Americanization of Norway
Grant Hughes
It can (and has) been argued that Norway is one of Europe's most
"Americanized" countries. After living in Narvik in 1985 then in Oslo ten
years later (as well as traveling in several other European countries), I
tend to agree with this notion.
How do Norwegians feel about this? Do you agree with this notion? Do you
think this trend threatens Norwegian identity?
Just curious.
Sincerely,
Grant C. Hughes
Stein J. Rypern
In article <5nrrj2$1b1$1...@fremont.ohsu.edu>
hug...@ohsu.edu (Grant Hughes) writes:
> It can (and has) been argued that Norway is one of
> Europe's most "Americanized" countries.
Interesting subject. Depends on what people mean by
"Americanized", I'd say.
Care to give us your *rough* definition/description of
what *you* mean by the phrase, just so we can start out
by agreeing about what we are discussing ?
Smile,
Stein
--
Stein J. Rypern I "If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir,
Sørumsand I what do we do ?"
Norway I "Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet
ste...@sn.no I in the air and scatter oneself over a wide area."
Martin William Smith
Grant Hughes writes:
> It can (and has) been argued that Norway is one of Europe's most
> years later (as well as traveling in several other European countries), I
> tend to agree with this notion.
I doesn't feel like America to me. For one thing, everybody speaks
Norwegian. There is no place to buy breakfast in the morning, and gas
cost about $5 per gallon. And there is an efficient public transport
system.
Of course, they have three or four McDonalds, and they have Jeopardy
on TV every night, but if that's being Americanized, then America was
Norwegianized a long time ago, so turnabout is fair play.
martin
--
Martin Smith Email: m...@metis.no
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
Espen Jorgensen
Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote:
BonusFrust(ration):
>[...] And there is an efficient public transport
>system.
Espen J
Espen Jorgensen
ste...@sn.no (Stein J. Rypern) wrote:
>In article <33a2623f....@news.online.no>
>ejor...@bs.bi.no (Espen Jorgensen) writes:
>
>>BonusFrust(ration):
>
>>>[...] And there is an efficient public transport
>>>system.
>
> He-he - you also got caught in the power outages
>and other local train troubles around Oslo this
>week, I guess ? :-)
Yep. On Friday 13th, also the date of one of my many exams. Cool. :-(
Espen J
Stein J. Rypern
>BonusFrust(ration):
>>[...] And there is an efficient public transport
>>system.
He-he - you also got caught in the power outages
and other local train troubles around Oslo this
week, I guess ? :-)
Smile,
Marius Svenkerud
>> It can (and has) been argued that Norway is one of Europe's most
>> "Americanized" countries. After living in Narvik in 1985 then in Oslo ten
>> years later (as well as traveling in several other European countries), I
>> tend to agree with this notion.
>
>I doesn't feel like America to me. For one thing, everybody speaks
>Norwegian. There is no place to buy breakfast in the morning, and gas
>system.
>
>Of course, they have three or four McDonalds,
Thirty-six.
--
Marius Svenkerud
Martin William Smith
> >ejor...@bs.bi.no (Espen Jorgensen) writes:
> >
> >>BonusFrust(ration):
> >
> >>>system.
> >
> > He-he - you also got caught in the power outages
> >and other local train troubles around Oslo this
> >week, I guess ? :-)
>
> exams. Cool. :-(
Piss and moan, piss and moan.
I will never understand why Norwegians complain about things in Norway
that seem to me to work so well. The public transport system in Oslo
is one of them. Of course it fails sometimes. All systems fail.
Unions go on strike. Shit happens.
But try basing your working and social life on the public transport
system in Los Angeles. The system in Oslo is among the best in the
world, even if it is a little expensive.
Espen Jorgensen
Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote:
>But try basing your working and social life on the public transport
>system in Los Angeles. The system in Oslo is among the best in the
>world, even if it is a little expensive.
But then again; try London. Look out for bombs, though.
Espen
Geir Solevåg
Martin William Smith wrote:
> I doesn't feel like America to me. For one thing, everybody speaks
> Norwegian. There is no place to buy breakfast in the morning, and gas
> system.
>
> on TV every night, but if that's being Americanized, then America was
> Norwegianized a long time ago, so turnabout is fair play.
TIME OUT! The subject wasn't what Norway had that was DIFFERENT, but
what was similar, so that one could call the nation Americanized. Which
it obviously is. Check out TV, for instance. How many American series vs
Norwegian ones? In school; how many AE-wannabe's vs BE-wannabe's? In
youth CD piles; how many American titles? In clothing, how many American
labels? It's ridicilous to claim that Norway is NOT the nephew of Uncle
Sam.
Norske heisan'er fra
Geir Solevåg
_____________________________________________________
Geir Solevåg
"Isandhed, en yderst begavet Mand;
næsten alt, hvad han siger,
gaar over ens Forstand."
"Litera scripta manet,
verbum imbelle perit"
mailto:gsol...@sn.no
Sturle Fladmark
Stein J. Rypern <ste...@sn.no> wrote:
...
> - you shouldn't have it too good - that brings envy
> and strife. If you have nothing serious to complain
> about, invent something :-)
Life is just a time I have to endure before I go meet
my maker.
> - A little shared complaining goes a long way in bonding
> with the people around you. It even allows you to (gasp)
> speak to strangers without appearing to be mad, drunk or
> a tourist :-)
We have a lot of weather to complain about.
That is A Good Thing(tm).
> ...There are plenty of things we can improve, like the
> quality of school buildings,
Will be done.
> getting more rooms for old age pensioners,
Will be done.
> getting new engines for the local trains
Train service will be reliable the day it starts raining
upwards.
> Smile
> Stein
hm.hm. ok:
:-)
--
SturleF
Livet er en straff.
Henrik Ern¿
ste...@sn.no (Stein J. Rypern) wrote:
> But of course you are right - Norway mostly function pretty
>well. There are plenty of things we can improve, like the
>quality of school buildings, getting more roomsfor old age
>pensioners, getting new engines for the local trains - but
>those things are mainly adjustments, not scrapping the system
>and starting all over.
While you are at it, wouldn't it be a good idea to expand the
faculties of medicine in Norway. Then the Norwegians wouldn't
have to flood the Danish ones?
Stein J. Rypern
Yes, but do we *really* want to do that ? To me it makes
sense to send our future doctors south to a civilized country
to let them learn a little about how to be decent human beings
with a more relaxed attitude to life before we send them north
into the mountains to treat danes with complex fractures who
have tried skiing in the Norwegian mountains ;-)
Smile
Arne Kolstad
Grant Hughes wrote:
>
> It can (and has) been argued that Norway is one of Europe's most
> "Americanized" countries. After living in Narvik in 1985 then in Oslo ten
> years later (as well as traveling in several other European countries), I
> tend to agree with this notion.
One reason for saying this, is a comparative survey done in the autumn
of -94. It is possible that the Norwegian Social Science Dataservice
have the documentation open for public access by now.
> How do Norwegians feel about this? Do you agree with this notion? Do you
> think this trend threatens Norwegian identity?
I have been following young people's writing for a couple of decades,
and the Americanisation is qiute clear. One of the more annoying writing
habits developing, is partitioning of words, for example "lute fisk"
instead of "lutefisk". The grammars are so different that the
substitution of American English rules to Norwegian, ends up in neither
Norwegian nor English. It's a true mess.
American words are used in writing as if they where Norwegian among
young students. American ("biblical") names are more and more common,
while the old Norwegian are on the decline.
Young kids use clothing with American symbols. The "gangsta" look has
been most popular in later years, with soggy jeans and strange hand
movements, but it seems to be changing. Rollerblades are in, as
skateboards and snowboards have been for a long time. Shirts with US
national symbols (like the letters U.S.A or the American flag) have been
popular for a long time. You couldn't get a Norwegian 10-year old carry
a cap with "Norge" on (not that I would, either), but he would be
delighted if it said U.S.A. (you would have to knock me unconcious
first). I take for given that the parallell statement could be made for
Sweden as well.
Lately, traditional N. festivals and fairs have been hard to distinguish
from American country fairs. Much of the equipment is even American.
There is TV, of course, with a solid coverage of American series. In
addition, the most common language for textbooks in higher education is
English, i. e. American. In the humanities and social sciences that
means that you need a good portion of Am. background (or invent some
from the TV you watch) to be able to relate to the topics at all.
For centuries, Norway has been oriented toward Britain and USA, and thus
contrasted us from the European continent, particularly Germany (and
thus Sweden). A good part of the national rethorics and the values of
individualism, better-than-you attitude,etc., are borrowed from the
West.
This connection may make us more permeable for influence in modern times
as well. News coverage *of Norway* and the way cultural topics are
raised in our media, follow closely the NYT topics of yesterday. The
exceptions are found in a couple of the smaller newspapers that
sometimes bring comments from European capital newspapers.
What to think about it? It probably varies from person to person.
Whatever amuses people is OK with me. McDonald's is strange, but if
people want to pay more to make their kids feel like TV heroes, that's
OK. Rollerblades and snowboards are more than OK (if it wasn't for that
damned heart failure..), as are Texas grills at fairs (ditto).
The intellectual unidimensionality is worse. The Danes have found a much
better balance in their relations to Europe and the Anglosaxon world
than we have.
The destruction of our language makes me angry. I once pulled down a
sign with "Røntgen avdeling" on it in a hospital. And I return all
"inkasso" letters with incorrect partitioning.
Arne Kolstad
Stein J. Rypern
In article <33A40F...@isaf.no>
Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
> The destruction of our language makes me angry. I
> once pulled down a sign with "Røntgen avdeling" on
> it in a hospital.
Well, "røntgenavdeling" and not "røntgen-avdeling"
or "røntgen avdeling" may be the *correct* way to
write it, but either of the last two would be a lot
easier to read, IMO, so I think you are fighting for
a lost cause here.
Then again - they say that lost causes are the only
ones worth fighting for :-)
Btw - you would say "CT" instead of "dataassistert
tomografi" and "PC" instead of "personlig datamaskin",
wouldn't you ?
Smile,
Stein, just curious
Henrik Ern¿
ste...@sn.no (Stein J. Rypern) wrote:
>In article <5o1117$qks$1...@gjallar.daimi.aau.dk> "Henrik Ern¿" <er...@biobase.dk> writes:
>>ste...@sn.no (Stein J. Rypern) wrote:
>>> But of course you are right - Norway mostly function pretty
>>>well. There are plenty of things we can improve, like the
>>>quality of school buildings, getting more roomsfor old age
>>>pensioners, getting new engines for the local trains - but
>>>those things are mainly adjustments, not scrapping the system
>>>and starting all over.
>> While you are at it, wouldn't it be a good idea to expand the
>> faculties of medicine in Norway. Then the Norwegians wouldn't
>> have to flood the Danish ones?
> Yes, but do we *really* want to do that ? To me it makes
>sense to send our future doctors south to a civilized country
>to let them learn a little about how to be decent human beings
>with a more relaxed attitude to life before we send them north
>into the mountains to treat danes with complex fractures who
>have tried skiing in the Norwegian mountains ;-)
Oh, of course it makes sense to the Norwegians. But it does
seem a bit unfair to all the Danish students that can not
get to study medicine due to Norwegians filling out the
faculties here.
he
Stein J. Rypern
In article <5o1403$5v$1...@gjallar.daimi.aau.dk>
"Henrik Ern¿" <er...@biobase.dk> writes:
>>In article <5o1117$qks$1...@gjallar.daimi.aau.dk>
"Henrik Ern¿" <er...@biobase.dk> writes:
>>> While you are at it, wouldn't it be a good
>>> idea to expand the faculties of medicine in
>>> Norway. Then the Norwegians wouldn't have
>>> to flood the Danish ones?
>>To me it makes sense to send our future doctors
>> south to a civilized country to let them learn
>> a little about how to be decent human beings
>> with a more relaxed attitude to life [...]
> Oh, of course it makes sense to the Norwegians.
Lighten up man - I was merely trying to pay
you Danes a compliment for being nice people
:-)
Obviously we need to expand our training of
doctors.
At the moment many Norwegian hospitals are
run with very expensive rented temp Danish
and Swedish doctors who are using their
time off from Swedish and Danish hospitals
to help us through a tight spot (and to make
quite a bit of money for themselves, at the
same time :-).
We are also having around 18 000 Danish
citizens living and working in Norway, and
around the same number of Swedish citizens.
So it is not all a one-way deal - Danes do
get some benefits from the free flow of
people within the Nordic countries too.
> But it does seem a bit unfair to all the Danish
> students that can not get to study medicine
> due to Norwegians filling out the faculties here.
Well, I am sure it always feels unfair to any
student who cannot get into the university program
he or she wants to get into.
So how are the students chosen ?
a) first come, first served ?
b) best grades, first in ?
c) Reserved quota for Norwegians ?
or some other way ?
Smile
Stein, curious
Martin William Smith
Geir Solevåg <gsol...@sn.no> writes:
> Martin William Smith wrote:
> > I doesn't feel like America to me. For one thing, everybody speaks
> > Norwegian. There is no place to buy breakfast in the morning, and gas
> > cost about $5 per gallon. And there is an efficient public transport
> > system.
> >
> > Of course, they have three or four McDonalds, and they have Jeopardy
> > on TV every night, but if that's being Americanized, then America was
> > Norwegianized a long time ago, so turnabout is fair play.
>
> TIME OUT! The subject wasn't what Norway had that was DIFFERENT, but
> what was similar, so that one could call the nation Americanized. Which
> it obviously is. Check out TV, for instance. How many American series vs
> Norwegian ones?
Then Norway is also being Englandized, Swedenized, Australianized,
Tysklandized, etc. It's either foreign shows or shut down the network
after two hours. Norway has 4 million people. That isn't enough to
support a big TV industry of its own.
> In school; how many AE-wannabe's vs BE-wannabe's?
I don't even know what those terms mean and I *am* American.
> In youth CD piles; how many American titles?
On my weekly trip to the CD shop, I see lots of Norwegian CDs. I'm
just guessing, but I would say, on a per capita basis, Norway puts out
a lot more CDs than America.
> In clothing, how many American labels?
I think a lot of those labels are probably European and not American.
But in either case, you can't wear Norwegian sweaters and bunad all
the time. If Norway doesn't make its own clothes, then it must import
them.
> It's ridicilous to claim that Norway is NOT the nephew of Uncle.
If you import all this stuff because Norway doesn't make its own, then
it seems rather silly for you to turn around and complain you are
being Americanized because of the things you choose to do.
Espen Jorgensen
Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> wrote:
> ...Shirts with US
>national symbols (like the letters U.S.A or the American flag) have
been
>popular for a long time. You couldn't get a Norwegian 10-year old
carry
>a cap with "Norge" on (not that I would, either), but he would be
>delighted if it said U.S.A. (you would have to knock me unconcious
>first). I take for given that the parallell statement could be made
for
>Sweden as well.
Not necessarily true. Two of the most "hip" and trendy clothing-brands
these days are Helly-Hansen and Napapaprij (or something to that
effect;-) The first one having been an "aauthentic Norwegian" clothing
company for ages, which is also rapidly gaining popularity in urban
areas in for instance USA, England and France, in addition to beeing
popular in Norway. On the other hand, the increasing popularity in
Norway is more than likely to just be an effect by the popularity in
other parts of the world.
Napapapirij is an Italian brand that has made a big point of putting
the Norwegian flag on their products, often in really large scales.
Nap. is the big thing in fashion right now.
It could also be added to this discussion that only three years ago,
in connection with the Olympics in Lillehammer, "bunad" (Norw.
folklore outfit (don't know a better way to put it)) was extremely
popular. And amongst loads and loads of youths it still is, and has
always been (and will always be?). "Telemark" is also still pretty
popular, even with all the snowboards flying around, and clothes made
for Telemark-skiing are rather Norwegian-looking to me.
