That doesn't mean that people in Scania speak Danish. They speak
Swedish in their day-to-day activities, albeit with a funny infliction
and lots of diphtongs, but Swedish all the same. Yet, they are all
aware of old, dialectal variances, perhaps the way their grand-parents
spoke, that have their root in Danish.
I can give you an example; 'hav' for garden. I don't use it in
daily speech (well, I speak English in daily speech, but you know what
I mean, don't you?), but I understand what it means if I hear someone
using it, and I remember older relatives using it.
I think the actual Scanian dialect is rapidly disappearing, and it
will be gone soon. There are very few people alive today who actually
speak Scanian, most people speak Swedish with a funny accent.
You need to calm down a little, Magnus. I don't think you're a
chauvinist, but you need to feel less threatened by linguistic terms.
:) You are both right, see.
Cheers
Maggie
Subject: Re: The confusion about countries, states, nations and people
From: Henrik Ernø
Date: 1996/07/18
Message-Id: <4slt1s$ru8@nef.ens.fr>
Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure
magnus@shark.ecn.purdue.edu (Magnus Hurd) wrote:
> To classify the Swedish spoken in Skåne as Danish does not make
> sense to me. For me as a Swede there's a huge difference between
> skånska and Danish. What do you think?
Oh, No! Not that discussion again!
Well, before telling you what I think I would like to describe
what is the definition of the Skaansk we are discussing. I mean
the dialect spoken in rural areas by elderly people. Not, what
you will hear on the streets of Lund or Malmö.
However, I will now jump into the waters once again.
The are two lines of arguments:
- the "cladistic":
before 1658 Skaane was a Danish province and the language
people there spoke belonged to a group of East-Danish dialects also
including Bornholmese, the dialects of Dragör and other areas of along
the Sund. Since the swedish conquest the dialects east of the Sund
have been subject to a heavy swedification. Pushing the dialect closer
to Swedish and any from Danish.
- the comparative:
If you compare Rigssvenska, Rigsdansk and Skaansk you
will notice that (as has been shown by many different posters,
here at scn over the last year or so) Skaansk retains a large
number of the central elements (pronounciation, vocabulary etc)
that it shares with Danish but were it differs from Swedish.
And with regard to pronounciation these are the central
differences between Danish and Swedish. And most important
if you compare *Skaansk and Bornholmese* the you will find
a large number of identical elements showing that the two
dialects belong to the same linguistic group: Eastern Danish.
I personnaly have great problems in hearing the difference
between Bornholmese and Scanian, and I find it hard to
understand any of them.
Furthermore if you make a comparision between Värmlandsk,
Svensk and Dansk, you will observe that Värmlandsk have a
number of characteres that deviates from Standard Swedish.
However, these points are not (unlike Scanians) shared with
Danish, showing that Värmlandsk is a Swedish dialect that
have more in common with Swedish than with Danish.
Now, what makes the matter difficult is:
- the dialects are disappearing,
- the long process of swedification that skaansk have
been subject to;
- the closeness of the three languages.
However, it seems that disinterested parties like UNESCOs linguists
do classify Skaaansk as Danish.
> Apparently my classification differs from UNESCO's. Let me put it
> this way: if you were to settle down in Skåne, migrating from let's
> say China, what language course would you choose -- the Danish or
> the Swedish one? My choice is the Swedish one any day.
Yes of course - because Swedish is the official
language in Skaane.
> That argument was not very academic, but I think it was practical.
Possibly, unfortunately it does not shed any ligth on the issue:
whether Skaansk is a Danish or a Swedish dialect. A matter that can
only be determined by analysing it using the tools of comparative
linguistics. Which country have the political control is totally
irrelevant.
Finally I have three remarks:
- I know that there are linguists that say that the 1996
canian dialects are so swedified that it is absurd to
classify them as danish. This is off course an argument that
does hold some merit, but because of my cladistics bias I
don`t really buy it.
