Matt wrote:

> Swedish alphabetises "v" and "w" as different versions of the same lett=
er.
> This is not a problem when it comes to dictionaries, since so few Swedi=
sh
> words begin with "w" ("whiskey" is the only one I can think of), but it=
's
> damn disconcerting when you're trying to look up proper names in the ph=
one
> book, or in a library card catalogue.

Well, Swedish phone books are specially difficult (or was when I was ther=
e)
after names are ordered acording to some standard orthography while many
people use custom orthographies.

For example, there are many people called /lM:ndkvist/ (i guess this is a=
s
you pronounce it), but they spell it Lundkvist, Lundquist, Lundqwist,
Lundkwist, Lundqvist.  All of them are ordered as Lundkvist.

Swedish used to have <w> and <qu>, and many times they were confused with
<v> and <kv>, after some orthographic reform they decided to standarize i=
n
favour of <v> and <kv>.  King Wasa became Vasa, but the trend of kn=E4keb=
r=F6d
reminded Wasa, and some people decided they wouldn't change the spelling =
of
their names or some decided to reconstruct the spelling in weird forms (l=
ike
<qw>).

Then I understand of <w> alphabetized as <v> as no different in the conce=
pt
of the letter.  For a Swedish monoglot (if someone exist) they are only t=
wo
ways of writing the same letter.  <q> reminded as its own, but there are =
no
native word using <q>.

German borrowings with <w> have an easy way of getting Swedish dictionari=
es.
English borrowings will be accomodated in the same place.  But something
I've noticed is that German borrowings with <=FC> /y/, are alphabetized a=
s <y>
/y/.

-- Carlos Th