Espen J
Arne Kolstad
Henrik Ernż wrote:
>
> While you are at it, wouldn't it be a good idea to expand the
> faculties of medicine in Norway. Then the Norwegians wouldn't
> have to flood the Danish ones?
We allready have a very high coverage of physicians. We don't need more
of them as much as we need to re-organise our hospital system.
One reason why this is a one way traffic, is that very few Danish
students apply at Norwegian universities.
Arne Kolstad
Arne Kolstad
Espen Jorgensen wrote:
> Not necessarily true. Two of the most "hip" and trendy clothing-brands
> these days are Helly-Hansen and Napapaprij (or something to that
> effect;-)
<clip>
Napapapuertorico? That may be a strange and unforeseeable Norwegian mark
on the world of sports fashion. However, I still think it is true, and a
bit sad, that Norwegian kids are thoroughly americanized in their choice
of fashion and symbolic behaviour, and probably more so than youth in
the other Nordic countries.
Arne
Jari Oksanen
Arne Kolstad wrote:
>
> Stein J. Rypern wrote:
> >
> > In article <33A40F...@isaf.no>
> > Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
> >
> > > The destruction of our language makes me angry. I
> > > once pulled down a sign with "Røntgen avdeling" on
> > > it in a hospital.
> >
> > Well, "røntgenavdeling" and not "røntgen-avdeling"
> > or "røntgen avdeling" may be the *correct* way to
> > write it, but either of the last two would be a lot
> > easier to read, IMO, so I think you are fighting for
> > a lost cause here.
>
> languages. If language cultivation is a lost cause for that reason, we
> are bound to see some interesting changes in English in the near future.
>
> By the way, I don't believe that "røntgen avdeling" and "Glas Magasinet"
> emerged to be kind to dyslectics.
>
When you are up to spelling, could you please tell me how to spell my
departmental address in Norwegian: "miljøøkologi", "miljø-økologi" or
"miljø økologi"?
--
Jari Oksanen -- Lahtis, Finland / Luokta, Suopma / Lahti, Häme.
Arne Kolstad
Jari Oksanen wrote:
> When you are up to spelling, could you please tell me how to spell my
> departmental address in Norwegian: "miljøøkologi", "miljø-økologi" or
> "miljø økologi"?
This is a no.norsk question, but just this time: "miljøøkologi" is
possible, but I think many would prefer miljø-økologi. "miljø økologi"
isn't Norwegian.
Arne
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 13:11:43 CET, ste...@sn.no (Stein J. Rypern) spake
thusly:
> - you shouldn't have it too good - that brings envy
> and strife.
Do you have it good?
<fnis>
:-)
Henrik Ern¿
>"Henrik Ern¿" <er...@biobase.dk> writes:
>
>>>In article <5o1117$qks$1...@gjallar.daimi.aau.dk>
>"Henrik Ern¿" <er...@biobase.dk> writes:
>
>>>> idea to expand the faculties of medicine in
>>>> Norway. Then the Norwegians wouldn't have
>>>> to flood the Danish ones?
>
>>> south to a civilized country to let them learn
>>> a little about how to be decent human beings
>>> with a more relaxed attitude to life [...]
>
>> Oh, of course it makes sense to the Norwegians.
>
> Lighten up man - I was merely trying to pay
>you Danes a compliment for being nice people
>:-)
Have allready, done that.:-)) see!
> Obviously we need to expand our training of
>doctors.
> At the moment many Norwegian hospitals are
>run with very expensive rented temp Danish
>and Swedish doctors who are using their
>time off from Swedish and Danish hospitals
>to help us through a tight spot (and to make
>quite a bit of money for themselves, at the
>same time :-).
> We are also having around 18 000 Danish
>citizens living and working in Norway, and
>around the same number of Swedish citizens.
>> So it is not all a one-way deal - Danes do
>get some benefits from the free flow of
>people within the Nordic countries too.
Oh, ceratinly, I never disputed that.
>> But it does seem a bit unfair to all the Danish
>> students that can not get to study medicine
>> due to Norwegians filling out the faculties here.
> Well, I am sure it always feels unfair to any
>student who cannot get into the university program
>he or she wants to get into.
> So how are the students chosen ?
> a) first come, first served ?
> b) best grades, first in ?
> c) Reserved quota for Norwegians ?
b) With the added problem that Norwegian students have another
system for their student exam, where they (accoding to the Danish
press) can redo subjects in which their marks were to low.
The option is not open for Danes.
The problem is that around 20-25% of the new students are norwegians.
Furthermore there at present a lack of danish medical doctors,
and it has been raised as a problem that DK educates (and pay for) so
many Norwegians that go back to Norway after graduation at a time
where there is a lack of doctors in DK and where is a great lack
of places at the universities.
best regards Henrik ernø
Arne Kolstad
Stein J. Rypern wrote:
>
> In article <33A40F...@isaf.no>
> Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
>
> > The destruction of our language makes me angry. I
> > once pulled down a sign with "Røntgen avdeling" on
> > it in a hospital.
>
> Well, "røntgenavdeling" and not "røntgen-avdeling"
> or "røntgen avdeling" may be the *correct* way to
> write it, but either of the last two would be a lot
> easier to read, IMO, so I think you are fighting for
> a lost cause here.
The dyslexia argument may be used anytime, also in a lot of other
languages. If language cultivation is a lost cause for that reason, we
are bound to see some interesting changes in English in the near future.
By the way, I don't believe that "røntgen avdeling" and "Glas Magasinet"
emerged to be kind to dyslectics.
> Then again - they say that lost causes are the only
> ones worth fighting for :-)
>
> Btw - you would say "CT" instead of "dataassistert
> tomografi" and "PC" instead of "personlig datamaskin",
> wouldn't you ?
Yes, but new concepts and foreign words are not destructive. The erosion
of grammar is more malign since it leaves us with a pidgin language.
Arne
Martin William Smith
> > Then Norway is also being Englandized, Swedenized, Australianized,
> > Tysklandized, etc. It's either foreign shows or shut down the network
> > after two hours. Norway has 4 million people. That isn't enough to
> > support a big TV industry of its own.
> WANT to see more Norwegian shows. The NRK's drama programs and various
> cultural moments have a tendency to get rather tedious and boring. Most
> of the Norwegian sitcoms literally stink. I, for one, don't want
> Norwegian TV channels to have more Norwegian shows. I'm just pointing
> out that the TV that is, is very Americanized today.
>
> Let me present the program for the channel TV Norge, TV NORWAY, for
> Wednesday 18th of June:
> - Oprah Winfrey Show (Am. Talkshow) #
> - Gino's mat-tips (No. "foodshow")
> - Family Matters (Am. Sitcom) #
> - Fresh Prince in Bel-Air (Am. Sitcom) #
> - Step By Step (Am. series) #
> - The Wonder Years (Am. series) #
> - The News
> - The Bold and the Beautiful (Am. soap) #
> - Wings (Am. sitcom) #
> - Touched By an Angel (Am. series) #
> - A Murderous Affair (Am. thriller) #
> - The News
> - Taxi (Am. sitcom) #
> - Local News
> - Jake and the Fatman (Am. crime series) #
> - Part of the Family (Am. movie) #
> - The Weather
>
> Pretty impressive, huh? This means that over 70% of the TV-shows on an
> ordinary Wednesday are American! If this is not a result of
> Americanizing I do not know what is. This is what the people of Norway
> watch. This is how and why kids want to learn to talk American instead
> of British.
It's pretty bad. I think all of those shows, except for Oprah Winfrey
were cancelled in the US years ago. Some of them many years ago. But
listing the worst schedule you can find doesn't really explain what
you mean by "being Americanized". Are you saying America is trying to
make Norway be American? TV Norge buys TV shows. It can't make
enough of its own because it doesn't have enough money. Blame TV
Norge for buying all this shit. They don't have to buy it, and I
don't believe Norwegians are climbing over each other to watch it.
> > > In school; how many AE-wannabe's vs BE-wannabe's?
> > I don't even know what those terms mean and I *am* American.
> Well I don't know how educatonal books are built up over there :), but
> here AE is the normal abbreviation for American English, and BE is for
> British English. Therefore the point is that there are many many more
> students who want to be American English-writers/speakers than there are
> BE-fans. In spite of the publishing houses efforts (?) to Britishize
> the education by making British tapes and books ONLY, for the younger
> students.
What do you see as the big difference between British and American
English? Having lived in Australia for years, I see spelling as the
main difference but that difference is trivial. Are you saying you
think it is ok for Norway to be Britishized but not Americanized?
> > On my weekly trip to the CD shop, I see lots of Norwegian CDs. I'm
> > just guessing, but I would say, on a per capita basis, Norway puts out
> > a lot more CDs than America.
> I must say I'm really surprised that you can find "lots" of Norw. CDs!
> :) Can you mention some?
Vestlands Fanden, The Hellbillies, Annbjørg Lien are the three I have
bought recently.
> Nevertheless, the question was not whether or not Norwegian music
> is released, but it was wheater or not the Norwegian music is very
> popular, say among youth. And if the production is so overwhealming
> per capita, how come it is not more popular compared to American (or
> British, for that matter) music?
I'll ask you the same question. If kids aren't choosing Norwegian
music, then either some evil genius is leading them astray, or they
don't like Norwegian music.
> > > In clothing, how many American labels?
> >
> > I think a lot of those labels are probably European and not American.
> > But in either case, you can't wear Norwegian sweaters and bunad all
> > the time. If Norway doesn't make its own clothes, then it must import
> > them.
> Good point. But:
>
> > If you import all this stuff because Norway doesn't make its own, then
> > it seems rather silly for you to turn around and complain you are
> > being Americanized because of the things you choose to do.
> Let's get one thing straight: I have not complained about how things are
> here, I think American influence is good for Norway. And "the import
> because Norway doesn't make its own", was just about clothing; you said
> yourself that Norway had a big music industry in a per
> capita-perspective.
> "Choose to do..." well I guess now it's a choice. But much of this
> started way back with the Marshall Plan of 1947. With the loads of goods
> coming from the US, the American companies made a contribution to
> rebuild a wrecked continent, but also to impose new labels and making
> various goods common. One would be a fool not to realize that all this
> was in the big picture also a move to get Norway and many other
> countries free from the hands of the Communist east, by planting seeds
> of Americanizing in the Nordmenn's soil...
> Martin, can you claim that Norway is NOT Americanized in any way?
Yes, I claim Norway isn't Americanized very much at all. Tell me what
your definition of American is. You can't. "Made in America" doesn't
mean American, because a lot of the ideas for stuff made in America,
including clothes, music and movies, comes from outside America, or is
heavily influenced by foreign cultures, or comes from people who have
come to America from somewhere else. Most of the TV shows listed
above are ancient history in america. If what they portray is what
Norway is moving toward, then Norway is not becoming American, because
America is already somewhere else.
Norway is becoming international. If Norway starts talking about
becoming the 51st state, then it will be time to worry.
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
On 15 Jun 1997 20:04:21 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> spake
thusly:
>Geir Solevåg <gsol...@sn.no> writes:
>> In school; how many AE-wannabe's vs BE-wannabe's?
>I don't even know what those terms mean and I *am* American.
I suppose AE and BE stand for "American English" and British English (RP).
Yes, I find this alarming too, but I guess I am just conservative. In my
class, I think I am the only person who actually perfers British English. I
think American English sounds rather flat and uninteresting, and especially
American pronounciation is horrible. Sure, it is interesting in some
aspects, and it gives a good background, but I think that British English
is both more beautiful and more concise.
>> In youth CD piles; how many American titles?
>On my weekly trip to the CD shop, I see lots of Norwegian CDs. I'm
>just guessing, but I would say, on a per capita basis, Norway puts out
>a lot more CDs than America.
You really think so? Geir said "in youth CD piles". I know for sure that if
I go and roam through my brother's stack of 50 or so CDs, I'm not going to
find more than one or two Danish ones. I reckon the same goes for Norway.
>> It's ridicilous to claim that Norway is NOT the nephew of Uncle.
>If you import all this stuff because Norway doesn't make its own, then
>it seems rather silly for you to turn around and complain you are
>being Americanized because of the things you choose to do.
Well, I don't know about Geir, but I'm not complaining (well, about the
AE/BE issue yes, but elsewise no). It's just that it feels like a part of
the old culture is dissapearing, but maybe we're just to conservative
(<sigh>, and I've always considered myself a Socialist :-)
Martin William Smith
Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
> Grant Hughes wrote:
> >
> > It can (and has) been argued that Norway is one of Europe's most
> > "Americanized" countries. After living in Narvik in 1985 then in Oslo ten
> > years later (as well as traveling in several other European countries), I
> > tend to agree with this notion.
>
> One reason for saying this, is a comparative survey done in the autumn
> of -94. It is possible that the Norwegian Social Science Dataservice
> have the documentation open for public access by now.
>
> > How do Norwegians feel about this? Do you agree with this notion? Do you
> > think this trend threatens Norwegian identity?
>
> I have been following young people's writing for a couple of decades,
> and the Americanisation is qiute clear. One of the more annoying writing
> habits developing, is partitioning of words, for example "lute fisk"
> instead of "lutefisk". The grammars are so different that the
> substitution of American English rules to Norwegian, ends up in neither
> Norwegian nor English. It's a true mess.
It isn't surprising that they make such mistakes while trying to learn
both languages. I make these same mistakes as I try to learn
Norwegian. But do they continue to make these mistakes when they
become adults? I suspect they don't. Most probably revert to using
Norwegian grammar.
> American words are used in writing as if they where Norwegian among
> young students. American ("biblical") names are more and more common,
> while the old Norwegian are on the decline.
American biblical names? I don't think there are any American names
in the bible.
> Young kids use clothing with American symbols. The "gangsta" look has
> been most popular in later years, with soggy jeans and strange hand
> movements, but it seems to be changing. Rollerblades are in, as
> skateboards and snowboards have been for a long time.
I think the problem is in how you interpret this stuff. When skiing
came to America from Norway, I don't think one person complained that
we were being Norwegianized. Yet skiing is one of the most popular
winter sports in America. America was a good place to raise a family
before skiing came along. But you Norwegians had to come along and
ruin it all.
> Shirts with US national symbols (like the letters U.S.A or the
> American flag) have been popular for a long time. You couldn't get a
> Norwegian 10-year old carry a cap with "Norge" on (not that I would,
> either), but he would be delighted if it said U.S.A. (you would have
> to knock me unconcious first). I take for given that the parallell
> statement could be made for Sweden as well.
But I see Norwegian flags everywhere. I see people wearing close with
the Norwegian colors, the Norwegian flag. I see people wearing
Norwegian sweaters, traditional costumes.
I don't see lots of adults wearing shirts that say USA on them, so
apparently the children grow out this annoying habit as they grow
out of the annoying clothes.
> Lately, traditional N. festivals and fairs have been hard to
> distinguish from American country fairs. Much of the equipment is
> even American.
That's probably because traditional American country fairs were
heavily influenced by the hundreds of thousands of Norwegians who
immigrated to America and started the tradition of American country
fairs.
> There is TV, of course, with a solid coverage of American series. In
> addition, the most common language for textbooks in higher education is
> English, i. e. American. In the humanities and social sciences that
> means that you need a good portion of Am. background (or invent some
> from the TV you watch) to be able to relate to the topics at all.
America is not the only country that speaks English. English has
become a de facto standard. Lucky for America, because most Americans
can't speak anything else. But wait a few years. Spanish is muscling
its way in. Then you can blame everything on Spain. I can't wait.
Those slimy Castilian bastards are taking over everything. Santa
Anna's revenge.
> For centuries, Norway has been oriented toward Britain and USA, and
> thus contrasted us from the European continent, particularly Germany
> (and thus Sweden). A good part of the national rethorics and the
> values of individualism, better-than-you attitude,etc., are borrowed
> from the West.
Wait a minute. We thought we got those values from Northern Europe.