- I don`t think that recognising Scanian as a Danish dialect
should have any political of educational consequences in
Skaane or elsewhere.
- Its amusing to note how hard it is for the Swedes in general
to accept that Skaansk is a swedified Danish dialect. How come?
regards
henrik ernoe
Subject: Re: The confusion about countries, states, nations and people (was: Trevlig
From: Alwyn Thomas
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996
Message-Id: <31EA9B65.794BDF32@pia.bt.co.uk>
Organization: BT Labs, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, UK
Henrik Ernoe wrote:
> Possibly, unfortunately it does not shed any ligth on the issue:
> whether Skaansk is a d or s dialect. A matter that can only be
> determined by analysing it using the tools of comparative
> linguistics. Which country have the political control is totally
> irrelevant.
I'm not at all sure that comparative linguistics has any tools that
will anable you to say that Scanian is a dialect of Swedish or of
Danish. The distinctive features of Danish among the Scandinavian
languages are mainly phonological: absence of tones, no geminated
consonants (resulting in a prosody that is different from all the
other North-Germanic languages, including Icelandic and Faeroese) /r/
in the throat, consonant lenition between vowels, schwa at the end of
a word where Swedish has full vowels, etc.
Suppose a Dane goes to Sweden and speaks Swedish with Danish sounds.
Would he be speaking Swedish or Danish?
Suppose the speakers of Scanian dialect were to be asked whether
they were speaking a Swedish or a Danish dialect. What do you think
their answer would be?
I would argue that considerations like this are of more importance than
anything comparative linguistics might have to say.
Alwyn
Subject: Re: The confusion about countries, states, nations and people (was: Trevlig
From: Peter Broberg
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996
Message-Id: <31EDDF00.23B1@scania.org>
Daniel Silen wrote:
> I think Skånska is more like rikssvenska than for example the
> dialect from where i grew up (Älvdalen, Dalarna). (I guess the most
> of you would agree if you heard it - Skånska can be understood by an
> average Swede, not Älvdalska) For the interrested, here is a pointer
> with some examples of the dialect: <http://www.mdstud.chalmers.se/~md2perpe/Dalska/>
Why is it so hard to understand that the historic Scanian language
has nothing to do with the language spoken in Scania today. The
historic Scanian language - still, to a considerable degree, spoken by
many even today - has its own intonation, grammar and vocabulary. The
Scanian Literary Academy just published a Scanian/Swedish/Danish
dictionary with 3000 unique Scanian words.
I have been informed that at the University of Lund there are more
than a million notes of Scanian words and expressions which are not
subjected to scientific study because the State of Sweden does not
acccept that the Scanian language exists.
To say that Scanian (not the aquired Swedish spoken today) is a
Swedsih dialect is ridiculus - Scania has only been an "integrated"
part of Sweden for some 275 years and the language did not actually
start to change until about 100 years ago when the mass-communications
emerged and - even more so - when radio and TV was introduced. It is
only recently the local language of Svealand has been politcally
elevated to the position of Sweden's Standard Language and pushed down
the troat (literally) on everybody else.
The language of Cornwall - Cornish - disappeared at the end of the
1890s and was replaced by English. That doesn't make Cornish an
English dialect, does it?
Göran Hansson
Subject: Re: The confusion about countries, states, nations and people (was: Trevlig
From: Henrik Ernoe
Date: 1996/07/18
Message-Id: <4slt1s$ru8@nef.ens.fr>
Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure
[...]
> Well, there's no law of nature against one word having several
> meanings. Definitions are introduced in science to use them for
> something often fairly specified. I think these linguistic
> definitions work wonders when deriving the Danish background of the
> Scanian dialect.
This is true in general, however the rules for grouping Scanian
together with Bornholmese as east-Danish dialect are the rules that
are used for the general classification of Nordic languages, there are
no special tricks that apply only in this case.
[...]
