Talk:Norwegian language/Archive 2

Number of speakers?
The number 6.3 million native speakers seems like pure phantasy. Yes, I see there is a reference, but it doesn't seem like a trustworthy one. There are 4.8 million inhabitants in Norway. Are we to believe there is 1.5 million native speakers in the USA?--Barend (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. The source is suspect because it advertises Norwegian courses. The Scandinavian, German and French Wikipedia versions agree that there are 4.7 million or 5 million speakers. I am not sure what exactly they count, but native speakers is already the most restrictive reasonable category anyway. Unfortunately I couldn't find any sources in the other Wikipedias. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoken In:
I noticed that Iceland was in the list of places where Norwegian is spoken.. I assume because that is because of historical ties to Iceland, etc. etc. but why aren't the Faroe Islands on it aswell? Only about 0,1% of humans living in Iceland are Norwegian, and Norwegians make up of about 0,2% of the Faroese population. Iceland and the Faroes have very similar historical ties to Norway, and as you can see similar percentages of Norwegians.. Unless the Faroese Norwegians don't speak Norwegian.. or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGulli (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Spoken In 2:
Since when is Norwegian spoken in Denmark by others then turist, students and a few imegrants? I don't agree with that choice nor should the several of the other languages be listed that. The list is for countries with large minorities or where it is used as a secondary language, like Swedish in Finland or Italian in Switzerland.

--Zoulman (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 15:00

Spoken In 3:
Since when is Norwegian spoken in Jämtland County in Sweden? Jämtland County has been a part of Sweden since 1645 and the dialect there is not particulaty close to Norwegian.

--22:58, 18 May 2010 (CEST) 22:59 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.46.46 (talk)

Examples section
Hello! There, apparently is some mad person claiming this: (This is in the current article, 19. Nov 2009)


 * "Below are a few sentences giving an indication of the differences between Bokmål and Nynorsk, compared to the conservative (nearer to Danish) form Riksmål, Danish, as well as Old Scandinavian = Dönsk tunga, Swedish, Faroese, Icelandic"

Well, first of all, the Old Norse language has never ever been officially called "Old Scandinavian", and it hasn't either been called "Dönsk tunga" either, as it's correct name in the Old West Norse dialect was dǫnsk tunga, or dansk tunga in the East dialect. -- Some more quotations:


 * "(Old Norse is a made up[citation needed] theory by English historians[citation needed] that there was a comon language used be the Nordic countrys wich used the same spelling."

No, actually it isn't a theory, and it isn't made up, and no one has ever claimed that they all used the same spelling in the time the language existed. The standardized Old Norse spelling was created in the 19th century. from Möðruvallabók is indeed a proof of this language. And, in the sort of grid below with all the examples, (which I have successfully placed below) someone, probably the same before mentioned mad man, has changed all the Old Norse phrases, and made them identical to the Icelandic ones, which if anyone hasn't noticed isn't identical to Old Nore.

Now I shall stop whining and will correct it :D -MrGulli (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am quite late to this discussion, but I would just like to say that I added in the Old Norse eel example for a bit of humour (although I am surprised it lasted as long as it did with no one removing it—and that someone even corrected my grammar), and there's therefore nothing to discuss beyond a bit of stodginess. For my part, I've largely given up trying to take Wikipedia seriously.  Oc t  ane  [ improve me? ] 14.01.10 1204 (UTC)

NOTE: Fact box template
For future reference, the Norwegian factbox is in its own template, Norwegian language. LokiClock (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Continental/Insular vs. West/East North Germanic

