Talk:Danish language

message: The "Copenhagen" dialect the article keeps referring to, is, in fact, not "the copenhagen dialect". It is a variant of the dialect from around Århus that was (fairly lately) adopted in Sjælland and then became standard Danish. The dialects (multiple) spoken in and around Copenhagen are very different from standard danish. Referring to standard danish as something that originates from Copenhagen is misrepresenting the actual development of the Danish language.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.116.207.125 (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please present some literature in support of this claim, which is contradicted in all the literature on the development and definition of rigsdansk that I have surveyed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Utter nonsense -
First of all, you make of lot of bold claims without providing any credible sources/evidence to back it up. It seems more like an personal opinion than a valid argument.
You're clearly know very little linguistically when it comes to the danish language. Yes, there is in fact a uniquely danish Copenhagener dialect - both vocally and written. It's beyond ridiculous to proclaim that a dialect, geographically the furthest from Århus (and Jutland) is an offspring of Jutlandish. Get real, and do some proper research. Furthermore, you're also wrong about all the Copenhagen dialects being different from "Standard Danish" (Rigs Dansk) - true that a lot them arent exept 1: the historical and current dialect of the monarchy and Queen - located in Copenhagen. Du må være en fornærmet Jyde. 81.161.157.240 (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copenhagen dialect 

message: Under pronouns, the bottom line says that sin/sit/sine is used for plural owners. As far as I now, "deres" is always used. "De tog deres gode tøj og gik." "Sit" would just be plain wrong, Klausok (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you seeing any reference to "plural" owners? The bottom line in the schema is not specified for number. The examples with possessives are translated to English singular forms, except sig, which is used with plural reference. You could add a note explaining this or something, but remember a source. By the way, calling it "plain wrong" is definitely an overstatement. -- Replayful (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "p." in the column may look like it's short for plural, which is indicated with pl.. I'll try to remove them as they are redundant since the column says "person" at the top. -- Replayful (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd p. ref. possesive 

message: First of all, I've heard spoken danish and it has no vowels, only pharyngeal approximants.
The table is very different than that of the Danish Phonology page. Can someone decide what in hell denmark is going on with this table please? Language Boi (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vowel table 

message: “ while the Middle Norwegian language (before the influence of Danish) and Norwegian Bokmål are classified as West Norse along with Faroese and Icelandic”
Does this make sense? Bokmål is technically a norwegianized form of written danish, east norse. The first part seems to agree with that, but then it goes on to say that bokmål is also west norse. Maybe it should be rewritten 130.225.165.50 (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it looks like a mistake, looking at some rephrasings during article history. And no sources. --Madglad (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to norwegian