The only thing that would convince me that Scanian anno 1996 is a
Swedish dialect would be a series of linguistic arguments, proving
that Modern Scanian have moved so far away from the original
east-Danish that it no longer has significant homology to Danish i.e
Bornholmese.
('I am in fact applying the same general standards for discussing the
classification of a group of proteins or a clade of animals.)
>> 2) Is a really such a problem for you and Sweden if Scanian *is* a
>> swedifyed Danish dialect.
> Not really. And I have to ask you, do you have a problem with a lot
> of people classifying the Scanian dialect of today as a non-Danish
> language?
Yes, so far as I find their arguments unscientific *and*
unconvincing. I am, however, fully open to accept the "fact"
that the original Scanian dialect have died out and have
been replaced by Swedish dialects. However, all the hard data
I have seen lends no support for that.
> This Bornholm thing:
> Believe it or not, this Sunday I talked to my father about this
> discussion. He goes to Huaröd every year - to explore his roots, I
> guess. Now, this certainly has no relevance, but anyway I asked him
> "Would you consider the language the Huarödians are speaking
> Danish?" He said no, no way. Then I continued, asking him about
> Bornholm. Yes, he said, they speak very similar to the people in
> Scania. Unfortunately, I didn't ask him to describe things in more
> detail. But I'll get back to him about this.
Excellent, there is nothing like a empirical test of a hypothesis!.
So maybe I will end up having to concede that Bornholmese is equal to
Scanian, and since Scanian is Swedish. Then Denmark have in fact a
native Swedish minority.
From: magnus@shark.ecn.purdue.edu (Magnus Hurd)
Date: 1996/07/19
Message-Id: <4sodqs$817@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN
In article <4slt1s$ru8@nef.ens.fr>, Henrik Ernoe wrote:
> This is true in general, however I the rules for grouping Scanian
> together with Bornholmese as east-danish dialect are the rules that
> are used for the general claffication of Nordic languages, there are
> no special tricks that apply only in this case.
[ ... ]
The popular definition is based on what is understood and what is not
understood, and focus on the position of the language today, not its
origin. In fact, it doesn't care about its origin. This is a drawback
of the popular definition. On the other hand, it seems that the
classification of today-Scanian as Danish stresses the origin and
forgets about the present situation.
From: Henrik Ernoe
Date: 1996/07/20
Message-Id: <4sq6f6$su7@nef.ens.fr>
> I'd just would like to check something. When I write today-Scanian I
> refer to the language spoken in Scania in general. It strikes me
> when I read your stuff again that that might not be what you have in
> mind. You simply do not call that Scanian. Is this correct, did I
> get that right?
Yes, as I started by stating in this discussion. What I call Scanian
is *the* dialects in rural Scania *not* the accented Rigsvenska that
the great, great majority speaks. The situation is exactly the same
with regard to all the dialect areas in Denmark. Most of what you hear
is accented Rigsdansk, special intonation, some special words etc etc.
However, this is not dialect.
To make it clear: my opinion is that the great majority of
people in Scanian speak Swedish (with more or less of special
scanian dialect words and traits take from the real dialect(s).
The real dialects, which are spoken by only a (disappearing?)
minority of people, have all the fundamental trait shared
with Danish and not with Swedish, therefore this is a Danish
dialect, and therefore there a native Danish speakers in Sweden.
As an exampel in the North of Jutland Vendsyssel were I went to school
people still speak dialect: Vendelbo maal. However, in the schools and
cities people would speak accented danish that would be understandable
for an outsider, however at their homes and in the villages people
would speak dialect that an average Dane from Aarhus or Kopenhagen
will not understand. This is the same situation in all dialect areas
in Denmark, i.e most of the country outside the cities.
This theme is repeated now and then:
From: Malte Lewan
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998
Subject: Understanding dialects
Well, I use "genuine" like was the tradition (at least) before in the
dialect literature, which meant the old parish dialects, not influenced
directly by a country's standard language. So it has nothing to do with
geographical location...
