Talk:North Germanic languages

Mutual intelligibility

Icelanders learn Danish (or Norwegian or Swedish) as the second foreign language in school. Faeroes learn Danish as their first foreign language at school. Their is Mutual intelligibility between Icelandic and Faroese. Their is no Mutual intelligibility between Faroese or Icelandic and the three Scandinavian languages.Jochum (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Norwegians may have a better grasp of Swedish as throughout Norway we get at least three Swedish TV channels. However as there was only one Norwegian television channel (NRK) until 1992, and TV3 had a Norwegian branch (it was considered Norwegian, but it was transmitted from Sweden, thus not a Norwegian TV Channel). TV3 had, unlike NRK, more programs directed towards children. The cartoons showed on TV3 were only dubbed in Swedish, therefore it would not be a big surprise that children who grew up watching TV3 have a better understanding of Swedish. As the influence of Danish is less now than it was before, it is more likely that the understanding of Danish will be more of a regional thing, due to certain Norwegian dialects in the South are considered to be more Danish sounding. - Broken angel (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This (claimed) intelligibility is much dependent on actual and somewhat frequent exposure to the neigbour languages. In modern days (the past century) this is mostly attained via TV (and previously, Radio). Example: In Denmark, the people of Jutland (Jutes, "jyder") usually have a low-to-non-extant understanding of Swedish, but then they generally have a much better command of German than people in the rest of the country. To the opposite, the people of Sealand (Sealanders, "sjællændere") generally have a good understanding of Swedish, but a low-to-non-extant understanding of German. (This of course is a generalization and exceptions abound, but it is the general rule). These significant differences stem from the fact that (before digitalization) for many years (South) Jutes could receive German Television while Sealanders could not, and Sealanders could receive Swedish TV while Jutes could not. clsc (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is as much dependent on attitude and need. If you ask as Stockholmer never interacting with Norwegian language many say no. But fcing a norwegian and needing to understand a context the result will be very different. It is like Poles understanding of Russian, there many of them don't want so the say no, but they do. Same thing with Finns and Swedish and French with English. And a Stockholmer facing true Gotlanish or Kalix language wouldn't understand a thing.

The second issue is hearing or understanding dependent on pronounciation (especially Danish with soft consunants, need some experience for a Swede but with it no problem. Getting the context, the words right it comes to vocabulary and experessions.

And vocabulary and experessions is a huge hurdle for external immigrants, dependent on size of their vocabulary. A regular Scandinavian has a huge vocabulary and it is indeed very common between the languages. But a Swede would never experess like a Dane, but understand what tha Dane says. But feel the Dane is speaking old fashion and the Dane have the same impression. This is because frequent used words in one language is rarly used in the other. As a side effect external immigrants normlly don't understand a thing of the other Scandinvian languages.

Zzalpha (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Should the table have 10 instead of N/A? Speaking your own language is highly applicable. It also shows that the maximum is 10. Eur (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Swedish and Finnish are nowhere near as close as English and French. Jeez. Even english has a Finnish word that Swedish doesn't: sauna. In Swedish it's bastu

I feel like Elfdalian should be considered a part of the insular club, it's not related to Swedish as much as old Norwegian; it even has the old datives and accusatives, only the most insular dialects of Norwegian have those (Nynorsk writing has gotten rid of it even) and those who speak the equivalent of bokmål are mutually intelligible to Danes and swedes, yes, but there are more than just those in Norway

As with all languages in western Europe, there's so much that could be added here but isn't for "readability's" sake. Really, I see it as a fault on the editors' parts in acknowledging how interesting this is to whatever school student and linguistics nerd that's gonna open this page

Just because the various histories tried homogenising these languages doesn't mean we should passively continue that, Elfdalian is probably not the only example in Sweden/Norway

Anyway, signed Acetoe (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

two languages called "Norwegian"

There are not two languages called Norwegian. Bokmal and Nynorsk are written standards, not spoken languages. You can't have one language in two places in a tree unless (a) there is disagreement as to its classification, in which case that should be noted, or (b) there are two languages with the same name. Neither is the case here. — kwami (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The distinction between spoken language and writing standards is a true issue of all Scandinavian languages because the way of speaking the words/expressions (the song) has such a big impact in the message in spoken scandinavian language, that written standards are quite different from spoken languages. Not just writing standards for Norwegian and all of them could very well have multiple writing standards, but only Norwegian do. But Swedish spoken language did not change by the big writing reform in the early 1900ds, warvf and varv is pronounced the same in spoken Swedish languge. Writing standrads are politics (ask the Norwegians), spoken language isen't.

Zzalpha (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't get how the prosody affects the spelling?

