dick@tjalk.UUCP (Dick Grune) (10/12/85)
Some days ago (Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 06:42:59 -0100) Rob Bernardo asked for the identification of the following Scandinavian languages. >Fodseng [some Germanic language] >Fodsa"ng [some Germanic language] >Fotseng [some Germanic language] Here is a Horrible Hack to tell them apart if you don't speak them. I feel tempted to send this article anonymously, since its brute phenomenological approach will surely (and justly) offend the native speakers of these beautiful languages. But sheer vanity and the hope to interest perhaps some people in Scandinavian languages has prompted me to send this article just the same. So, asbestos suit on, here goes. First between Danish, Norwegian and Swedish: Hack 1: The one with the double dots on the letters is Swedish. This makes Fotsa"ng Swedish, which it is. Between Danish and Norwegian: the languages are highly related. Hack 2: If words often contain VOICED consonants (b, d, g, v), especially between two vowels or at the end of words, it's Danish. This makes Fodseng Danish and Fotseng Norwegian. (likewise bog/bok,book; tage/ta, take; inn/ind, in; and many others) The word av (of) is a dead give-away: it is Danish, the Norwegian form being af. The letter combination ck is another: it occurs only in Danish and is written kk in Norwegian (tack/takk, thanks) Actually there are two Norwegian languages, Riksmaol (with the o over the a) (= State language) and Landsmaol (= Country language). It is the riksmaol which you see in print and which is highly related to Danish. The Landsmaol is spoken in rural Norway and is more related to Swedish (time for the double asbestos suit). You find it on road signs and in the local newspaper. Now for the other Scandinavian languages: Hack 3: If it has single apostrophes over a lot of the vowels, it's Icelandic. (bo'k: book). Other give-aways are the long th (called thorn, looking like a cross between a p and a b, and still present in English as in Ye Olde Inn, which by co(s)mic misunderstanding is pronounced ye olde inn) and the d-bar. Icelandic is the most inflected of the Germanic languages and easily outdoes German (with English and Afrikaans fighting over the title of the "least inflected one"). Then there is Faer-Oerese, spoken on the Faer-Oer islands, of which I know next to nothing; judging from names on the map, it is a simpler form of Icelandic. And now for a non-Scandinavian language: Hack 4: If it has many repeated or double vowels (aa, ee, oo, uu, oe, ui) it's Dutch (or Danish in old orthography) (boek: book) And now for another non-Scandinavian language: Hack 5: If it has many repeated or double vowels (aa, ee, uo, ii, a"a") and you can't make head or tail of it, it's Finnish (jalkavuode) I could give you hack 6-10 to distinguish between, Finnish Estonian Hungarian and Turkish, but I haven't been provoked (yet). Dick Grune Vrije Universiteit de Boelelaan 1081 1081 HV Amsterdam the Netherlands
aeb@mcvax.UUCP (Andries Brouwer) (10/13/85)
In article <518@tjalk.UUCP> dick@tjalk.UUCP (Dick Grune) writes: > >Between Danish and Norwegian: the languages are highly related. >Hack 2: If words often contain VOICED consonants (b, d, g, v), > especially between two vowels or at the end of words, it's > Danish. This makes Fodseng Danish and Fotseng Norwegian. > (likewise bog/bok,book; tage/ta, take; inn/ind, in; and > many others) The word av (of) is a dead give-away: it is > Danish, the Norwegian form being af. The letter combination > ck is another: it occurs only in Danish and is written kk in > Norwegian (tack/takk, thanks) Well, I agree with the b,d,g part, but the remainder must be a misunderstanding. The word av is Norwegian, the Danish being af . Thanks is tak in Danish; the ck is often an indication of Swedish. About the d in Danish words like ind , that is quite another matter; it is not pronounced at all. [Or, more precisely, the d in words ending in -nd or -ld tend to indicate a glottal stop. In a few cases the tendency arises to pronounce according to spelling (as in English debt, lamb, comb) - I have heard fodbold (football) pronounced with a dental at the end.] >I could give you hack 6-10 to distinguish between, Finnish Estonian >Hungarian and Turkish, but I haven't been provoked (yet). > I would like to see them - consider yourself provoked. What about a little program that automatically recognizes the language given a few sentences?