Now you tell us they were ours all along? Imagine that.
You forget that one fourth of Norway moved to America about 100 years
ago, including my great grandparents. Those people had a rather large
hand in making America what it is today.
You also forget that the vikings owned England long enough to redefine
its culture, as well as have a good piss in the genetic pool.
> This connection may make us more permeable for influence in modern
> times as well. News coverage *of Norway* and the way cultural topics
> are raised in our media, follow closely the NYT topics of
> yesterday. The exceptions are found in a couple of the smaller
> newspapers that sometimes bring comments from European capital
> newspapers.
I think you are stretching the truth there. The news on TV doesn't
report very much about the US compared to what it reports about
Norway. And then its usually something that shows how wierd Americans
are.
> What to think about it? It probably varies from person to person.
> Whatever amuses people is OK with me. McDonald's is strange, but if
> people want to pay more to make their kids feel like TV heroes, that's
> OK. Rollerblades and snowboards are more than OK (if it wasn't for that
> damned heart failure..), as are Texas grills at fairs (ditto).
>
> The intellectual unidimensionality is worse. The Danes have found a much
> better balance in their relations to Europe and the Anglosaxon world
> than we have.
>
> The destruction of our language makes me angry. I once pulled down a
> sign with "Røntgen avdeling" on it in a hospital. And I return all
> "inkasso" letters with incorrect partitioning.
The best thing Norway can do for Norwegian is to decide which language
is Norwegian and get rid of the other one.
John Magne Trane
In article <33A470...@sn.no>, Geir Solevåg <gsol...@sn.no> writes:
[...]
|> I'm just pointing
|> out that the TV that is, is very Americanized today.
|>
|> Let me present the program for the channel TV Norge, TV NORWAY,
|> This means that over 70% of the TV-shows on an
|> ordinary Wednesday are American! If this is not a result of
|> Americanizing I do not know what is. This is what the people of Norway
|> watch.
Cheap point but the point is that American series / movies are cheap.
|> Geir Solevåg
|> - The most quarrelsome person you'll ever meet... :-)
|>
|>
|> _____________________________________________________
|> Geir Solevåg
|> "Isandhed, en yderst begavet Mand;
|> næsten alt, hvad han siger,
|> gaar over ens Forstand."
|>
|> "Litera scripta manet,
|> verbum imbelle perit"
|>
|> mailto:gsol...@sn.no
|>
JMT
--
__ John Magne Trane joh...@stud.cs.uit.no
[]_.-' (Q_,._ There's nothing worse than a smug Norwegian.
`(*)[27]___(*)Z> Stephanie Brush
Alwyn Thomas
Arne Kolstad wrote:
> By the way, I don't believe that "r=F8ntgen avdeling" and "Glas Magasin=
et"
> emerged to be kind to dyslectics.
<snip>
> Yes, but new concepts and foreign words are not destructive. The erosio=
n
> of grammar is more malign since it leaves us with a pidgin language.
Whether you write "Roeantgenavdeling" "Roentgen-avdeling" or "Roentgen
avdeling" is purely an orthorgraphical question, noting to do with
grammar.
Alwyn
Arne Kolstad
Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
<cut>
> > I have been following young people's writing for a couple of decades,
> > and the Americanisation is qiute clear.
<cut>
> It isn't surprising that they make such mistakes while trying to learn
> both languages. I make these same mistakes as I try to learn
> Norwegian. But do they continue to make these mistakes when they
> become adults? I suspect they don't. Most probably revert to using
> Norwegian grammar.
You, Martin, is excused, of course. Bilingual abilities are always
impressing. My "kids", however, are between 25 and 35, and still do
these mistakes. They'd better revert quickly. Furthermore, the
advertising agencies are in the lead in this development, so I think at
least they believe that this way of pidgin newwriting is the "young"
way.
<cut>
> American biblical names? I don't think there are any American names
> in the bible.
But there are many biblical names in America. Since USA is the strongest
foreign influence, we get them from there, in English/American versions
where there are any: John, Michael, etc., instead of Johan, Mikkel.
<cut>
> I think the problem is in how you interpret this stuff. When skiing
> came to America from Norway, I don't think one person complained that
> we were being Norwegianized. Yet skiing is one of the most popular
> winter sports in America. America was a good place to raise a family
> before skiing came along. But you Norwegians had to come along and
> ruin it all.
I don't complain about this kind of influence. Fun is fun. I complained
about my anxiety for hart failure.
<cut>
> But I see Norwegian flags everywhere. I see people wearing close with
> the Norwegian colors, the Norwegian flag. I see people wearing
> Norwegian sweaters, traditional costumes.
Sweathers, OK. Traditional costumes - well, not in my social circles
(for 50000 kr +, I don't really care). Norwegian flags: Too many, and
the only nationality that display their flag as strangely as my fellow
countrymen is - Americans.
> I don't see lots of adults wearing shirts that say USA on them, so
> apparently the children grow out this annoying habit as they grow
> out of the annoying clothes.
We may hope that you are right, but my nightmare is that the habits are
growing into the children, not the other way around. And *all* my
nightmares tend to become as real as bad breath.
> > Lately, traditional N. festivals and fairs have been hard to
> > distinguish from American country fairs. Much of the equipment is
> > even American.
>
> That's probably because traditional American country fairs were
> heavily influenced by the hundreds of thousands of Norwegians who
> immigrated to America and started the tradition of American country
> fairs.
No, no, no. This is a recent development. Not so important, but deep.
<cut>
> America is not the only country that speaks English. English has
> become a de facto standard. Lucky for America, because most Americans
> can't speak anything else. But wait a few years. Spanish is muscling
> its way in. Then you can blame everything on Spain. I can't wait.
> Those slimy Castilian bastards are taking over everything. Santa
> Anna's revenge.
They are Spaniards, not bastards. Yes, it will be nice to have a little
bit of change. Sorry that we can't blame the Catalonians as well.
(Remember Manuel?)
<cut>
> > A good part of the national rethorics and the
> > values of individualism, better-than-you attitude,etc., are borrowed
> > from the West.
>
> Wait a minute. We thought we got those values from Northern Europe.
> Now you tell us they were ours all along? Imagine that.
If we say that some of the individualism and political ..language were
civilizing Europe, would you accept fatherhood then? The political
development in USA was influenced by Europeans, of course, some of them
forced to leave their old countries where they were prohibited from
developing them.
Some ideas where quite useful, and for a large part I think it has been
a tremendous asset for Norway to have this link to uncle Sam. But I am
worried by some of the influence that follows today.
> You forget that one fourth of Norway moved to America about 100 years
> ago, including my great grandparents. Those people had a rather large
> hand in making America what it is today.
No, USA has been on its own for long enough, we don't deserve this
honour.
<cut>
> > This connection may make us more permeable for influence in modern
> > times as well. News coverage *of Norway* and the way cultural topics
> > are raised in our media, follow closely the NYT topics of
> > yesterday. The exceptions are found in a couple of the smaller
> > newspapers that sometimes bring comments from European capital
> > newspapers.
>
> I think you are stretching the truth there. The news on TV doesn't
> report very much about the US compared to what it reports about
> Norway. And then its usually something that shows how wierd Americans
> are.
And right they are. However, I didn't mean to say that there was a lot
of news about the US, only that the topics in the coverage of Norway
were picked from American publicity. That is not stretching the truth at
all. I can provide a good explanation why Norway is particularly
vulnerable to this malign influence.
> The best thing Norway can do for Norwegian is to decide which language
> is Norwegian and get rid of the other one.
For the moment there is no doubt about that. It will be at the End of
Time, in the Ultimate Moment of the Very Last Day of Judgement, at the
shores of a sea of boiling sulphur and burning flesh, that this
collection of guttural sounds for the half emigrants - the secunda
Danish Bokmål - becomes as Norwegian as Nynorsk. And not even then.
Keep reading.
Arne Kolstad
Arne Kolstad
Alwyn Thomas wrote:
> Whether you write "Roeantgenavdeling" "Roentgen-avdeling" or "Roentgen
> avdeling" is purely an orthorgraphical question, noting to do with
> grammar.
There are rules about when to use a genetive and when not to, sometimes
you use one kind of genitive, at other times another, etc.
Take "hestekjerre". "heste kjerre" would be strange, since the hest(-e)
suffix is a genitive that makes sense only when the two words are
connected. All the same, people write bastards like "heste kjerre" and
"lute fisk".
Those who have access to no.norsk can follow kilometers of reasoning
about general ways of defining composite words. It looks very much like
grammar to me, at least in many cases.
The question of røntgen-avdeling or røntgenavdeling is an orthographical
one. I am not sure about the complete partitioning of the words since it
breaks the general rule of connecting words of this type, but even so,
grammar is often involved in this kind of problem.
Arne
Russell A. Schultz
In article <wgbu57v...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote:
>Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
>
>in the bible.
>
in "biblical" names.
I know many Johns, Jacobs, Isaacs, Joshuas, Adams, Peters, Pauls, Daniels,
Jameses, Lukes, Marys, Rebeccas, Ruths, Michael. (Not many named Moses,
Judas, Pontias Pilate, or Herod, though).
This is in contrast to non biblical names such as William, Bryan/Brian,
Russell, Kenneth, Douglas, Charles, Stuart, etc(Which I believe are
decidedly British in origin).
This is leaving out obviously foreign names, like Hasan, or Manuel, etc.
Of course, I'm sure there's Nordifications of all these. Petr=Peter, Jan=John,
etc. But was the comment of "Americanization of names in nordic countries"
meaning more people being named the Nordic equivalent of the name? Or the
American/English spelling of the name?
Russ.
Henrik Ern¿
Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> wrote:
>Henrik Ernż wrote:
>>
>> While you are at it, wouldn't it be a good idea to expand the
>> faculties of medicine in Norway. Then the Norwegians wouldn't
>> have to flood the Danish ones?
>We allready have a very high coverage of physicians. We don't need more
>of them as much as we need to re-organise our hospital system.
That may be true, I'm not familiar with Norwegian system at all.
>One reason why this is a one way traffic, is that very few Danish
>students apply at Norwegian universities.
Yes, true. But then medicine is a strange case. It is totally
abnormal in terms of internordic student migration. There is
no other field, where the number of non Danish nordic students is
so high. Normally nondanish Nordic students will only count
for 1 or 2% max of the total "intake"
And the situation is caused by the fact that there is not enough
places in Norway. It is btw not a new phenomen, there have allways
been a high number of Norwegians studying medicine here. But in
the last years the situation have radically changed going from
about 5% to about 20%.
And I think this will lead to a change in the rules for nordics
studying at Danish universities. Both the rectors and the
minister of education have suggested a sort of ceiling for
the max number of norwegians at the midacal faculties.
But we will see....
BTW Norway can of course keep choosing to educate their doctors
in DK, but I think that the Danes will want to get some of
all these petrodollars then....
henrik ernř
Henrik Ern¿
hob...@post1.tele.dk (Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup) wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 19:05:23 CET, ste...@sn.no (Stein J. Rypern) spake
>thusly:
>
>>>once pulled down a sign with "Røntgen avdeling" on
>>>it in a hospital.
>
>>or "røntgen avdeling" may be the *correct* way to
>>write it, but either of the last two would be a lot
>>easier to read, IMO, so I think you are fighting for
>>a lost cause here.
>>
>>ones worth fighting for :-)
>
>become Americanized. Sure, I love the English language, sometimes even more
>so than the Danish, but if Danish starts to flow towards English and loose
>some of its characteristica, it's no fun being a linguist anymore.
>
>At my school, there is a door with a sign saying "Læse pædagog" <deep sigh>
>
>> Btw - you would say "CT" instead of "dataassistert
>>tomografi" and "PC" instead of "personlig datamaskin",
>>wouldn't you ?
>
>"TV" is a TV, both in America and in Denmark. The same goes for a CD. The
>proper name for such things were coined in America, and the American name
>is so concise and well known that anyone will do best using it. This does
>not mean though, that we should start off the path of americanizing our
>mother tongue.
Well, *I* don't see why "TV" is more precise than "fjernsyn".
But this is no a new thing, this have happened many times before
in the history of Danish. About 50 of currect Danish words have their
origin in either french/latin or german.
Where I see a real problem is somewhereelse:
In the fact that in the technical language and in sciences Danish is
practically abandoned and English is used troughout these fields
even when two Danes are discussing among themselves.
This have two effects:
Danish is becoming a poorer language, used only for everyday chores.
There is gulf created between those Danes who are scientificly
literate and those who are not.
This is caused by the fact that a large part of the population
no longer have an easy and direct acces to science, since scienceno longer is being is discussed using the Danish language.
To understand science, it is no longer sufficient to understand
science, but also to master a foreign language at a very
high level.
I think that these two developments are a real problem for
allthe nordic countries, and I think that it is time to start
thinking about remedies.
Alwyn Thomas
Arne Kolstad wrote:
> Alwyn Thomas wrote:
> > Whether you write "Roeantgenavdeling" "Roentgen-avdeling" or "Roentgen
> > avdeling" is purely an orthorgraphical question, noting to do with
> > grammar.
>
> There are rules about when to use a genetive and when not to, sometimes
> you use one kind of genitive, at other times another, etc.
>
> Take "hestekjerre". "heste kjerre" would be strange, since the hest(-e)
> suffix is a genitive that makes sense only when the two words are
> connected. All the same, people write bastards like "heste kjerre" and
> "lute fisk".
I suggest to you that the -e suffic after the first root of
*hestekjerre* is not a genitive at all but an empty morpheme whose sole
purpose is to aid the building of compound words.
And yes, "heste kjerre" does look odd, but only until you have got used
to it. Orthography is arbitrary. English does it one way, the other
Germanic languages another.
Now, if people said or wrote "*hest kjerre", that would really be a
change in grammar. But I don't think you're claiming that, are you?
Alwyn
Espen S. Seland
>Pretty impressive, huh? This means that over 70% of the TV-shows on an
>ordinary Wednesday are American! If this is not a result of
>Americanizing I do not know what is. This is what the people of Norway
>of British.
I would say it has something with economy to do...
--
Espen Stranger Seland "Veritas in dicto,
http://home.sn.no/~ess/ non in re consistit"
Teemu Leisti
>Let me present the program for the channel TV Norge, TV NORWAY, for
>Wednesday 18th of June:
...
>- The Weather
Was that the Norwegian or American weather? :)
-- Teemu Leisti / lei...@mpr.ca
Stein J. Rypern
In article <5o358e$kpd$1...@gjallar.daimi.aau.dk>
"Henrik Ern¿" <er...@biobase.dk> writes:
Stein Rypern:
>> So how are the students chosen ?
>> a) first come, first served ?
>> b) best grades, first in ?
>> c) Reserved quota for Norwegians ?
> b) With the added problem that Norwegian students have
> another system for their student exam, where they (accoding
> to the Danish press) can redo subjects in which their
> marks were to low. The option is not open for Danes.
Okay - I can see why that would feel unfair to Danish
students. We tend to envy you your student loan/scholar-
ship programs - they seem more generous than the Norwegian
system.
Some things are better (for the stundent) in Norway, other
things are better in Denmark.
> The problem is that around 20-25% of the new students
> are norwegians. Furthermore there at present a lack of
> danish medical doctors, and it has been raised as a
> problem that DK ducates (and pay for) so many Norwegians
> that go back to Norway after graduation at a time where
> there is a lack of doctors in DK and where is a great
> lack of places at the universities.
I can understand that sentiment. How many *persons* are
25% of the the danish medical students ? 50 persons ? 200
persons ? 500 ? 1000 ? 2000 ? 4000 ?
Out of a population of what ? 5 million ? 6 million ?
Smile
Stein
Steinar Midtskogen
[Stein J. Rypern]
> Well, "røntgenavdeling" and not "røntgen-avdeling"
> or "røntgen avdeling" may be the *correct* way to
> write it, but either of the last two would be a lot
> easier to read, IMO, so I think you are fighting for
> a lost cause here.
