Talk:Comparison of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish

message: The first paragraph of this article is inaccurate and gives the wrong impression. It's simply wrong that the main differense between "Norwegian *Bokmål* and Standard Danish" (article title) is in pronounciation: Bokmål is a strictly written language. Nobody speaks Bokmål. This article needs to be renamed "Differences between the Danish and Norwegian languages" and restructured/expanded, or it should not concern itself particularly with differences in pronounciation.
Bjornarl (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written language is not the same as spoken language - rewrite needed 

message: It was not mentioned at all about which version of Norwegian is the article. There are obviously two such languages which differ significantly enough to have two Wikipedias. I've heard rumors that speakers of the one can understand Danes much easier than the speaker of the other one (but have no idea which is which). It would be nice of someone scheds more light on this subject. -- Goldie (tell me) 08:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd guess Bokmål, since that was the language first and most affected by Danish. (Later Bokmål has influenced Nynorsk deeply, though). One clear difference between Norwegian and Danish, is that the latter went through a sound shifts where many middle and final consonants were voiced (t-d, k-g, p-b notably). The Norwegian cognates usually retain the original sounds, except for in a few Danish borrowings, often not entering Nynorsk. Examples Bokmål:bedre, Nynorsk:betre (Eng:Better) Bokmål:tegn/tegne (pronounced like /teIn/ ) Nynorsk:teikn/teikne (Eng:(a) sign,draw/sign) 81.232.72.148 16:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyhow, it's important to know that Bokmål/Nynorsk are written forms only, no official spoken standard exists. St12357 (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nynorsk or bokmål 

message: I'm far from a lanugage expert, so could someone please explain to me why this:
satisified/pleased 	tilfreds, fornøjet 	fornøyd, tilfreds
is a difference between Danish and Norwegian? So "tilfreds" means "fornøyd" in Danish and "tilfreds" means "fornøjet" in Norwegian? I'm Danish and to me both words mean more or less the same, at least I'm not really sure I think the difference matters much. With such a long list of relevant differences, I just think this one is a bit far stretched...
Good, long, interesting article by the way...
:Perhaps you're right... I just meant that tilfreds is the more usual word in Danish, while fornøyd is the more frequent one in Norwegian. I'm not sure how to put it more clearly though. --194.145.161.227 09:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To me they do not mean the same. Fornøjet is a general state of mind. You are or you are not. Tilfreds is something you are with something specific. You may be tilfreds (satisfied) with the food and utilfreds (dissatisfied) with the service. You can not be fornøjet with something, and you can not be fornøjet and misfornøjet at the same time. I believe (but am far from certain) that in Norwegian fornøyd is used like Danish tilfreds. --Klausok 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  More specifically "tilfreds" means "satisfied" in Danish, and in modern Danish "fornøjet" means "cheerful". (Note however that "fornøjet" is becoming more and more antiquated, with "munter" being the normal modern word for "cheerful".)-- Lars (on a shared IP which is sometimes also used by another Wikipedian) ::: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.157.137.62 (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language differences 

message: Don't know whether the person from Spraakraadet who wrote it to me wants to have her name published. Here is the text.
"Kun" har en mye mer avgrenset bruk enn "bare". "Kun" regnes som nokså alderdommelig, og det kan alltid byttes ut med "bare". Du behøver altså ikke å bruke det i det hele tatt. Dersom du ser på artikkelen "bare" i Bokmålsordboka, er det bare (!) i et par av eksemplene under betydning 1 at oppslagsordet kan byttes ut med "kun":
 
boka kostet kun 98 kr (nokså vanlig bruk i reklame, i butikker osv.)
det er kun noen dager siden (mindre vanlig)
det er kun meg (virker nokså søkt)
 
Det er kanskje det at "kun" er så kort og dessuten har en litt spesiell stilistisk valør, som har gjort ordet så populært i salgssammenheng. Det brukes nokså mye foran kronebeløp og talluttrykk ellers. Ellers brukes det oftest i en litterær eller gammelmodig stil, og mindre i vanlig fortellende eller sakspreget stil, vil jeg tro, uten at jeg har gransket det nøye.
 
