Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Norwegian: Bokmål vs. Nynorsk

sprakradet.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 163 posts

Re: Norwegian: Bokmål vs. Nynorsk

#71

Post by actionfromafar »

Tor3 wrote: post #38
goblin89 wrote: post #13

The status of Norwegian Nynorsk is reminiscent of Yue/Cantonese. In areas where it is native, it’s used in writing more rarely (and very rarely in official writing) compared to Mandarin (a distinct, not mutually intelligible language) or English. Another similarity is that Cantonese, like Nynorsk, is considered higher status where it’s spoken, and like Nynorsk it’s under somewhat of a threat so the communities know t…

In addition to what vidarh said - it's not comparable to Mandarin vs Cantonese, as those are spoken languages. Nynorsk is one way of writing (and reading) Norwegian, it is not a spoken form (nor is Bokmål). Some dialects are kind of closer if you try to "speak" it (read out loud, from e.g. a book), and some are farther away, most dialects contain elements where some words will fit better in one form and other element…

Sweden, Norway and Denmark is a perfect example of language continuum. At the fringes, the division between them is clearly for political and administrative purposes. It called all have been named "Danish".

I think what goes for "German" has even more internal differences.

Re: Norwegian: Bokmål vs. Nynorsk

#72

Post by berkes »

> Danish pronunciation sounds extremely «blurred» in Norwegian (and Swedish) ears.

It does to Dutch ears too. Just a few weeks ago, I passed through some tourist-infested area in Amsterdam. "Are these Swedish tourists drunk at this hour in morning already? Oh, wait, they are sober Danes."

Re: Norwegian: Bokmål vs. Nynorsk

#74

Post by actionfromafar »

Tor3 wrote: post #51
Sesse__ wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a tiny minority of people who insist on speaking nynorsk exactly as it is written, usually in an archaic style like the 1917 normal. Ironically, these people tend to live in Oslo or surrounding areas, where the dialect is far and wide away from nynorsk. It is e.g. pretty much the only group of people that use the “Noreg” form in actual speech. (Bokmål, and nearly all Norwegian dialects, use “Norge” for the c…

As for the "exactly as written".. I had a teacher like that, in middle school. He was from the north but did not speak his real dialect, instead he transformed his natural speech into as close to spoken "nynorsk" as he could. He was my teacher in the "Norwegian" class, and the only thing we did in that class was to write in Nynorsk. That was all. We had two sets of notebooks each, we had to write essays in Nynorsk tw…

I think you are soon ready to be a middle school teacher! Keep the trauma alive. :D

Re: Norwegian: Bokmål vs. Nynorsk

#75

Post by goblin89 »

vidarh wrote: post #18
goblin89 wrote: post #13

The status of Norwegian Nynorsk is reminiscent of Yue/Cantonese. In areas where it is native, it’s used in writing more rarely (and very rarely in official writing) compared to Mandarin (a distinct, not mutually intelligible language) or English. Another similarity is that Cantonese, like Nynorsk, is considered higher status where it’s spoken, and like Nynorsk it’s under somewhat of a threat so the communities know t…

Nynorsk is not considered higher status other than maybe by tiny groups of its users.

I know nothing about it except what is in the article, and the article characterizes Nynorsk as “cultural elite language”—it looks like the article is not accurate?

That aside, “cultural elite” or “status” are always relative, of course…

Re: Norwegian: Bokmål vs. Nynorsk

#76

Post by goblin89 »

Tor3 wrote: post #57
goblin89 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nynorsk is, according to TFA, predominantly used in speech and less used in writing, while Bokmål is the opposite. (Minus region specifics.) Is that not correct? My impression, only based on this article, is that Nynorsk and Bokmål are both spoken as well as written, just more or less so depending on context and region. Just as English is both a written and a spoken language, and Cantonese is both a written and a spo…

Nynorsk and Bokmål are both _written_ forms only. Norwegian spoken language is a huge continuum of dialects - there's no official spoken Norwegian (unlike e.g. Swedish, where something called "rikssvensk" was introduced by the authorities - "national spoken Swedish"). What you will find though is that there are a couple of scenarios where people will kind of speak the written form. One is, or at least used to be, new…

If they were solely written languages then you wouldn’t be able to, for example, read the text aloud, right?

I don’t have any first-hand knowledge, but according to Wikipedia on Bokmål it looks like it can be spoken as well (Wikipedia uses a phrase “spoken Bokmål”), but without a universally agreed-upon and regulated pronunciation. Isn’t it similar to English in this sense?