It is a disease, "orddelingssjuken" - or should I say "ord delings
sjuken", which, IMHO, rend ers a text less leg ible, just as toofew
spacesbetween wordswoulddo. Correct spelling is important for the
pronunciation. In "røngten avdeling" the syllables "røngt" and "del"
(or "av") are both stressed, while "røngtenavdeling" will reflect the
actual pronunciation, with a single stressed syllable, namely "røngt".
Also, consider the ambiguities, "lamme koteletter" and "norsk lærer"
have completely different meanings than the otherwise pronounced
"lammekoteletter" and "norsklærer". Since Norwegian can combine words
ad nauseam, I agree that the result may in extreme cases be difficult
to read and say. A too long word is a bad one in any case, and the
solution is to rewrite. It is by any measure wrong to split the word.
The rule of two wrongs applies as usual. For instance, the word
"ordelingssjukesymptomsobservasjonsteknikkforedrag" is better written
as "foredrag om teknikker til observasjon av symptom på
orddelingssjuke", or even better by adding a new clause and some verbs
as rest points: "foredrag som handler om teknikker til å observere
symptom på orddelingssjuke". Well, you get the point.
--
Steinar Midtskogen, stud.scient. informaticae; http://www.ifi.uio.no/~steinarm/
Stein J. Rypern
In article <5o3nvc$sb2$1...@fremont.ohsu.edu> hug...@ohsu.edu (Grant Hughes) writes:
> Sure NOrway, as a small and open nation, has been exposed to a
> multitude of cultural influnces. But since the Second World War,
> has any been so great as the USA's?
Sweden. Swedish popular culture has also influenced Norwegians
a lot. But sure - US popular culture has influenced Norwegian
culture a lot.
> How many Norwegians have relatives in America?
Just about every single one of us - around 850 000
Norwegians left for the US between 1860 and 1930. In
comparison there were around 2.0 million Norwegians
in Norway in 1890.
Then again - most of us don't keep in close personal
touch with fourth or fifth cousins, no matter whether
they are in the US or in Norway.
> How many Norwegians have visited the USA (as opposed
> to Australia)?
No idea. Probably a lot more than has visited Australia,
but a lot fewer than has visited Denmark, Sweden, Germany,
France, Spain, Italy or the UK.
It may be related to the cost of travelling ...
> Most importantly, how many Norwegian professionals
> studied at American Universities?
Many of the first postwar generation - the Fulbright
(sp?) scholarships (like the Marshall plan) was a
stroke of genius by the US, if the objective was to
win friends.
Smile,
Stein J. Rypern
In article <33a61035...@news.inet.tele.dk>
hob...@post1.tele.dk (Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup) writes:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 19:19:38 CET,
> ste...@sn.no (Stein J. Rypern) spake thusly:
> >Lighten up man - I was merely trying to pay
> >you Danes a compliment for being nice people
>> :-)
> Why thank you :-) Norwegians are a bunch of delightful
> fellows too :-)
> Oh, also. I had a look at your homepage :-) The first
> link isn't working, but besides that, it is great.
> Minimalist style :-)
My ISP seem to have moved their home pages again :-(
Thanks for telling me.
>> Well, I am sure it always feels unfair to any
>> student who cannot get into the university program
>> he or she wants to get into.
> Well, I guess that what seems unfair is that the Danish
> populations pays for the education through their taxes,
> but the money goes to education Norwegian youth.
Yep, that hardly seems fair.
Then again - there is an open labour market between the
Nordic countries too.
Quite a few Danes are working in Norway and making money
instead of being on unemployment benefits in Denmark. That
saves the Danish taxpayers a wee bit of money (and may
even pull in more taxes for the Danish government), so I
would guess that on the whole it would tend to pretty much
even out.
>> So how are the students chosen ?
> Hmm, normally there are two systems. You can either apply
> via "Kvote 1" or "Kvote 2".
> Kvote 1: Those with the best grades are allowed entrance.
> Kvote 2: Those with the most experience are allowed entrance.
> This covers such things as having worked for a certain amount
> of time, having attended courses, having been politically
> actice, having gone abroad for extended periods of time, etc.
Interesting parameters. Having been politically active makes
you better qualified to become a doctor ?
Weird. But you guys are of course entitled to decide what
parameters you want to use as entrance qualifications for
your universities. If you do not want non-danish students,
then I am sure that can be arranged somehow.
Martin William Smith
> thusly:
>
> >Geir Solevåg <gsol...@sn.no> writes:
>
> >> In school; how many AE-wannabe's vs BE-wannabe's?
>
> >I don't even know what those terms mean and I *am* American.
>
> I suppose AE and BE stand for "American English" and British English (RP).
> Yes, I find this alarming too, but I guess I am just conservative. In my
> class, I think I am the only person who actually perfers British English. I
> think American English sounds rather flat and uninteresting, and especially
> American pronounciation is horrible. Sure, it is interesting in some
> aspects, and it gives a good background, but I think that British English
> is both more beautiful and more concise.
I don't object to British english over American english. But choosing
British english over american English doesn't protect Norwegian
culture. Both are english. As a native speaker of American English,
I don't see the profound difference you see, and I'm a bit puzzled.
To me they are pretty much the same with some minor differences in
spelling. Idioms differ between the two, but idioms differ within
each one also.
> >> In youth CD piles; how many American titles?
>
> >On my weekly trip to the CD shop, I see lots of Norwegian CDs. I'm
> >just guessing, but I would say, on a per capita basis, Norway puts out
> >a lot more CDs than America.
>
> You really think so? Geir said "in youth CD piles". I know for sure that if
> I go and roam through my brother's stack of 50 or so CDs, I'm not going to
> find more than one or two Danish ones. I reckon the same goes for
> Norway.
I mean the Norwegian music is there for kids to buy. If they choose
to buy American music, then they are not being Americanized, they are
Americanizing themselves. The claim was they are being Americanized.
That means some third party evil genius is tempting them away form the
purity of Norwegian culture. It isn't happening that way. Learning
English aids the process, but learning British English instead of
American english does the same thing. Watching American TV aids the
process, but my God, look at the list of American shows listed earlier
in the thread. Those are some of the worst TV shows to come out of
America. Who buys them? Why? I can't believe Norwegians want to
watch that stuff.
> >> It's ridicilous to claim that Norway is NOT the nephew of Uncle.
>
> >If you import all this stuff because Norway doesn't make its own, then
> >it seems rather silly for you to turn around and complain you are
> >being Americanized because of the things you choose to do.
>
> Well, I don't know about Geir, but I'm not complaining (well, about the
> AE/BE issue yes, but elsewise no). It's just that it feels like a part of
> the old culture is dissapearing, but maybe we're just to conservative
> (<sigh>, and I've always considered myself a Socialist :-)
The mistake would be to try to prevent change the way the French do.
Rather, expect change and go out and find the best of what is
available, rather than importing trash just because it is cheap.
Geir Solevåg
John Magne Trane wrote:
> Cheap point but the point is that American series / movies are cheap.
cheap, I can agree that the Am. Series/movies are cheap, but I'm afraid
neither of the two is the issue here. We're not discussing the quality,
we're discussing influence on the Norwegian population, and if you take
for instance The Bold and the Beautiful, for some reason this is among
the most popular shows in Norway. (Does anyone have any figures for the
ratings? Dagbladet publish them from time to time, am I not right?) Do
you disagree when I say that many Norwegians identify more and more with
the American culture?
Grant Hughes
In article <33A470...@sn.no>, Geir Solevåg <gsol...@sn.no> wrote:
>Martin William Smith wrote:
>>
>> Geir Solevåg <gsol...@sn.no> writes:
>
>> Then Norway is also being Englandized, Swedenized, Australianized,
>> Tysklandized, etc. It's either foreign shows or shut down the network
>> after two hours. Norway has 4 million people. That isn't enough to
>> support a big TV industry of its own.
Sure NOrway, as a small and open nation, has been exposed to a
multitude of cultural influnces. But since the Second World War, has any
been so great as the USA's? How many Norwegians have relatives in
America? How many Norwegians have visited the USA (as opposed to
Australia)? Most importantly, how many Norwegian professionals studied at
American Universities?
Grant
Geir Solevåg
Martin Smith wrote:
> Norway is becoming international. If Norway starts talking about
> becoming the 51st state, then it will be time to worry.
I think now we're getting down to the bottom line. You mean that
Americanizing is the process of BECOMING American, I suggest that it is
the process of being INFLUENCED by America. We put different meaning
into the word Americanizing, and if that's the case, I guess we're both
discussing on the wrong basis...
Geir
Stein J. Rypern
In article <33A4F7...@isaf.no> Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
>Stein J. Rypern wrote:
>>
>> In article <33A40F...@isaf.no>
>> Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
>>
>> > The destruction of our language makes me angry. I
>> > once pulled down a sign with "Røntgen avdeling" on
>> > it in a hospital.
>>
>> Well, "røntgenavdeling" and not "røntgen-avdeling"
>> or "røntgen avdeling" may be the *correct* way to
>> write it, but either of the last two would be a lot
>> easier to read, IMO, so I think you are fighting for
>> a lost cause here.
> The dyslexia argument may be used anytime,
Quite possible. But I am not arguing that it is to
help dyslexics.
I am arguing that even a non-dyslexic (e.g. me)
may find it easier to parse a compound word like
"røntgenavdeling" (X-ray department) when it is
written "røntgen-avdeling", or possibly "røntgen
avdeling".
Norwegian has quite a few compound words. Many of
them are easy enough to read the way they are. Some
would be easier to read as two words or as a hyphen-
ated word.
Still IMO, of course.
Smile,
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
>Lighten up man - I was merely trying to pay
>you Danes a compliment for being nice people
>:-)
Why thank you :-) Norwegians are a bunch of delightful fellows too :-)
Oh, also. I had a look at your homepage :-) The first link isn't working,
but besides that, it is great. Minimalist style :-)
> Well, I am sure it always feels unfair to any
>student who cannot get into the university program
>he or she wants to get into.
Well, I guess that what seems unfair is that the Danish populations pays
for the education through their taxes, but the money goes to education
Norwegian youth.
> So how are the students chosen ?
> a) first come, first served ?
> b) best grades, first in ?
> c) Reserved quota for Norwegians ?
Teemu Leisti
In article <33a81351...@news.inet.tele.dk> hob...@post1.tele.dk
(Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup) writes:
>>In article <33A40F...@isaf.no>
>>Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
>
>>>The destruction of our language makes me angry. I
>>>once pulled down a sign with "Røntgen avdeling" on
>>>it in a hospital.
Is it better to have people not know where the X-ray clinic is than to
not have them see its name misspelled? :/
>I totally agree with Arne on this subject. We do not want our languages to
>become Americanized. Sure, I love the English language, sometimes even more
>so than the Danish, but if Danish starts to flow towards English and loose
^lose
>some of its characteristica, it's no fun being a linguist anymore.
^characteristics
>Sure, but these are concepts that are so much more precise in English. A
>"TV" is a TV, both in America and in Denmark. The same goes for a CD. The
>proper name for such things were coined in America, and the American name
>is so concise and well known that anyone will do best using it.
The CD was co-developed and named by Philips, a Dutch company, and
Sony, a Japanese company.
>This does
>not mean though, that we should start off the path of americanizing our
^on ^Americanizing,
or if you want to spell it the British way, ^Americanising
>mother tongue.
Sorry, but since we were on the subject of nitpicking about
language....
Geir Solevåg
> Then Norway is also being Englandized, Swedenized, Australianized,
> Tysklandized, etc. It's either foreign shows or shut down the network
> after two hours. Norway has 4 million people. That isn't enough to
> support a big TV industry of its own.
Partly true. The other side of the story is that many Norwegians DON'T
WANT to see more Norwegian shows. The NRK's drama programs and various
cultural moments have a tendency to get rather tedious and boring. Most
of the Norwegian sitcoms literally stink. I, for one, don't want
Norwegian TV channels to have more Norwegian shows. I'm just pointing
out that the TV that is, is very Americanized today.
Let me present the program for the channel TV Norge, TV NORWAY, for
Wednesday 18th of June:
- Oprah Winfrey Show (Am. Talkshow) #
- Gino's mat-tips (No. "foodshow")
- Family Matters (Am. Sitcom) #
- Fresh Prince in Bel-Air (Am. Sitcom) #
- Step By Step (Am. series) #
- The Wonder Years (Am. series) #
- The News
- The Bold and the Beautiful (Am. soap) #
- Wings (Am. sitcom) #
- Touched By an Angel (Am. series) #
- A Murderous Affair (Am. thriller) #
- The News
- Taxi (Am. sitcom) #
- Local News
- Jake and the Fatman (Am. crime series) #
- Part of the Family (Am. movie) #
- The Weather
Pretty impressive, huh? This means that over 70% of the TV-shows on an
ordinary Wednesday are American! If this is not a result of
Americanizing I do not know what is. This is what the people of Norway
watch. This is how and why kids want to learn to talk American instead
of British.
> > In school; how many AE-wannabe's vs BE-wannabe's?
> I don't even know what those terms mean and I *am* American.
Well I don't know how educatonal books are built up over there :), but
here AE is the normal abbreviation for American English, and BE is for
British English. Therefore the point is that there are many many more
students who want to be American English-writers/speakers than there are
BE-fans. In spite of the publishing houses efforts (?) to Britishize
the education by making British tapes and books ONLY, for the younger
students.
> On my weekly trip to the CD shop, I see lots of Norwegian CDs. I'm
> just guessing, but I would say, on a per capita basis, Norway puts out
> a lot more CDs than America.
I must say I'm really surprised that you can find "lots" of Norw. CDs!
:) Can you mention some? Nevertheless, the question was not whether or
not Norwegian music is released, but it was wheater or not the Norwegian
music is very popular, say among youth. And if the production is so
overwhealming per capita, how come it is not more popular compared to
American (or British, for that matter) music?
> > In clothing, how many American labels?
>
> I think a lot of those labels are probably European and not American.
> But in either case, you can't wear Norwegian sweaters and bunad all
> the time. If Norway doesn't make its own clothes, then it must import
> them.
Good point. But:
> If you import all this stuff because Norway doesn't make its own, then
> it seems rather silly for you to turn around and complain you are
> being Americanized because of the things you choose to do.
Let's get one thing straight: I have not complained about how things are
here, I think American influence is good for Norway. And "the import
because Norway doesn't make its own", was just about clothing; you said
yourself that Norway had a big music industry in a per
capita-perspective.
"Choose to do..." well I guess now it's a choice. But much of this
started way back with the Marshall Plan of 1947. With the loads of goods
coming from the US, the American companies made a contribution to
rebuild a wrecked continent, but also to impose new labels and making
various goods common. One would be a fool not to realize that all this
was in the big picture also a move to get Norway and many other
countries free from the hands of the Communist east, by planting seeds
of Americanizing in the Nordmenn's soil...
Martin, can you claim that Norway is NOT Americanized in any way?
Geir Solevåg
- The most quarrelsome person you'll ever meet... :-)
Arne Kolstad
Teemu Leisti wrote:
> Is it better to have people not know where the X-ray clinic is than to
> not have them see its name misspelled? :/
Meaningless partition, not misspelling. Yes, this is war.
Arne
Henrik Ern¿
ste...@sn.no (Stein J. Rypern) wrote:
>In article <5o358e$kpd$1...@gjallar.daimi.aau.dk>
>"Henrik Ern¿" <er...@biobase.dk> writes:
>
>Stein Rypern:
>>> a) first come, first served ?
>>> b) best grades, first in ?
>>> c) Reserved quota for Norwegians ?
>
>> another system for their student exam, where they (accoding
>> to the Danish press) can redo subjects in which their
>> marks were to low. The option is not open for Danes.
