Overall? There are no relevant criteria by which Norway is in between Denmark and Sweden.
I do not dispute that German/French evolved less than English, but I wouldn’t you to give a false impression. Modern days French people can’t read Old French. Since Old French is somewhere along the way between Latin and modern French, I guess that it’s your knowledge of Latin that allowed you to do that.
Again, I do believe that English changed more, but the equivalent of what you’re saying would be someone stating “I know both modern English and 5th century Anglo-Saxon (whatever that language was called) and I could figure out Old English just fine”.
I remember being told the French spoken in Quebec is closer to Old French than the French spoken in France. Is that the case?
Unlikely. It may have a few archaic aspects, but this sounds suspiciously like the dubious claims that US English is closer to Shakespearean English than British English is.
Now, it’s often the case that transplants carrying a language to new lands often preserve older forms, but most languages continue to evolve, if in different ways than the mother tongue. One famous example is Icelandic which is uncannily similar to Old Norse, as the modern Scandinavian languages are not.
No, not so. There are some differences in accent, of course, and some specific words, but the grammar and vocabulary are the same.
I’m not a francophone, but I learnt my French entirely in Canada, and have no trouble reading French texts from France and getting by as a tourist in France.
Sorry if this has been covered, or, if I am derailing the thread. However, much of the thread does deal with Scandinavian languages. Is it true that Beowulf is much easier for modern Danes/Scandinavians (it’s Danish in origin I believe) to understand than it is for modern English speakers?
lange þrage; he him ðæs lean forgeald.
II Gewat ða neosian, syþðan niht becom,
hean huses, hu hit Hring-Dene
æfter beorþege gebun hæfdon.
Fand þa ðær inne æþelinga gedriht
swefan æfter symble; sorge ne cuðon,
wonsceaft wera. Wiht unhælo,
grim ond grædig, gearo sona wæs,
reoc ond reþe, ond on ræste genam
þritig þegna; þanon eft gewat
huðe hremig to ham faran,
mid þære wælfylle wica neosan.
Ða wæs on uhtan mid ærdæge
Grendles guðcræft gumum undyrne;
þa wæs æfter wiste wop up ahafen,
micel morgensweg. Mære þeoden,
æþeling ærgod, unbliðe sæt,
þolode ðryðswyð þegnsorge dreah,
syðþan hie þæs laðan last sceawedon,
wergan gastes; wæs þæt gewin to strang,
lað ond longsum! Næs hit lengra fyrst,
It’s quite incomprehensible to a Scandinavian, so you’d have to use a fairly artifical definition of “easier” to make that case. Perhaps the case could be made for Icelanders, but you’d have to ask on of those.
As long as we’re derailing, a little trivia: American Sign Language is completely unrelated to British Sign Language, and is an outgrowth of French Sign Language. I am fluent in ASL, and once met some French Deaf people in DC, who had not been in the US before, and I discovered that I could communicate pretty easily with them. It helped that I read French fairly well, so we could even fingerspell some words, but we were mostly just signing. At first, it was a little difficult, but I didn’t realize I was talking with non-Americans, and I was wondering what sort of odd dialect they had, and if maybe they were Canadian, or something. I was astonished to find out they were French, because even though I knew they languages were similar, I had no idea that ASL was essentially just a dialect of FSL, still.
It’s possible that 60 years ago, it may have been even less true, though, but with the large numbers of international students at Gallaudet University since about 1980, French students carried ASL features back to France.
Thanks. I think listening to Beowulf was described as slightly easier to reading it. Perhaps it was listening to the poem that was described as easier for Scandanavians than reading. Though this could be another one of those myths.
I think the ratio of incomprehensible and false friend words to words that a Scandinavian would guess correctly is too high for just someone speaking Norwegian, Danish or Swedish. I find it conceivable “we” would find a study of Old English easier, but I wouldn’t put money on it.
In the interest of science, I asked an Icelandic friend. After sending her the first four lines this was her response:
And in response to me asking “But not really understandable then?” I got:
Actually, she’s now changing her mind. Apparently she’s got confused by it being a poem. The update is:
You mean way up across the water, right?
Funny that you should mention that bridge! I’m visiting my girlfriend’s parents out in Dragør, meaning that I can actually see the Øresund bridge from where I’m sitting as I type these lines! 
