Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2455-2459 (27-31 May, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Akima:
--- Quote from: cesariojpn on 30 May 2013, 21:35 ---Haiku's need to be about nature or similar topics. So any not based in nature is not in the spirit of Haikus.
--- End quote ---
The word haiku is
A Japanese noun, you know.
Plurals need no "S".
Unless Claire is a closet sub, indulging Pintsize might be a bad idea, acid tears or not.
Masterpiece:
--- Quote from: trstn on 31 May 2013, 00:08 ---words saying you're German
--- End quote ---
I KNOW WHAT YOUR NAME IS!
(click to show/hide)but I'm not telling
Border Reiver:
--- Quote from: Akima on 31 May 2013, 03:46 ---
--- Quote from: cesariojpn on 30 May 2013, 21:35 ---Haiku's need to be about nature or similar topics. So any not based in nature is not in the spirit of Haikus.
--- End quote ---
The word haiku is
A Japanese noun, you know.
Plurals need no "S".
Unless Claire is a closet sub, indulging Pintsize might be a bad idea, acid tears or not.
--- End quote ---
"Might" be a bad idea?
Sidhekin:
--- Quote from: Lubricus on 31 May 2013, 03:35 ---The clissification of the Norwegian language has seen more than its fair share of discussion, especially in Norway, of course. But one has to remember that such classification must be based on written languages, and the most common written form of Norwegian (Bokmål) is indeed based on Danish. It has been proposed that the other written form, Nynorsk, should be classed with the Western languages, but even though it is based on Western and Northern dialects, its grammar and syntax is quite clearly Eastern Nordic.
--- End quote ---
"Must"? Says who? :-P I certainly didn't.
Also, while the tradition of Riksmål and Bokmål goes back to Danish, describing it as "based on Danish" is omitting the reforms that have been made since the 1800s, to bring them closer to Norwegian spoken language. And since Nynorsk was designed using the same orthography, you could as easily say it too is "based on Danish". (Drawing the line between those written forms seems strange to me: They are far more similar to one another than they are to either Icelandic or Danish. I rather suspect those who suggest different classifications of the written Norwegian languages of having an agenda in which the similarity of those languages are ... inconvenient.)
Also also: Grammar and syntax that is clearly Eastern Nordic? Only if you ignore the differences between it and the certainly Eastern Nordic language (trust me: there are differences), or accept them as Eastern Nordic per definition. Which seems to make the question moot ...
Bit of a rant, I suppose:
The difference in grammar and syntax between spoken Norwegian and Icelandic is mostly due to the great "simplifications" that Norwegian saw, often attributed to the Hanseatic League and other trade connections, and somewhat parallelling the "simplification" that produced Modern English from Old English (or modern Swedish and Danish for that matter). Icelandic, starting from the same language as Norwegian, developed in another direction, with less "simplification".
As the Hanseatic League declined, Danish was adopted (also) as trade language in Norway, becoming pretty much the only written language of Norway (until the reforms of Riksmål and invention of Nynorsk). But at that time, the spoken language had already come most of the way from Old Norse to modern spoken Norwegian.
Most Norwegians take great pride in their spoken language. And written Norwegian is considered Eastern Nordic only to the extent that it is considered foreign. Many do speak of them as Danish. (Or some of them. I don't approve of drawing a line between them.)
I spoke (wrote) of Norwegian. If Bokmål is Danish, Norwegian is a spoken language.
Lubricus:
--- Quote from: Sidhekin on 31 May 2013, 04:50 ---
--- Quote from: Lubricus on 31 May 2013, 03:35 ---The clissification of the Norwegian language has seen more than its fair share of discussion, especially in Norway, of course. But one has to remember that such classification must be based on written languages, and the most common written form of Norwegian (Bokmål) is indeed based on Danish. It has been proposed that the other written form, Nynorsk, should be classed with the Western languages, but even though it is based on Western and Northern dialects, its grammar and syntax is quite clearly Eastern Nordic.
--- End quote ---
"Must"? Says who? :-P I certainly didn't.
--- End quote ---
"Must" in the sense that the written language is less prone to change than spoken language, and because the Norwegian dialects are too dissimilar to easily classify as a language. That's the case with many languages - take German, for instance - several dialects in western Germany are closer to Dutch than written German, so the reason they are specifically "German" is really the fact that they are spoken inside Germany.
--- Quote ---Also, while the tradition of Riksmål and Bokmål goes back to Danish, describing it as "based on Danish" is omitting the reforms that have been made since the 1800s, to bring them closer to Norwegian spoken language. And since Nynorsk was designed using the same orthography, you could as easily say it too is "based on Danish". (Drawing the line between those written forms seems strange to me: They are far more similar to one another than they are to either Icelandic or Danish. I rather suspect those who suggest different classifications of the written Norwegian languages of having an agenda in which the similarity of those languages are ... inconvenient.)
--- End quote ---
No matter how many reforms written Norwegian has had, the language was based on Danish originally, and has inherited many of the characteristics of Danish linguistic tradition. And what do you mean by "Norwegian spoken language"? Bokmål is still closely related to the way people talk in Oslo, which is in many cases very different from dialects across the country. I agree that drawing a line between Bpkmål and Nynorsk is strange, but it is often done nonetheless.
--- Quote ---Also also: Grammar and syntax that is clearly Eastern Nordic? Only if you ignore the differences between it and the certainly Eastern Nordic language (trust me: there are differences), or accept them as Eastern Nordic per definition. Which seems to make the question moot ...
--- End quote ---
I cannot be bothered to go into details about how Icelandic differs from Swedish, for instance, in grammar and syntax right now, but I urge you to look closer at the ways the two languages compare to Bokmål.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version