>
> Okay - I can see why that would feel unfair to Danish
>students. We tend to envy you your student loan/scholar-
>ship programs - they seem more generous than the Norwegian
>system.
> Some things are better (for the stundent) in Norway, other
>things are better in Denmark.
Skiing is certainly better in N.
>> The problem is that around 20-25% of the new students
>> are norwegians. Furthermore there at present a lack of
>> danish medical doctors, and it has been raised as a
>> problem that DK ducates (and pay for) so many Norwegians
>> that go back to Norway after graduation at a time where
>> there is a lack of doctors in DK and where is a great
>> lack of places at the universities.
> I can understand that sentiment. How many *persons* are
>25% of the the danish medical students ? 50 persons ? 200
>persons ? 500 ? 1000 ? 2000 ? 4000 ?
I don't have the figures for all Danish universities, but here
in Aarhus the annual uptake is 320 (both quota 1 and quota 2)
The estimated number of Norwegians that will get past the
entrace this year between 60 and 80.
That the same time the total number of people applying is 600-700.
I don't know the numbers for Odense and København but I guestimate
that the numbers are quite similar.
> Out of a population of what ? 5 million ? 6 million ?
5.5
grin henrik
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
On 16 Jun 1997 19:34:22 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> spake
thusly:
>hob...@post1.tele.dk (Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup) writes:
>> I suppose AE and BE stand for "American English" and British English (RP).
>> Yes, I find this alarming too, but I guess I am just conservative. In my
>> class, I think I am the only person who actually perfers British English. I
>> think American English sounds rather flat and uninteresting, and especially
>> American pronounciation is horrible. Sure, it is interesting in some
>> aspects, and it gives a good background, but I think that British English
>> is both more beautiful and more concise.
>I don't object to British english over American english. But choosing
>British english over american English doesn't protect Norwegian
Hehehe, you might want to check how you capitalize those words :-)
>culture. Both are english. As a native speaker of American English,
>I don't see the profound difference you see, and I'm a bit puzzled.
>To me they are pretty much the same with some minor differences in
>spelling. Idioms differ between the two, but idioms differ within
>each one also.
I see them as rather different. There are several aspects to this, but I
feel that as most students today prefer American English, they are
estranging themselves to an aspect of English that has occupied so many for
so long time. For instance, I'll wager that 95% of my class could not read
a chapter in a KJV Bible or a play of Shakespeare and understand it.
For one, the American pronounciation is dull and lazy. "Eether" instead of
"I-ther", "Tom-ai-toes" instead of "tom-ah-toes" etc. etc.
Also, the American grammar and spelling seems unecessarily distorted. "He
got a house" vs. "He has a house" and "He ain't here" and such examples.
Furthermore, such words as amongst, betwixt, wherefore, whence, whither,
gaol and others are going out of use. Good words, that are precise and
accurate and might be required to understand British litterature.
As I said, I'm probably just Conservative, but I don't like it one bit.
>> >> In youth CD piles; how many American titles?
>>
>> >On my weekly trip to the CD shop, I see lots of Norwegian CDs. I'm
>> >just guessing, but I would say, on a per capita basis, Norway puts out
>> >a lot more CDs than America.
>>
>> You really think so? Geir said "in youth CD piles". I know for sure that if
>> I go and roam through my brother's stack of 50 or so CDs, I'm not going to
>> find more than one or two Danish ones. I reckon the same goes for
>> Norway.
>
>I mean the Norwegian music is there for kids to buy. If they choose
>to buy American music, then they are not being Americanized, they are
>Americanizing themselves. The claim was they are being Americanized.
>That means some third party evil genius is tempting them away form the
>purity of Norwegian culture. It isn't happening that way.
I know, but what was meant was that Norway was slowly americanizing itself.
Be it willingly or not.
>Learning English aids the process, but learning British English instead of
>American english does the same thing.
Indeed, but learning British English might take the focus away from Big
Brother over there and onto other aspects, history, classical litterature
etc.
>Watching American TV aids the
>process, but my God, look at the list of American shows listed earlier
>in the thread. Those are some of the worst TV shows to come out of
>America. Who buys them? Why? I can't believe Norwegians want to
>watch that stuff.
Hmm, well, it isn't much better here in Denmark. In my TV-guide, I find
such shows as The Late Show (David Letterman), Ricki Lake Show, Biker Mice
from Mars, Simpsons, Jerry Springers Talkshow, Blacklisted, Neighbours,
Paradise Beach, Saved by the Bell, Baywatch, Pacific Drive, Malibu Shores.
>> Well, I don't know about Geir, but I'm not complaining (well, about the
>> AE/BE issue yes, but elsewise no). It's just that it feels like a part of
>> the old culture is dissapearing, but maybe we're just to conservative
>> (<sigh>, and I've always considered myself a Socialist :-)
>
>The mistake would be to try to prevent change the way the French do.
>Rather, expect change and go out and find the best of what is
>available, rather than importing trash just because it is cheap.
Agreed.
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
On 16 Jun 1997 08:19:53 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> spake
thusly:
>It isn't surprising that they make such mistakes while trying to learn
>both languages. I make these same mistakes as I try to learn
>Norwegian. But do they continue to make these mistakes when they
>become adults? I suspect they don't. Most probably revert to using
>Norwegian grammar.
I don't think so. Not from what I have seen. The sign on my school saying
"læse pædagog" is a rather good example of this, however, many other
examples can be found. For instance, in the discount store where I work
(Netto), the signs are usually misspelt. Thus, we get such freak words as
"Dige stive" (for "digestive", a brand of biscuits) with the following
pronounciation "Dii'e Stiiwe", which sounds horrible. We even have signs
saying "Fest balloner" or "kalkun fars".
>> American words are used in writing as if they where Norwegian among
>> young students. American ("biblical") names are more and more common,
>> while the old Norwegian are on the decline.
>
>American biblical names? I don't think there are any American names
>in the bible.
He might be referring to how the American (English) bibles have certain
names, that do not sound very Hebrew (or Greek) at all. For instance, the
persons that are in the American bibles called "Mary, John, James and
Peter" are in the Scandinavian bibles called "Maria, Johannes, Jacob and
Petrus". Now, I know these names are not accurate Greek or Hebrew, but they
are closer to the original than the English names are. Then again, who
would think of writing "Yehoshua" instead of "Jesus".
>I think the problem is in how you interpret this stuff. When skiing
>came to America from Norway, I don't think one person complained that
>we were being Norwegianized.
Hehehe, well. America is a big hodge-podge of cultures clashing anyway :-)
No, it just seems that while the American culture is so strong and
overwhelming, the Norwegian (and Danish) are so small and fragile and
everyone seems to be embracing the American culture with such enthusiasm.
>Yet skiing is one of the most popular
>winter sports in America. America was a good place to raise a family
>before skiing came along. But you Norwegians had to come along and
>ruin it all.
Break a leg :-)
>> Shirts with US national symbols (like the letters U.S.A or the
>> American flag) have been popular for a long time. You couldn't get a
>> Norwegian 10-year old carry a cap with "Norge" on (not that I would,
>> either), but he would be delighted if it said U.S.A. (you would have
>> to knock me unconcious first). I take for given that the parallell
>> statement could be made for Sweden as well.
>
>But I see Norwegian flags everywhere. I see people wearing close with
>the Norwegian colors, the Norwegian flag. I see people wearing
>Norwegian sweaters, traditional costumes.
But usually old people, much to my dismay.
>I don't see lots of adults wearing shirts that say USA on them, so
>apparently the children grow out this annoying habit as they grow
>out of the annoying clothes.
Or perhaps the people who are adults now were never exposed to that much
American influence.
>> There is TV, of course, with a solid coverage of American series. In
>> addition, the most common language for textbooks in higher education is
>> English, i. e. American. In the humanities and social sciences that
>> means that you need a good portion of Am. background (or invent some
>> from the TV you watch) to be able to relate to the topics at all.
>America is not the only country that speaks English. English has
>become a de facto standard. Lucky for America, because most Americans
>can't speak anything else. But wait a few years. Spanish is muscling
>its way in.
It is??? It seems a lot of Americans are of this opinion, but frankly, I
can't see Spanish developing in Europe at all.
>Then you can blame everything on Spain. I can't wait.
>Those slimy Castilian bastards are taking over everything.
Hmm, if everything is defined as "the southern part of the USA"
>Santa Anna's revenge.
Huh, who's she?
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 13:25:32 GMT, rsch...@flash.net (Russell A. Schultz)
spake thusly:
>In article <wgbu57v...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote:
>>Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
>>
>>American biblical names? I don't think there are any American names
>>in the bible.
>>
>I wouldn't call them "American", but here in America there is a definate trend
>in "biblical" names.
>
>I know many Johns, Jacobs, Isaacs, Joshuas, Adams, Peters, Pauls, Daniels,
>Jameses, Lukes, Marys, Rebeccas, Ruths, Michael. (Not many named Moses,
>Judas, Pontias Pilate, or Herod, though).
Hmm, I know one or two Moseses :-) Oh, and you have really weird ones like
Zebediah, Ezekiel and Ishmael too, as well as Aaron and Abraham :-)
>This is in contrast to non biblical names such as William, Bryan/Brian,
You never watched Life of Brian, I take it :-)
>Russell, Kenneth, Douglas, Charles, Stuart, etc(Which I believe are
>decidedly British in origin).
Well, we have Scandinavian names like these. Vilhelm (William), Brian,
Kenneth, Karl (Charles).
Russell A. Schultz
In article <33a87dfb...@news.inet.tele.dk>, hob...@post1.tele.dk (Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup) wrote:
>On 16 Jun 1997 08:19:53 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> spake
>thusly:
>
>Huh, who's she?
>
Santa Anna(male--actually Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna) was the
General/Dictator who led the Mexican army in the Texas war of Revolution.
Eventually was captured at the battle of San Jacinto, supposedly lured into a
trap by a whore(the "Yellow Rose of Texas"), only to be sent back to Mexico
and later return to fight in the Mexican/American war.
Glad to be informative :)
Russ.
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
On 16 Jun 1997 20:53:32 GMT, lei...@mpr.ca (Teemu Leisti) spake thusly:
>In article <33a81351...@news.inet.tele.dk> hob...@post1.tele.dk
>(Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup) writes:
>
>>>In article <33A40F...@isaf.no>
>>>Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
>>
>>>>The destruction of our language makes me angry. I
>>>>once pulled down a sign with "Røntgen avdeling" on
>>>>it in a hospital.
>
>Is it better to have people not know where the X-ray clinic is than to
>not have them see its name misspelled? :/
I hardly think people will be unable to find it just because it is spelled
correctly.
>>I totally agree with Arne on this subject. We do not want our languages to
>>become Americanized. Sure, I love the English language, sometimes even more
>>so than the Danish, but if Danish starts to flow towards English and loose
> ^lose
ouch
>>some of its characteristica, it's no fun being a linguist anymore.
> ^characteristics
ouch
>>Sure, but these are concepts that are so much more precise in English. A
>>"TV" is a TV, both in America and in Denmark. The same goes for a CD. The
>>proper name for such things were coined in America, and the American name
>>is so concise and well known that anyone will do best using it.
>
>The CD was co-developed and named by Philips, a Dutch company, and
>Sony, a Japanese company.
Oh well, they were coined using English anyway. What I am saying is that it
is no use trying to translate technical terms like those. See my follow-up
to Henrik's posting.
>>This does
>>not mean though, that we should start off the path of americanizing our
> ^on ^Americanizing,
Hmm, i am rather sure there is such a phrase as "Start off" and I am
perfectly sure that it is spelt "americaniz(s)ing" and NOT
"Americaniz(s)ing".
>Sorry, but since we were on the subject of nitpicking about
>language....
Grrrrr :-)
Alwyn Thomas
Arne Kolstad wrote:
> I have learned that it is a specific genitive form, but I am not even an
> amateur linguist, so I won't insist. I could have used another example
> with a more obvious declination.
The question of how compound names are formed is actually quite involved
and arbitrary. Personally, I don't think it makes the process any
clearer if one talks of "specific genetive formes" where the forms
concerned don't look anything like genitives in the modern language.
<snip>
> I still think that the erosion of compound words is a change in a deep
> and important structure of language usage in Norway, caused by the
> anglification of our lives. If you still insist that it is just a matter
> of arbitrary changes in orthography, I am ready with more and entirely
> boring examples.
As long as the only difference is in the way you write something (and
not in the way you speak it) I still insist it is only a matter of
orthography. Any examples would be welcome and not at all boring (to
me).
Alwyn
Alwyn Thomas
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup wrote:
> For instance, I'll wager that 95% of my class could not read
> a chapter in a KJV Bible or a play of Shakespeare and understand it.
This is about understanding older forms of the language - something you
have to learn separately, whyether you have learnt American or British
English.
> For one, the American pronounciation is dull and lazy. "Eether" instead of
> "I-ther", "Tom-ai-toes" instead of "tom-ah-toes" etc. etc.
Lots of English people say "eether" too. I see no reason for calling
these alternative pronunciations "dull and lazy". Pure prejudice on your
part, Rasmus, nothing else. :-)
(Actually, I have similar prejudices to yours about American speech,
but, unlike you, I don't usually believe them worthy of an airing on
Internet.)
> Also, the American grammar and spelling seems unecessarily distorted. "He
> got a house" vs. "He has a house" and "He ain't here" and such examples.
These are informal colloquial forms in American English. Forms with
"ain't" are current in British dialects also.
> Furthermore, such words as amongst, betwixt, wherefore, whence, whither,
> gaol and others are going out of use. Good words, that are precise and
> accurate and might be required to understand British litterature.
"amongst' and "whence" are still current to an extent in BE. The other
words are archaizing and thus not really part of mordern BE. You learn
them only in order to understand older forms of English (see above).
> As I said, I'm probably just Conservative, but I don't like it one bit.
I think you mean conservative with a small "c". Otherwise you are
declaring yourself a member or supporter of the British Conservative
Party. (Which, for all I know, you may well be. :-))
<snip>
> Indeed, but learning British English might take the focus away from Big
> Brother over there and onto other aspects, history, classical litterature
> etc.
America has an important literature and history of its own, you know.
And they consider themselves heir to Shakespeare and other classics,
just like the English.
Alwyn
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
On 16 Jun 1997 15:21:10 GMT, "Henrik Ern¿" <er...@biobase.dk> spake thusly:
>hob...@post1.tele.dk (Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup) wrote:
>>On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 19:05:23 CET, ste...@sn.no (Stein J. Rypern) spake
>>thusly:
>>
>>>In article <33A40F...@isaf.no>
>>>Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
>>
>>>>The destruction of our language makes me angry. I
>>>>once pulled down a sign with "Røntgen avdeling" on
>>>>it in a hospital.
>>
>>> Well, "røntgenavdeling" and not "røntgen-avdeling"
>>>or "røntgen avdeling" may be the *correct* way to
>>>write it, but either of the last two would be a lot
>>>easier to read, IMO, so I think you are fighting for
>>>a lost cause here.
>>>
>>> Then again - they say that lost causes are the only
>>>ones worth fighting for :-)
>>
>>I totally agree with Arne on this subject. We do not want our languages to
>>become Americanized. Sure, I love the English language, sometimes even more
>>so than the Danish, but if Danish starts to flow towards English and loose
>>some of its characteristica, it's no fun being a linguist anymore.
>>
>>At my school, there is a door with a sign saying "Læse pædagog" <deep sigh>
>>
>>> Btw - you would say "CT" instead of "dataassistert
>>>tomografi" and "PC" instead of "personlig datamaskin",
>>>wouldn't you ?
>>
>>Sure, but these are concepts that are so much more precise in English. A
>>"TV" is a TV, both in America and in Denmark. The same goes for a CD. The
>>proper name for such things were coined in America, and the American name
>>is so concise and well known that anyone will do best using it. This does
>>not mean though, that we should start off the path of americanizing our
>>mother tongue.