dick@tjalk.UUCP (Dick Grune) (10/14/85)
Rectification: !! av is Norwegian, af is Danish !! as many will already have noticed, and as Andries Brouwer pointed out to me. Seems I got carried away by my own horrible hacks, with the result that it was not a dead give-away, but dead wrong. Sorry! Dick Grune Vrije Universiteit de Boelelaan 1081 1081 HV Amsterdam the Netherlands
tombre@crin.UUCP (Karl Tombre) (10/14/85)
In article <518@tjalk.UUCP> dick@tjalk.UUCP (Dick Grune) writes: >Some days ago (Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 06:42:59 -0100) Rob Bernardo >asked for the identification of the following Scandinavian languages. > >>Fodseng [some Germanic language] > >>Fodsa"ng [some Germanic language] > >>Fotseng [some Germanic language] > >Here is a Horrible Hack to tell them apart if you don't speak them. >I feel tempted to send this article anonymously, since its brute >phenomenological approach will surely (and justly) offend the native >speakers of these beautiful languages. But sheer vanity and the >hope to interest perhaps some people in Scandinavian languages has >prompted me to send this article just the same. So, asbestos suit >on, here goes. OK, here come some flames.... (but mild ones I hope, and constructive in one sense). And your idea of interesting people in Scandinavian languages is very good indeed. >Between Danish and Norwegian: the languages are highly related. >Hack 2: If words often contain VOICED consonants (b, d, g, v), > especially between two vowels or at the end of words, it's > Danish. This makes Fodseng Danish and Fotseng Norwegian. > (likewise bog/bok,book; tage/ta, take; inn/ind, in; and > many others) The word av (of) is a dead give-away: it is > Danish, the Norwegian form being af. NO NO NO NO. Norwegian: av, Danish af!!! And inn is norw., ind danish. >Actually there are two Norwegian languages, Riksmaol (with the o >over the a) (= State language) and Landsmaol (= Country language). >It is the riksmaol which you see in print and which is highly >related to Danish. The Landsmaol is spoken in rural Norway and is >more related to Swedish (time for the double asbestos suit). You >find it on road signs and in the local newspaper. Well, landsmaol is also written, and several great authors wrote in it. Historically, there is an explanation for those two languages (I think I already mentioned this once in this group, some months ago...): Norway was for a long time part of Denmark, and therefore the official written language was danish. This didn't matter so much because the three countries Norway, Denmark, Sweden have almost the same language, and there are so many different ways of speaking it inside each country. In fact, I think there is more difference between the language spoken in the Oslo region, the one spoken in Gudbrandsdal and the one you hear on the west coast, let us say in Haalandsdal (I mention this last region because nobody on the net is likely to have heard of it, but my family name comes from there) than between written danish, swedish and norwegian. Well, Norway was dominated by Denmark... (but many renowned danes were in fact norwegians: Ludvig Holberg, general Ry, ... on with the asbestos suits myself :-). When Norway became independent, the written language was made more norwegian, but mostly according to the way it was spoken in the Oslo region. People comming from other parts wanted a written language better suited to their needs; hence the landsmaol, which corresponds more to the way they speak on parts of the west coast. Nowadays, both languages are official. People in NET-land who collect stamps can surely tell that on some norwegian stamps, the name of the country is "NORGE" (riksmaol) and on others "NOREG" (no type error, as somebody suggested once to me, but landsmaol). Instead of "riksmaol" and "landsmaol", I think people often say something like "bokmaol" (language of the books) for the danish like and "nynorsk" (new norwegian) for the west-coast like. >Now for the other Scandinavian languages: > ........... >Icelandic is the most inflected of the Germanic languages ... I'm not sure Icelandic can be considered as a germanic language (maybe, just my modest opinion). In fact, in the good old days when the normans were rampaging whole Europe