Vennlig hilsen
A Norwegian teacher of mine wrote (I guess, part of her answer is a quote from a dictionary): 
kun har mye smalere bruksomraade enn bare. kun er adverb, bare kan være baade adverb og konjunksjon
kun = ikke mer enn
Eks.: kun for inviterte; herresokker - kun kr. 10,-
bare (adv)=
*(1) ikke annet enn; ikke mer enn; ikke flere enn; ''
*Eks.: Han heter Per Kristian, men vi kaller ham bare Per; Takk for hjelpen! Bare hyggelig!; Det er bare ett minutt igjen,; vi kan bare beklage.; man må bare gi seg over; jeg skal bare låse opp døra; det er ikke dårlig bare det; det manglet bare at han gikk hen og skadet seg; det skulle bare mangle!; 
*(2) foran et ledd for å gjoere det ubetydelig: det var bare katten som mjauet;
*(3) for å uttrykke forbehold: jeg er enig, det er bare det at...; jeg kan bare ikke begripe at..; 
*(4) for å understreke: bare for å gjøre det helt klart; det er bare ikke mulig; det er ikke bare bare å åpne forretning
*(5) for å uttrykke ønske: den som bare visste.. bare du ikke faller!
*(6) oppmuntrende: bare sett i gang! Nå skal du bare se hvor lett det er;
*(7) forsterkende: du skal bare ikke bry deg! (konj.) betingelse: bare jeg får ro, skal jeg gjøre det! han løper bare han får se hunden.
I de tilfeller du kan bruke både kun og bare, virker kun mer gammeldags. Du vil imidlertid ofte se det i butikkvinduer når det er salg!
Haaper dette var til litt hjelp!
:Thanks. By the way, I corrected the ae/oe/aa's into Norwegian æ/ø/å's. 惑乱 分からん 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: E-mails

message: It is stated, that the Danish reflexive pronoun "sig", unlike its Norwegian countarpart, is not appliable to subjects in the plural, and in this context, the example "han vasker sig, han vasker seg/de vasker dem, de vasker seg" (da,no/da,no) is given.
As an everyday speaker (being quite Danish myself) and avid user of the language, I should like to point out that this statement is rubbish and has no connection with any sort of reality that I've ever encountered. Actually, "de vasker dem" in Danish is almost incomprehensible, at least without some specification as to who "dem" are, those whom "de" are washing, as it could never be the subject.
Excuse my bitterness, but I find the reflexive pronoun to be an excellent feature of any language, and as it is a common mistake of more unexperienced Danes to use a demonstrative in place of a reflexive, let us not lead any more astray.
Peter Bruun (donpedro55@gmail.com)
:Thank you very much for that contribution, you are quite right. That was my mistake (as I am not a native speaker of Danish and I believed that I was quoting from memory something that I obviously remembered incorrectly). The information will be corrected. --194.145.161.227 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflexive pronoun 

message: Some of the words listed as spacial for Norwegian are in common use in Danish.
away                  - væk          - bort, (vekk):
bort is quite common (though maybe not quite as common as væk)
be correct, hold true - passe        - stemme:
stemme and passe are about equally common
to comb (verb)        - kæmme sig    - gre seg:
kæmme is somewhat archaic. Rede is the usual word
everywhere            - alle steder  - overalt:
while you may say "alle steder" (all places), overalt is more common
difficult             - svær         - vanskelig    - vanskelig is quite common
floor (storey)        - sal - etasje:
"Sal" is only used in addresses and the like. "Etage" is the generic word. E.g. "Jeg bor på 2. sal" I live on the 3rd floor, but "et femetagers hus" a house of 5 floors.
last year             - sidste år    - i fjor:
i fjor is quite common
--Klausok 11:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the vocabulary section is questionable. It's trying to emphasize differences which isn't that accentuated. Otherwise, just Be bold! 惑乱 分からん 18:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the list should be split in two - a list of words that just have different frequencies in the two languages and a list of words that are definitely different. The problem is that the boundary isn't that clear. But the first type of differences is rather relevant. For example, Google in Danish gives 131,000 Danish hits for "i fjor" vs 3,300,000 for "sidste år", while there are 4,670,000 Norwegian hits for "i fjor" vs 458,000 for "siste år" (it's true that the phrase "siste år" can occur in other meanings, but this should have made it more common in Norwegian, too). I can assure you that when a person actually studies the languages as foreign, this quantitative difference becomes qualitative - as a beginner in Norwegian, you learn "i fjor"; as a beginner in Danish, you learn "sidste år".--194.145.161.227 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point, but that would make the article more complex... 惑乱 分からん 00:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word list 