>
>Well, *I* don't see why "TV" is more precise than "fjernsyn".
Whoops. No, it isn't. But take motherboard, ram, scsi, joystick, harddisk
controller, etc. etc.
>But this is no a new thing, this have happened many times before
>in the history of Danish. About 50 of currect Danish words have their
>origin in either french/latin or german.
That would be 50%, right? And are you really sure the figure is that high?
>Where I see a real problem is somewhereelse:
>
>In the fact that in the technical language and in sciences Danish is
>practically abandoned and English is used troughout these fields
>even when two Danes are discussing among themselves.
>
>This have two effects:
>
>Danish is becoming a poorer language, used only for everyday chores.
>
>There is gulf created between those Danes who are scientificly
>literate and those who are not.
But more and more people will be, don't you think?
>This is caused by the fact that a large part of the population
>no longer have an easy and direct acces to science, since science
>no longer is being is discussed using the Danish language.
But look at the youth today!! You'll have a hard time finding someone who
isn't able to get along in English. When this generation grows old,
everyone will be more or less able to communicate in English.
>To understand science, it is no longer sufficient to understand
>science, but also to master a foreign language at a very
>high level.
Very high level? How so?
> I think that these two developments are a real problem for
>allthe nordic countries, and I think that it is time to start
>thinking about remedies.
Such as?
We have the excellent "Brint, ilt, kulstof" etc. Are you proposing more
words like those or what?
Arne Kolstad
Alwyn Thomas wrote:
> The question of how compound names are formed is actually quite involved
> and arbitrary.
Involved, yes. Some rules exist, but somewhat "arbitrary" in the sense
that it is hard for someone not thoroughly acquainted with Norwegian to
do it correctly. And it is hard to find a single instance where there is
any doubt whether a compound or separate words is correct.
> Personally, I don't think it makes the process any
> clearer if one talks of "specific genetive formes" where the forms
> concerned don't look anything like genitives in the modern language.
But what if they *are* genitives? To me, the -e sounds and works like
genitive, no problem, but then I have walked around believing that
genitive is what it is for a long time. Not terribly important, though.
There is probably an expert lurking in the vicinity who knows the
answer.
> As long as the only difference is in the way you write something (and
> not in the way you speak it) I still insist it is only a matter of
> orthography. Any examples would be welcome and not at all boring (to
> me).
1) In a lot of cases, there is a declination of one noun.
2) Even if there isn't a declination, there is often a change of
meaning.
3) It looks and feels completely foreign and wrong. I would rather write
"röntgenabteilung" than "røntgen avdeling". I read compunds and single
words differently.
Examples of 1 and 2:
syke penger v. sykepenger
sykelønns ordning v. sykelønnsordning
over representasjon v. overrepresentasjon
med ansvar v. medansvar
pensjons alder v. pensjonsalder
velferds stat v. velferdsstat
Examples of 3:
sykkel styre v. sykkelstyre
gate legeme v. gatelegeme
kjøkken dør v. kjøkkendør
røntgen avdeling v røntgenavdeling
ord deling v. orddeling
etc.
I would read "sykkel styre" as two distinct words with first sylable
accent, "sykkelstyre" as one, with accents on the two first syllables. A
few years ago I wouldn't have known what "sykkel styre" meant.
That goes for all of the examples. People who has the stomach to write
incorrectly, probably hasn't got that feel for the difference in
pronounciation either, so I don't know if the argument is water tight
(vanntett, vann tett).
Be that as it may, this is clearly Anglification/Americanisation. I
maintain that this process encompasses more than orthography with
reference to the arguments above. I furthermore maintain that it erodes
our language and robs us for a rich source of concepts, and there is no
ambivalence in this.
Not as clearly explained as I would wish, but I hope it makes sense.
Arne Kolstad
Arne Kolstad
Alwyn Thomas wrote:
^^^^^^^
> Spelling "any more" as one word sounds American to me.
>
> So Rasmus is just as bad as the people he is condemning. This is nothing
> new, of course. :-)
I wonder what more it will take to open your eyes for the malignity of
theAmericanmakingofuprightandblamelessNordiccitizenslike Rasmus.
Arne Kolstad
Marius Svenkerud
>>decidedly British in origin).
>
>Well, we have Scandinavian names like these. Vilhelm (William), Brian,
>Kenneth, Karl (Charles).
That Kenneth and Brian are used in Scandinavia does not mean that they
are not "decidedly British in origin".
--
Marius Svenkerud
JAScudder
In article <wgg1ujw...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
<m...@metis.no> writes:
>
>> In school; how many AE-wannabe's vs BE-wannabe's?
>
>I don't even know what those terms mean and I *am* American.
>
>
How about American English vs British English
Just following the thread... here's my tuppence worth:
For an Englishman (me), Norway seems considerably more American-biased
than English-biased. Sorry for mangling the language there, but every
time I go to Norway, I encounter Norwegian young people speaking like
'true' Americans.
That's it.
Jonathan
:-)
JASc...@aol.com (butabrit)
Marius Svenkerud
>thusly:
>>>American ("biblical") names are more and more common,
>>> while the old Norwegian are on the decline.
>>
>>American biblical names? I don't think there are any American names
>>in the bible.
>
>He might be referring to how the American (English) bibles have certain
>names, that do not sound very Hebrew (or Greek) at all. For instance, the
>persons that are in the American bibles called "Mary, John, James and
>Peter" are in the Scandinavian bibles called "Maria, Johannes, Jacob and
>Petrus".
In Norwegian bibles it's Jakob and Peter.
--
Marius Svenkerud
Espen Jorgensen
Steinar Midtskogen <stei...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>The rule of two wrongs applies as usual. For instance, the word
>"ordelingssjukesymptomsobservasjonsteknikkforedrag" is better written
>as "foredrag om teknikker til observasjon av symptom på
>orddelingssjuke", or even better by adding a new clause and some
verbs
>as rest points: "foredrag som handler om teknikker til å observere
>symptom på orddelingssjuke". Well, you get the point.
I am sure the Americans reading this group did ;-b
:-)
espen
Alwyn Thomas
Teemu Leisti wrote:
Rasmus wrote:
> > Sure, I love the English language, sometimes even more
Sounds like an Americanism. Here we say "certainly".
> >so than the Danish, but if Danish starts to flow towards English and loose
> ^lose
> >some of its characteristica, it's no fun being a linguist anymore.
> ^characteristics
^^^^^^^
Spelling "any more" as one word sounds American to me.
So Rasmus is just as bad as the people he is condemning. This is nothing
new, of course. :-)
Alwyn
Martin William Smith
Geir Solevåg <gsol...@sn.no> writes:
> John Magne Trane wrote:
>
> > Cheap point but the point is that American series / movies are cheap.
> I do not agree that the point about Norwegian(American? :-) ) TV is
> cheap, I can agree that the Am. Series/movies are cheap, but I'm afraid
> neither of the two is the issue here. We're not discussing the quality,
> we're discussing influence on the Norwegian population, and if you take
> for instance The Bold and the Beautiful, for some reason this is among
> the most popular shows in Norway. (Does anyone have any figures for the
> ratings? Dagbladet publish them from time to time, am I not right?) Do
> you disagree when I say that many Norwegians identify more and more with
> the American culture?
Shows such as X-Files, Millenium, McGyver, FX, and Tales From The
Other Side are all made in Canada. Shouldn't you be worried about
becoming Canadized?
Teemu Leisti
A> = Arne Kolstad
R> = Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
T> = Teemu Leisti (that's me)
A> The destruction of our language makes me angry. I
A> once pulled down a sign with "Røntgen avdeling" on
A> it in a hospital.
T> Is it better to have people not know where the X-ray clinic is than to
T> not have them see its name misspelled? :/
R> I hardly think people will be unable to find it just because it is spelled
R> correctly.
What??? If there is *no sign*, whether with correct or incorrect
spelling, that will make navigation harder, n'est-ce pas?
R> Sure, but these are concepts that are so much more precise in English. A
R> "TV" is a TV, both in America and in Denmark. The same goes for a CD. The
R> proper name for such things were coined in America, and the American name
R> is so concise and well known that anyone will do best using it.
T> The CD was co-developed and named by Philips, a Dutch company, and
T> Sony, a Japanese company.
R> Oh well, they were coined using English anyway. What I am saying is
R> that it is no use trying to translate technical terms like those.
Yes, I agree. I was just nit-picking.
R> This does
R> not mean though, that we should start off the path of americanizing our
T> ^on ^Americanizing,
R> Hmm, i am rather sure there is such a phrase as "Start off"
Maybe, but if you're talking about using or following or starting to
follow a path, then "path" should not be preceded by "off", at least
according to how it sounds to me. "Start off the path of..." doesn't
really mean anything. "Veer off the path of..." means the opposite
of what you intended, and "Start going down the path of..." would be
the term I'd use to convey the meaning you intended.
R> and I am
R> perfectly sure that it is spelt "americaniz(s)ing" and NOT
R> "Americaniz(s)ing".
In English, *all* words that have a capitalized root are also
capitalized. Thus: "America", "American", "Americanize", and also
"Danish", whether referring to a person, a pastry, or the language.
The only exceptions I can think of are mathematical concepts such as
"turing machine", and even there it is very unusual to see the
lower-case spelling.
-- Teemu Leisti / lei...@mprextensys.com
Aron Felix Gurski
Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> Geir Solevåg <gsol...@sn.no> writes:
> > John Magne Trane wrote:
> >
> > > Cheap point but the point is that American series / movies are cheap.
> > I do not agree that the point about Norwegian(American? :-) ) TV is
> > cheap, I can agree that the Am. Series/movies are cheap, but I'm afraid
> > neither of the two is the issue here. We're not discussing the quality,
> > we're discussing influence on the Norwegian population, and if you take
> > for instance The Bold and the Beautiful, for some reason this is among
> > the most popular shows in Norway. (Does anyone have any figures for the
> > ratings? Dagbladet publish them from time to time, am I not right?) Do
> > you disagree when I say that many Norwegians identify more and more with
> > the American culture?
>
> Shows such as X-Files, Millenium, McGyver, FX, and Tales From The
> Other Side are all made in Canada. Shouldn't you be worried about
> becoming Canadized?
The only one of those series that I know to be Canadian is "Tales from
the other side". The others are filmed in Canada but they are supposed
to be in the USA -- and they are full of *American* flags, not Canadian.
(And the last time I checked, the FBI [X-files] was an American thing,
not Canadian.)
-- Aron
Aron Felix Gurski
Elaine S. Krasny wrote:
>
> Well, Alwyn,
> I am glad you brought a new interesting topic to SCN but I do have
> to agree with Arne Kolstad on the use of "e", which you are assuming
> is an empty morpheme (aka phoneme). My background in linguistics
> is basic so I do know that any "utterance" can do double duty as both
> a morpheme and phoneme. However, the history of the norsk language,
> including 1000's of compound words would not be on your side. Besides,
> there are many norsk compound words (i.e. one word made up of 3+ words)
> which could use some "empty morphemes" to make them easier to pronounce
> and they don't have them. Thanks to (dear) Aron on SCN, who has sent
> me *many* articles from Norwegian newpapers, I have (sufferingly)
> un-compounded several hundred compound words paa norsk. He has also
> given me several tips on how to do it since MOST of these words are NOT
> in Norsk dictionaries, so to even begin to understand one compound word,
> I have to break it down into 2,3,4,5,6, etc words and look *each* one
> up. I gurantee you, that if "e" in certain locations was not a marker,
> indicator, bleeping clue of the *genitive*, I would not have been able
> to figure those words out - yes, there is a Santa Claus and some "reason"
> behind norsk spelling. :)
> So unless there is a linguistic specialist in Norwegian/norsk out there
> who can give us more illumination, then that "e" is at least *both*
> a morpheme and a phoneme, but I suspect it is a phoneme only by
> co-incidence. Also, I have wondered if Norsk newspaper people stay
> up nites trying to figure out how to use as many compound words as
> possible in their articles... 8^-
Well, I'm *not* a linguist but I did spend many years working at
"Prosjekt for datamaskinell språkbehandling" at the Department of Nordic
Languages at the University of Bergen. I worked in an evironment where
we were dealing with language using computers and I was one of the very
few who was not a linguist. In one of my projects I developed routines
for hyphenating Norwegian words. There are two basic approaches to doing
this (in *any* language): "mechanically" or morphologically.
In my discussions with the linguists around me, I was told that the -e-
that is used in forming some compound words in Norwegian actually has no
real *meaning* and is there as a means of making the pronunciation of
the word easier. So, I am afraid that the linguists disagreed with you,
Elaine. The only genitive marker in compound words is -s-.
Finally, while you feel that more of the "-e-"s would make words easier
to pronounce, Norwegian ears obviously don't agree. Having learnt
Norwegian with Swedish as my base language, I felt that Norwegian uses
far too many "-e-"s in its compound words. For example, in Norwegian one
says "julebord" while it is "julbord" in Swedish.
-- Aron
Elaine S. Krasny
Troy Storfjell
In article <33a77c22...@news.inet.tele.dk>, hob...@post1.tele.dk
(Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup) wrote:
> On 16 Jun 1997 20:53:32 GMT, lei...@mpr.ca (Teemu Leisti) spake thusly:
<clip>
> >>This does
> >>not mean though, that we should start off the path of americanizing our
> > ^on ^Americanizing,
>
> Hmm, i am rather sure there is such a phrase as "Start off" and I am
> perfectly sure that it is spelt "americaniz(s)ing" and NOT
> "Americaniz(s)ing".
Actually, in both BE and AE all (with a few annoying exceptions) words
deriving from proper nouns are capitalized, in contradistinction to
Norwegian. Therefore it is "Americanization/Americanisation" vs.
"amerikanisering" and "Norwegianization/Norweganisation" vs.
"fornorsking".
Just a little more orthographic nitpicking. ;)
--
Troy Storfjell "Medalsnotr
Madison, Wisconsin skyli manna hverr"
USA - some guy in a grey hat
Johan Olofsson
ekr...@omnifest.uwm.edu (Elaine S. Krasny) writes:
> However, the history of the norsk language, including 1000's of
> compound words would not be on your side. Besides, there are many
> norsk compound words (i.e. one word made up of 3+ words) which could
> use some "empty morphemes" to make them easier to pronounce and they
> don't have them. Thanks to (dear) Aron on SCN, who has sent me
> *many* articles from Norwegian newspapers, I have (sufferingly)
> un-compounded several hundred compound words paa norsk. He has also
> given me several tips on how to do it since MOST of these words are
> NOT in Norsk dictionaries, so to even begin to understand one
> compound word, I have to break it down into 2,3,4,5,6, etc words and
> look *each* one up. I guarantee you, that if "e" in certain locations
> was not a marker, indicator, bleeping clue of the *genitive*, I
> would not have been able to figure those words out - yes, there is a
> Santa Claus and some "reason" behind norsk spelling. :)
I do not know the _Norwegian_ languages, but the linguistically
neighbors Swedish and German, and I agree totally. In Swedish the
basic rule for compound-word-production is that in a 3-parted compound
word there has to be a "s" inserted in the loosest joint.
"s" happens to be the genitive marker also. (. What a
coincidence, ehh? .)
> Also, I have wondered if Norsk newspaper people stay up nites trying
> to figure out how to use as many compound words as possible in their
> articles...
:-)
I couldn't think the Norwegian journalists are worse than the Germans...
Johan
--
e-mail: j...@lysator.liu.se
s-mail: Majeldsvägen 8a, 582 63 LINKÖPING, Sweden
Geir Solevåg
Martin William Smith wrote:
> Shows such as X-Files, Millenium, McGyver, FX, and Tales From The
> Other Side are all made in Canada. Shouldn't you be worried about
> becoming Canadized?
you know, but I barely see that to be the point in all this. And now I
guess you're gonna tell me that the American English/Canadian English
difference is mentionable compared to the AE/BE one? This discussion is
getting way out. :)
Geir Solevåg
Martin William Smith
Aron Felix Gurski <"agurski"@sn.*spam block*.no> writes:
> Martin William Smith wrote:
> >
> > Geir Solevåg <gsol...@sn.no> writes:
> > > John Magne Trane wrote:
> > >
> > > > Cheap point but the point is that American series / movies are cheap.