 * I think the whole bias in Norwegian language articles towards Bokmal and the Continental/Insular classification is flawed. Western Norwegian dialects and Nynorsk are different enough from Eastern North Germanic (Bokmal, Danish and Swedish) to be classified as part of Western North Germanic with Icelandic and Faroese. The chart shown in this very article displaying the differences for "I come from Norway" between Bokmal/Danish and Nynorsk is quite obvious. Western Norwegian dialects are more mutually intelligible with Faroese than any other Northern Germanic language (including Icelandic) so the whole "insular" classification has little validity and certainly no widespread acceptance anywhere. Norway is clearly a crossroads between East and West North Germanic languages with the differences between Nynorsk and Bokmal reflecting this perfectly. I think this needs to be addressed in all the Scandinavian and North Germanic Languages articles. The East/West division is still used just as much as, if not more so, than the so-called "Continental/Insular" classification which, to me, seems to be nothing more than a political tool to group Norwegian closer to Danish when in reality the variation in dialects within the Norwegian language is very high, with the western ones closer to Faroese and the Eastern ones closer to Danish. 69.156.90.9 (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian in Iceland? - and the other way around
Could someone cite, or perhaps explain, exactly where in Iceland norwegian is spoken? What's the reason behind this claim? The icelandic article claims the same thing only the other way around. Why is this? Someone enlighten me please.. Martinor (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "norsk"
There are various ways to pronunce norsk, none of which are standardised. The pronunciation [nɔʂk] is currently listed up alone, which cannot be anything but misleading (and which of the pronunciations does it actually reflect?). Njardarlogar (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Each of them has its own Wikipedia"
Immediately after mentioning Bokmål and Nynorsk for the first time this article says: "Each of them has its own Wikipedia, as if they were two different languages".

Is it really important to say this thing about Wikipedia so early on? Isn't it too self-referential? --Kurepalaku (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Feminine gender
Quote: "As of June 5, 2005, all feminine nouns can be written as masculine nouns (bokmål only)." I'm guessing this refers to an official stance by the language council. In actuality, it has been common practice for decades. Some dialects, such as in Bergen on the west coast, traditionally don't use the feminine forms at all, as far as I know. If anyone has any sources, that would be great! Thanks.76.113.104.58 (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bergensk is the only dialect that has two grammatical genders - I have yet to see any other dialect singled out when it comes to this topic. Some sociolects also have only two grammatical genders, in what was originally a way of emulating Danish; but that is a different topic. You are correct in that the phrasing could be confusing, so I've altered it. Njardarlogar (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead
A lead with 622 words? seems a bit too long to me. Even so, the difference between Bokmål and Nynorsk remains quite unclear.

One needs a second read to understand better, that Bokmål would be a kind of urban Danish-like standard. Hence, Nynorsk might be much closer to Old Norse? But Old Norse was not Danish-like indeed? (this I read somewhere). Well, I'll have to read the whole article. --Xabadiar (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian in the US
Without sounding too curt, what is the point in the section "Norwegian in the US"? Really? To me, and I'm sure countless others, it's a list of irrelevant information of how many people speak Norwegian in a few relatively obsure parts of the United States. The table, though, is worse. Only two of the 15 states have a percentage greater than zero; even the US as a whole has "0.0% percent [sic]". I'm not saying that it is meaningless information; I didn't know that there were 55,311 "Norwegian language" in the US. I propose that the entire section is excised, or sections added for the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China and just about all the other "little" countries of the world—even Antarctica. After all, they have a sizeable claim there. 79.67.154.166 (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I can only agree with the above. TArntsen (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. Eliminated the graphic, too. The graphic purports to show where Norwegian is spoken around the world. If so, areas of Canada should be just as significantly marked as those areas of the U.S. Having said that, the Norwegian culture is important in the areas of the U.S. described in this section, obscure or not (not sure what's so obscure about it though). The radio program, "A Prairie Home Companion" would not be so successful without this Norwegian hotspot. Victor Engel (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree with you. The amount of Norwegian spoken in northern central US is so minor it's more of a fun fact. Dedicating so large portion of the article to this seems weird and as others have said no matter what language you have, you can often find traces in other countries. We could do the same for Norwegian speaking in Sweden, Germany, France, Scotland and so on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.200.88 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and the infobox states Denmark has 150,000 speakers. That means about 2.5 percent of population. And still US states are on the map and Denmark not? Highly illogical, I'd say. 85.217.42.235 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the whole section. It was completely out of context, and it also seemed too detailed for this particular article, regardless. (link to version containing the section) Njardarlogar (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Native Name Problem
Since in Norwegian, language names aren't capitalised, then shouldn't the native name be norsk instead of Norsk? BLEAKGH - БЛЕАКЬ - بــلــكــغ - בּלכּג - 뱍가 - ᚷᚲᛇᛚᛒ 20:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Norwegian language article capitalises our native name, so we should pay the same respect and lowercase theirs, right? I'm fixing it. BLEAKGH - БЛЕАКЬ - بــلــكــغ - בּלכּג - 뱍가 - ᚷᚲᛇᛚᛒ 22:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

