesta skribenter över till att använda verbets singularform också vid pluralt subjekt, dvs. man skrev de kommer, vi var, inte längre de komma, vi voro. (I de flesta av landets dialekter hade verbets numerusböjning försvunnit långt tidigare). Vissa av talets kortformer används numera allmänt i skrift (ta, dra, sa, ska m.fl.), och många småord som tidigare mest använts i talspråk har nu blivit gängse i skriftspråket: inte (gentemot ej, icke), bara (gentemot endast, blott) m.fl.

The comments here have been about Strindberg et al and their relationship to nusvenska afterall. For the 3rd time, there's still no reference listed for how several scholars or politicians influenced nusvenska. According to NE, it was the spoken language that influenced politicians and their administrative texts, not the reverse. Also from the nusvenska NE article:

Under efterkrigstiden har statens roll ökat i samhällslivet och den enskilde medborgaren möter allt fler administrativa texter. Det har blivit nödvändigt att lagar och förordningar utformas mera läsarvänligt, och ett stort arbete läggs därför ner på att ersätta det äldre snåriga kanslispråket med mer lättlästa uttryckssätt. Också det talspråkliga umgänget har blivit mer informellt under andra hälften av 1900-talet. Tidigare språkliga markeringar av rang och distans har inskränkts. Se du-tilltal, ni-tilltal.

Språkrådet (formerly Svenska språknämnden) gives an explanation for the Strindberg association with nusvenska, which they state was due to "the renewal of the literary style". So can you equate a renewal of the literary style to a change in the language? And what exactly is meant by a renewal of the literary style?

Skälet att en gång sätta det exakta årtalet 1879 som bakre gräns för nusvenskan var att Strindbergs Röda rummet kom det året och förnyade den litterära stilen. (SPRÅKVÅRD 2007/1, p 42)

Going back to my question: how did the authors influence the language? They didn't seem to be involved in the any spelling reform, according to the rättskrivining article in NE. This can also be seen if you compare Strindberg's play Till Damaskus, published in 1898, to a later edition published in 1915 (after the 1906 spelling reform). So how did they influence the language? According to the NE text above, the written language (via fiction writers and the press) started to be written more like spoken Swedish. (Skönlitteraturen har här ibland visat vägen i och med att romantexterna mer än tidigare består av replikskiften som i viss utsträckning speglar naturligt talspråk. Pressen måste skriva enkelt för att nå en så stor publik som möjligt och har i vissa avseenden närmat sig talets stil och ordformer.) So it would appear that the spoken language influenced the written language (via fiction writers and the press), which then influenced the standard language.

Since Peter claims that Josephson also explains the contested text, it would be pertinent to let us know what it says so that we can all analyze the contents better. Keep in mind that not everyone has access to every reference that someone may list and it's courteous to cite relevant passages when asked to do so, instead of assuming that everyone can get a copy of a book and read it at will.

Some of the confusion in the article may be related to the English translations for nysvenska and nusvenska used in Wikipedia. Nusvenska should be called "Contemporary Swedish" or "Present-Day Swedish" (called "Modern Swedish" here) and nysvenska should be called "Modern Swedish" (called "New Swedish" here), according to Norstedts Swedish-English dictionary, the Nordic Language Secretariat, and Birger Winsa's extensive overview of the Swedish language (html or PDF). The rather unfortunate direct translation used in this article should be fixed immediately, as well in the New Swedish article and the Modern Swedish redirect (which require an admin's help).

–panda (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference has been there for quite a while now, but you appear not to be willing to read it despite the fact that it's a common book available in most public libraries. I also don't see anything actually contradicting the current text. Written language was simplified, but there's also the aspect of speech being influenced by the written language, the phenomenon called läsuttal (literally "reading pronunciation"). The claim that policy influenced politicians doesn't make much sense, though. Policy isn't a separate entity that dictates its own contents, but is formulated by politicians influenced by popular opinion to one degree or another. I'm sure we could add more detail to the text, but I don't really see any problem with the verifiability.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Which reference are you referring to? You didn't add a reference to the contested text until 13:25 on 2 March 2008, which does not make it something that "has been there for quite a while now". And you have continued to refuse to post any useful text from that reference, but instead keep assuming that all others who ask for quotes are "not ... willing to read it despite the fact that it's a common book available in most public libraries." I've already explained that "not everyone has access to every reference that someone may list and it's courteous to cite relevant passages when asked to do so, instead of assuming that everyone can get a copy of a book and read it at will." So perhaps you could try being courteous and post some useful quotes instead of attacking another editor who is interested in having an academic discussion.