Plus we’re going across the bridge tomorrow morning, to spend the day over in Malmö…
But anyway, yeah, the countries are pretty close - but not like Sweden and Norway, which, as mentioned, share a huge-ass border. No water between those two.
Even if true, this wouldn’t mean that “geographically, Norway sits right in the middle” between Sweden and Denmark.
Well played, sir!
“Centers of population”? You claimed that “geographically [italics added for emphasis], Norway sits right in the middle” between Sweden and Denmark. Which isn’t quite right.
Thank you, will look that up!
Correct.
I am informed by colleagues that when I go to become a UK citizen next year, I’d better damned well come back from the council office speaking English.
Wikipedia has the great article on Mutual Intelligibility, and talks a lot about some of the issues that have been raised here, including asymmetric intelligibility. Of particular note is the point that intelligibility is not only a function of the actual similarity of the language, but also what you have been exposed to. Even someone in the boonies in Scotland has probably listened to BBC radio or seen American movies, while random Joe from the U.S. probably has little exposure to Scottish people.
Swiss German can be written and is written, but as yet Swiss people prefer to write and read standard German. Swiss German is an Alemannic dialect, not a Bavarian dialect so it is no wonder Munich people don’t understand it.
When we discuss dialect vs. language differences we should also remember the dialect vs. official language difference. Swiss German as in the rough dialect is certainly a language with little mutual intelligibility with standard German but so are many dialects spoken in Germany, too. However, they all are seen as German dialects, as they are related, and their speakers accept standard German as their own written language.
This is plausible considering the different ways “church” was spelled in Tudor England.
Speaking about asymmetric intelligibility, the most celebrated example is surely that between Danish and Swedish. I am near-natively fluent in Swedish, and I can’t understand anything of spoken Danish. However, Danes have no difficulty understanding my Swedish. Written Danish is obviously another story entirely: I have read loads of literature in Danish, and don’t find it particularly difficult.
WanderingLinguist writes:
> However, they all are seen as German dialects, as they are related, and their
> speakers accept standard German as their own written language.
(Note: In the following I use the term “variety” to refer to a type of particular spoken language that could be either a dialect or a language depending how those terms is used.)
It depends. If you classify languages according to whether they treat a particular written language as being “their language,” that’s true. But often that means classifying a large group of spoken varieties as just being dialects of a single language despite their being mutually unintelligible. This is true in various cases. Arabic is actually a group of mutually unintelligible spoken varieties, but there’s only one written version. Chinese is a group of mutually spoken varieties, but the official government position in China is that they are just different dialects of a single language (a position that it maintains for political reasons). Most linguists would prefer to say that two spoken varieties are different languages when they are mutually unintelligible regardless whether there is different written language for them.
The various varieties of spoken German are mutually unintelligible despite there only being one written version. There are various ways of classifying them. Here are the classifications according to two sources, Ethnologue and Glottolog. I usually go by the Ethnologue classification, but once when I cited it someone complained that Glottolog is a better classification. Classifying languages is difficult, messy work.
Sorry about the extremely late reply. I’m shocked, here.
As for “Danes are somewhat better at understanding neighbouring languages than Swedes,” the precise conclusion drawn in the study seems to be that “Swedes and Danes understand Norwegian about equally well, while Danes understand Swedish somewhat better than Swedes understand Danish” (on page 71 - “svenskar och danskar är i stort sett jämngoda på norska, medan danskarna klarar svenskan något bättre än vad svenskarna klarar danskan”).
This conclusion is reached despite the fact that “tabell 4:6” - also on page 71 - rates Danish understanding of neighbouring languages at 3,86, i.e. lower than the Swedish understanding at 4,39. This gave me hope - perhaps we’re better than the Danes after all!? - but, ah, then the authors went on to explain that this was due to the fact that part of the Danish test given to the Swedes was apparently easier than the Swedish test given to the Danes (“svenskarna verkar klara sig bättre än danskarna i det totala resultatet, men det beror till stor del på att det danska videotestet varit lättare än det svenska”).
So, yeah, I’ll grudgingly accept the conclusion - that in this regard, the Danes have us beat - and will now retreat to my chambers to comfort myself with a bottle of havtorn booze and pictures of Lisa Ekdahl.