# English as a Scandinavian language? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2012, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868 "2012-11-13T08:04:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/61 "2012-11-21T06:48:05Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > According to [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Germanic_language#Mutual_intelligibility) paragraph in Wikipedia, the degree of intelligibility is asymmetric and highly variable. I’m a bit baffled by the data you point to, the intelligibility is lower than I’d expected. Particularly from my own experience with fellow Scandinavians. However, you should note that these data refer to _spoken_ language and probably relates to a large degree to pronunciation. The written languages are very similar, and as **amanset** points out, the differences are so minor that ingredients lists on food packagings often use one language with only a few words written with alternatives. I quite sure that if one had taken the same survey for comprehension of _written_ lanugage rather than spoken, the scores would have been much higher. Let’s look at the vocabulary example in the [next paragraph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Germanic_language#Vocabulary) in the article you’re linking to: > [@](#): > > English: It was a moist, grey summer day in late June. > Danish: Det var en fugtig, grå sommerdag i slutningen af juni. > Norwegian (Bokmål): Det var en fuktig, grå sommerdag i slutten av juni. > Norwegian (Nynorsk): Det var ein fuktig, grå sommardag i slutten av juni. > Swedish: Det var en fuktig, grå sommardag i slutet av juni. It sure doesn’t _look_ like three mutually non non-intelligible languages. At least not when written 😛 ETA: It’s also not uncommon for e.g. people from the large cities to claim they can’t understand dialects in their own language. _E.g._ quite a few people from Oslo have a problem understanding people from, say, Voss, Stockholmers have problems with skånsk, and Copenhageners have problems with sønderjysk. In that case, it _is_ the pronounciation ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/62 "2012-11-21T07:13:37Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Some would make the argument for Friesian. A lot of people say that. But have you ever [really looked at Frisian](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14715612&postcount=13)? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/63 "2012-11-21T07:35:59Z")
> [@Norse](#): > > English: It was a moist, grey summer day in late June. > Danish: Det var en fugtig, grå sommerdag i slutningen af juni. > Norwegian (Bokmål): Det var en fuktig, grå sommerdag i slutten av juni. > Norwegian (Nynorsk): Det var ein fuktig, grå sommardag i slutten av juni. > Swedish: Det var en fuktig, grå sommardag i slutet av juni Just for comparison; Dutch: Het was een vochtige, grijze zomerdag in laat juni. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/64 "2012-11-21T11:20:44Z")
> [@Johanna](#): > > A lot of people say that. But have you ever [really looked at Frisian](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14715612&postcount=13)? I know. In fact, one of your examples demonstrates the closeness to German, not English (even when it is somewhat similar to English): "_Ik ferstean net._ I don’t understand. And you’re like, close to English my ass!!!11ien!! " ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2012, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/65 "2012-11-22T07:40:17Z")
With regard to English and Frisian, **Johanna** ’s statement from the other thread is key: > [@](#): > > Old English and Old Frisian were fairly mutually intelligible, but over the passage of 1,500 years they’ve diverged plenty. Together they form the Ingvaeonic subgroup of West Germanic on the Germanic family tree. The close relationship will be perfectly obvious to linguists who know how to analyze the underlying forms, who have studied Old English and proto-Germanic and are acquainted with the systematic sound shifts and other regular patterns of changes in the history of West Germanic. Even to one such as myself with only a rudimentary historical knowledge of the Germanic languages, the closeness of the relationship is obvious because the apparently glaring divergences are explained by sound changes. Since the later impact of Norman French was largely limited to vocabulary, most of the sound changes we’re talking about occurred in the middle to late Anglo Saxon period. For example, long /a/ went to long /o/, except in the North, accounting for Scottish English words like “mon” for man and “stane” for “stone”. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/66 "2012-11-23T22:07:49Z")
> [@Norse](#): > > I’m a bit baffled by the data you point to, the intelligibility is lower than I’d expected. Particularly from my own experience with fellow Scandinavians. > > However, you should note that these data refer to _spoken_ language and probably relates to a large degree to pronunciation. The written languages are very similar, and as **amanset** points out, the differences are so minor that ingredients lists on food packagings often use one language with only a few words written with alternatives. Sorry I overlooked this until now. I agree that the written languages are extremely similar, but was under the assumption we were talking about spoken language. It was a bad assumption on my part, since it’s difficult to discuss historical linguistics without looking at the way the languages are written. From my more extensive knowledge of German, together with two quarter-units of tape-recorded instruction in Dutch, I can stumble through a Dutch newspaper article just well enough to get the gist of it. But with spoken Dutch I am lost after the first syllable. ---