From: jensegon@post1.tele.dk (Jens Egon Nyborg)
Date: 1996/07/20
Message-Id: <4srrom$1ddo@news.inet.tele.dk>
magnus@shark.ecn.purdue.edu (Magnus Hurd) wrote:
> The popular definition is based on what is understood and what is
> not understood, and focus on the position of the language today, not
> its origin. In fact, it doesn't care about its origin. This is a
> drawback of the popular definition. On the other hand, it seems that
> the classification of today-Scanian as Danish stresses the origin
> and forgets about the present situation.
Seen from Copenhagen this would mean that almost all swedes speak
Danish, since we easily understand them, but *not* the Scanians since
they are very dificult to understand!
I have however met a man ( in his midtwenties ) from the east coast
of Amager, who spoke Danish with the same hard to follow accent as
the Scanians.
[ ... ]
In the begining of this century all Danish dialect were recorded, and
as far as I know the conclusion at that was that Rigdansk (official
Danish), Rigssvensk (official Swedish), and Scanian were *closer*
related to each other then either were to Bornholmese!
Subject: Re: EBLUL Bulletin reports about Finns of Sweden
From: Henrik Ernoe
Date: 1996/09/23
Message-Id: <525is6$j5v@nef.ens.fr>
jari@ibg.uit.no (Jari Oksanen) wrote:
[ ... ]
> The EBLUL info (which I snipped from this message) quite clearly
> shows it is a NON-GOVERNMENTAL organization. On the other hand, do
> you think that minorities should be represented by their
> Governments? Sounds a bit Soviet model to me. Swedish Government
> represents Tornedalians?
Well, as a totally naive Dane, I would expect a government, even the
Swedish, to represent all its citizen regardless of etnic background.
Secondly, any minority national, sexual or whatever should create
whatever organisations they see fit to represent them. Thirdly, I
think that it is wise to display the same level of sound scepticism
towards organisations representing minorities as to governments.
I am not conviced that all etnic scanians support the goal of the
scanian organisations, nor see themselves as a national minority. The
same goes for Bossi's Padanian green shirts, they are certainly not
representing all North Italians.
Subject: Scanians - a minority in Sweden?
From: Malte Lewan
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996
>> Therefore it is not true, as you write, that Scanians would not
>> wish to recognized as linguistic minority, some clearly do! And
>> they do it seriously enough to want to take their wish into
>> international organizations. I do not know how big their support is
>> in Scania, but they exist and that alone should be mentioned in
>> some form.
Johan Olofsson wrote:
> There is a 23.000 character chapter about Scania alone.
> That's almost as much as for the Saami.
I can't say I was suprised that Scania wasn't even
mentioned in a Native Minorities FAQ written by Johan
even though my FAQ cites the two international
minority organizations it is a member of. People are
going to be confused by reading the FAQ from the bottom to the start.
:-)
So, I agree about everything Henrik has written concerning this
question.
And if I look at the Swedish History FAQ, I see that no
problematization is made of the parts of today's Sweden that don't
share the same history before the 17th century. They are just
incoporated, or in the words of the FAQ, "collected".
I think it should be put in that if you're interested in the
history of these parts of today's Sweden, then you should first read
the Danish FAQ and then in the 17th century switch to the Swedish one.
(Well, it doesn't hurt to read Swedish history before and it doesn't
hurt to read Danish history after.)
In the Swedish History FAQ, you find the history of the old Swedish
land. "Swede" means Swede from the old country, "Swedish" is something
emanating from the old Swedish territories. (Still, traces of humans
in Scania in the Ice Age are mentioned to add to the confusion. I
know, it was neither Swedish nor Danish then, but since it "grow up"
to be Danish for 700 years, that's where I think it belongs. Not a big
thing.)
(...)