I would recommend re-reading my comments above since you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. For example, I never claimed that "policy influenced politicians" nor anything even remotely similar. NE makes it clear that during the nusvenska period, the spoken language had a larger role than the written language on the Swedish language, even if the written language may have influenced the spoken language to some degree, as well as that "many scholars, politicians and other public figures" did not influence nusvenska. Perhaps you don't understand the issue here...?

–panda (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Detail discussions aside, I really don't see how any of your quotes contradict the current article contents. An absence of corroboration of very specific statements (or virtual duplication of statements) in source A does not mean that those statements in source B are dubious. If anything, one should at least attempt to read source B before demanding specific citations. I get the impression that what you're asking for more is more detail, but I don't agree that the veracity of the article is a problem. Since you're making extremely narrow interpretations based on rather selective readings of certain sources, I really recommend doing more research to get a broader sense of the topic. For example, if you agree that written language is an aspect of language, then implying that literary development isn't language change makes very little sense.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have to put it this way but it's very naive and ignorant to believe that a book written in Swedish is "a common book available in most public libraries." The majority of books written in Swedish are not available in most public libraries of the world. The fact that you have yet to produce a useful quote from your reference seems to indicate that there is no text in that reference that would back-up the contested statement. The one quote that you thought may have, doesn't actually say anything relevant. –panda (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Your suspicions and invectives are your's to deal with, panda. Other than that I really don't see any problem here. Until you can point to actual contradiction that aren't dependent entirely on your own personal interpretations, you'll have to do you own homework.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The normal process of peer review is questioning someone's interpretation of a reference, and not to blindly accept that just because a reference was added, it was added appropriately. The issue here isn't my personal interpretation of anything, especially since I'm not the one editing the article. When two editors (Tkynerd and I) both point out a problem with a quote that you presume backs up a claim, then the appropriate reaction is to produce another quote that backs up the claim, instead of assuming that everyone should "do [their] own homework". That kind of infantile attitude isn't appropriate for a collaborative encyclopedia and is definitely not considered acceptable in the academic world. –panda (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The one isolated quote that I presented hasn't been refuted by anything you have quoted. In fact, it's even corroborated by Staffan Hellberg's article in Språkvård[6] that you quoted earlier and more or less by the NE text. Quoting sources you can't be bothered to read but still feel confident enough to criticize is very, very time-consuming. I'm not going to waste my time copying large chunks of texts for someone who can't produce tenible arguments or reasonable interpretations of sources.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you still don't understand the issue here. That quote doesn't back-up the following claim in the nusvenska portion of this article:

Many scholars, politicians and other public figures had a great influence on the new national language that was emerging, and among them were also prolific authors like the poet Gustaf Fröding, Nobel laureate Selma Lagerlöf, and controversial writer and playwright August Strindberg.

If we remove "and controversial writer and playwright August Strindberg" from the above text, then the quote doesn't apply at all. Neither does Hellberg's nor the NE article back-up that claim. The NE article actually says it was the spoken language that influenced nusvenska and Hellberg's only states the same thing as your quote, nothing relevant. No one is asking for you to copy "large chunks of texts", only the necessary text that actually backs-up that claim. If it is so clearly stated in the reference you listed above, then it shouldn't require "large chunks of text". As a reminder, claiming that another editor "can't produce tenible arguments or reasonable interpretations of sources" is inappropriate for a collaborative encyclopedia and would fall under personal attacks. –panda (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

None of the texts you've quotec contradicts anything in the article. If you wish to complement the text with commens about the spoken language, then do so yourself instead of attacking the current wordings or sources you haven't yet to read. Written and spoken language are two aspects of the same thing and they are not mutually exclusive. Describing changes in one does not exclude descriptions of the other. And I'd really advise you to rethink the idea that any and all facts can be supported with brief quotes. All statements can't necessarily be summarized in easily-digested snippets of text.

