Talk:Rikssvenska

Tuomas, exactly why are you objecting to my definition of "rikssvenska"? I have sources that confirm my definition in Talk:Swedish language#Standard Swedish variations or dialects?.

Surely you must also understand that labelling it as Patent Nonsese in the summary without any explanation on the discussion page is certainly not a good idea if you want to have a serious and civil discussion about this. Please motivate your objection with proper argumentation and sources. Peter Isotalo 17:20, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Here are the sources that I first cited at Talk:Swedish language:

rikssvenska, the Swedish national language ["riksspråket"]. It has mainly developed from the upper class language of the Mälar Valley region. It can no longer be attributed to any certain region. The word is used commonly among both laymen and scholars.

from NE's article riksspråk (roughly "national language):

riksspråk, a form of language that is common to one state [actually Swedish rike, which would roughly translate to "realm"] which is constrasted to dialects. Usually refering to both spoken and written languages. (...) Today the term standard language is the most common in the scientific litterature.

Both these articles in turn link to the article "standardspråk" (standard language) and a further defining of "riksspråk" mainly as a term for standard languages in general as well as refering to Standard Swedish.

Engstrand, Olle, "Fonetikens grunder", 2004, pg. 120:

All languages have more or less significant regional variations in pronunciation. In Swedish there are differences in the spoken varieties of the standard language ("Scanian", "Gutnish" or "Dalmål") as well as variations specific to certain cities ["stadsmål"] like "Stockholmska" or "Göteborska". By "dialect" Swedish dialectologists are refering to those bygdemål or landsmål that have a straight lineage that can be traced back to Old Norse, a history shared with all other Scandinavian dialects - these form a continuum while the distinct "National languages" like Swedish, Danish and Norweigan are relativly recent constructions.

I also looked up the dictionary definition of "rikssvenska" in SAOB and NE and found the following definitions (again my translation):

SAOB:

high language; also swedish languge as it is spoken in well-educated form in Sweden (as opposed to Finland-Swedish and the likes); national language

The definition is tricky to translate, so I'll leave the Swedish text in here as well.

"högspråk; äv.: svenskt språk sådant det talas bilda l. skrives i Sverige (i motsats till finlands svenska o. d.); rikssvenskt språk."

NE:

Swedish national language in particular as opposed to Finland-Swedish

Are these dictionary definitions the reasons that your're not accepting my redefinition?

Peter Isotalo 00:33, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

To allude to Tuomas' edit summary, I can not make head or tail of your reasoning. Unless you claim that Högsvenska and Rikssvenska are not used in this way, but that you can not do, can you?

I don't see your many words above to address the issue at stake.

Hence reverted.

--Johan Magnus 08:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am claiming things that I have sources for and I'm asking that you do the same. The only reference to "högsvenska" that I could other than the one's I posted above is the encyclopedic article in NE:

from NE's encyclopedic article "högsvenska" (High Swedish:

högsvenska, Swedish standard language, in particular when refering to Finland-Swedish. The term is seldom used today.

So what we have here seems to be a fairly outdated term that is no longer in use.

Could you explain further why my definition of "rikssvenska" is unclear? You seem to claim that it is the same as for number 2, but that doesn't make any sense sense since "Standard Swedish" isn't just a high-prestige dialect specific to the Stockholm area anymore. Like the NE article points out: the definition "can no longer be attributed to any certain region". Why do you object to this definition of the term that is supported by both the most respected Swedish encyclopedia as well as linguists and phoneticians?

I ask again that you please cite sources for your claims. Peter Isotalo 10:06, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

You have SAOB above! There it is.

...i motsats till finlandssvenska o. d.

--Johan Magnus 10:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SAOB is a dictionary and not an encyclopedia. I mentioned those articles explicitly to show that they are in clear conflict with the definitions in the encyclopedic articles as well as the definitions that seem to be used by linguists.

Using very vague and subjectively interpreted dictionary definitions of a term that has a clearly defined encyclopedic definition in the context we're discussing (namely a linguistic context) seems to me like a poor interpretation of the source material that can only lead to further disputes on what should be considered the "correct" usage. It's also conflicting with the very concept of Wikipedia not being a Wiktionary.

There is no point in having this disambiguation page if all these meanings can easily be explained in Standard Swedish. Peter Isotalo 16:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Status as disambiguation page

Without entering into the discussion of what is and is not Rikssvenska, I question whether this is really appropriately a disambiguation page. A dismabiguation page is supposed to point people to different articles with similar names, not give two definitions for the same word. My opinion is that this page should become a redirect to Swedish language, where there is already a discussion of the ambiguity of the term Rikssvenska. --Angr 11:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but I think it should rather redirect to Standard Swedish. That it be redirected to Swedish language would be like redirecting Standard Mandarin to Chinese language. I think there's a need for a seperate article to clearly define these definitions. Högsvenska could also be redirected to Standard Swedish. That way we won't have to transfer a very confusing issue of Swedish terminology straight to English.Peter Isotalo 11:29, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I redirected both högsvenska and rikssvenska to Standard Swedish and did my best to write an introduction I felt explains the current view of the terminology. I recommend we redirect any further discussion to Standard Swedish. Peter Isotalo 12:13, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect (humbly reminding myself that I was the originator of this criticized ambiguation page), I would like to remind my dear fellow Wikipedians that Standard Swedish is an even more problematic concept than is Rikssvenska. In the case of Rikssvenska, the language users do at least agree that there are a set of different definitions that apply — each depending on context — while standardsvenska (literally: "Standard Swedish") is a lesser known term that Swedish speakers can't agree on how to use or define.

Rikssvenska is a term you in reality encounter in the Swedish language, and it is a cause of danger for misinterpretation and mistranslations. Standard-svenska on the other hand is a longer word for what most Swedes would call svenska, and it is neither problematic to understand nor to translate.

To clarify, or at least clearly indicate, the difference between the two (or three?) definitions of rikssvenska can be done on a couple of lines and is of a certain value for non-native speakers of Swedish, and — obviously — also for native speakers who are unaware of the alternative meanings. I am not consistent with regard to the classic Wikipedian dispute between people who think that large integrated articles are to prefer and on the other hand people who think that small articles with limited scope is to prefer, I admit that, but in this case I think the value of a small article that clarifies a small but sometimes crucial problem with no more words than necessary would gain Wikipedia and its reader far more than "hiding" the same information in a larger article on the Swedish language.

Similarly, the term högsvenska (as indicated in sv:Högsvenska), is a problematic (although lesser used) term which is important to interpret or translate correctly, and whos correct interpretation is very much depending on the temporal context.

However, it may well be so that this is an issue for the Wiktionary instead, and that I ought to be blamed for having dragged this issue into Wikipedia, where it does not belong.

For this I apologize.

--Ruhrjung 09:18, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that just Swedish speakers in general can't agree on it, but there is absolutely no uncertainty as to what the linguistic definition is. Why can't we use the linguistic definition as the main criteria får an NPOV-definition and explain the confusion like we do otherwise? Isn't that how POV-problems are usually solved?

Also, this page is still saying exactly what should be elaborated on at Standard Swedish. Why not just make it a redirect like högsvenska already is? Peter Isotalo 19:33, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)