When is a language "spoken" somewhere?
We have all sorts of geographic locations added as places were Norwegian is "spoken". I am not aware of any guidelines for the template on this topic, but if we are to say that a language is "spoken" somewhere, it would make sense to demand that it is part of a tradition in the relevant geographic place. I.e. it is not enough that thousands of Norwegians stay a few years/decades in Denmark, because there is no tradition/culture associated with these expats, the language that they speak is not something that is passed down through the generations locally, it all comes directly from Norway (or a generation or two between at max).

The only places outside of Norway that are potentially relevant to include in the infobox are, off the top of my head, a few selected places in the U.S., since the language appears to be passed on from generation to generation (at least to some extent), and there is a culture associated with the language there; but at the same time, the scale is probably too small to include it in the infobox (a few thousands versus 5 millions). It would seem more relevant to include in a section named Norwegian outside of Norway, or something like that.

I am also starting a more general debate at Template talk:Infobox language. Njardarlogar (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No longer considered pronouns ??
The article makes the astonishing claim that possessive, demonstrative, and relative pronouns are no longer "regarded to be pronouns" in Norwegian. I might agree concerning the demonstrative ones, but the other two most certainly are pronouns -- i.e. they substitute for nouns! Did the language council do this by decree or what is going on here ? And by what logic ? Someone, please elaborate on this, thanks.68.35.66.170 (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, relative pronouns seem more like conjunctions than pronouns, as you can't put a noun instead of a relative pronoun. Demonstratives are often more than just pronouns, since they can also modify nouns. They are probably better described as determiners, or as both. CodeCat (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe that's what it is. They do seem to bind sentences together similar to conjunctions. But you can put a noun instead of a relative pronoun (and that's the whole point of pronouns... but you knew that). For example: "The man who robbed the bank is a race car driver". Here, "who" substitutes for "the man" so you won't have to repeat the noun -- as in: "The man robbed the bank. The man is a race car driver". A relative sentence is actually two sentences, each with a subject and a verb. "Who" is one of the subjects and that sentence is a subordinate clause. A conjunction cannot be a subject or an object, whereas pronouns can. If you render "who" into a conjunction, you lose the subject and thus the sentence is no longer complete. "Whom", of course, is an object, and a sentence doesn't need one to be complete -- but it's still not quite the same as a conjunction. Consider: "The woman whom we met plays softball on weekends". Here, the two sentences are: "The woman plays softball on weekends" (main clause) and "whom we met" (subordinate). "Whom" refers back to the woman -- a noun -- and it's just another way of saying "we met her". "Whom" and "her" are both pronouns. Of course, these examples are in English but Norwegian works the same way. So that's largely the basis for my objection. Thanks.68.35.66.170 (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Semantically yes, the relative pronoun replaces a noun, but when considering the part of speech, you look at the syntax especially. If you take "The man who robbed the bank" and replace the relative pronoun with its antecedent, then you get "The man the man robbed the bank" which doesn't work out. The alternative, "The man robbed the bank" doesn't mean the same. Contrast that with a 'real' pronoun such as "He robbed the bank" or "The man robbed it twice" where you can replace "he" and "it" without problems. A characteristic of a true pronoun is that you can replace it with its antecedent, which makes it optional to use it. A relative pronoun on the other hand, like a conjunction, is required, because without it the sentence literally "falls apart". I suppose another argument I could make is that in some languages like Swedish, there are words that function as relative pronouns yet are clearly not pronouns in the true sense: Mannen som rånade banken. Here, the word "som" is a relative particle that corresponds to the English "who". But it can't be used as a pronoun by itself, so something like Som rånade banken is wrong (it sounds like part of the sentence is missing). CodeCat (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you are flat-out wrong. And confused, apparently. You missed the point of my first example, and you are misinterpreting your own Swedish example (which, incidentally, illustrates the same point that I already brought up). Let me explain the concept of a subordinate clause to you: In "som rånade banken", what is indeed missing is a main clause. Without a main clause, a subordinate clause cannot stand alone -- even though it IS a complete sentence (it has the requisite subject and verb... and the subject is... you guessed it, the relative pronoun "som"!) It's just not a complete PERIOD because it lacks a main clause to hang onto. It's kinda like frosting without the cake. The frosting is all done but it needs a cake to sit on.


