At 10:47 +0100 on 23.1.1998, Jens S. Larsen wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, B Philip Jonsson wrote:
> > Under different political circumstances they could have been called
> > dialects of one language, but these very same political circumstances ma=
> > it very unlikely ever to happen. The situation is comparable to the one=
> > the Iberian peninsula (although the three Scandinavian languages are eve=
> > closer than are Castillian, Catalan and Portuguese): feelings of cultura=
> > and national identity are far stronger than purely linguistic
> > considerations, so that the thought of merging the three languages would
> > upset the majority of people in all the countries concerned.
> I think in general the Swedes would be inclined to be against, the
> Danes for, and the Norwegians divided before a discussion starts. But
> it's difficult to find a way to motivate a broad debate in all three
> countries at the same time.
Jeq er =EAniq me=F0 deq at de flest=E6 Svensk=E6rer tr=FAliqen skulle=
tend=E9r=E6 at v=E6r=E6
imod (kanske d=EA ikke en g=E5ng skulle forst=E5 hva=F0 h=EAl=E6 sagen=
me=F0=E6n finlandssvensk=E6rer kanske skulle v=E6r=E6 lig=E6=A0s=E5 d=EAl=E6=
=F0e som de norsk=E6.
Du har s=E5 klart r=E9t i at problemed skull=E6 v=E6r=E6 at skab=E6 debat oq=
all=E6 tr=E9 landen=E6 p=E5 samm=E6 ti=F0 -- kanske om d=E9t fikk folk at=
tr=FA at d=E9t
skulle sterk=E6 vores posisjon i EU. Faktum er at jeq tr=FAr d=E9t kunde v=
I agree that most Swedes would be against (perhaps not even understanding
what it was all about), while Finland Swedes would perhaps be as divided as
the Norwegians. Of course you are quite right that the big problem would
be to create debate and opinion in all three countries at once -- perhaps
if it made people think that it could strengthen our position in the EU.
In fact I think it might...
> > I myself used to toy around a good deal with the idea of a Nordic auxlan=
> > in my teens. The problem is that the result would in any event be too
> > close to a conservative Dano-Norwegian to make any sense (unless one goe=
> > to the other extreme and e.g. introduces new letters for cases where the
> > different standards have different sounds, at the price of making the
> > spelling extremely hard to learn for everyone*). I guess one could make
> > some language planning efforts with vocabulary, promoting a "common
> > vocabulary" that capitalizes on such words and expressions that are more
> > easily recognizable to the neighbor peoples (such as to use _raed_ rathe=
> > than _bange_ for "afraid" in Danish) and avoiding such that could lead t=
> > misunderstanding. Such a course was advocated by the Danish journalist
> > Fynning, but without much result even during the drive of Nordic communi=
> > after WW II.
> > *Det=E6 er skrivad p=E5 et slaqs myged syntetisk samnor=F0isk. Det taqr=
> > v=E6ldiq midl=E5l=F0rliq ut! :-)
> > (This is written in a kind of very synthetic union-Scandinavian. It has=
> > very Medieval aspect!)
> Det h=E6r er skrivet etter mine begr=E9per om en samnordisk spr=E5knorm. =
> tar sej mindre medelalderigt o mer konstgj=F3rt ut =E6n Philips. (J=E6
> moste ta o se p=E5 d=E6n link som Jay nemnde).
> (This is written in my proposal for a common Scandinavian linguistic
> norm. It looks less medieval and more artificial than Philip's. I
> should go and look at the link than Jay mentioned).
The basic idea of my proposal is that the letters =F0 (edh) and q are used i=
native words where all three (four) languages have d and g after vowels,
while b d g are used in native words that have these letters in Danish but
p t k in Norwegian and Swedish. The letters p t k would be retained in
foreign words and where Danish has these after vowels. The pronunciation
rule would then for Danes be that d/=F0 and g/q be the same, while for Swede=
and Norwegians it would be d/t and g/k that were the same (except that
final p t k would be long, of course). The letter =E6 would be similarly
used where there is disagreement between a/=E6/e, while common =E6(=E4)=
written e or