message: I have undone most of these, and these are the reasons:
*Middagsmad means dinner, the main meal of the day, no matter when it is taken. Not lunch.
*Kort (short) is not used of people
*Iblandt means among, not sometimes.
*Padde means amphibium, not specifically toad.
*Styg in the sense ugly is quaint. A word used in fairy tales. It is highly unusual to hear it in everyday conversation.
*Vanlig is not a Danish word at all.
*Galt in the sense wrong is only used in a few stock frases.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Klausok (talk • contribs) 
:I would disagree with some, if not most, of that:
:*Whether or not it's the main meal of the day, middagsmad to some people specifically means lunch, while to others it specifically means dinner – and to some, like me, it means absolutely nothing particular.
:*Iblandt certainly does mean 'sometimes' as well as 'among'. In fact, in common usage, I would say that 'sometimes' is more or less the only meaning, since in the sense of 'among', the word is nearly always said and written as blandt rather than iblandt.
:*Vanlig is absolutely a Danish word, a synonym for sædvanlig.
:*Galt in the sense 'wrong' is quite common, even if it's mostly used in more or less formulaic phrases: få noget galt i halsen/i den gale hals, køre galt (both in the sense of having an accident and in the sense of taking a wrong turn), komme galt af sted, gå galt, få galt fat i noget, hvad er der galt?, det er der ikke noget galt i, etc.
:The only points I would agree with are that padde is a generic term for an amphibium, that styg in the sense of 'ugly' (rather than 'bad(ly)' or 'terrible/terribly') is quite rare in spoken language, and that kort is not used about people except jokingly.  Kokoshneta (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I often use and hear people use iblandt, with the i spelled or pronouced. Blandt sounds like you've mixed something (as in, "du har blandet dem", rather than "de var iblandt dem"). Vanlig is only used in tv-shows about Danish history in the 19th century (maybe it's common on Sjælland, but I've never heard anyone use it in Danish -- to me it sounds Swedish). Galt is rarely used outside sentences not based on the ones you've already provided -- I can't think of any sentence that's not a variation of what you've already provided, but I will agree that those stock phrases are used very commonly. I'd like to add that padde is _also_ used as a word to describe toads, specificaly, or to describe someone as a fool.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.145.44 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The changes by 80.167.218.195 

message: === Danish/Dansk (b, d, g) ===
b: Våben p, Æble p, Reb p
d: Fod t, Mad t
g: Sprog none (NaN), Frankrig none (NaN), Østrig none (NaN), Bruger none (NaN), Bog k (buk) (k) (NaN), Frugt i (fruut) (u) (NaN), Syg ck (sek) (k) (NaN), Pige none (NaN), Rigs none(NaN)
Why does Dansk (Danish) have b, d og g, not p, t, k, g to replace (c)k (Boog, Sig) t (Food, Mad) and p (Weabon, Abble, Robe).
Scottish Gaelic has a g taken over k: an Danmhairg/Denmarg
Welsh has a d taken over t: yr Eidal/Idaly
Somali has a b taken over p: Abriil/Abril  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiet Nam (talk • contribs) 08:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Danish sound shift. Check out the article on Danish language. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably because we pronounce it like «ie,» not «ia.» Algerie is pronounced with a long i sound («Algerii»). Frie, historie, familie, komedie are pronounced with «ie» sound (hi-sto-ri-e). 88.91.12.14 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't understand exactly what you're asking about, but I believe the different standards are due to Danish hypercorrection. The *nd and *ld were in a few cases historical, but weren't pronounced anymore, and instead on settling on an ortographical spelling with n/nn and l/ll, a spelling originated on the belief that the alternative spelling with d would be more valid. It's a little bit of guesswork, though, and although I'm interested in languages, I'm not an expert on Danish language history. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that there was a spelling refrom in the 19th century which abolished the nd spelling in favour of the nn spelling. It is not an example of hypercorrection.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.189.58 (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

