[Wikipedia-l] Re: no or nb for Bokmal, or time to move to ISO 639-3?

[Mark Williamson]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:46:43 +0100, Lars Alvik <larsal at stud.ntnu.no> wrote:
> På 13. nov. 2004 kl. 07.59 skrev Mark Williamson:
> 
> 
> 
> > It can be summed up this way:
> >
> > Most Bokmålites use no: for Bokmål and nn: for Nynorsk.
> > Most Nynorskians use no: for *both*, nb: for Bokmål, and nn: for
> > Nynorsk.
> >
> > The intention is that no: should apply to the "Norwegian language".
> >
> > Many (but by no means all) Bokmålites despise Nynorsk (a Norwegian
> > must be proficient in both forms in order to graduate), and see Bokmål
> > as "Norsk", THE Norwegian language, and Nynorsk as "Nynorsk", the
> > Cinderella of the Scandinavian tongues (with the exception of those
> > which are disputed, for example Jamskt, Scanian, Gutnish, etc. which
> > some say are dialects and others say are languages, and Norn which is
> > beyond this world), a unique Norwegian creation that to many
> > Bokmålites is more of an annoying pest than it is an object of
> > linguistic nationalistic pride.
> >
> > Nynorskians, however, being a minority, see it slightly differently.
> > Those who are passionate about Nynorsk may see Bokmål as not Norwegian
> > at all and Nynorsk as *the* Norwegian, but I think most Nynorsk users
> > see both Bokmål and Nynorsk as equally valid written varieties of the
> > Norwegian language.
> >
> > A technical solution might be a bit difficult.
> >
> > I think the best idea is to create nb: paralell to no:. People can
> > move those articles which are in Bokmål, and ONLY Bokmål will be
> > allowed there. Pages on no: would continue to exist and new pages
> > could be created, but...
> >
> > Anyhow, I do *not* think it is OK to change the language name for no:
> > from "Norsk" to "Norsk (Bokmål)", as it is NOT the Bokmål Wikipedia.
> >
> > Mark
> 
> *Paints "POV" in huge red letters over Williamsons mail* Your mail have
> inaccuancies to bokmål and nynorsk, bokmål people view nynorsk as a
> pest? This goes both ways, the ones that mostly hates nynorsk (or
> bokmål) is teenagers that is forced to learn a different language in
> school, that they don't feel they have any use for (unlike english or
> perhaps german). Perhaps this "haterd" is stronger with the bokmålusers
> (since nynorsk is smaller and is, in their eyes, less useful).

Inaccuracies? Such as what? I said "many", not "all". Please, read
carefully before falsely accusing me of such things.

> Mr. Aasen made nynorsk by collecting dialects (dominantly the western
> and the valleys in central-south norway. However the parts of norway
> with the largest population was largely ignored, like the farming areas
> of eastern norway, the south part of Oppland, Hedmark, Akershus,
> Østfold, Buskerud and Vestfold) also the northern part of norway was
> largely ignored. If you see this tabell from the norwegian censors
> http://www.ssb.no/aarbok/tab/t-040220-183.html you can se that 519 528
> of 610 297 norwegian elementary schoolstudents use bokmål in school,
> only in two fylker is there more nynorskstudents than bokmålstudents,
> in Sogn og Fjordane and Møre og Romsdal (the heartland of nynorsk, Mr.
> Aasen was born in Ørsta in Møre og Romsdal). Historicaly the nynorsk
> language gained ground during the last part of the 19th century and the
> start of the 20th century when nationalromantism was the order of the
> day and norway wanted to break up the union with sweden. It was the
> same time that part of the norwegian history was romantized, the union
> with denmark was seen as "the four thousandyear nigth", eventhough this
> where directly false.

What is your point here? I know the figures as regards what %age of
Norwegian schoolchildren choose which. In addition, from what I have
heard, both Landsmål and Riksmål have been polluted over the years by
official government policies aimed at uniting them, the current result
is modern Nynorsk and Bokmål which aren't as different (another thing
is that some forms were introduced as "optional", but when you use
them the two are closer).

> Yes, no: should point to the norwegian written language, but there are
> none such thing. 80% of norwegians use bokmål (allthough some of them
> speaks a dialect that contains some nynorsk words, like -a endings
> (these are allowed on bokmål too). However, the languages are equal in
> terms of administrative language. But on a national basis bokmål is
> more used.

I know that. I know that, too. So what if Bokmål is more widely used?
Hooray for Bokmål. But that doesn't change the fact that BOTH are
equally valid ways of writing Norwegian. It doesn't somehow give
Bokmål a claim to being THE "Norsk" (and thus the no: code).
 
> btw. the paralell solution would kill the no: (informaly bokmål) wiki.
> And since most of the articles on no: is on either bokmål or riksmål,
> some 100-200 on nynorsk (i've been rcpatroling on no: since we where
> just ~800 articles, so i have a pretty good idea of the amount of
> articles in either language. Knowing that a large part of this work
> would fall on me i don't cherish this idea, and the fact that it's
> creating a chaos, two rcs to monitor and a devertion of work. Also,
> there are no bokmål grasroot movement that wants to do this work, the
> people that supports this solution is mostly nynorskusers (primary
> nynorsk atleast).

How would it kill it? Most likely growth at nb: would be very slow,
and 99% of the users would stay at no:.

If you think no: should be labelled "Bokmål"... how would you feel if
I went and wrote 10000 new, non-stub articles in Nynorsk for no:? It
must be stressed that no: is NOT the Bokmål Wikipedia and it SHOULD
NOT BECOME the Bokmål Wikipedia - it is the Norsk Wikipedia.
Regardless of the ratio (which you are slightly exaggerating, I think
it's more like 1:10 and not 1:100 like you say), even if there are
only 11 pages in Nynorsk, it is the Norsk Wikipedia, belonging to all
Norwegian languages (Oh no... I didn't mean to say that... I take it
back... if people started writing articles at no: in Sámi, things
would quickly descend into chaos).

> I vote for a solution where bokmål keeps no: (but creates a page with
> reasons to why bokmål have no:, that's going to get linked from the
> mainpage, and "ads" for nynorskwiki), the interwiki decoding changes to
> "norsk (bokmål)" to clairify for non-norwegians that it's bokmål.

What do you mean "keeps"? Bokmål has no Wikipedia right now. no:
belongs to NORWEGIAN, not Bokmål.
 
> This way we don't kill a well functioning wiki, and i belive/hope most
> parts would be happy with the solution.

When did I say anything about restricting usage on no:? Why would the
creation of a Wikipedia exclusively for Bokmål content kill no:? It
would undoubtedly start out as a very small effort.

Mark