Talk:Nynorsk

Why so much about Bokmål in an article entitled "Nynorsk"??
I don't think there should be so much about the differences between the two written forms of Norwegian, when the article is supposed to be about one of them. Perhaps the article's authors are assuming that the English-speaking reader already knows a lot about Bokmål? That's not logical. For instance, this, from the Grammar section, tells us way too much about Bokmål, IMO.

"The situation is a bit more complicated in Bokmål, which has inherited the Danish two-gender system. Written Danish only retains the neuter and the common gender. Though the common gender took what used to be the feminine inflections in Danish, it matches the masculine inflections in Norwegian. The Norwegianization in the 20th century brought the three-gender system into Bokmål, but the process was never completed. In Nynorsk these are important distinctions, in contrast to Bokmål, in which all feminine words may also become masculine (due to the incomplete transition to a three-gender system) and inflect using its forms, and indeed a feminine word may be seen in both forms, for example boka or boken (“the book”). The feminine forms of other words usually become inflected by the gender of the noun they belong to, such as ei (“a(n)”), inga (“no”, “none”) and lita (“small”), are optional too (masculine is used when feminine is not). This means that en liten stjerne – stjernen (“a small star – the star”, only masculine forms) and ei lita stjerne – stjerna (only feminine forms) both are correct Bokmål, as well as every possible combination: en liten stjerne – stjerna, ei liten stjerne – stjerna or even ei lita stjerne – stjernen. Choosing either two or three genders throughout the whole text is not a requirement either, so one may choose to write tida (“the time” f) and boken (“the book” m) in the same work."

Such detail should be, and partly is, in the article Norwegian language. What do you think? --Hordaland (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

'Majority form of the four counties'
How can a language be a form of four counties? I imagine this was supposed to mean that Nynorsk is the majority language in four counties, but that isn't what it says. 'Of' is used much less in English than many people think - for instance, you say 'the highest mountain in Norway', not '.... of Norway', and 'a film by Steven Spielberg', not '.... of Steven Spielberg'.213.127.210.95 (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nynorsk. 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/20050405202951/http://www.nynorsk.no/nmu/ to http://www.nynorsk.no/nmu/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060520015835/http://www.aasentunet.no/default.asp?menu=94 to http://www.aasentunet.no/default.asp?menu=94
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724185743/http://www.utdanningsdirektoratet.no/upload/Rapporter/Sidemalsrapport.pdf to http://www.utdanningsdirektoratet.no/upload/Rapporter/Sidemalsrapport.pdf

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) 13:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The phonetics of new Norwegian
I'd be interested in reading a clear, and as far as possible complete, description of the pronunciation of this form of the language (Nynorsk), and of the phonetic differences between it and Danish Norwegian (Bokmål). 151.73.209.134 (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ergative Verbs??
The distinction shown is an indoeuropean causative, not an ergative distinction. U may also treat it as transitive.

ergative implies that the subject of a verb is marked differently depending if the verb is transitive or intransitive with the marker of the intransitive subject being the same as the transitive object‘s. This certainly aint the case here.

Anyone against me correcting this?

Atsutsaquu (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)