Scania has been and is subjected to a heavy pressure of Swedish
nationalization (mostly unintended, it's a circle all nation states
discover) through media, sports, school education etc. The social and
political institutions haven't been there to anything to the nation
state comparable extent that could have helped us build much more
confidence in the Scanian identity. For example, the political self-
government has been split on 23 competing communes only in Skåne. Now,
we'll get a regional parlament and I'm hopeful. At the same time I'm
debating others saying it's just to buy us off: much more radical
measures are now needed.
[...]
One last thing. Johan mentions that there is no oppression, there are
democratic rights to decide in local matters and self-rule is
increasing. I don't understand what this has to do with whether
Scanians, Gutar, Jamtar would be minorities. You're not a minority if
you're well treated? I see the fact that the groups in Sweden that'll
get new regional organisations in the latest government proposition
are exactly Scanians, Gutar, Jamtar (and Kalmar län) as an
acknowledgement of the special circumstances surrounding these regions.
Subject: Scanians - a minority in Sweden?
From: erik.robertson@forenademjuk.se (Erik Robertson)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1996
Johan Olofsson :
> Scanians, Gutar, Jämtar are not minorities in any comparable sense.
> We have been incorporated in the realm, as the Finns was in the
> 12-14th centuries, and have not after that been object for much of
> repression.
[...]
> There is a 23.000 character chapter about Scania alone.
> That's almost as much as for the Saami.
In my opinion, the FAQ, as it is, captures the ambivalence of the
present situation beautifully. The Scanians are unique, separate and
aware of it, as are their neighbors. Don't use the "m-word", however:
Let sleeping dogs lie. Business as usual. Don't stir things up.
Erik.
Subject: Scanians - a minority in Sweden?
From: phb@algonet.se (Haakan Bergquist)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996
Johan Olofsson wrote:
> Scanians, Gutar, Jämtar are not minorities in any comparable sense.
> We have been incorporated in the realm, as the Finns was in the
> 12-14th centuries, and have not after that been object for much of
> repression.
To identify minorities with linguistics as the one and only
criterium demands an explananation.
In Scandinavia you can use the political borders to identify three
germanic languages, but they have the same origin, Old Norse, and by
understanding one you don´t have any problem to undertand the other
two. At least if you want to understand and to be
understood.
We can than talk about written and spoken language. In the case of
Scania the written language is Swedish.
Spoken language in Scandinavia does not necassarily follow the
political borders. Syntax, vocabular and pronunciation have other
borders.
[ ... ] The dialects spoken in Göinge and Värend was in the 17th
century more identical to each other than they were to the languages
spoken in the capitals of their kingdoms. (Ohlsson, Stig
Örjan, Skånes språkliga försvenskning del 1&2, Lundastudier i
nordisk språkvetenskap. serie A, Nr 30 & 31, Lund, 1979.)
In the western parts of Scania the accent had more influence from
Zealand (Själland) than in the rest of Scania. (ibid.)
Gårding came to the conclusion that Scanian is Swedish on an
East-Danish basis. (Gårding, Eva, Talar skåningarna svenska?,
(in) Svenskans beskrivning 8, Lund, 1975.)
[ ... ]
Scania was beside Zealand the most important part of Denmark before
1658. Probably whealthier and richer than Seeland.
Adam of Bremen wrote in the late 9 century that Scania had more
inhabitants and churches than any other part of Scandinavia.
The Arch-Bishop of Denmark
was located to Lund.
The harring fishing also gave Scania an important roll for the Hansa.
In modern Sweden it was only Gotland, beside Scania, which had such an
important roll for the Hansa.
After 1658 Scania lost its
roll as a leading part of Scandinavia.
With this background it is easier to understand why Scanians in the
late 20 century still clame for an identity as Scanians.
When the borders between the kingdoms of Sweden and Denmark are
winding up, Scania can take back power that had been lost in previous
centuries, and start a more active roll in the poltical and economic
process of southern Scandinavia. This will also gain the old trading
partners in Småland.