And if you're going to characterize my criticism of your methodology and interpretation of sources as personal attacks, then have a long hard look at the various descriptions you've applied directly to me in the last few posts. Adjectives like "naive", "ignorant" and "infantile" beg for lengthy explanation if you're really serious about discussing personal slights.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that it is the responsibility of other editors to either check your sources themselves, or blindly accept them. We are, of course, obligated to do neither. It is your responsibility to convince us if you want to achieve consensus on this point, which is the only way the passage you want can remain in the article. --Tkynerd (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The "do your own homework"-argument is really secondary to this dispute, even if I find the harsh demands from panda rather exasperating. The fact remains that there is no actual disagreement between the sources panda has quoted and the statements made in the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you people, but I was taught in school (last year) that Röda Rummet significantly influenced the swedish language. I don't know if it's correct, but couldn't it be like a circle? I mean, the spoken language influences Strindberg who writes Röda Rummet, which influences both written and spoken language? And so it continues, in a circle? Could that be possible? ☺ Spiby ☻ 14:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Spiby: My question about Strindberg has been how did he influence the Swedish language, not if he did. How he did has yet to be explained beyond my analysis of the NE nusvenska article, which could benefit from some corroboration. Also, the issue here isn't only about Strindberg, but rather the entire sentence in the nusvenska section that states:

Many scholars, politicians and other public figures had a great influence on the new national language that was emerging, and among them were also prolific authors like the poet Gustaf Fröding, Nobel laureate Selma Lagerlöf, and controversial writer and playwright August Strindberg.

Peter: The "do your own homework" claim you repeatedly make is the primary excuse you have used in content disputes to avoid explaining disputed text, so it's not "secondary to this dispute." And really, is asking for a reasonable quote from a book considered "harsh demands" now a days? When NE claims that A led to B which led to C but the text here claims B led to C, then that doesn't contradict the sources I've listed but it's about as incorrect as stating the Swedish flag is blue -- it doesn't tell the entire story. Why don't you explain which part does not contradict the text instead of claiming it repeatedly with no explanation? That would build dialog instead of the "stalemate" that you claim.

Regarding your comment that "Adjectives like 'naive', 'ignorant' and 'infantile' beg for lengthy explanation", they were explained when I made them and apply to everyone, not necessarily just you. OTOH, you assume things about me that I've never stated or are based on your personal opinion such as "you appear not to be willing to read it despite the fact that it's a common book available in most public libraries", "you're making extremely narrow interpretations", and "someone who can't produce tenible arguments or reasonable interpretations of sources". These are, in the mildest case, examples of assuming bad faith and at their extreme, personal attacks.

–panda (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The way Strindberg and others influenced Swedish is rather obviously through writing and making policies. None of the sources you cite don't contradict this in any way whatsoever. At most they describe other aspects of language change, but in many instances you've chosen to simply ignore those passages that actually agree with what has already been written.

As for what you describe as personal comments, they're not actually examples of bad faith, but really just vehement disagreement with how you interpret sources and lack of general knowledge of the topic. That you have good intentions does not mean that you are automatically right.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's so obvious how Strindberg and others influenced Swedish through writing and making policies, then it shouldn't be so difficult to give some examples of how and what part of the Swedish language this affected. It's not obvious to me. If the passages I've cited are "passages that actually agree with what has already been written" then cite them and let me know what it is that I've "chosen to simply ignore" since I don't know which ones you are referring to. Since the text I've cited is already a part of this thread, it's a simple matter of copying and pasting the text.

BTW, once again you've displayed another example of assuming bad faith by assuming "you've chosen to simply ignore those passages that actually agree with what has already been written." Obviously I can't be ignoring something that I'm not aware of. Assuming good faith has nothing to do with whether you or I are "automatically right" about anything. I highly recommend reading WP:AGF to learn what it is about. –panda (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no passages to cite in response to your question since none of your quotes actually disagree with anything stated in the article. All the other sources do is describe other aspects of language change, often in addition to mentioning the literary development already mentioned. Your repeated queries about exactly how this and that person affected the language are really not possible to reply to without directing you to read large bodies of literature. You're perfectly welcome to voice skepticism to the conclusions of prolific authors (which is what is summarized in this article), but if this is to affect article content then you need to produce statements from other authors or scholars (ie reliable sources). What you're doing in this thread is merely to repeat your own personal skepticism because you don't have access to all the specific details.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? "There are no passages to cite..."? You just wrote that I've cited "passages that actually agree with what has already been written" so please explain which passages I've cited agree with what has been written. This is a simple matter of copy-and-paste so that everyone can understand what you mean. –panda (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(back to the left) I have tried to browse through all the exchange of views above and quickly check up a few online Swedish-language sources on the subject. I note the following:

The two actual years mentioned are usually 1879 (Strindberg's Röda rummet) and 1906 (the spelling reform), often together with a statement about a broader change in "1880s" or "just before 1900" or something like that. Describing it like a gradual process with 1879 & 1906 as two important years marking approximately the beginning and the end of the process seems reasonable to me.
While Strindberg's novel is mentioned in many sources, statements on Strindberg usually say something like "The earliest literary work connected with Nusvenska is Röda rummet, which broke ground for a new literary style in Sweden", and actually not stronger statements like "Strindberg created Nusvenska" or "Strindberg was the most influential figure in Nusvenska". Perhaps it would be easier to go with the book and it's year as a description in the article, and just mention that Strindberg was the author?
I think it is a bit unnecessary to term Strindberg controversial in connection with this article. He was definitely controversial in his time, but he's been staple fare so long with Swedish literature scholars and schoolchildren that the term feels misplaced to me. On the other hand "radical writer" or "politically radical writer" would be more timeless epithets that would seem fitting to him & NPOV.