 * I reckon I was wrong too: it seems you don't quite understand the point of pronouns after all. You are hung up on personal pronouns -- but there are more than one type of pronouns, you see, and they don't all behave the exact same way. Nonetheless, their core function is the same -- to substitute for or refer to a noun. They do this in different ways, to suit the particular needs of each sentence. That doesn't make them any less real -- or turn them into conjunctions, which have a different core function. Thanks, it has been a pleasure educating you.68.35.66.170 (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

conservative of what?
The unofficial form known as Riksmål is considered more conservative than Bokmål, and the unofficial Høgnorsk more conservative than Nynorsk. "Conservative" should be defined more explicitly, since there are competing sources from which features might be "conserved". —Tamfang (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's probably Danish. Although if you think of conserving Old Norse, the most conservative is actually Nynorsk. :) CodeCat (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem in infobox?
I've been trying to fix the claudators problem in the infobox but haven't been unable to find anything strange in the source code... maybe someone else can find the mistake and fix it? --Qllach (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nordic Council
After talking about the four forms of written Norwegian, the lead says: "Norwegian is one of the working languages of the Nordic Council."

This seems to me a contradiction since "Norwegian" has such variety. Has the Nordic Council settled on which form to use? Or are they reluctant to make a choice?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By "working language" it's meant that official documents can be written in either of the three Scandinavian languages mentioned. Due to the mutual intelligibility between the languages, in the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers interpretation is offered between Finnish, Icelandic and Scandinavian, but not between the Scandinavian languages. (Technically Icelandic is a Scandinavian language, but is not mutually intelligible with the 'continental' Scandinavian languages.) Norwegian is considered one language, but expressed by two written variants, both of them are official in Norway, and by extension in the Nordic Council. Josnyg (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