and were discovering America (several centuries before C. C.), they spoke a common language known as 'norro"n'. Later, they bacame more civilised and had many contacts with The British Isles and also Germany ( Bergen was as member city of the Hansa ). But Iceland remained very much alone in the far north, and there specific norro"n culture and language were kept better. So Icelandic is a nearer parent of the old viking language than the other scandinavian languages. Now, maybe the specialists consider the norro"n family to be part of the germanic family... >Then there is Faer-Oerese, spoken on the Faer-Oer islands, of which >I know next to nothing; judging from names on the map, it is a >simpler form of Icelandic. Do you only know Scandinavia through the map? :-) :-) I hope not. It is a beautiful region for holidays. Go there, it is really worth the money! >And now for another non-Scandinavian language: >Hack 5: If it has many repeated or double vowels (aa, ee, uo, ii, a"a") > and you can't make head or tail of it, it's Finnish > (jalkavuode) Well, you're right that Finnish is not a member of the scandinavian languages family, but Finland is part of Scandinavia! I have heard that Finnish is closely related to hungarian. You also mention Turkish. Is it also in this family? I've never heard about it, but would be glad to know more. I hope this info was more or less accurate. I myself am born in Norway, have norwegian parents, but have lived in France since I was 2 years old. Therefore, my next question will be: "Why not do like me, switching from those barbarian languages to one real, beautiful, good latin language like French?" (-: (-; (-: (-; (-: (-; (-: (-; (-: (-; (-: (-; (-: (-; (-: (-; (-: (-; > Dick Grune > Vrije Universiteit > de Boelelaan 1081 > 1081 HV Amsterdam > the Netherlands > Well, happy to have met a dutch citizen knowing so much about Scandinavia. (Yes yes, no joke!) Sincerely, -- --- Karl Tombre @ CRIN (Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy) UUCP: ...!vmucnam!crin!tombre or ...!inria!crin!tombre COSAC: crin/tombre POST: Karl Tombre, CRIN, B.P. 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France "Car le plus lourd fardeau, c'est d'exister sans vivre." (Victor Hugo)
aeb@mcvax.UUCP (Andries Brouwer) (10/16/85)
In article <126@crin.UUCP> tombre@crin.UUCP (Karl Tombre) writes: > > Instead of "riksmaol" and "landsmaol", > I think people often say something like "bokmaol" (language of the books) > for the danish like and "nynorsk" (new norwegian) for the west-coast like. > Well, more or less. The language designed by Ivar Aasen somewhat more than a century ago was called landsmaal, the currently official version of it is called nynorsk. Similarly the old "danish in the mouth of norwegians" was called rigsmaal; after the reforms at the beginning of this century its name was changed to bokmaal. Later reforms brought nynorsk and bokmaal closer together; the opponents to such changes wanted to revert to the good old riksmaal. >>Now for the other Scandinavian languages: >> ........... >>Icelandic is the most inflected of the Germanic languages ... > >I'm not sure Icelandic can be considered as a germanic language (maybe, just >my modest opinion). As, no doubt, many people will tell you, the germanic languages are traditionally divided into north- east- and west-germanic. North germanic consists of the languages called Norr|n in Scandinavia; among these Icelandic (and Swedish, Danish, ...). East germanic is now extinct, but e.g. Gothic belonged to this branch. West germanic contains German, English, Frisian, Dutch and the like. > I have heard that > Finnish is closely related to Hungarian. You also mention Turkish. Is it > also in this family? I've never heard about it, but would be glad to know > more. Finnish is remotely related to Hungarian (as for example English is remotely related to Irish); the relationship doesnt help at all when people speaking these languages try to cummunicate. The relation to Turkish is too remote to be proved, but typologically Hungarian and Turkish are rather similar. (But then, also English and Chinese are typologically similar, while English and Icelandic are very dissimilar; in other words, typology doesnt prove anything about genetic relationships.)