There are more than two Norwegian languages, just like there are more than two Swedish languages (not to mention Gutnish). Unfortunately, Elfdalian is written in Swedish letters but spoken more like a west Nordic language. - Acetoe (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Origin of term "North Germanic"?

Does anybody have a clue as to who coined the term "North Germanic", and when? I know it's technical jargon from Linguistics, but what is the origin, exactly? If we can get a sourced origin for the term, the article should include it, imho. Thanks in advance for any help, and excuse my ignorance. clsc (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a "made up" term. I can't find any credbility to the term and only were first faced with it after google showed the wiki page for it. It's not taught in any scandinavian schools, as here we are taught to call it "Scandinavia" which also origins back to as early as the german language had a influence on sweden.(Hansan) It's not officialy recognized and it's not taught in schools either, which means Scandinavia is the accurate term to refer to the Nordic Countries. "North Germanic languages" should be avoided in any way possible when refering to the Nordic Countries. Both terms are thought to be derived from the Germanic root *Skaðin-awjō, which appears later in Old English as Scedenig and in Old Norse as Skáney.[22] The earliest identified source for the name Scandinavia is Pliny the Elder's Natural History, dated to the 1st century AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.170.166 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"North Germanic" vs Old Norse?

The region mentioned on this page is the region where Old Norse was spoken. But, the page has little mention of Old Norse, and fails completely to explain the exact relation between Old Norse and "North Germanic". Are they synonyms? Did Old Norse evolve into "North Germanic", or was it the other way around? Is Old Norse a subgroup of "North Germanic"? A dialect? Is "North Germanic" a historical language group (and if so, in what time period did it exist? and if it didn't, what time frame does it apply to?), or is it used as an umbrella term for all the languages in this region regardless of age (ie both modern Swedish and Old Norse)? What is "North Germanic", exactly? A writtten/spoken/attested/proven language, or some meta construction? And what is the exact relation between the known, attested, language of Old Norse, and this concept/construct "North Germanic"? The page comes off very technical which may be fine for a linguist, but a layman has little benefit of it, as it is - it seems key concepts are supposed to be known by the reader, and (imho) you just can't assume that. clsc (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

North Germanic is a language family, so it's not a language but a group of languages sharing a common ancestor. It includes this common ancestor and all descendants of it. In the case of North Germanic, the last common ancestor was Proto-Norse rather than Old Norse. CodeCat (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :) We should write this somewhere on-page; even if it's a short explanation it helps a lot! So, if I understand correctly(?), "North Germanic Languages" is: Proto-Norse, and every single language and dialect descending from Proto-Norse throughout history (and as such future developments will also be included). Or, is this definition too inclusive? It seems it's a rather large group compared to "just Old Norse". clsc (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The reason for the German influence of the German language happened in Year: 1100 when a union were formed called "Hansen" to make trading both cheaper and securer which had a influence for around 200 years. This was also during the time we were switching language to Latin from The Old Norse language. Thats were most of the german words came from. Runsvenska year 800-1225 and then fornsvenska Year 1225-1526. As for the "North Germanic languages" there is nothing to back this up. it's made up and have no credibility to it, it's also not taught in schools or officialy recognized as a term to refer to Scandavian countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.170.166 (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

English as north germanic

Can someone add this article that suggests English might fit into this category? https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/139-norse-words — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.246.205 (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't, it just says there was language contact. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah english is part of the anglic languages, not Nordic ones, sorry Acetoe (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"Scandinavian languages"

If this term only refers to the languages spoken in Scandinavia, then why is it "Insular Scandinavian languages" and not "Insular North Germanic languages"? Article seems to cite mostly non-English sources when explaining terminology, which may not reflect English usage. Might it be that in English "Scandinavian languages" refers to the entire North Germanic languages family? Ultimately all the languages are of Scandinavian origin. Rob984 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Scandinavian languages is another name for North Germanic languages, but not the traditional term among linguistics since Scandinavia was not even a thing back when North Germanic languages were first defined, but was when insular and contintal scandinavian languages was. You might as well complain abouth the rest of the Germanic languages being called "West" Carewolf (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Granted but currently the first mention of this term is in the second paragraph and isn't even referring to English usage. Why not wack it in the lead sentence like any other common alternative name would be? Rob984 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. In current usage Scandinavian does not include Faroese and Icelandic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The Arne Torp source given for the supposed "insular scandinavian" group does not in fact use that term but distinguished between "ønordisk" (insular nordic) and "scandinavian".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently there are a couple of articles by Jónsson and Eythórsson that use the term "insular scandinavian", and a couple of articles by Platzack and Ho,berg that have adopted that use (or maybe originated it). But this is a confusing misnomer, and it seems much more useful to use Insular Nordic/Scandinavian as Torp does - and there are at least as many articles using that phrase.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not what the sources in this very article suggest. As for you snarky edit summary, of course I read the sentence. I acknowledged this in my edit summary. But different languages obviously use transliterate terms to mean different things. Implying Scandinavian usage reflects English usage is daft. Rob984 (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to think that there is any particular "scandinavian" usage as opposed to an English usage here. Both are being used in English language sources. If anything "insular scandinavian" seems to be a specific Icelandic usage since it is pretty much only Jónsson and Eythórsson that use it. What is daft is to choose the least accurate and most confusing translation of two possible ones.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

