Обсуждение:Эльвдальский диалект

message: It seems like the translation from the Swedish version to the Russian has involved some original reserach and some errors.
*Original research: The spelling uo doesn't mean the uniquely defined pronunciation [ʉu], but rather a range of dialectal pronunciations. I don't even think that [ʉu] is used in any dialect, instead uo is more or less an etymological spelling based on an old pronunciation [uo]. The most common pronunciation is X-SAMPA [UE], cf. Övdalskfuäk mentioned in the article, which would be spelled Övdalsfuok in the orthography.
The same for åy [oy] which is not the correct IPA. Using SAMPA, it would rather be [OY].
Again, the same for au which is not [aʉ] but SAMPA [AU] (or even SAMPA [aI] in a few dialects).
*Errors: It should be wardjemes, not "wardjenes". It should be iuo, not "iou". It should be mjok 'milk', not "mjök".
I am not competent enough to be able to judge what is written in Russian. On thing though is that one should perhaps compare with Old Norse instead of Swedish since the connection between the Dalecarlian language and Old Norse is more relevant than between Dalecarlian and Swedish in a non-Swedish speaking article.
Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 20:31, 3 ноября 2006 (UTC))
replies: text: Tack så mycket för att du gick igenom artikeln!

text: That was mostly slips  of the eye (or thumb); plus, I wrongly assumed that the orthography would be based on modern Swedish orthography, aand there's no way I can check it (I don't have access to any of Ulum Dalska's publications, and Levander's transcription is too messy as it is to try to retranscribe it into IPA), so thanks for correcting.

text: As for Swedish vs. ON, I don't quite agree: the most relevant connection would be with Old Swedish, especially wrt to the diphthongs: especially confusing would be pairs like Äm stien vs. ON steinn; but at the moment I cannot check if the relevant words do appear in OSw, so I went for Modern Swedish.

text: Thanks for your corrections! Otherwise the article is a fairly close translation from the Swedish Wikipedia, plus a few things takes from elsewhere, mostly from the alvdalen.se page. No more original research, promise :) Edricson 09:01, 6 ноября 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :First I want to say, since I assume that you have made a nice contribution on the whole, thanks!

text: :But, I don't agree that in the comparing, Old Swedish would be more relevant than Old Norse due to some diphthong related aspect. It is clear that concerning the Old Norse diphthongs ei, au and ey vs (standardized) Old Swedish corresponding monophthongs é (i.e., long e) and ǿ (i.e., long ø), Älvdalska is closer to the former since one has ie, o and ä, respectively. The Old Swedish system has merged au and ey into a long ø which can't reproduce the Älvdalska o and ä. Thus, concerning the old diphthongs, Old Norse is a more relevant comparing language than Old Swedish. (Old Swedish, unlike Old Norse, doesn't contain enough information to account for the present Älvdalska language. This also means that Old Swedish isn't the ancestor of Älvdalska. This is why one uses the term Old Dalecarlian - i.e. forndalska in Swedish - in the dialectological literature. Old Dalecarlian, and the modern western Dalecarlian dialects, had preserved diphthongs, unlike (standardized) Old Swedish. It should be emphasized though that even though standardized Old Swedish lacks diphthongs, the actual everyday speech in eastern Svealand had diphthongs at least until 15th century in some parts. If not, the modern East Swedish dialects spoken in Finland, Balticum, Russia and Ukraine would never have had them: http://runeberg.org/nfbg/0507.html )

text: :Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 19:09, 6 ноября 2006 (UTC))

text: :Regarding original research and lack of references. In my opinion (though perhaps not in official Wikipedia's) it's OK as long as what one claims is doubtlessly correct. :)

text: :Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 16:32, 7 ноября 2006 (UTC))
thread_title: A few comments