Talk:Scanian dialect

message: This addition seems dubious to me. There's no source for the classification and there's an obvious internal contradiction in the division of "Danic" and "Macro-Swedish".
Why are we putting stuff like this into the infobox in the first place? There's clearly no agreement about this among linguists.
Peter Isotalo 12:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including "bornholmsk" 

message: I added  since the article does not appear to be in agreement with itself. Here are the problems:
*The article defines the dialect as something that is specific to Scania. At the same time, it refers to Old Scanian as something that is essentially identical to East Danish dialects. These are two quite different things, and none of them seem to agree with the definition of skånska in Swedish.
*There's been a lengthy discussion here that the article is about a traditional dialect, not the regional variety (or accent) of modern Standard Swedish.
*"Today" multiple examples of notable modern people who both speak Scanian and perform music or acting in Scanian. This has to refer to Standard Swedish since people like Mikael Wiehe, Hans Alfredsson and Thomas Öberg all perform in a language that is perfectly intelligible to all Swedes. There are no major differences in grammar or vocabulary, only pronunciation (guttural /r/, distinct diphthongs, etc). It's really not much different than any number of other regional varieties.
*The whole article pretty much hinges on Scanian being a distinct, living dialect, ie something with its own grammar, vocabulary and phonology. However, there are no descriptions of any of this, at least not anything based on reliable sources.
The classifications by SIL, ISO 693-3 and Glottolog all seem to be without real substance. There are no demographical surveys and no actual studies of the modern, living dialect.
Peter Isotalo 17:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: The most editors appear to strive in one direction. We have the same general display of this article as of most others. A overviweing lead followed by history. If the were no contradiction for an article going back some 1200 to 1300 years - and yes it's about the the language in Scania. Today and so far back as ever is possible. Editing Wikipedia is not only about the sources, but it has to be based on such. But ONLY sources would give a lot of confusional jumping. For an article like this, isn't just academic sources written in Stockholm the ONLY thing the article can be based on. And since Tommy Isosalo doesn't like Scania or Scanians overwhealmingly much, the I suggest he ought to return to topics which he clearly suits him far better. (However not Danish pastry, that was a joke). But Tommy why not wright about the 08-dialect (which used French R, in the upper classes until 100 years ago, perhaps) or "Muminsvenska" (no offence ment, just don't know the correct term even n Swedish, sorry), But your impacts in everything that can be related to Scania, doesn't improve the articles. And please stop searching for litterature you personally disproves of, that's not constructive - bur sooner contradictive. You can do much better in other articles, Tommy. If something is horrobly wrong, only the should you intervene - but that relies ALL articles. Boeing720 (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Not contradictive