> > > I do not agree that the point about Norwegian(American? :-) ) TV is
> > > cheap, I can agree that the Am. Series/movies are cheap, but I'm afraid
> > > neither of the two is the issue here. We're not discussing the quality,
> > > we're discussing influence on the Norwegian population, and if you take
> > > for instance The Bold and the Beautiful, for some reason this is among
> > > the most popular shows in Norway. (Does anyone have any figures for the
> > > ratings? Dagbladet publish them from time to time, am I not right?) Do
> > > you disagree when I say that many Norwegians identify more and more with
> > > the American culture?
> >
> > Other Side are all made in Canada. Shouldn't you be worried about
> > becoming Canadized?
>
> the other side". The others are filmed in Canada but they are supposed
> to be in the USA -- and they are full of *American* flags, not Canadian.
> (And the last time I checked, the FBI [X-files] was an American thing,
> not Canadian.)
The point is that what people are calling American TV isn't what
Americans call American TV. Of course, Canadians call themselves
American too, but that's a different meaning of American. All theses
shows are made in Canada. Are they Canadian or are they American?
Helly Hansen has major facilities in america. Is Helly Hansen gear
Norwegian or is it American? I expect most Americans don't know HH is
Norwegian.
I have a friend who produces Baywatch. I apologize in advance of any
criticism. He is now making a new Baywatch-esque series in Australia,
to be called "Bondi" (I can hardly wait). Is that an American show,
or an Australian show?
If whatshisname the Finnish director makes a movie that takes place in
America, is it a Finnish movie or an American one? Some people film
is the director's medium. If he makes a movie in Finland with an
American star, is it a Finnish movie or American?
Where does American end and International begin? Or is your test, if
it isn't traditional Norwegian culture, it's American. Any change
away from Norwegian tradition is a move toward America, unduly
influenced by America.
Arne Kolstad
Martin William Smith wrote:
<cut>
> Where does American end and International begin?
<cut>
Good question. When it comes to some aspects of language influence, it
doesn't matter as long as it is Englishlike, and this the most
destructive right now, in my view.
There are, however, specific U.S. American influences in TV-series and
movies. To use myself as a measurement instrument, I arrest myself
sometimes for not being amused anymore by the heavy layers of strange
U.S. American values in Hollywood films. Somebody is pulling my teeth
out.
Then we have all this kid stuff: Toys, sports gear, games and clothing -
most symbols, characters, words, etc., refer to contexts localised to
what we know as U.S.A. It doesn't make any difference at all if the
items used to display these symbols, are made in Japan, Canada, Tibet or
Norway. This, of course, is linked to the dominance of picture medias
and language.
There is obviously some French, British and German influence as well, to
the extent they are not completely Americanised themselves.
The border between internationalism and Americanism most certainly
doesn't follow national borders.
Arne
Henrik Ern¿
>>Well, *I* don't see why "TV" is more precise than "fjernsyn".
>
>Whoops. No, it isn't. But take motherboard, ram, scsi, joystick, harddisk
>controller, etc. etc.
>>But this is no a new thing, this have happened many times before
>>in the history of Danish. About 50 of currect Danish words have their
>>origin in either french/latin or german.
>
>That would be 50%, right? And are you really sure the figure is that high?
Yes, forgot the % . But yes, the number is that high. There was a
enormous influx of words from platt-german in the middelages, and
later from high german after the reformation.
>>Where I see a real problem is somewhereelse:
>>In the fact that in the technical language and in sciences Danish is
>>practically abandoned and English is used troughout these fields
>>even when two Danes are discussing among themselves.
>>
>>This have two effects:
>>
>>Danish is becoming a poorer language, used only for everyday chores.
>>
>>There is gulf created between those Danes who are scientificly
>>literate and those who are not.
>
>But more and more people will be, don't you think?
Sadly, no. I have the pleasure of teaching genetics to medical
students, and my experience is that a large % gets into university
without knowing much fundamental science. And these students
have been through sciences in high school, its even worse with
those who followed arts and language in high school. It is
a disaster. Aspecially, when you then think of all those who just
have the ordinary 10 years in school.
>>This is caused by the fact that a large part of the population
>>no longer have an easy and direct acces to science, since science
>>no longer is being is discussed using the Danish language.
>But look at the youth today!! You'll have a hard time finding someone who
>isn't able to get along in English. When this generation grows old,
>everyone will be more or less able to communicate in English.
The problem is not "to get along", pidgin is fine for that.
Someone leaving School in DK after ten years is not able to read
a scientific article in Nature, and not because of the scientific
part, no the english used there is no basic english.
>>To understand science, it is no longer sufficient to understand
>>science, but also to master a foreign language at a very
>>high level.
>Very high level? How so?
Try and read a textbook in biology at university level. Or for
that matter an article in Cell or Nature.
>> I think that these two developments are a real problem for
>>allthe nordic countries, and I think that it is time to start
>>thinking about remedies.
>>Such as?
For example, to give merit to those that writes books on science
in Danish. As things are, that is careerwise a waste of time.
To support publishing scientific literature for a broad audience
in Danish.
>We have the excellent "Brint, ilt, kulstof" etc. Are you proposing more
>words like those or what?
Yes, I like to see Danish words for "enhancer", "promoter",
"Knock-outs" "gene-transfer", "Southerns", "Northerns",
"patterning" "proliferation" etc, in use in Danish universites.
The problem is that Danish is no longer a living and used language
in scince. When I write a grant application to Statens
Naturvidenskabelige Forskningsråd, the only part in danish in the
resume which is limited to 100 words. The rest is in English.
henrik ernø
Martin William Smith
Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
> Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> <cut>
>
> > Where does American end and International begin?
>
> <cut>
>
> Good question. When it comes to some aspects of language influence, it
> doesn't matter as long as it is Englishlike, and this the most
> destructive right now, in my view.
>
> There are, however, specific U.S. American influences in TV-series and
> movies. To use myself as a measurement instrument, I arrest myself
> sometimes for not being amused anymore by the heavy layers of strange
> U.S. American values in Hollywood films. Somebody is pulling my teeth
> out.
You will find a lot of Americans who agree with you. Myself
included. In my and many Americans' minds, what you are objecting to
is not American. Those heavy layers of American values are not
American values. So I guess I am saying you are right to object to
this sort of thing; I object to it too, but to me it isn't American.
It is stereotype nonsense.
> Then we have all this kid stuff: Toys, sports gear, games and clothing -
> most symbols, characters, words, etc., refer to contexts localised to
> what we know as U.S.A. It doesn't make any difference at all if the
> items used to display these symbols, are made in Japan, Canada, Tibet or
> Norway. This, of course, is linked to the dominance of picture medias
> and language.
But how are these things changing Norewegian culture? What toys,
sports gear, etc, are these things displacing?
> There is obviously some French, British and German influence as well, to
> the extent they are not completely Americanised themselves.
>
> The border between internationalism and Americanism most certainly
> doesn't follow national borders.
>
> Arne
martin
Jan Böhme
Alwyn Thomas <al...@pia.bt.co.uk> wrote:
>> I still think that the erosion of compound words is a change in a deep
>> and important structure of language usage in Norway, caused by the
>> anglification of our lives. If you still insist that it is just a matter
>> of arbitrary changes in orthography, I am ready with more and entirely
>> boring examples.
>As long as the only difference is in the way you write something (and
>not in the way you speak it) I still insist it is only a matter of
>orthography. Any examples would be welcome and not at all boring (to
>me).
First, considering the overwhelming importance of written language in
our culture, I wouldn't say that it is _only_ a matter of orthography,
in particular as the explosion of compund words intruduces so much
homography as to be a clear detriment to comprehension, at least to
Swedish.
For example, when I see a sign saying "Rök fritt", shall I interpret
it literally ("Smoke freely") or as the compound "Rökfritt" (No
smoking)? A store advertising "Vi säljer kassa apparater" do they
really peddle machinery that is no good, and most probably broken, to
do-it-yourselt home fixers, or do they, perchance, sell
"kassaapparater" (cash registers)? Both these examples are authentic,
and signs saying "Rök fritt" are, indeed, quite common.
A classical, more constructed example is the difference between "en
brunhårig sjuksköterska" ("a nurse with brown hair") and "en brun
hårig sjuk sköterska" ("a brown, hairy, sick, medically unqualified
nurse")
The main argument against the decay of compounds is of course that
this deprives the written language of a reasonable means for
describing, for example, a brown, hairy, sick, medically unqualified
nurse, when the need arises.
But as to your question: In swenet.svenska, where this has been
discussed to quite som extent the correponding _spoken_ difference has
occasionally been noted. The stress pattern of "brunhårig
sjuksköterska" and "brun hårig sjuk sköterska" with traditional
orthography are quite different, and readily discernible in speech to
all Swedes. However, it was reported in swnet.svenska that a TV
announcer at the commercial Swedish TV channel TV4 had pronounced the
compound noun "småbarnsfar" (father of small children) as "småbarns
far". In this case, the meaning is the pretty much the same, only one
expression is used in Swedish and the other - hitherto - isn't.
The reasonable explanation is that the announcer read from a prompter
with exploded compounds, and didn't bother too much with what she
actually was saying.
But it still is an example which indicates that potentially more is in
stock for the Scandinavian languages than "mere" orthography.
Jan Böhme
Arne Kolstad
Jan Böhme wrote:
>
<cut>
> But it still is an example which indicates that potentially more is in
> stock for the Scandinavian languages than "mere" orthography.
I don't think it is a problem at all that Alwyn is so persistent craving
explanations for my somewhat exaggerated revolt, it is to his credit.
The really scary part of this story is that so many Scandinavians have
lost their critical sense in this matter allready. It is a comfort that
language development is a social process and not geophysical diffusion.
Arne Kolstad
Russell A. Schultz
In article <33A709...@sn.no>, gsol...@sn.no wrote:
>Martin William Smith wrote:
>> Shows such as X-Files, Millenium, McGyver, FX, and Tales From The
>> Other Side are all made in Canada. Shouldn't you be worried about
>> becoming Canadized?
American actors(in general). Apparently the filming costs in British Columbia
are much reduced when compared to California.
I believe a majority of the filming and post production of the Star Wars
series of films was done in England. You wouldn't call them English films
would you?
Russ.
John Magne Trane
In article <wg4taxv...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> writes:
|> Geir Solevåg <gsol...@sn.no> writes:
|> > John Magne Trane wrote:
|> >
|> > > Cheap point but the point is that American series / movies are cheap.
|> > I do not agree that the point about Norwegian(American? :-) ) TV is
|> > cheap, I can agree that the Am. Series/movies are cheap, but I'm afraid
|> > neither of the two is the issue here.
I've missed some posts here. Just a little clarification, American series /
movies are cheap to buy, don't cost much, are cost effective, more cows for
the buck, whatever.
Technical quality, content etc is discussable.
JMT
|> > We're not discussing the quality,
|> > we're discussing influence on the Norwegian population, and if you take
|> > for instance The Bold and the Beautiful, for some reason this is among
|> > the most popular shows in Norway. (Does anyone have any figures for the
|> > ratings? Dagbladet publish them from time to time, am I not right?) Do
|> > you disagree when I say that many Norwegians identify more and more with
|> > the American culture?
|>
|> Shows such as X-Files, Millenium, McGyver, FX, and Tales From The
|> Other Side are all made in Canada. Shouldn't you be worried about
|> becoming Canadized?
|>
Teemu Leisti
Martin William Smith wrote:
> Shows such as X-Files, Millenium, McGyver, FX, and Tales From The
> Other Side are all made in Canada. Shouldn't you be worried about
> becoming Canadized?
That's right, and most of those (as far as I know) are filmed right
here in Vancouver, Hollywood's biggest backlot.
In article <33A709...@sn.no> gsol...@sn.no writes:
> Well there is a difference between America and the United States too,
> you know, but I barely see that to be the point in all this. And now I
> guess you're gonna tell me that the American English/Canadian English
> difference is mentionable compared to the AE/BE one? This discussion is
> getting way out. :)
I don't know whether *he* is going to mention it, but now that the
subject has come up, *I* will.
Canadian spelling is a curious mixture of British and American
spellings. Some examples of words spelled differently in Britain and
in America, and an indicator of the Canadian usage:
BE CE AE
-- ---- --
honour << honor
colour << color
centre << center
theatre << theater
kerb >> curb
tyre >> tire
realise >> realize
Some periodicals nowadays just spell everything the American way, but
most use the special Canadian mixture.
Alwyn Thomas
It seems the big guns are out for me now. :-)
Jan B=F6hme wrote:
> First, considering the overwhelming importance of written language in
> our culture, I wouldn't say that it is _only_ a matter of orthography,
> in particular as the explosion of compund words intruduces so much
> homography as to be a clear detriment to comprehension, at least to
> Swedish.
It seems to me that this is an argument for keeping the orthography as
it is.
But it is still an argument about orthography!
<snip>
> The main argument against the decay of compounds is of course that
> this deprives the written language of a reasonable means for
> describing, for example, a brown, hairy, sick, medically unqualified
> nurse, when the need arises.
As far as I know, nobody has ever argued against the use of compound
words in Swedish. But I'd certainly be interested in seeing the Swedish
word for what you're describing!
<snip>
> it was reported in swnet.svenska that a TV
> announcer at the commercial Swedish TV channel TV4 had pronounced the
> compound noun "sm=E5barnsfar" (father of small children) as "sm=E5barns=
> far". In this case, the meaning is the pretty much the same, only one
> expression is used in Swedish and the other - hitherto - isn't.
> =
> The reasonable explanation is that the announcer read from a prompter
> with exploded compounds, and didn't bother too much with what she
> actually was saying.
I think you are making too much of this.
I think some of the commonest verbal slips are the slips in prosody
(accent, rhythm and so forth). The text he was reading from was om the
orthodox canonical form, but the reader made a minor slip in bringing it
over.
> But it still is an example which indicates that potentially more is in
> stock for the Scandinavian languages than "mere" orthography.
I'm still not convinced. :-)
Alwyn
Martin William Smith
> >> Shows such as X-Files, Millenium, McGyver, FX, and Tales From The
> >> Other Side are all made in Canada. Shouldn't you be worried about
> >> becoming Canadized?
> American actors(in general). Apparently the filming costs in British Columbia
> are much reduced when compared to California.
>
> I believe a majority of the filming and post production of the Star Wars
> series of films was done in England. You wouldn't call them English films
> would you?
No. What makes X-Files American? Does being produced in Canada make
it less American? If the actors were Canadian, would it be less
American? If there were no Americans in the crew, if the financing
came from outside America? If it didn't take place in America? You
would still call it American, because you believe it portrays American
values.
Which values in the X-Files, or any of the other shows, is uniquely
American?
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
On 17 Jun 1997 17:00:45 GMT, tsto...@students.wisc.edu (Troy Storfjell)
spake thusly:
>In article <33a77c22...@news.inet.tele.dk>, hob...@post1.tele.dk
>(Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup) wrote:
>
>> On 16 Jun 1997 20:53:32 GMT, lei...@mpr.ca (Teemu Leisti) spake thusly:
>
> <clip>
>
>> >>This does
>> >>not mean though, that we should start off the path of americanizing our
>> > ^on ^Americanizing,
>>
>> Hmm, i am rather sure there is such a phrase as "Start off" and I am
>> perfectly sure that it is spelt "americaniz(s)ing" and NOT
>> "Americaniz(s)ing".
>
>
>Actually, in both BE and AE all (with a few annoying exceptions) words
>deriving from proper nouns are capitalized, in contradistinction to
>Norwegian. Therefore it is "Americanization/Americanisation" vs.