dbmk1@stc.UUCP (10/16/85)
In article <845@mcvax.UUCP> aeb@mcvax.UUCP (Andries Brouwer) writes: >...(as for example English is >remotely related to Irish); Uuhh - don't you mean Gaelic. If not you've lost me. Regards Derek !seismo!mcvax!ukc!stc!dbmk1 I've heard that re-incarnation is making a come-back.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (10/16/85)
>>Icelandic is the most inflected of the Germanic languages ... In article <126@crin.UUCP> tombre@crin.UUCP (Karl Tombre) writes: >I'm not sure Icelandic can be considered as a germanic language >In fact, in the good old days when the normans were rampaging whole >Europe and were discovering America (several centuries before C. C.), >they spoke a common language known as 'norro"n'. Later, they bacame >more civilised and had many contacts with The British Isles and also >Germany ( Bergen was as member city of the Hansa ). But Iceland >remained very much alone in the far north, and there specific >norro"n culture and language were kept better. So Icelandic is >a nearer parent of the old viking language than the other scandinavian >languages. >Now, maybe the specialists consider the norro"n family to be part >of the germanic family... >--- Karl Tombre @ CRIN (Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy) Actually, the norro"n family (Old Norse, Icelandic, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, etc.) IS considered to be part of the germanic family. The germanic language family consists of three subdivisions: 1) north germanic -- the above-mentioned Scandinavian languages. 2) west germanic -- modern German, Dutch, Yiddish, Old English 3) east germanic -- the various extinct Gothic languages, of which the only remaining trace (that I know of) is a Gothic bible translated from the Latin. Frank Silbermann
christer@kuling.UUCP (Christer Johansson) (10/17/85)
--
SMail: Christer Johansson EMail: {seismo,seismo!mcvax}!enea!kuling!christer OR
Sernandersv. 9:136 christer@kuling.UUCP
S-752 63 Uppsala Phone: Int. +46 - 18 46 31 54
SWEDEN Nat. 018 - 46 31 54jacob@chalmers.UUCP (Jacob Hallen) (10/18/85)
In article <126@crin.UUCP> tombre@crin.UUCP (Karl Tombre) writes: >before C. C.), they spoke a common language known as 'norro"n'. Later, they >became more civilised and had many contacts with The British Isles and also What do you mean "more civilised"? Those were the most civilised times that ever came to this part of the world! Jacob
andersa@kuling.UUCP (Anders Andersson) (10/18/85)
In article <126@crin.UUCP> tombre@crin.UUCP (Karl Tombre) writes: >Finnish is closely related to hungarian. You also mention Turkish. Is it >also in this family? I've never heard about it, but would be glad to know >more. As far as I know, Turkish is an Altaic language, related to Mongolian. If you doubt it, look at the map and compare the names of various places. -- Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden Phone: +46 18 183173 UUCP: andersa@kuling.UUCP (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!andersa)
ccrrick@ucdavis.UUCP (Rick Heli) (10/19/85)
> I have heard that > Finnish is closely related to hungarian. You also mention Turkish. Is it > also in this family? I've never heard about it, but would be glad to know > more. Not closely at all. You need to get out your linguistic microscope to see the similarities. -- --rick heli (... ucbvax!ucdavis!ccrrick)
dick@tjalk.UUCP (Dick Grune) (10/19/85)
In <845@mcvax.UUCP> Andries Brouwer writes: > The relation to Turkish is too remote to be proved, but typologically > Hungarian and Turkish are rather similar. (But then, also English and > Chinese are typologically similar, while English and Icelandic are > very dissimilar; in other words, typology doesnt prove anything about > genetic relationships.) Yes, but English and Chinese are similar only morphologically, not syntactically, i.e. in the way they build sentences. Chinese says: You come not come, to mean: Do you come? which is kind of un-English. That they are morphologically similar is no great miracle because they are both featureless. And the fewer features you have the less chance you have to be different. Both Hungarian and Turkish are highly structured AND the structure is very similar. The structure is so similar that knowing one is a help in studying the other. Dick Grune Vrije Universiteit de Boelelaan 1081 1081 HV Amsterdam the Netherlands
tombre@crin.UUCP (Karl Tombre) (10/23/85)
Civilised? Well, the Vikings were not very tender to the other people of
Europe. And if you read "Snorre Sturlassons Kongesagaer", you see that the
situation inside the countries was not much better.
--
--- Karl Tombre @ CRIN (Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy)
UUCP: ...!vmucnam!crin!tombre or ...!inria!crin!tombre
COSAC: crin/tombre
POST: Karl Tombre, CRIN, B.P. 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France
"Car le plus lourd fardeau, c'est d'exister sans vivre."
(Victor Hugo)jack@boring.UUCP (10/23/85)
In article <845@mcvax.UUCP> aeb@mcvax.UUCP (Andries Brouwer) writes: >...(as for example English is >remotely related to Irish); Oh? As far as I know, Irish had very little influence on English. Of course, there are still a lot of gaelic words in English, but I don't think that they are of Irish origin. Or do you mean the fact that quite a few words for "new" ideas were borrowed from English ? -- Jack Jansen, jack@mcvax.UUCP The shell is my oyster.