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2012, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/67 "2012-11-24T06:52:57Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > From my more extensive knowledge of German, together with two quarter-units of tape-recorded instruction in Dutch, I can stumble through a Dutch newspaper article just well enough to get the gist of it. But with spoken Dutch I am lost after the first syllable. Contrast this to the Scandinavian languages: If you’re a native Danish, Norwegian or Swedish speaker, you shouldn’t have any major problems reading - and understanding - a newspaper article in any of the other two languages. There are some words that actually have different meanings in the different languages¹, but in general you’ll get the meaning just fine. ¹ _e.g._ “Semester” means “vacation” in Swedish, but “school term” Norwegian and Danish “Grine” means “laugh” in Danish, but “cry” in Norwegian “Rar” means “cute” in Swedish and Danish, but “strange” in Norwegian “Rolig” means “fun” in Swedish, but “calm” in Norwegian and Danish “Glass” means “icecream” in Swedish, but “glass” in Danish and Norwegian “Snål” means “greedy” in Swedish, but “weird” in Norwegian ---
**Author:** ![ivardj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b2d939/32.png) [@ivardj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivardj)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/68 "2012-11-27T06:05:46Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > Not just words, but sentence structure too. English fits in a middle ground between Scandinavian languages and the Romance languages in several areas, often employing both forms of sentence structure. > > Let’s take the name of the second Star Wars prequel: > > French: L’attaque des clones > Danish: Klonernes angreb > > The first of those translates directly as “The Attack of the Clones”, the second as “The Clone’s Attack”. Those are the correct ways of writing it in those two languages, but in English we can happily flip between the two. > > Basically, English is a mutt. Surely the second translates into The Clones’ Attack, given it’s the genitive of the plural clones… On another note though, I have not been able to find the study or even the newspaper article, however, it is in the pay version of the Norwegian Aftenposten today. However, I find it a little far fetched, having read a fair bit on the History of the English language, and knowing that we Scandivavians (and we Norwegians in Particular) have a penchant for adopting rather obscure phenomena (and I actually maintain the English language is an obscure phenomenon) as our own… ---
**Author:** ![ivardj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b2d939/32.png) [@ivardj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivardj)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/69 "2012-11-27T06:25:44Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > Sorry I overlooked this until now. I agree that the written languages are extremely similar, but was under the assumption we were talking about spoken language. It was a bad assumption on my part, since it’s difficult to discuss historical linguistics without looking at the way the languages are written. > > From my more extensive knowledge of German, together with two quarter-units of tape-recorded instruction in Dutch, I can stumble through a Dutch newspaper article just well enough to get the gist of it. But with spoken Dutch I am lost after the first syllable. There is no doubt that the similarities between the Scandinavian languages are greater than between any of the other Germanic languages - if you don’t count dialects, but I actually find the wikipedia mutual-intelligibility score fairly accurate. I think we often over-estimate what we understand of each other. Probably because we can get away with reading the other languages without much hassle, but also I believe we as kids grow up with that knowledge that we can, and it sticks with us. Kids have a fairly good understanding of each other regardless of language, so if you as a Norwegian kid grow up meeting a few Swedes and Danes (say on holidays), you will probably be able to communicate with them fairly well. However, the actual understanding you have may not be as good as you believe. Though that belief sticks, and unless you are proven wrong later in life, you probably end up with a slightly inflated idea of how much of the two others you understand. Apologies for rambling, but it has always bothered me a bit that I keep telling non-scandinavians that we Scandinavians completely understand each other, whilst I’ve somehow known that we don’t. I’ve lived in both Norway and Sweden, and actually speak both now, as I learned as an adult that the mutual understanding wasn’t that great (I only lived in Sweden as an adult). As for the Dutch you refer to - I too noticed that it is a bastardisation of English and German, but also with the odd Scandinavian word. The word for curious for example is the nieuwsgierig, which in Norwegian is nysgjerrig. Both literally meaning greedy for news. Although the word gjerrig in Norwegian is rather more stingy than greedy, as in not sharing, rather than wanting more, which again lends a sort of opposite meaning to the word than what it means word for word. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/70 "2012-11-27T12:01:53Z")
> [@ivardj](#): > > Surely the second translates into The Clones’ Attack, given it’s the genitive of the plural clones… Which was pointed out (and replied to by me) almost two weeks ago … > [@Norse](#): > > \ > “Klone**rne]s[/B angreb" tranlates directly as “The Clones’ Attack”. If it were “The Clone’s Attack”, the Danish title would be "Klone**ns\*\* angreb”. > > Klonernes = The Clones’ (plural genitive) > Klonens = The Clone’s (singular genitive) > \ > [@amanset](#): > > Yeah, that was a screw up on my part. I speak Swedish, so I know about how to do a plural of the definite form of a noun in the Scandinavian languages. I just wasn’t paying attention to what I wrote. > > (in case you are wondering, I chose Danish instead of Swedish for my example as I sometimes feel I talk about living here too often and I don’t want to end up like that defines me, like maybe it does some other people here…) ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/71 "2012-11-27T12:14:38Z")
