|
 |
Why not just one Scandinavian language? | ||
 Language Learning Forum : Skandinavisk & Nordisk |  | |
| ruskivyetr Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5486 days ago 769 posts - 962 votes  Speaks: English*, German Studies: Spanish, Russian, Polish, Modern Hebrew | Message 1 of 69 28 February 2010 at 9:18pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but why not just unify the Scandi three create
a pan Scandi language? To me, it seems that the three countries, although with different culture, don't really have all the much of a problem with the language "differences". The three are already mutually intelligible, so it wouldn't create a huge problem. All it would take is a uniform spelling rule and a uniform lexicon. Not only would it unite the three Nordic countries a little more, it would create a more powerful language since it would have a higher amount of speakers than just Danish, Norwegian, or Swedish. I'm not Scandinavian, so maybe it's not my place to say this because maybe I don't know the whole story, but it doesn't seem like a bad idea. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Paskwc Pentaglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5682 days ago 450 posts - 624 votes Speaks: Hindi, Urdu*, Arabic (Levantine), French, English Studies: Persian, Spanish | Message 2 of 69 28 February 2010 at 9:22pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I'm guessing there's too much at stake in terms of national pride, heritage, and so on.
1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| tractor Tetraglot Senior Member Norway Joined 5458 days ago 1349 posts - 2292 votes Speaks: Norwegian*, English, Spanish, Catalan Studies: French, German, Latin | Message 3 of 69 28 February 2010 at 10:08pm | IP Logged | ||
Yes, and in Norway we can't even agree on one written standard language, so we've got two: Norwegian Nynorsk and Norwegian Bokmål. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| canada38 Tetraglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5500 days ago 304 posts - 417 votes Speaks: English*, Italian, Spanish, French Studies: Portuguese, Japanese | Message 4 of 69 01 March 2010 at 2:25am | IP Logged | ||
|
Don't forget the old saying, "A language is a dialect with an army."
I do agree with you though, that it would likely benefit those countries to amalgamate their languages. On the other hand, if Scandinavians can already easily communicate with each other, it may not be necessary. I know I wouldn't be too happy if tomorrow I was told I had to start using American spellings! 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| ruskivyetr Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5486 days ago 769 posts - 962 votes Speaks: English*, German Studies: Spanish, Russian, Polish, Modern Hebrew | Message 5 of 69 01 March 2010 at 2:50am | IP Logged | ||
The difference between American English, British English, Canadian English, and Aussie/New Zealand English is that they are considered English, and regardless of a few minor differences in spelling and vocabulary, they are pretty much the same. Their numbers of speakers are also counted as one, making it a stronger force than if you counted the amount of speakers among the different ones. Making the Scandinavian language as a whole language would create a good solid language with about 30 million speakers. This creates a world language that is considered a lot stronger than a language with 10 million speakers. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| elvisrules Tetraglot Senior Member BelgiumRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5474 days ago 286 posts - 390 votes Speaks: French, English*, Dutch, Flemish Studies: Lowland Scots, Japanese, German | Message 6 of 69 01 March 2010 at 3:16am | IP Logged | ||
|
Maybe they could reform the standard spelling and pronounciation of each language so that thet match the others' as closely as possible (without conseding too much), rename them Danish Scandinavian, Norwegian Scandinavian and Swedish Scandinavian, and set aside a small part of class time in the school curriculum for learning a bit of the other languages. Anything more than that would be too much of a concession I think.
1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Paskwc Pentaglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5682 days ago 450 posts - 624 votes Speaks: Hindi, Urdu*, Arabic (Levantine), French, English Studies: Persian, Spanish | Message 7 of 69 01 March 2010 at 3:41am | IP Logged | ||
|
Without going too far off-topic, I've always found the expression "a language is a
dialect with an army" a bit strange. It might have been relevant in the contexts of early nationalism in a European surrounding but maybe not today. Looking at the likes of Morocco and Jamaica may illustrate this. Edited by Paskwc on 01 March 2010 at 3:42am 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| canada38 Tetraglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5500 days ago 304 posts - 417 votes Speaks: English*, Italian, Spanish, French Studies: Portuguese, Japanese | Message 8 of 69 01 March 2010 at 5:52am | IP Logged | ||
Can you explain your reference to Morocco and Jamaica. I know there is a Jamaican-Creole language, but I don't see what you mean. :P 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