>"amerikanisering" and "Norwegianization/Norweganisation" vs.
>"fornorsking".
>
>Just a little more orthographic nitpicking. ;)
Ouch again. It seems like you are right. And I was so sure that it was only
adjectives deriving from proper nouns, not verbs. Oh well... Live and
learn.
>"Medalsnotr
>skyli manna hverr"
Medal snot flushes every man?
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
On 17 Jun 1997 15:09:40 GMT, Marius Svenkerud <aa...@online.no> spake
thusly:
>hob...@post1.tele.dk (Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup) wrote:
>>On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 13:25:32 GMT, rsch...@flash.net (Russell A. Schultz)
>>spake thusly:
>>
>>>Russell, Kenneth, Douglas, Charles, Stuart, etc(Which I believe are
>>>decidedly British in origin).
>>
>>Well, we have Scandinavian names like these. Vilhelm (William), Brian,
>>Kenneth, Karl (Charles).
>
>
>That Kenneth and Brian are used in Scandinavia does not mean that they
>are not "decidedly British in origin".
Hehehe, didn't say so. Just that we had them over here :-)
So there.
Troy Storfjell
In article <wg2060w...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
<m...@metis.no> wrote:
> Geir Solevåg <gsol...@sn.no> writes:
<clip>
> > Well there is a difference between America and the United States too,
> > you know, but I barely see that to be the point in all this. And now I
> > guess you're gonna tell me that the American English/Canadian English
> > difference is mentionable compared to the AE/BE one? This discussion is
> > getting way out. :)
>
> As far as spoken English goes, it is difficult to tell the difference
> between western Canadian and western US. I can usually do it, but I'm
> from near the Canadian border. The words "out" and "about" are the
> usual give-aways. In central Canada, they end every sentence with
> "ay", apparently in an effort to keep the conversation going as long
> as possible. In Quebec they speak as little English as possible.
> Eastern Canadians never say anything.
Having just returned from the Maritimes, I would have to contradict the
last statement -- though I'm sure it was a joke anyway. ;)
What I found fascinating about eastern Canadian English was its variety,
antiquity, and difference from other North American English. Many places
show heavy Irish or Scottish influence, while Newfoundland English tends
to sound like the mid-English dialects from before the last sound-shift in
England. It was truly delightful to hear for one interested in language
and dialect.
> I assume Canadians use British spelling, but I don't know.
>
> martin
Troy Storfjell
> Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> > Arne Kolstad <arne.k...@isaf.no> writes:
>
> > > There are, however, specific U.S. American influences in TV-series and
> > > movies. To use myself as a measurement instrument, I arrest myself
> > > sometimes for not being amused anymore by the heavy layers of strange
> > > U.S. American values in Hollywood films. Somebody is pulling my teeth
> > > out.
> >
> > You will find a lot of Americans who agree with you. Myself
> > included. In my and many Americans' minds, what you are objecting to
> > is not American. Those heavy layers of American values are not
> > American values. So I guess I am saying you are right to object to
> > this sort of thing; I object to it too, but to me it isn't American.
> > It is stereotype nonsense.
>
> Read again: I am not amused anymore by the ridiculous films. I don't
> object anymore. I am becoming adapted to Hollywood. That is the real
> horror, not the movies.
>
> I know that America isn't Hollywood, and I can understand that you feel
> insulted. If you insist, we may call the international, made mainly in
> America, blob something else. Any suggestions? Be constructive, we need
> a word for this. Privately I use Deutschneyworld.
The term I tend to prefer is the trans-national culture industry. While
we can legitimately question just whose culture it is that this industry
transmits, it is plain that American (US) investors dominate large
portions of the industry. Yet at the same time it is quite
trans-national, with both investors and producers coming from around the
globe. And even the products produced tend to lift indiscriminately from
multiple cultural contexts.
What I find truly objectionable in this is the commodification of cultural
representation that tends to decontextualize and homoginize both the
transmitted content and the consumers. But in the age of trans-national
capitalism profit will be made wherever it can be made.
When it comes to the question of American (US) culture, a lot of
problematics arise. The most immediate is that there is no such thing.
What is commonly represented as American (US) culture is a homoginized
synthesis of White bourgeois (and usually Protestant) culture, though
urban Black/African American culture does get some representation as
well. But the cultural scene in the USA is far more complex than its
typical representation (both internal and external) suggests. There are
more than 600 languages that exist as mother tongues within linguistic
communities in the USA. One-third of the country used to belong to
Mexico, and the descendents of the pre-USA Mexican inhabitants have been
joined by other Latino/Latina immigrants from a variety of cultures.
Hundreds of indigenous communities live in relative isolation from even
their nearest neighbors. And then there are the other recent immigrant
communities, many of which either go largely ignored, or are easily
dismissed as not being "American." Finally, there are the rural and
working-class White communities, which are also largely
under-represented.
The USA is a political entity encompassing a Babel of cultures and
languages. Hollywood tends to represent first Southern (White)
California, and then the White middle class. Occasional Black rhythms or
urban decay get their 15 minutes as well. But the image/collage of
American (US) culture transmitted by the culture industry is a
construction only occasionally connected to reality. If it is damaging to
Norway, it is far more damaging to the USA.
> > But how are these things changing Norewegian culture? What toys,
> > sports gear, etc, are these things displacing?
>
> A set of objects with a broader spectre of origins. This country has
> always been strongly influenced by outside cultures - that is part of
> the identity for small nationalities. The kids are marched up in one
> direction like never before, that's the main difference, and this whole
> Deutschneyworld can be a threat to an open and differentiated society.
> Not because of totalitarian ideas, but from - ignorance.
True, Norwaegian culture and language have always been informed by the
outside (as have all cultures and languages). Danish, German, French,
Swedish and English have all made their mark on Norwegian. ("Trist" is a
French loan word, "-het" comes from German through Danish, etc.) But now
we have this new, and far more aggressive trans-national culture industry,
driven by the capitalist profit motor. Who knows what will happen?
>
> Arne
Teemu Leisti
In article <5o8n10$c6h$2...@excalibur.flash.net> rsch...@flash.net
(Russell A. Schultz) writes:
>>Martin William Smith wrote:
>>> Shows such as X-Files, Millenium, McGyver, FX, and Tales From The
>>> Other Side are all made in Canada. Shouldn't you be worried about
>>> becoming Canadized?
> They're all FILMED in Canada, but they're produced by American
> companies with American actors(in general). Apparently the filming
> costs in British Columbia are much reduced when compared to
> California.
Plus Vancouver has an amazing amount of varying architecture and
scenery within a relatively short radius of dowtown, making it
convenient for series which need a variety of backdrops....
(For some really nice scenes of Vancouver, see the new film "Bliss".
This time, Vancouver masquerades as an unnamed North American city --
perhaps in Washington State, judging from the license plates.)
> I believe a majority of the filming and post production of the Star Wars
> series of films was done in England.
I suppose the studio scenes were, but the desert planet scenes in film
4 (the first one, actually) were filmed in Tunis. And, to get back to
the topic of the newsgroup, the snow planet scenes in the first part
of film 5 were filmed in Norway, as far as I know. :)
Grant Hughes
In article <wg3eqgw...@brage.metis.no>,
>
>The point is that what people are calling American TV isn't what
>Americans call American TV. Of course, Canadians call themselves
>American too, but that's a different meaning of American. All theses
>shows are made in Canada. Are they Canadian or are they American?
>Helly Hansen has major facilities in america. Is Helly Hansen gear
>Norwegian or is it American? I expect most Americans don't know HH is
>Norwegian.
The X-Files, although filmed in Canada, is produced by a distinctly
American corpration, Fox.
>
>I have a friend who produces Baywatch. I apologize in advance of any
>criticism. He is now making a new Baywatch-esque series in Australia,
>to be called "Bondi" (I can hardly wait). Is that an American show,
>or an Australian show?
>
It's an Australian show if your friend produces it with an
Australian-registered company.
The point is that, regardless of the setting of film or TV, it is the
creator's perspective that defines the medium.
GCH
Hermann Christmann
Arne Kolstad wrote:
>
> Martin William Smith wrote:
>
>
> > Where does American end and International begin?
>
> <cut>
>
> Good question. When it comes to some aspects of language influence, it
> doesn't matter as long as it is Englishlike, and this the most
> destructive right now, in my view.
>
> movies. To use myself as a measurement instrument, I arrest myself
> sometimes for not being amused anymore by the heavy layers of strange
> U.S. American values in Hollywood films. Somebody is pulling my teeth
> out.
>
Yeah, I remember the first times i saw "Ricki Lake" I was laughing my
ass off. But now I'm used to it.
Teemu Leisti
In article <5o8ieu$cvn$1...@news.datakom.su.se>
Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) writes:
> For example, when I see a sign saying "Rök fritt", shall I interpret
> it literally ("Smoke freely") or as the compound "Rökfritt" (No
> smoking)? A store advertising "Vi säljer kassa apparater" do they
> really peddle machinery that is no good, and most probably broken, to
> do-it-yourselt home fixers, or do they, perchance, sell
> "kassaapparater" (cash registers)? Both these examples are authentic,
> and signs saying "Rök fritt" are, indeed, quite common.
These kinds of misspellings of compound words started becoming quite
common in Finland, also, in the 1980s. What's more, since English is
used so much in advertising, product and store names, etc., many
English compound words were also misspelled in the opposite way --
writing the elements together as one words when they should have been
separate words. Both types of misspellings are infuriating.
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:25:12 +0100, Alwyn Thomas <al...@pia.bt.co.uk> spake
thusly:
>Teemu Leisti wrote:
>Rasmus wrote:
>> > Sure, I love the English language, sometimes even more
> ^^^^
>
>Sounds like an Americanism. Here we say "certainly".
>
>> >so than the Danish, but if Danish starts to flow towards English and loose
>> ^lose
>> >some of its characteristica, it's no fun being a linguist anymore.
>> ^characteristics
> ^^^^^^^
>Spelling "any more" as one word sounds American to me.
>
>So Rasmus is just as bad as the people he is condemning. This is nothing
>new, of course. :-)
AAaaaarrrrgghhhhhh. I am sure being tryed here, eh? Well, I'll just absorb
and remember.
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:11:34 +0100, Alwyn Thomas <al...@pia.bt.co.uk> spake
thusly:
>Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup wrote:
>> For instance, I'll wager that 95% of my class could not read
>> a chapter in a KJV Bible or a play of Shakespeare and understand it.
>
>This is about understanding older forms of the language - something you
>have to learn separately, whyether you have learnt American or British
>English.
Well, the trend is that the young Scandinavians of today think that
American is "kewl", and that anything archaic "sux". They are embracing the
American culture, but only the part that includes Beverly Hills, Baywatch,
Miami Vice etc. When they think of American, they don't exactly think of
the great fathers of the nation, Webster or Gone With The Wind, but rather
Dave Letterman, Tom Cruise and Madonna.
I guess what I am trying to say is that they are distancing themselves even
more from a possible understanding of such things as the KJV, the works of
Shakespeare etc.
>> For one, the American pronounciation is dull and lazy. "Eether" instead of
>> "I-ther", "Tom-ai-toes" instead of "tom-ah-toes" etc. etc.
>
>Lots of English people say "eether" too. I see no reason for calling
>these alternative pronunciations "dull and lazy". Pure prejudice on your
>part, Rasmus, nothing else. :-)
>
>(Actually, I have similar prejudices to yours about American speech,
>but, unlike you, I don't usually believe them worthy of an airing on
>Internet.)
LOL :-) Thank you for being frank :-)
>> Also, the American grammar and spelling seems unecessarily distorted. "He
>> got a house" vs. "He has a house" and "He ain't here" and such examples.
>
>These are informal colloquial forms in American English. Forms with
>"ain't" are current in British dialects also.
Hmm, but am I wrong in assuming that they are more accepted in America than
in the US? Or the use of subjunctive, as in "If I were a rich man, ..." It
seems that you never find that one in American.
>> Furthermore, such words as amongst, betwixt, wherefore, whence, whither,
>> gaol and others are going out of use. Good words, that are precise and
>> accurate and might be required to understand British litterature.
>
>"amongst' and "whence" are still current to an extent in BE. The other
>words are archaizing and thus not really part of mordern BE. You learn
>them only in order to understand older forms of English (see above).
Awwww. But I *LIKE* them? (My English teacher keeps telling me to stop
using them, hehehehe)
Oh, BTW, Americans horribly mutated aluminium too!
>> As I said, I'm probably just Conservative, but I don't like it one bit.
>
>I think you mean conservative with a small "c". Otherwise you are
>declaring yourself a member or supporter of the British Conservative
>Party. (Which, for all I know, you may well be. :-))
Ouch, some mistake. No, as I said in another post. I might be conservative,
but I've always considered myself a Socialist :-)
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
On 17 Jun 1997 19:10:37 GMT, lei...@mpr.ca (Teemu Leisti) spake thusly:
>A> = Arne Kolstad
>R> = Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
>T> = Teemu Leisti (that's me)
>
>A> The destruction of our language makes me angry. I
>A> once pulled down a sign with "Røntgen avdeling" on
>A> it in a hospital.
>
>T> Is it better to have people not know where the X-ray clinic is than to
>T> not have them see its name misspelled? :/
>
>R> I hardly think people will be unable to find it just because it is spelled
>R> correctly.
>
>What??? If there is *no sign*, whether with correct or incorrect
>spelling, that will make navigation harder, n'est-ce pas?
I see what you mean now. I had kinda thought that you were saying that
people could not find the place if the sign was spelled correctly.
>R> Sure, but these are concepts that are so much more precise in English. A
>R> "TV" is a TV, both in America and in Denmark. The same goes for a CD. The
>R> proper name for such things were coined in America, and the American name
>R> is so concise and well known that anyone will do best using it.
>
>T> The CD was co-developed and named by Philips, a Dutch company, and
>T> Sony, a Japanese company.
>
>R> Oh well, they were coined using English anyway. What I am saying is
>R> that it is no use trying to translate technical terms like those.
>
>Yes, I agree. I was just nit-picking.
>
>R> This does
>R> not mean though, that we should start off the path of americanizing our
>T> ^on ^Americanizing,
>
>R> Hmm, i am rather sure there is such a phrase as "Start off"
>
>Maybe, but if you're talking about using or following or starting to
>follow a path, then "path" should not be preceded by "off", at least
>according to how it sounds to me. "Start off the path of..." doesn't
>really mean anything. "Veer off the path of..." means the opposite
>of what you intended, and "Start going down the path of..." would be
>the term I'd use to convey the meaning you intended.
>
>R> and I am
>R> perfectly sure that it is spelt "americaniz(s)ing" and NOT
>R> "Americaniz(s)ing".
>
>In English, *all* words that have a capitalized root are also
>capitalized. Thus: "America", "American", "Americanize", and also
>"Danish", whether referring to a person, a pastry, or the language.
>
>The only exceptions I can think of are mathematical concepts such as
>"turing machine", and even there it is very unusual to see the
>lower-case spelling.
GGgrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. I'll just go to bed.
Teemu Leisti
In article <33af1da6...@news.inet.tele.dk> hob...@post1.tele.dk
(Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup) writes:
>AAaaaarrrrgghhhhhh. I am sure being tryed here, eh? Well, I'll just absorb
>and remember. ^^^^^
tried
Glad to be of assistance.
Sturle Fladmark
Teemu Leisti <lei...@mpr.ca> wrote:
> In article <33af1da6...@news.inet.tele.dk> hob...@post1.tele.dk
> (Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup) writes:
>
> >AAaaaarrrrgghhhhhh. I am sure being tryed here, eh? Well, I'll just absorb
> >and remember. ^^^^^
> tried
>
> Glad to be of assistance.
Spell check duty?
--
SturleF
unfucking to regain virginity never work