I see we now have a member from Norway who's familiar with Swedish. Welcome, Mark! This seems a good time to raise a question I heard several years ago.
I understand that Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish are so very similar that a speaker of one can generally understand either of the others as spoken. Is that true?
If so, why do we consider them to be separate languages? After all, Brits and US's speak have differences in their accents and vocabularies, but we can understand each other (usually) and we would agree that we speak the same language (in two variants), not two different languages. Are the Scandinavian languages any more distinct from each other?
My guess is that they are as different as French, Italian, and Spanish. But I'm looking forward to the comments of those with much more knowledgeableness than I have.
Posts: 6708 | Location: Kehena Beach, Hawaii, U.S.A.
This is the classic example of the language being a dialect with an army and a navy. If the three were all one country we would talk about the dialects spoken in Copenhagen, Aarhus, Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Trondheim. This doesn't necessarily mean that all the dialects are mutually comprehensible with each other, only that the dialects don't group into three national types.
The separation into three is fostered by standardized spelling systems which are different in the three countries.
There's no one standard Norwegian, because when they sought independence from Denmark in the nineteenth century, the speech of Oslo was the most heavily Danicized, so it wasn't obvious what regional dialects they should draw on as a basis for a national language.
It seems to me that there is a difference, though, between 2 languages that are completely different and 2 languages where you really can understand what is being said, though not perfectly. For example, when I was in Italy, the people who spoke Spanish could speak relatively fluently with the Italians, while I resorted to hand signals and looking up words in my book.
aput is correct in his observations. As far as the three Scandinavian languages go, technically Icelandic is one of four (Finnish being excluded because it belongs to another language group altogether).In fact, it is the "purest" of the four, and a Viking from a thousand years ago would be understood there today.
Today a speaker from any one of the three (Norway, Denmark, Sweden) countries can usually understand and make himself understood in any of the other two countries. Norwegian and Danish is more alike in written form while Norwegian and Swedish are more alike in spoken form.
Concerning myself, I can understand Swedish and even Danish much more easily than I can some of the dialects in Norway, even though I live in Norway. Because of the terrain (mountain ridges separating the populated valleys) there has traditionally been a rich variety of dialects in spite of the small population (a little over four million).
I would say that, among the three countries, there is about as much a difference as there would be between a Texan and a Scot speaking English together. It wouldn't always be easy, but if there's a will, there's a way.
Another problem is that, with increasing globalization, the Scandivavian languages are coming under pressure from English. Not only is English used internationally (and thereby useful in trade etc.) but it is popular among those under fifty or sixty years of age.
For anyone coming to visit in Scandinavia, there will be no problem communicating with most people in English.
For anyone coming to visit in Scandinavia, there will be no problem communicating with most people in English.
Is that an invitation? We've talked about getting a Wordcrafter get-together together (he says, breaking some sort of record for verbal redundancy) but could never agree upon a location equally inconvenient for all.
Yes, but because of King's use of a misspelled word in the title of a book ("Pet Sematary"- I think it's spelled the way he misspelled it!), people began writing it that way without realizing it was misspelled.
I just met a fellow raised in Denmark, who tells me that he can indeed understand Swedish and Norwegian, the latter being much more difficult for him. But beyond that, a fisherman from the west coast of Denmark and another from Denmark's east coast will have at best great difficulty understanding each other, and may be unable to talk. On the other hand, the fisherman of the west-coast can speak with his counterpart from England, and perhaps even Holland, on fishing matters. Despite the difference in language, the "terms of art" in fishing are close enough for free communication on that subject.
I'm dropping this gent a note to make sure I've got it right.
I just met a fellow raised in Denmark, who tells me that he can indeed understand Swedish and Norwegian, the latter being much more difficult for him. But beyond that, a fisherman from the west coast of Denmark and another from Denmark's east coast will have at best great difficulty understanding each other, and may be unable to talk. On the other hand, the fisherman of the west-coast can speak with his counterpart from England, and perhaps even Holland, on fishing matters. Despite the difference in language, the "terms of art" in fishing are close enough for free communication on that subject.
Well, technically, the standard languages of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden might best be considered dialects rather than different languages, except that with statehood (armies and navies) comes languagehood.
I have seen many people who spoke the same language refuse to understand one another. Communication can only take place when the parties involved make a concerted effort to understand one another. Many people just can't seem to make the effort. I don't know how many speakers of standard High German told me that the Cologne-Bonn area dialect was incomprehensible to them, when it hadn't taken me more than a few months of familiarity with to be able to understand some of my friends who did not speak standard High German. And many of these standard HG speakers had lived in the area for quite a bit longer than I.
I feel that this is a conscious decision on their part, too. It's the same when somebody complains of somebody speaking a "sub" standard dialect (usually disparaged as slang). Or spends their time correcting incorrect diction or enunciation. If you wish to understnad somebody, you can, even if they're speaking heavily accent Chinese-English pidgin. If you don't want to for whatever reasons you won't and no amount of "effort" will avail. It's all just too silly for words.
I've been on vacation; sorry for the delay in commenting on this. What you wrote is correct. I thought I might add that a Norwegian has no problem differentiating between Swedish and Danish, and a Swede has no problem differentiating between Norwegian and Danish. But DANES often can't tell whether a person is speaking Norwegian or Swedish.
As far as the written language goes, Norwegian and Danish are closer to each other than Swedish is to them. But orally, Swedish and Norwegian are much closer to each other.
Once, while sitting on a local Copenhagen train, I overheard a conversation between two Danes. That does NOT mean I understood it. Although I understand "standard" Danish as spoken on the news, I understood nothing of the conversation on the train. I concentrated hard, but heard not one consonant - only vowels run together for minutes on end. I thought to myself "How DO they understand each other?!" But then, THEY were doing fine with it!