> [@ivardj](#): > > There is no doubt that the similarities between the Scandinavian languages are greater than between any of the other Germanic languages - if you don’t count dialects, but I actually find the wikipedia mutual-intelligibility score fairly accurate. I think we often over-estimate what we understand of each other. Probably because we can get away with reading the other languages without much hassle, but also I believe we as kids grow up with that knowledge that we can, and it sticks with us. Kids have a fairly good understanding of each other regardless of language, so if you as a Norwegian kid grow up meeting a few Swedes and Danes (say on holidays), you will probably be able to communicate with them fairly well. However, the actual understanding you have may not be as good as you believe. Though that belief sticks, and unless you are proven wrong later in life, you probably end up with a slightly inflated idea of how much of the two others you understand. I think a lot of it is to do with practice (hell, a lot of Swedes struggle with people from Skåne and that’s _in_ Sweden), cultural and simply pure exposure. For example, I feel that as Sweden is a more populous country they are less likely to have the “other” languages in their media. The marvellous Swedish Problems blog put it best. Twice. [![](https://64.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsncggMmUB1r46cv3o1_400.jpg) ](https://64.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsncggMmUB1r46cv3o1_400.jpg) [![](https://64.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxt2ls7NKx1r46cv3o1_400.jpg) ](https://64.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxt2ls7NKx1r46cv3o1_400.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/72 "2012-11-27T12:33:42Z")
> [@Norse](#): > > I’m a bit baffled by the data you point to, the intelligibility is lower than I’d expected. Particularly from my own experience with fellow Scandinavians. > > However, you should note that these data refer to _spoken_ language and probably relates to a large degree to pronunciation. The written languages are very similar, and as **amanset** points out, the differences are so minor that ingredients lists on food packagings often use one language with only a few words written with alternatives. Incorrect. The report referenced includes tests of both listening and reading comprehension, and the table comparing comprehension is the result of a weighted average of both types of test. Yes, the differences are minor, but they are large enough that with increasing import of non-Scandinavian, particularly English, books, movies and other media, and a corresponding decrease in consumption of non-translated stuff from our neighbours, comprehension keeps dropping. “Mutual intelligibility” has only been the norm due to high childhood exposure to the other languages. This also explains why Norwegians consistently score higher than Swedes and Danes on these tests, we’ve always imported a lot more Swedish and Danish media than we’ve managed to export to them. That said, there’s still enough intelligibility that one of the top talk shows is hosted by a Norwegian, filmed in Sweden with interviewees being both Norwegian, Swedish and English speakers, and the host using English and Svorsk (Swedish - Svensk + Norwegian - Norsk). ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/73 "2012-11-27T14:19:56Z")
> [@ivardj](#): > > As for the Dutch you refer to - I too noticed that it is a bastardisation of English and German Actually the other way round. As already stated, these three are West-Germanic compared to North Germanic Scandinavian. The languages spoken in what was to become Holland were frisian, saxon and frankish. At this point there was no ‘dutch’ (nor ‘german’ for that matter). West-germanic was brought to the British Isles with the Saxon invasions. The thourough ethnic cleansing of the original Brits meant the language stuck. Intermixed with the Saxons were, besides the Danish Angles and Jutes, also quite some Frisians and Franks (Dutch), Anglo-saxon would more properly be called Dano-Frisio-Franco-Saxon. For West-Germanic there were three waves of distinct changes from the ‘original’. For example the P to PF shift. Appel becoming Apfel.Dutch and english were not equally affected by these shifts. The last one only happened in Germany not in Holland or England. So Germany evolved High-german and English saxon into Old-english. Of course dutch underwent changes as well, but of the three it is dutch that is still closest to the ‘original’ West-Germanic. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/74 "2012-11-27T20:55:13Z")