How much do Bokmål and Nynorsk differ?
A lot of articles talk about the language situation and how different people prefer different standards. But so far I haven't been able to find any information about how much they have in common. Going just by vocabulary (perhaps only the more common words one would find in a newspaper), what percentage of words is shared between the two? CodeCat (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What does it mean that a word is shared between them? Are kyrkje and kirke the same word, although they are written differently? In some cases, though not in this, different forms like this are both allowed in either or both written standards. While not exactly what you ask for, and completely unsourced, what I as a bokmål writer remember for learning to write nynorsk was to avoid all be- og -het words (there were possibly some more). These came from German and were/are therefore shunned by hardcore proponents of nynorsk. Words of Norse origin still preserved in bokmål will most likely be shared with nynorsk, though possibly with quite different spelling, but probably not the other way around due to bokmål's greater foreign influence. Ters (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If, as the article says, Bokmål and Nynorsk are written languages, how can the article also say that NRK broadcasts in these languages? Broadcasters must perforce use spoken forms of the language, albeit in a variety of dialects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historikeren (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * They seem to use the "dialect" formed from reading the written standards more or less as they are written. Since nynorsk is based on dialects from almost all over the country, this "dialect" is artificial, while for bokmål, you more or less get the eastern upper class dialect/sociolect/koiné bokmål was based on. This requirement is apparently no longer as strict as it once probably was. Ingerid Stenvold won a price in 2007 for her persistence in using her own dialect. Ters (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past, people in NRK had to choose between a standardized spoken bokmål or standardized spoken nynorsk. While the first is similar (or the same) as the standard dialect of the Oslo West End, the latter were more or less an artificial creation. These days everyone are allowed to use their own dialects freely. But, even though much of the communication done by radio and TV are done orally, there's still plenty of written communication (like through subtitles, placards on TV, text TV, and lately the internet).Josnyg (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Bokmål is Norwegianised Danish, while Nynorsk is based on Norwegian dialects, but with a somewhat conservative vocabulary. --Oddeivind (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Variant Generally Taught to Foreign Students
In the 'Phonology' section the following claim is made: "There is considerable variation among the dialects, but the variant generally taught to foreign students is Standard Østnorsk." What's the basis for this claim? I'd assume that what dialect is taught depend on the dialect of the teacher, and where the student learns the language. Granted, most foreigners learning Norwegian in Norway probably learn it in or around Oslo where Standard Østnorsk is the norm, but that's incidental. Josnyg (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Finding a good reliable source spelling this out directly may be difficult. The incidental angle might be the point here, but I guess it's also common for languages to be taught in the spoken form closest to the written form. From my impressions, there has also not been a tradition in Norway for teaching dialects in schools, or even using dialects in government institutions. While the latter is not as strict as it used to be, a then new news anchor on NRK recently had to ask for permission to speak in her own dialect, though dialects have been freely used in every other program for some time. Standard Østnorsk works as a sociolect, as well as something of a dialect. Ters (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Standard Eastern Norwegian" is a misnomer, it has no real definition (paradoxically enough for something that is supposed to be a "standard"). It's a term that should be avoided.
 * I also sincerely doubt that central eastern phonology would be applied by people outside of the central part of Eastern Norway. As an example, someone from Bergen will most likely use [ʁ] rather than [ɾ] for the letter r when pronouncing Bokmål. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bergen is perhaps a bad example, as they have never been under the impression that their dialect is inferior to "Standard Østnorsk". In fact, I think the Bergen dialect fits Bokmål about as good as the Oslo dialect, and certainly more so than most eastern dialects. However, phonology isn't the main thing that differentiates Norwegian dialects. As long as one pronounce the words as written in Bokmål, much of the the characteristics of one's dialect will be lost. However, there seems to be a assumption is this discussion that the teacher is from, or even in, Norway. The statement in the article may also refer to students outside Norway learning Norwegian from non-Norwegian teachers. That teacher may in turn never have been exclusively exposed to a particular Norwegian dialect. Ters (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that this information was found in the Phonology section, as pointed out by Josnyg, so phonology is what I had in mind. It is also found in the lead, but there the context is different and so it seems to be correct. --Njardarlogar (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I missed that part. If so, then there is a source for that claim on the article about Norwegian phonology. I don't know what that source says, though. Ters (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that claim must be incorrect. It would be nice if someone had access to the book The Phonology of Norwegian (2007) so that we could find out what it actually says. --Njardarlogar (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Introduction length
It is quite clear that the introduction by far exceeds its tolerable length. It is suggested to shift the details of the dialects into the already existing paragraph "Dialects". HJJHolm (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Islands and the Map
I wonder why the map includes Svalbard but not Bouvet Island. Norwegian Law applies to Bouvet, so if anybody ever wanted to live there (current population zero), surely Norwegian would be the official language of the island? Enno (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it is to keep the map simple. If the map was extended to show Bouvet Island, it wouldn't be visible due to the scale. while an inset would lose the context. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the map shows where Norwegian is spoken, not where it is an offical language. (Although the minorities in North America shown in another map is left out.) It should also be mentioned that the correctness of the map in the infobox was recently questioned. Ters (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The map over "Norwegian-speaking areas"
I am wondering why a map in this article suggests that the Norwegian language is in a minority in the north of Norway, specifically Troms and Finnmark? Is it because of the Sami languages?

While the Sami language is spoken mainly in the north, it is far from a majority language even in the northernmost parts of Norway. Less than 20 000 people in Norway can speak a Sami language, and an even lower number will have it as a native tongue. Furthermore, just seven municipalities in Troms and Finnmark (out of 43) have a Sami language as an official administrational language along with Norwegian. As far as I know, only two municipalities (Karasjok and Kautokeino) have a Sami majority. According to official statistics, there are 237 000 people living in Troms and Finnmark. Given that there are only just 20 000 Sami speakers in Norway, quite a few of whom do not live in Troms and Finnmark, Norwegian cannot be close to a minority language.

By all means, the Sami language is an official language in Norway and should be respected as such. The Sami language are very much present in certain parts of the northern half of Norway. However, Norwegian is not at all a minority language in Northern Norway, and the map should reflect this.

It is also confusing to claim that there are "Norwegian-speaking minorities" in Sweden. It is true that the dialects in the light blue areas are closely (and historicaly) linked to Norwegian dialects - but I don't think any of the people living there today consider themselves to be (or speak) Norwegian.