Tomas e (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I need to point out that although this began as a debate over the prominence of Strindberg, I believe that issue to be largely resolved since Strindberg is mentioned among other authors and public figures. It has now moved on to a slightly unfocused disagreement over whether change in literature means a change in language and whether written or spoken language should be focused on.
Language historians would probably not agree that any particular process of language change ended in 1906. One article that panda brought up puts the dividing line around 1945 and the source I have quoted, written by Josephson, puts a dividing line at around 1970.
I agree that "radical" is a better term for contemporary readers and I changed it according to your suggestion.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Which article did I bring up puts the dividing line around 1945? Tomas makes a good point about the years for nusvenska and it would make sense to include all of the relevant dates, especially since they're all verifiable. –panda (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The article I'm referring to is the one from Språkvård that you cited a while ago. It's the one where the last sentence of the first paragraph reads "Staffan Hellberg [...] puts the limit for Contemporary Swedish at 1945" (my translation).'

Peter ^Isotalo 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The article states:
Staffan Hellberg, en av författarna till Svenska Akademiens grammatik, sätter gränsen för nutidssvenskan vid 1945.

The article also differentiates between nutidssvenska and nusvenska. So they're talking about two different time periods of the Swedish language. It gets very confusing if you translate nutidssvenska and nusvenska to English since both could be translated as contemporary Swedish but apparently refer to different time periods of the Swedish language. –panda (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On second glance, I see that Hellberg writes:

Här kommer jag att argumentera för att den nutida svenskan, nusvenskan, just nu ska räknas från 1945.

so he is arguing that nusvenska should start from 1945. Interesting that he points out Astrid Lindgren as being one of the pioneers of modern Swedish:

Astrid Lindgren, 100 år i år, var bland mycket annat också en av pionjärerna för modern svenska. Det år Pippi Långstrump kom ut tog TT bort verbens pluralformer, Expressen slog igenom, och andra språkhistoriskt viktiga förändringar kan dateras till samma tid. Staffan Hellberg, en av författarna till Svenska Akademiens grammatik, sätter gränsen för nutidssvenskan vid 1945.

Something I have noticed is that nusvenska is not acknowledged in all sources that discuss the history of the Swedish language. Some books stop at nysvenska so that everything from 1732 onwards is a part of nysvenska, e.g., (1) Vikør, Lars S. (1993) "The Nordic Languages", Oslo: Novus Press, p 48. (2) Norde, Muriel (1997) "The History of the Genitive in Swedish: A case study in degrammaticalization." Amsterdam: vakgroep Skandinavische taal- en letterkunde, p 15. The 2nd reference cites Wessén, Elias (1968) "Svensk språkhistoria I: Ljudlära och ordböjningslära" for the period divisions and notes that nusvenska is used in Wessén's book, but not in that book. So it seems various scholars don't agree about the time frame for nusvenska. –panda (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Enclitic s

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm a native speaker of Swedish, and I was rather surprised to see "mannen i grå kavajs hatt" cited as a normal sentence. If forced to use it, I would write or say "mannens i grå kavaj hatt", this being the way it has been hammered into me by my teachers ("it is the man's hat, not his suit's!"). In practice, both variants cause consternation, are strongly discouraged in writing and cause raised eyebrows in speech. I'd like to change the text, but I'd like your opinions first. Lenborje (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the impression that the text actually states that the example is common, but that the usage of the enclitic s that you find to be erroneous to be the favored one for most people. The classic example of where to place the possessive -s is usually kungens av Danmark bröstkarameller ("the King of Denmark's [hard] candies"). As far as I know, the placing of the genitive suffix after the primary noun (kungen) is considered rather contrived, and no amount of old-fashioned hammering from school teachers is going to change that. It has grammatical logic going for it, but extremely few people would actually use that form. The problem here is not that people are abusing their own langauge, but the idea that grammar is always logical and consistent.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)