text: "Dende"? That is not a word I know. Mann or vann are not possible spellings in Danish. Double consonants are allowed only between vowels. It would have to be man, van.Klausok (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Depends on the word. In open syllables (i. e., syllables ending in vowels), German and Norwegian have the closed (or high, or narrow-constriction) and, if stressed, usually phonetically lengthened [y(ː)] that sounds like French , but in closed syllables (i. e., syllables ending in consonants), you get the open (or low, or wide) and shortened [ʏ] indeed, but again, both in German and in Norwegian; only French lacks this sound. However, as closed/long and open/short correlate (i. e., the closed or narrow vowel is always long, while the open or wide vowel is always short), you can also note the phonemes down as /y/ for [ʏ], and /y:/ for [y:], which may be the source of your confusion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the first user that the Danish [y] sounds like German and more or less like French, while the Norwegian one is a bit different, although the difference is definitely not one of openness as he supposed (not [y] vs [ʏ]). I suspect that it's more a matter of degree of frontness - the Norwegian one is more fronted and has less tightly compressed lips in order to be distinguished as clearly as possible from the central [ʉ] as in hus, whereas the German and French ones are somewhere in-between the two. The Danish one is either like the German and French ones or perhaps a bit more central than them, I'm not quite sure.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ortography issues

message: b: Våben p, Æble p, Reb p
d: Fod t, Mad t
g: Sprog none (NaN), Frankrig none (NaN), Østrig none (NaN), Bruger none (NaN), Bog k (buk) (k) (NaN), Frugt i (fruut) (u) (NaN), Syg ck (sek) (k) (NaN), Pige none (NaN), Rigs none(NaN)
Why does Dansk (Danish) have b, d og g, not p, t, k, g to replace (c)k (Boog, Sig) t (Food, Mad) and p (Weabon, Abble, Robe).
Scottish Gaelic has a g taken over k: an Danmhairg/Denmarg
Welsh has a d taken over t: yr Eidal/Idaly
Somali has a b taken over p: Abriil/Abril  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiet Nam (talk • contribs) 08:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Danish sound shift. Check out the article on Danish language. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish/Dansk (b, d, g) 

message: Why does Norsk have ie (Algerie/a ia, fri(e) i, histori(e) i, famili(e) i, komedi(e) i), not (Algeria, fri, histo/uri, famili, ko/umedi)
Dansk: Algeriet/n, fri(e), histori(e), famili(e), komedi(e), not Algerien, fri, histo/uri, famili, ko/umedi
Svensk(a) incorrect: Algeriet/n, fri(a), histo/uri(a), familj/i, not Algerien, fri, histo/uri, famili
Svensk(a) correct (but incorrect): ko/umedi
Français(e): Algérie, libre, histoire, famille, comédie
May someone please change these incorrect names/words from ie (Algeria, fri, histuri, famili and kumedi), pretty please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiet Nam (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because we pronounce it like «ie,» not «ia.» Algerie is pronounced with a long i sound («Algerii»). Frie, historie, familie, komedie are pronounced with «ie» sound (hi-sto-ri-e). 88.91.12.14 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ie in Norsk 