In my opinion the map should be totaly removed: It is more confusing than informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.163.110 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and I removed it. Iselilja (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Descriptions of certain vowel phonemes
In the article I read:

u	/ʉ/, /u/	close central rounded (close front extra rounded)

From the article on IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) I gather that /ʉ/ indeed indicates a central vowel, but that /u/ indicates a back vowel rather than a front vowel.

Furthermore, in several instances two IPA symbols are given but either only one description or two descriptions that fit only one of the symbols, for example in the case of:

e (short)	/ɛ/, /æ/	open mid front unrounded

Since I am not a speaker of Norwegian, I hesitate to edit a change.Redav (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced sections
FYI: I have today added the unreferenced section template to several unreferenced sections in this article. Since several of these sections refer to a "Main article", I wondered if Wikipedia policy might consider that "good enough" as a reference, so I asked at Teahouse/Questions (Section: ‎Use of unreferenced section). There my opinion was validated; all sections should have references. --Hordaland (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

How many speakers?
The number of speakers of Norwegian was recently changed from 5 million to 4.7 million in the infobox. Our article Norway says the population of the country is 5,214,900. So what do the other half-a-million speak? The youngest infants don't speak yet and some immigrants don't speak much Norwegian yet, but I think there can't be a half-a-million in those categories. Some Sami people, travelling people and immigrants have Norwegian as a 2nd language, but they should count as "speakers", surely. And some speakers live outside of Norway.

The 4.7 million figure comes from awl which credits ethnologue for the figure. But although the ethnologue site is dated "2016", there is no indication that that page has been updated recently.

Call it OR if you like, but I think 5 million is a more logical figure. I'm very tempted to change it back. Any objection? Or any better source?--Hordaland (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It was I who changed it to 4.7 based on the source cited. But the CIA World Factbook gives Norway's population as 5,265,158 (July 2016 est.). It's true that it's hard to imagine a half million non-Norwegian speakers. There's a book on Google Books "Composition Linguistique Des Nations Du Monde, Volume 5" By Heinz Kloss that gives the number as 5 million. Thanks for the suggestion, I've gone ahead and implemented it. --Cornellier (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, and I apologize for not thinking of notifying you! --Hordaland (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I think you did it correctly. The talk page is the best place to discuss this. --Cornellier (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Map
It's not explained at all why there are two shades of blue in the first map although another map explains the Bokmål and Nynorsk distribution. The latter includes neutral areas as well. These aren't present in the introduction map either. --2.245.120.30 (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those two shades of blue are discussed in the discussion above. The map was removed earlier this year for being totally wrong, but someone seems to have put it back. Ters (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But there IS no "discussion above" this one! GeneCallahan (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There was, but it has been archived in the two years that has passed since this discussion took place. I think it was the discussion titled The map over "Norwegian-speaking areas" I was referring to. The map has since been altered as well. Ters (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know Norwegian, but as someone who doesn't know the language, the fact that the caption doesn't include an explanation is more confusing than the fact that the map is disputed. --2.245.120.30 (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The map in question is on Commons, here: It was removed from the article at the end of August this year by user:Iselilja who wrote, as an edit-summary: Since August it has been added back in. I believe that the several comments (comment sections) above, and the edit-summary, show consensus that this map is unwanted. I'll remove it again. --Hordaland (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Idioma_noruego.png
 * Removing misleading map. Norwegians are not in minority in Northern Norway; nor are there really Norwegian-speaking minorities in Sweden (apart from recent immigrants).

Very Strange Sentence
"As of June 5, 2005, all feminine nouns could once again be written as masculine nouns in Bokmål, giving the option of writing the language with only two genders – common and neuter."