I am a professional interpreter and translator who learned French at two and English at three, so they are virtually both my mother tongues. Over the past 10 years, I have become somewhat fluent in German as well. And, knowing what I know of all three languages, I feel funny describing modern English as “Germanic”. Here is a simple example. It works best if you speak only English. I am too dumb to know how to use the spoilers in SDMB, so I will have to ask you not to peek below at the answer. Look at this sentnce in German: Die Regierung beschloß die Verfassung zu ändern. As a native English speaker, is there a single word there that helps you, that you can guess at? Now then, look at this sentence in French: Le gouvernement a décidé de modifier la constitution. As a native anglophone who speaks no French, could you guess at the meaning of that sentence based on word similarity? If you guessed “The government decided to modify the constitution” you are right. And what does the German sentence say? Same as the French, believe it or not.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Dopenose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@Dopenose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dopenose)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/75 "2012-11-27T21:10:57Z")
Here’s an expanded article explaining the theory: [http://www.apollon.uio.no/english/articles/2012/4-english-scandinavian.html](http://www.apollon.uio.no/english/articles/2012/4-english-scandinavian.html) As I understood it, they are saying that during the turbulent times of the Norman conquest in the former Danelaw, the common people, scandinavian viking settlers and anglo-saxons finally fused into one people. But the language that emerged from this union, Middle English is very different from Old English. This is because it’s actually descended from the language of the scandinavian settlers, with influence from Old English, rather than the other way around. \*\*\<\<\\>\>\*\* ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/76 "2012-11-27T21:21:55Z")
> [@Dopenose](#): > > Here’s an expanded article explaining the theory: > [UiO linguist makes sensational claim: English is a Scandinavian language - Apollon](http://www.apollon.uio.no/english/articles/2012/4-english-scandinavian.html) > > As I understood it, they are saying that during the turbulent times of the Norman conquest in the former Danelaw, the common people, scandinavian viking settlers and anglo-saxons finally fused into one people. But the language that emerged from this union, Middle English is very different from Old English. This is because it’s actually descended from the language of the scandinavian settlers, with influence from Old English, rather than the other way around. And this is where they are wrong. Middle English is, indeed, quite different from Old English, but mainly because of the incorporation of so much Norman French. You can cherry pick your way into sentences with Norse derived words, but any comprehensive survey of English speech is going to reveal more French influence than Norse. ---
**Author:** ![Dopenose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@Dopenose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dopenose)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/77 "2012-11-27T21:23:04Z")
I have to say that it makes sense. A English friend of mine when learning Norwegian told me that he only needed to learn the words, because the grammar and the way sentences are constructed was very similiar to English. While with learning German it was much harder. Edit: John, Norman French have a strong influence on Modern English, but it’s mostly in the form of loanwords. French and English syntax and sentence structure are very different. The last part of the article makes a very strong case for the English-Norse connection I think. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/78 "2012-11-27T21:41:04Z")
> [@Dopenose](#): > > - Word order: In English and Scandinavian the object is placed after the verb: > -I have read the book. > -Eg har lese boka. > German and Old English put the verb at the end. > -Ich habe das Buch gelesen\>\>\>\*\* Just a nit-pick, but German places the verb at the end ony with the certain tenses. Present: Ich lese das Buch = I read _(reed)_ the book. Imperfect: Ich las das Buch = I read _(red)_ the book. Perfect : Ich habe das Buch gelesen = I have read the book. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2012, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/79 "2012-11-28T10:26:28Z")
> [@Dopenose](#): > > I have to say that it makes sense. A English friend of mine when learning Norwegian told me that he only needed to learn the words, because the grammar and the way sentences are constructed was very similiar to English. While with learning German it was much harder. British guy that learned Swedish as an adult here. Definitely not the case. English is very fluid with word order, you can pretty much move stuff around and then use a specific tone of voice to change the meaning. For example: I have cancer. I have cancer? _or_ Have I cancer? In Swedish: Jag har cancer. Har jag cancer? There are also sorts of situations with word order and, especially subclauses, where word order changes and I found the rigidity with which Swedish stuck to these made it really quite difficult. And that’s without going into the whole almost-no-use-of-present-continuous-tense. You are not coming. Du kommer inte. I know that you are not coming. Jag vet att du inte kommer. (Note that in the subclause translation of “you are not coming”, the negative “inte” moves from one side of the verb to the other, whereas in English the “not” does not move). Stuff like that and Swedish rigidly sticks to it. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2012, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868/80 "2012-11-28T10:39:05Z")
I should have added that these are strict word-word translations of the Swedish sentences: Har jag cancer? Have I cancer? Du kommer inte. You going not. Jag vet att du inte kommer. I know that you not going. Which to me sounds like stereotypical “caveman english” from a dodgy 80s TV show. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-as-a-scandinavian-language/640868.md?page=5)