[ ... ]
Subject: Scanians - a minority in Sweden?
From: Henrik Ernø
Date: 27 Nov 1996
>> "The Scanian lands were conquered by Sweden after the 1658 War and
>> later incorporated in Sweden (1720). After this period Swedish
>> replaced Danish as the church and school language in Scania and the
>> population was slowly assimililated into the Swedish population".
>> This is a fact.
etxmow@eua.ericsson.se (Mats Winberg):
> Is it? I thought the language replacement in church etc. started
> earlier than 1720 (in late 1670's and 1680's). Am I wrong? And
> wasn't the assimilation remarkably quick ? One generation or so?
Assimilation can hardly be regarded as a dichotomous value. It is a
process. And, as we see a half-dozen or so Scanians here, claiming
that they are Scanian by nation and Swedish by citizenship, the
process is obviously not completed. Whether it is proceeding, is
halted, or is reversing, only time will tell.
Erik.
Subject: Scanians - a minority in Sweden?
From: Henrik Ernø
Date: 26 Nov 1996
> Is it ? I thought the language replacement in church etc. started
> earlier than 1720 (in late 1670's and 1680's).
I think it was after 1720 were Scania stopped being a
general-guvernement, but was incorporated in Sweden. Maybe I
remember wrong, but even if it was earlier, as you suggest, it still
remains:
- A violation of the peace treaty.
- And a determined effort by the Swedish king to change the
nationality of the Scanians.
> And wasn't the assimilation remarkably quick ? One generation or
> so ?
It was not that quick, in fact the Scanian dialect has really first
lost terrrain after the industrialisation, as did the danish dialects.
Before this you would have to be an expert to hear the difference in
the dialects spoken on the two sides of Öresund. Or between Bornholmian
and South East Scanian dialects.
Regards
Henrik.
Subject: Scanians - a minority in Sweden?
From: Henrik Ernø
Date: 01 Dec 1996
For Scania (by which I mean Skaane, Halland og Blekinge), I suggest
that you include the following text in the FAQ:
After the peace of 1658 Denmark ceeded the three provinces Skaane,
Halland and Blekinge to Sweden. (Bornholm which was a part of Scania
at this time, rebelled succesfully against the Swedes and the
Bornholmians gave their island to the Danish King as his personal
fief). In the following years the three former Danish provinces were
incorporated into the Swedish Kingdom and the process of Swedification
started. This proces included settlement of ethnic Swedes in the
Scanian lands and a replacement of Danish with Swedish in schools and
churches.
The result of this proces is that most Scanians don`t consider
themselves as Danes but as Swedes. However, in the last years a process
of growing awareness of Scania as special region with its own history
and culture have grown in Scania. There exists several organisations
in Scania that work for greater cultural and regional autonomy for
Scania as well as recognition of Scanian as linguistic minority language.
How big the support for these claims is among the Scania population is
unclear, as is how far this process will continue.
Subject: Scanians - a minority in Sweden?
From: Henrik Ernø
Date: 02 Dec 1996
>> I suggest that you include the following text:
Johan Olofsson wrote:
> I guess you mean instead of the following part? (part of scania faq)
NO, NO and NO again.
In my opinion the text above should be included in "native
minorities in Sweden" FAQ. I understand that you do feel that this is
the rigth place for it, but my opinion is that the
NMIS faq is incompletely and illogical without mentioning the
historical process and the present situation in Skaanelandene.
It seems that we simply disagree on that point, fairly and squarely.
And as i have pointed out numerous times:
- The proces that took place in Skaane is the same that took place
in Finnish speaking areas. It is, in my eyes, illogical not
include not.
- There exist organisations in Skaane that work
for the recognition of the Scanians are a minority. That some
people disagree with their aims while others agree with is
natural. But in my opinion their mere existences makes it
necessary to mention them in the FAQ. (And if similar
organisation exists in Bohuslen, Gotland and so on then they
should included as well.)
- - -