First of all, typical language changes do not occur on a single day. If there was some piece of legislation passed that day, that should be mentioned here. But even if that is the case, that does not mean the language itself underwent a fundamental change that day. And the claim that nouns "could once again" be written in a particular way is not backed up by any reference to when they previously could be written that way. GeneCallahan (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * , your reactions are reasonable! The sentence should explain the situation (better) and there should be a reference.  I should imagine that Språkrådet, the official Language Council of Norway, made a decision on that day.  I'll see if I can find and add a reference for that (in Norwegian) and improve the sentence.  Thank you for pointing this out!
 * Many sections in the article are marked as needing refernces. :(
 * As is mentioned in the article itself, "The now-abandoned official policy to merge Bokmål and Nynorsk into one common language called Samnorsk through a series of spelling reforms has created a wide spectrum of varieties of both Bokmål and Nynorsk." It also, naturally enough, created controversy. Users of Bokmål are a large majority and I'm sure they  (correction:  some of them) objected strongly to being forced to become a written language with three rather than two noun-genders whenever that occurred (prior to June 5. 2005). --Hordaland (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that most Bokmål users use three genders. Although the counting reform has been rather successful, I doubt "they" (this is spanning generations) started using the third gender just because of a writing reform, but rather have always used them in speech, even when they were not allowed to write them. So did really "all" Bokmål users object to the third gender in writing? Your last statement can be read that way. Or was it perhaps just a vocal minority that was used to only having two genders in their dialect/sociolect? Ters (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for suggesting "they objected strongly" was meant to include all Bokmål users. (Corrected above.) Neither all Bokmål nor all Nynorsk users are as engaged or as vocal as some of us are, of course. I do, however, know some who never would say sola nor boka. :)  --Hordaland (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wasn't saying that they don't exist, I just started questioning what I thought I knew. (Personally, I'm in principle a three-gendered Bokmål user, although which gender I use for the words in question here may vary, even within the same sentence. I'm a victim of the Norwegian language war.) Ters (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Native to "parts of Sweden"?
The claim that the Norwegian language is native to parts of Sweden has been removed a number of times, but is added back again every time. Based on what? There's a dialect continuum in certain areas along the long common border between the two countries, but the language spoken on the eastern side of the border is no more Norwegian than the language spoken on the western side of the border is Swedish, and I have never ever seen anyone claim that the Swedish language is native to parts of Norway... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since Sweden has acquired and kept parts of Norway in wars of old, but not (at least significantly) the other way around, it is perhaps not so strange that this only goes one way. I'm not sure to what degree what is spoken in those regions can be considered Norwegian, since Norwegian has certainly changed since those wars and those regions have certainly been swedified over time. If it is, then Danish should perhaps also be a native language in Sweden, since Scania was also lost by Denmark-Norway to Sweden at the same time. There seems to be some variation between language articles as to whether "native to" refers to current usage, or historical use. English and Spanish simply don't use this field at all. Ters (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The dialects of Swedish spoken in Jämtland/Härjedalen and Bohuslän are definitely not Norwegian, nor is the dialect of Swedish commonly spoken in Scania Danish (we're talking about areas that were annexed by Sweden more than 350 years ago). And "Native to" of course refers to areas where the language is spoken natively (i.e. as first language) by people who are not recent or fairly recent immigrants, unless you claim that Norwegian-speakers are the native (i.e. pre-Columbus) population of parts of the American Midwest (see the infobox in the article...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Native to" needs a definition, and both of these statements need referencing. The numbers in the mid-eastern US is tiny, and I think to say it's native to there is nostalgic thinking. If you used the same yardstick on English you'd have to say it's native to dozens of countries. There are 5-6000 Norwegians working in the oil industry in Houston. There are three quarters of a million Britons in Spain. What does that imply? --Cornellier (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * When I look up native on this very wiki, I get two possible relevant definitions. One definition looks just one generation back, another goes much, much longer. This wiki's article for the Portuguese language follows the first definition, while the article for the French language follows the latter (with a note about current usage being different). Minor border adjustments are not taken into consideration, nor is Southern Belgium or Monaco(!). As mentioned, English and Spanish mostly avoids the issue altogether by using "Region" rather than "Native to". English uses similar wording to French, while Spanish follows Portuguese. So it does not appear to me that one interpretation is more obvious than the other, which might be why there is disagreement as to where Norwegian is native. (One could perhaps argue that Norwegian is native to Strömstad according to both definitions, but I mention this only because I find the idea amusing, not as a serious argument.) Another reason for why someone insists stating that Norwegian is native to Sweden and not the other way around might simply be editing bias. That the editor is not interested in contributing to the article about Swedish. I haven't checked the edit history. Ters (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we need a good source before we even discuss adding this piece of information. I don't see any sources, so our own speculations on what could possibly be meant are not all that useful.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Without sources, it should definitely be removed (as I have done multiple times). --Njardarlogar (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the literature on linguistic minorities in Sweden I find no mention of a Norwegian minority (Finnish, Sami, Meänkieli, Romani, Yiddish, immigrant languages - no Norwegian).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt the Scandinavian countries would define any Scandinavian language as a minority language. The language barrier is too weak for that. I think there actually is an agreement that speakers of these languages are treated equally in some way(s). Although I've never heard them being mentioned as a minority, there might be more Swedish speakers in Norway than any other language except Norwegian and Sami. They may however not count anyway since they might still be Swedish citizens working in Norway under EEA rules. Ters (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There are far more people from Poland in Norway than Swedes or any other outside nationality. Of course the Poles are learning Norwegian while Swedes seldom are.  --Hordaland (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