North Germanic Language is a completely new word i was presented to. There is alot of inaccuracy follwing statements made here. Scandinavia is the Proper term and word. However "North Germanic languages" is another name for the scandinavian countries. It also appears in old English as Scedenig and in Old Norse as Skáney.[22] The earliest identified source for the name Scandinavia is Pliny the Elder's Natural History, dated to the 1st century AD. If you also study Scandinavic schools, such as history or language you only come up on Scandinavia and not "North Germanic Language". Not sure where this falsehood of trying to claim that "North Germanic Language" are the correct term when it clearly isnt unless you come from a international background, but even then its rare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.170.166 (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"North Germanic Languages" is an established and accepted term among linguistic scholars. Whether it is taught in Scandinavian schools or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is whether it is used in recognised reliable sources in English, and it unambiguously is. JBW (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Classification and influence

The article claims that Nynorsk does not confirm to the east-west split model, but Bokmål does, since the former is closer to Swedish, and the latter to Danish. This seems very suspect. Danish and Swedish are both Eastern Scandinavian languages. One could suspect that the difference noted might instead been due to influence in the other direction: Danish might have picked up a few Western traits due to Denmark having control over the entire Western area (with a few minor exceptions) for hundreds of years.

Andejons (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nynorsk is only superficially closer to Swedish, as both are more conservative North Germanic languages than the highly innovative Danish, and have developed some common traits such as retroflexion and the back vowel shift. Historically, Norwegian as a whole is closer to Faroese and Icelandic, but its morphology is more reduced and there is a strong influence from Low German, both typical traits of continental North Germanic. Bokmål is essentially a standardised written register of Norwegian (West Norse; see ku, su, rather than Swedish ko, so) overlaid by a strong Danish superstrate. The traditional Oslo dialect is highly similar to Nynorsk (itself a standardised written register based on the spoken dialects especially of the southwest of Norway) and other spoken Norwegian dialects (see Bokmål § Differences from the traditional Oslo dialect and Talk:Norwegian language/Archive 1 § Unjustified and controversial claims in the section Modern Norwegian) and has few if any East Norse traits; it is clearly West Norse, though it is not surprising that the Oslo dialect is superficially similar, especially in pronunciation, to the Swedish language spoken beyond the (not very distant) border. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It must be kept in mind that after the formation and establishment of East Norse as a distinctive North Germanic dialect by c. 800, two further divisions arose in the North Germanic dialect continuum that reduced the obviousness of the distinction between East and West Norse: first, in the last 1000 years, East Norse gradually split into Danish in the south and Swedish in the north, with Danish in particular becoming highly distinctive, apparently largely due to German influence (first Low German, then High German); and second, Swedish and to a lesser extent Norwegian were affected by various developments, many but not all of which originated in Denmark and spread north. Peripheral North Germanic dialects and languages were affected by these changes to a much lesser extent, varying from case to case, and being particularly minor in the case of Icelandic. As such, by the 18th/19th century, there were now five groups (roughly ordered from most conservative to most innovative): first, peripheral (highly conservative) West Norse (Dalecarlian, Norn, Faroese, and especially Icelandic); second, peripheral (highly conservative) East Norse (such as Norrland Swedish, Finland Swedish, and Gutnish); third, mainstream (moderately conservative) West Norse (Norwegian); fourth, mainstream (moderately conservative) East Norse (such as Central Swedish); and fifth, the innovative Danish dialects. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

That is a very good description!--Berig (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you know where Scanian folkmål and Gutnish fit into this? I feel like you should be answering all the talk topics lol. - Acetoe (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Contradiction in History: Distinction from East and West Germanic

The first paragraph of this section claims: "[The sub-families] remained mutually intelligible to some degree during the Migration Period." However, the second paragraph claims: "Eventually, around the year 200 AD, speakers of the North Germanic branch became distinguishable from the other Germanic language speakers."

These two claims seem to contradict themselves. Can someone with a better understanding of this clarify this section and add more citations to it? 2603:6081:23F0:7160:1DA0:E653:8232:75EB (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. Being distinguishable does not preclude mutually intelligibility. With every linguistic split, there is a transitional period of several centuries when varieties are clearly distinct from each other but still remain mutually intelligible. –Austronesier (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)