Re: Norwegian: Bokmål vs. Nynorsk

#77

Post by matsemann »

sfn42 wrote: post #65
goblin89 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nynorsk is, according to TFA, predominantly used in speech and less used in writing, while Bokmål is the opposite. (Minus region specifics.) Is that not correct? My impression, only based on this article, is that Nynorsk and Bokmål are both spoken as well as written, just more or less so depending on context and region. Just as English is both a written and a spoken language, and Cantonese is both a written and a spo…

Nynorsk was an attempt at creating a written language closer to the spoken language. The problem is that in Norway out dialects are widely different. For example, the phrase "I am" is written as "Jeg er" in bokmål, "Eg er" in nynorsk. Nobody says "Jeg" - it can be pronounced as "Jei", "Eg", "Æ", or even "Oss" though that's a different word that some dialects use in place of the "correct" one.

Some dialects also say "i" for I. (but pronounces like an English "e")

Re: Norwegian: Bokmål vs. Nynorsk

#78

Post by Ingaz »

Tor3 wrote: post #55
boxed wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish for a bigger revolution in Swedish. It has been rather painful to experience how hard it is for my children to learn to do simple addition in their heads because the language is broken. It's easier to add 30 and 40 in your head for children, than it is to add 13 and 2! Because it's "3 ten and 4 ten" vs " and 2". The special word being "thirteen". The language is irregular for numbers up to 29 as 20 has a speci…

For some reason many languages use an irregular system for numbers. Well, reasons are historical.. things may have made more sense in (e.g.) Old Norse than modern Danish, for example. Japanese though.. now that's regular. One, two, three, .. nine, ten, ten-one, ten-two,.. ten-eight, ten-nine, two-ten, two-ten-one.. and so on. And then 'hundred', and continue the same way. to-hundred-to-ten-five (225). The only stumbl…

I think every natural language is irregular when it comes to numbers.

And about Japanese: you forgot about counters for men, animals, flat things and so on.

You have ichi-ippiku-ippon-hitory - issai And absolutely fascinating "system" for "years old" - everything starts with -sai but 20 years is "hatachi"!

Re: Norwegian: Bokmål vs. Nynorsk

#79

Post by boxed »

Ingaz wrote: post #78
Tor3 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason many languages use an irregular system for numbers. Well, reasons are historical.. things may have made more sense in (e.g.) Old Norse than modern Danish, for example. Japanese though.. now that's regular. One, two, three, .. nine, ten, ten-one, ten-two,.. ten-eight, ten-nine, two-ten, two-ten-one.. and so on. And then 'hundred', and continue the same way. to-hundred-to-ten-five (225). The only stumbl…

I think every natural language is irregular when it comes to numbers. And about Japanese: you forgot about counters for men, animals, flat things and so on. You have ichi-ippiku-ippon-hitory - issai And absolutely fascinating "system" for "years old" - everything starts with -sai but 20 years is "hatachi"!

> I think every natural language is irregular when it comes to numbers.

But.. it's not. Japanese is not. Just because it's not metric with grouping doesn't mean it's irregular.

Re: Norwegian: Bokmål vs. Nynorsk

#80

Post by CogitoCogito »

goblin89 wrote: post #76
Tor3 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nynorsk and Bokmål are both _written_ forms only. Norwegian spoken language is a huge continuum of dialects - there's no official spoken Norwegian (unlike e.g. Swedish, where something called "rikssvensk" was introduced by the authorities - "national spoken Swedish"). What you will find though is that there are a couple of scenarios where people will kind of speak the written form. One is, or at least used to be, new…

If they were solely written languages then you wouldn’t be able to, for example, read the text aloud, right? I don’t have any first-hand knowledge, but according to Wikipedia on Bokmål it looks like it can be spoken as well (Wikipedia uses a phrase “spoken Bokmål”), but without a universally agreed-upon and regulated pronunciation. Isn’t it similar to English in this sense?

> If they were solely written languages then you wouldn’t be able to, for example, read the text aloud, right?

I believe /u/Tor3's point is that Norwegians would read and pronounce nynorsk and bokmål the same regardless of the differences in the writing.

> Isn’t it similar to English in this sense?

It is. I don't pronounce English words differently when they're written with e.g. British or American spellings.

Post reply on HN