message: Why does Norwegian have nn while Danish has nd.
Example: kende (kjenne), dende (denne), en mand (en mann), manden (mannen), vand (vann).
Norwegian having nn, nn belongs to Sicilianu (Sisilia/ensk) (Sicilian).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiet Nam (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand exactly what you're asking about, but I believe the different standards are due to Danish hypercorrection. The *nd and *ld were in a few cases historical, but weren't pronounced anymore, and instead on settling on an ortographical spelling with n/nn and l/ll, a spelling originated on the belief that the alternative spelling with d would be more valid. It's a little bit of guesswork, though, and although I'm interested in languages, I'm not an expert on Danish language history. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that there was a spelling refrom in the 19th century which abolished the nd spelling in favour of the nn spelling. It is not an example of hypercorrection.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.189.58 (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

text: "Dende"? That is not a word I know. Mann or vann are not possible spellings in Danish. Double consonants are allowed only between vowels. It would have to be man, van.Klausok (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dansk nd og Norsk nn (Sicilianu nn) 

message: When I listen to a Dane pronouncing y, it sounds like the German ü or the French u. On Wikipedia, all of these sounds are represented phonetically with [y]. It also represents the Norwegian y, but I don't get that, 'cause it is clearly different from the sounds mentioned above. It's not easy for me, not knowing too much about IPA, but could [ʏ] be more accurate? Aleco (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the word. In open syllables (i. e., syllables ending in vowels), German and Norwegian have the closed (or high, or narrow-constriction) and, if stressed, usually phonetically lengthened [y(ː)] that sounds like French , but in closed syllables (i. e., syllables ending in consonants), you get the open (or low, or wide) and shortened [ʏ] indeed, but again, both in German and in Norwegian; only French lacks this sound. However, as closed/long and open/short correlate (i. e., the closed or narrow vowel is always long, while the open or wide vowel is always short), you can also note the phonemes down as /y/ for [ʏ], and /y:/ for [y:], which may be the source of your confusion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the first user that the Danish [y] sounds like German and more or less like French, while the Norwegian one is a bit different, although the difference is definitely not one of openness as he supposed (not [y] vs [ʏ]). I suspect that it's more a matter of degree of frontness - the Norwegian one is more fronted and has less tightly compressed lips in order to be distinguished as clearly as possible from the central [ʉ] as in hus, whereas the German and French ones are somewhere in-between the two. The Danish one is either like the German and French ones or perhaps a bit more central than them, I'm not quite sure.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish and Norwegian <y> 

message: The past tense ‘mol’ is a valid alternative to ‘malte’ in Norwegian (and apparently used to be possible in Danish as well), but not in the sense ‘to paint’. Appropriate senses for the ‘mol ’form include ‘to grind’ and ‘to purr’ . The easiest solution would be to remove ‘mol’.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.132.35 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  male — malte/mol 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of Norwegian Bokmål and Standard Danish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002193729/http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2004/januar/1073896666.77 to http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2004/januar/1073896666.77
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nrk.no/programmer/tv/team_antonsen/3522162.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The whole article seems to be more about a comparison between Danish and Norwegian. Swedish examples are often listed without further explanation. It would be good if someone could give Swedish a bit more weight. --147.142.161.19 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish 

message: I am not particularly familiar with the topic and I don't speak any among the listed languages. It however seems a bit unusual that Icelandic language is not included in this topic as it is also related to the same group of languages. I don't know if there is some particular reason, if the difference towards Icelandic is more substantial, but maybe it would be useful to clarify that part for us who may expect to see Icelandic. Maybe just to explain why it is not included?--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is related, but much older. The three languages mentioned have evolved far from Icelandic and are mutually understandable, unlike Icelandic. That it is not mentioned, other than a See also link, is a bit odd. I may add something. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icelandic 

message: They don't seem to direct to the same article? The French one is just the article for the Norwegian language, Danish directs to Bokmal's article and Bokmal directs to Danish.  Williambeaner (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  French, Danish, and Bokmal versions of this article