section: Danish to Norwegian. Split?
At the top of the section "Danish to Norwegian" there is a box, dated January 2017, where it says: "It has been suggested that this article be split into a new article titled Samnorsk. (Discuss.)"

The "Discuss" link sends one here, but no one has started a discussion nor explained why it has been "suggested" that the article should be split. If you are the one who added the proposal, you should start a discussion here or remove the notice. --Hordaland (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"disputed" in the infobox
There are no language "disputed", please remove that. Jeblad (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think they are there to reflect that Norwegian can either be considered as belonging together with Swedish and Danish, with which it is mutually intelligible, or as belonging together with Icelandic and Faroese, which share a more recent common origin. But it seems then somewhat odd to put it above "Continental Scandinavian", as the Norwegian language conflict is not in any way about where Continental Scandinavian belongs within North Germanic. Just having Continental Scandinavian there is picking sides in the "conflict". Ters (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norwegian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724185459/http://www.apollon.uio.no/vis/art/1998/1/dialekt to http://www.apollon.uio.no/vis/art/1998/1/dialekt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead length
To reiterate what I just included in edit summaries when I added the Lead too long tag, as it's involved enough to mention here: The lead contains four paragraphs that are all primarily, or almost entirely, about the breakdown between Bokmål and Nynorsk. Meanwhile, the section dedicated to Bokmål and Nynorsk consists of only two short paragraphs. Taking MOS:LEADLENGTH into consideration, even if several general observations associated with Bokmål and Nynorsk and other breakdowns of the language merit mention in the lead, their coverage there should be tightened up considerably, with the details moving to the body of the article. Largoplazo (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Norwegian and Google Translate
So what dialect does Google Translate Use? Myrrhfrankincensegold (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dialects are spoken. Nynorsk and Bokmål are written.  They use Bokmål.  They try to translate from Nynorsk (to, for example, English).  The result is often not good (and sometimes is hilarious).  --Hordaland (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Machine translation
Is machine translation between, say, Nynorsk and Bokmal trivial or is it a difficult problem? --Error (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are just minor differences between them in grammar and vocabulary. I assume it should be about the same complexity as translating between Swedish and Norwegian Bokmål. Stusslig (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Translation of sannsynlighetsmaksimeringsestimator
The English translation for "sannsynlighetsmaksimeringsestimator" is given as "maximum likelihood estimator".

On analysing both words I understand their meanings as follows:


 * sannsynlighetsmaksimeringsestimator = estimator of the maximization of the probability;
 * maximum likelihood estimator = estimator of the maximum probability.

So I propose to change the translation into "likelihood maximization estimator". Any objections?Redav (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a strange case. A Google search found a document hosted by the University of Oslo which lists "maximum likelihood estimator" as the translation for "sannsynlighetsmaksimeringsestimator". A random discussion about whether this indeed is the longest non-compound (although it seems compound to me) word in common use Norwegian, also mentions that the word should be known to all who studied enough mathematics to get into university (I don't remember it, but that probably goes for a lot of things I've never used since), and quotes another source for a similar translation.
 * The way I see it, "sannsynlighetsmaksimeringsestimator" does not have the same meaning as "maximum likelihood estimator", but the latter is apparently a thing. The question is whether there is something called a "likelihood maximization estimator" or similar. It doesn't look that way from a quick Google search. Maybe the Norwegian word is an old mistranslation, or an archaic phrasing I'm not familiar with. This linguistic question may need a mathematician to provide an answer.
 * Another possibility is simply to drop the word altogether. There is no source, or even a claim, that it is the longest word in actual use. Ters (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)