:sigh:
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Charlie Tan claims Norway made up a glorious past after the dissolution of the union, and as a rejoinder you link to pages about a boat and a raft that was made after the dissolution of the union, and another boat that was made a few hundred years before. I can’t work out what your point might be.
Some vikings were from areas that are now parts of Sweden, yes.
I thought claiming that claims about swedish vikings are propostrous was too propostrous a claim to be taken as anything but a joke. A terrible one, sure, but when one gets an opportunity to make a stab at one’s neighbours, a terrible joke will do.
Same about the ships. Never intended to be a clever joke, just an example of how much we rule. No need for us to invent a glorious past.
The Wikipedia article on Norwegian language makes this statement:
This seems to be in conflict with the statement that Riksmal is just an older term for Bokmal. Also, it introduces a new term, Hognorsk.
I would be curious to see side-by-side comparisons of the same passage in Riksmal, Bokmal, Nynorsk, Hognorsk, the principal regional dialects of Norway, Danish, and Swedish.
I’ll see what I can find.
By the way, just to clear things up, or perhaps cause further confusion, Norway has two official languages. They’re not nynorsk and bokmål, however, they’re norsk (Norwegian, nynorsk and bokmål being subordinate) and samisk (Sami).
Let’s settle this once and for all:
Norway was a province (or vassal state) of Denmark, between 1387 and 1814, with all royalty, along with political and administrative powers, in Copenhagen. In 1814 they tried independence, which ended with Sweden taking over - something that lasted to 1905.
Essentially deprived of a strong history throughout the renaissance to the industrialism, a strong nationalistic movement arose in Norway in the 19th century, something that continues to this day. No one can celebrate its independence day as the Norwegians do on May 17th.
Part of this nationalism has led Norwegians to invent folklore during the 20th century, made in a tradition more suitable for the 18th or 19th century:
Bolding mine.
While Norway in many ways have a glorious history and past, I think the need to invent 18th century gala costumes in the late 20th century is kinda amusing.
Wikipedia link about the dresses.
Wikipedia link about the nationalistic romantic movement.
Sami is of course “Lappish,” the language of Lapland.
Who speaks Høgnorsk? (Besides him, or course.)
May I offer the comment that Norwegians are in some ways the Canadians of Europe? They’ve been forced by the press of history to define their national identity in terms of who they’re not (Danes or Swedes, vs. English or U.S. Americans) and in rebutting mistaken impressions of their weather as 12-months winter. And, of course, nobody’s quite clear what they speak. 
That’s a rather far-fetched claim. Although the current structure of Nidarosdomen (Nidaros or Trondheim Cathedral) is quite new - one could argue that it’s still not finished - you make it sound like the cathedral itself stems from the period after the dissolution of the union. Not even close. A grand cathedral has stood on that site since the 14th century, some of that time in ruins after fires, and though the reconstruction which started in 1869 resulted in the grandest cathedral yet, that was gilding an established lily. And it’s not like the cathedral’s history is a state secret; even the church’s official website is very clear about the long cycle of destruction and rebuilding.
Surely if you want to criticize Norwegian nationalism you can find a better example than that?
You’re overstating the period. Until the end of the Kalmar Union in the early 1500s Norway was no more a vassal state under Denmark than Sweden was. United under one king, yes, but the local governing was done in Norway, and the ruler had to be accept by the national council. The end of the Kalmar Union was when we really began to come under Danish rule.
We had to share that period with the Danes, yes. But that doesn’t mean we’re not proud of the Dano-Norwegian history, such as Norwegian born naval hero Tordenskiold who kicked Swedish ass, or Norwegian born playwright, essayist and scholar Holberg. The strong nationalistic movement wasn’t so much a product of a lack of history as a sense of being cheated of independence and being given the short end of the stick by the king we had to share with Sweden.
Apart from recently designed bunads (national costumes), what folklore are you talking about?
And you’re aware that most bunads are, as the wikipedia link says, based on older clothing traditions, and were designed/reconstructed/canonized around the same time as the Swedish national costume, right?
Late 20th century design and creation of bunads (The bunad police say such costumes should not be called bunads actually) is more a case of regionalism than nationalism. Areas where bunads weren’t reconstructed/designed/canonized in the late 19th and early 20th century are envious and want their own.
Riksmål was the term before and some of the more conservative elements disapproved of a lot of the reforms of the written norm away from Danish and towards more “common” forms and/or towards Nynorsk. When the official name for the written norm changed, they stuck with the old one, just as they ignored reforms and changes in the norm itself. Høgnorsk is similar, but at the other end of the spectrum, and since Nynorsk is the smaller of the official norms Høgnorsk is practically irrelevant.
Comparing anything with the regional dialects though is tricky. Riksmål, Bokmål, Nynorsk and Høgnorsk are written norms, and they’re not phonetic, while the dialects are defined by pronounciation.
To do a proper comparison you’d need someone well versed in the languages, dialects and phonetic writing.
The first vowel in Høgnorsk is very similar to (what I perceive as the normal pronounciation of) the vowel in “Burn”, so I think he probably doesn’t speak it.
And I doubt more than a handful of enthusiasts actually speak høgnorsk, while maybe a few dozen speak their own dialects with as few newer forms as possible and write høgnorsk.
Charlie Tan, I think you overstate Norway’s uniqueness in regard to constructed folklore. What you’re talking about is “folklorismus,” which is essentially something constructed to look like, and represented as, authentic folk tradition. It’s often perceived as a BAD THING, but in fact it’s a normal part of the cultural process as traditions move from folk culture to mass culture and back again.
For a non-Norway example, look at Thanksgiving in the U.S. It is a very real national holiday, invented as such after the civil war, but based on equally real New England traditions, which in turn don’t match up with the New England Pilgrims-and-Indians lore that has grown up around the holiday. So because twenty-first century Americans claim that they’re celebrating as their seventeenth antecedents did, but they’re really emulating their nineteenth-century forebears, except with changes (like televised football), does that mean they’re posers who don’t deserve to call themselves a nation? It’s not at all surprising that a nation’s invented traditions claim to date from around the period of independence.
And of course there are Swedish Vikings — they just went to Russia instead of Iceland.
**naita ** and Dr. Drake -
That might be so, but I was certainly thrown when I discovered that construction on the Nidaros Dome began in 1869. To me, it seems disneyesque to start buildng a gothic dome in the 19th century, trying to emulate Notre Dame of Paris. The home page says that there was a “desire to rebuild the Cathedral in Trondheim to its former midieval glory.” It’s just that there never was such a thing.
Sweden had it’s share of the same sillyness during the 19th century, but as an outsider, I can’t help thinking that the reason Norway tries so hard to rebuild a historic past has to do with a lack of history to revel in. Don’t the Norwegians themselves refer to the era with Danish rule as the 400 year long night?
Go to that page and click on the link that says “Around 1300”. Looks a lot like the current structure.
Given that they had the ruins of a medieval cathedral with Romanesque and Gothic elements in the middle of Trondheim, what do you think they should have done? They could have left the ruins to rot. They could have built a museum around them (as was done in Hamar, with far less complete ruins). They could have torn them down and built something completely new in a 19th century style. They could have buried them and used the lot for the 1869 equivalent of a new condominium development. Or they could have done exactly what was done: take inspiration in what had been there and build it up again, trying to make it a little better than before.
I lived in Trondheim for eight years and I’m glad they chose the option they did. It’s a magnificent building, something really special that gives the city its logical symbol and centerpiece.
Again: it’s not exactly a state secret that most of the current structure of Nidarosdomen is relatively new. If you were fooled at first, that’s a tribute to the skill of the architects and the builders, but not proof that anyone was trying to fool you.
Paypal, dude.
I had a experience that seems slightly related. I had two freinds from Australia come visit. One was “working class”, the other University. We all spoke english- more or less. 
There were several times where the “working class” dude would say something, and I’d have to turn to the other guy to get a translation.
“gunna ide inna yute” was " going for a ride in the pick up truck". :eek: (“ute” being short for “utility truck”, i.e. light pickup truck)
Since the question was “What do I do with a check?”, I doubt Paypal would help.
Since I’m the one that provided the link, I’m perfectly aware of what it looked like.
I’m not saying anyone is committing fraud, just that it’s curious that they decided to construct a gothic temple in 1869. Had they rebuilt the original shape after a fire, it’d’ve made sense. Only they didn’t. As with the dresses, they built something new, inspired by the old. And the old that is supposed to inspire it never existed in the first place. I think that says something about the people deciding to do the job.
Note that quite a few nationalistic Swedes have been trying to retcon some glorious Viking past, too. They only got as far as building a boat or emulating a village or adding vikingesque themes to fretwork. Actually building a whole cathedral, a task that took a 100 years, seems to be reserved for the Norwegians.
Right to a large degree.
But Norwegians have a harder time to understand Danish than Swedish (oraly), but again it’s easier for Norwegians to read Danish than Swedish.
Bokmål (used by 80-90% of the people, -when written) was closer to danish some 70-80 years ago, and Ny-norsk (New Norwegian) was quite different from today. This two “languages” where much farther apart than today.
Nationalism and separatism grew in the 19th century and the wishes to cut many of the cultural ties to Denmark also grew. That’s why some got the idea to create a language based on all the different dialects in Norway - and this lead to nynorsk (new Norwegian). Nynorsk was however based mostly on dialects in Western part and Norway (Vestlandet). Dialects used in Østlandet (East-Norway) and North-Norway was little used as a base for the new language.
Nynorsk (New Norwegian) was however never a big hit in Norway and reached it’s peak in the 1950’s (about 30%). It have since declined steady
The irony is that New Norwegian (Nynorsk) have been seen upon as an old fashioned language used by older people and patriots
Most Norwegian pupils are angry at this language (nynorsk) because they have to spend lots of time to learn something that’s pretty much useless
The problem with your theory is that you’ve so far only got Nidarosdomen and folk costumes to make a case for “Norway trying so hard”, and folk costumes isn’t unique to Norway.
Yes, there was a strong wave of romantic nationalism in the mid 1800s. And there might have been those overzealous in their search for former glory, but by and large there was little “invention”, and a lot of positive results.
We got some pretty art, nice music, and good plays. The 400 year night is a term out of Peer Gynt by the way, and appears to be used in quotes today. We also got collections of folk tales, folk music, old buildings and items, and scholarly works on several rural dialects. None of it invention, and none of it an attempt at creating a history that never was.
As Dr. Drake points out, being unaware of the relative youth of much of what we today see as old tradition isn’t particular to Norwegians. The cathedral in Trondheim is, yes, but it’s just one church.
If you want causes for the strength of the ubiquitous Norwegian nationalism you should probably look no further back than 1940-45. Those five years of occupation probably have more to do with the current state of affairs than the 400 years under Denmark.
Then again I have just borrowed from my aunt a letter my grandfather sent from Canada in 1928 where he comments that the local national holiday was “no 17th of May”, so it’s evident there was something to build on. 
I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. What did you expect them to build on the site of a historic church? A copy of St Pauls, or maybe something like this? And 100 years is not that long in terms of large churches - the Spaniards don’t expect to finish that one for another 20 years or so.