Talk:Danish language

Compound nouns

The article gives the example kvindehåndboldlandsholdet or "women's national handball team." From a linguistic perspective the English phrase is just as much a compound noun as the Danish word is; the fact that when writing we retain the spaces between the components is just an orthographic convention. While I don't doubt that Danish does form compound nouns to a greater degree than English, I think a better example is needed.Pithecanthropus (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the case; "women's" is a possessive adjective, and "national" is a regular adjective. "Handball team" is at least arguably a compound noun in English, but the entire phrase "women's national handball team" is not, unless you want to count every instance of a noun modified by adjectives as a compound noun. --Smeazel (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Geographic distribution

The introduction mentions "...Danish language communities in Argentina, the U.S. and Canada.", however the geographical distribution section makes no mention of them. Does anyone have some references or knowledge of where these communities exist in those countries? Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There are also small communities of Danish speakers in Spain. The Map does not include Greenland although 15 to 20 per cent speak Danish there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryfunk (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Dialects

The article says (January 5, 2011) that one of the three distinct dialect groups is called "Eastern Danish" and includes also the dialects of three Swedish provinces. As source is dialekt.dk [1] mentioned. If you go to that source you will find that the Afdeling for Dialektforskning at the Univeristy of Copenhagen calls this group "Bornholmsk" and does not include any Swedish dialect in it. I will now correct the information according to the source. --Vedum (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

can you translate this paragraph? Kan du svare Lone? Jeg kan ikke se hvad hun gor forket.Hun tommer basket og gemmer-hvad allers skal der til? Eller maske er der en fejl? KH Betiina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.93.89.78 (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Rigsdansk

Rigsdansk does not necessarily mean standard danish. For Jutlandic people rigsdansk does refer to standard danish as in the language around Copenhagen, though not strong Copenhagen dialects. Essentially what they hear in modern day radio and TV. To people on Sjælland and in Copenhagen Rigsdansk refer to the Rigsdansk dialect spoken in the TV and radio until the 1970s. Rigsdansk was a formal dialect that matches written danish much more than modern danish does, but Rigsdansk wasn't spoken naturally anywhere, and was only used to convey formality. It is still used from time to time for comic effect especially to sound like old TV or radio. Carewolf (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not correct. Rigsdansk still exists. It just does not sound the way it did fifty years ago. See the article on Risdansk in the Danish Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.234.245 (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Danish wikipedia is using the Jutlandic definition for most of the article, and only provides references to the historical context, not the modern misunderstanding. Carewolf (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a jutish definition of rigsdansk. And looking at the article the definition given is entirely correct. Rigsdansk simply is standard Danish, based on the copenhagen dialect. Rigsdansk is which ever language is the standard language at agiven time. There is no distinction between modern Danish and rigsdansk anywhere in the literature that I know of.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Standard Danish is developed from an old Aarhusian dialect. Saying that it's based on "the" copenhagen dialect (there are -several- of those today) is misrepresenting the history of Danish.

Standard Danish is also not currently supposed to be based on how people in Copenhagen speak, since the institute for languages was moved to Bogense on Fyn.

So no. How people speak in Copenhagen is not standard danish or rigsdansk. 89.239.195.102 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

loans in English

"Cold" is not necesssarily a Danish loan, and I nowhere found an attestation for that view. It is rather a normal development from OS=OE cald. It thus had to be cancelled.HJJHolm (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Recently,

Because English and Danish are related languages which share a common root in Old Norse, many common words are very similar in the two languages.

was changed into

As Danish and English are both Germanic languages, many common words are very similar in the two languages.

Yes, the first is incorrect, and the second true, but it also misses the fact that similarities stem not only from shared roots but also from later contact. How is this best stated - briefly?--Nø (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

However you choose to put it, the pleonasm "share a common" should be avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.234.254 (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes! And Old English is not "rooted" in Old Norse. OE was influenced by ON, but it is derived from Proto-Germanic.85.233.234.245 (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but Middle English and Modern English do have Old Norse roots. Middle English is basically a creol of Old English, Old Danish and Norman, since several key grammatic structures and rules changed to North Germanic systems, which normally doesn't happen through loaning. Carewolf (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The creole hypothesis is not widely accepted.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that is a creole is not widely accepted or the preferred way to put it, but that English has a lot more than just loan words from Old Norse/Old Danish is.Carewolf (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by more than loanwords, here just contact induced grammatical change? That does happen very frequently through borrowing/diffusion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Some words, particularly in northern English, are directly descended from Old Norse. Old Norse is therefore one of the roots of English. I can give you examples if you wish. 78.151.30.194 (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This does still not make it "rooted" in Old Norse. Incredibly more words than from Old Norse came from French and entered the English language. Is English rooted in French then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.206.111 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Vowels

Why are diphthongs ignored? Is this Wikipedia practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.234.254 (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm no linguist or phoneticist, but I don't think a consistent description of Danish phonetics need to invoke that concept - or at least, they are not phonemic. Did you have anything specific in mind?--Nø (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of diphthongs in Danish (most ending with i/j or u/u̯), they are just not included here because they are simply combinations of phonemes without independent status. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I find the decision to suppress the diphthongs most unfortunate. The argument that they should be ignored because they are "simply combinations of phonemes without independent status" is misguided. I suspect this unfortunate decision was motivated by some implicit "ideological" (purist) position or a failure to consider what purpose an article such as this one is to serve. It is, moreover, an argument that is too strong for its purpose: any diphthong in any language can be described as a combination of "phonemes without independent status". Your argument really means little more than "I suffer from diphthongophobia".

Your analysis appears to have a certain economy, but it does so only in virtue of the arbitrary (and perhaps temporary) circumstance that the constituents of Danish phonemes all happen to occur as independent phonemes. If just one Danish phoneme had included a vowel that was not independently represented in the Danish vowel phoneme inventory, you would have had to include the vowel in question in your inventory of monophthongs, and if your analysis was to be helpful you would have to add a note to the effect that the distribution of this vowel was special in that it only occurred after (or before, as the case might be) the other vowel with which it formed a diphthong. This would obviously be a mess, and it would be even worse if there were more such cases. If you instead adopted a less brittle analysis, one that would work for other languages, there is a fair chance it would not appear alien to readers who know phonetics but do not know Danish phonetics. So please drop your ideological hang-ups and add the diphthongs.

The very fact that the second element of the diphthongs can be realized by such a restrictive paradigm as is the case (i, u) should perhaps make you suspect that the diphthongs do after all have "independent status"?

An analysis that includes diphthongs tends to be more informative for readers interested in the orthography and/or history of the language in question.

If you worked on the article on English language I suspect you would "kill" not only the diphthongs but also the two post-alveolar affricates :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.234.245 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles give the phoneme inventories found in published sources. Including diphthongs as segments would require a phonological description that posits diphthongs as independent segments. Diphthongs could of course be included in a description of phonotactics, but since there is currently no phonotactics in the article that is the reason they are not. Almost all wikipedia articles suffer from a lack of engagement with phonotactics and phonological processes, and tend to simply list inventories of segments and phones.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Phoneme /ɕ/ or not

I read: "The combination of /sj/ is realized as an alveolo-palatal fricative, [ɕ], making it unnecessary to postulate a /ɕ/-phoneme in Danish." According to my reasoning, this claim can only hold true if /sj/ is the only (string of) phoneme(s) that correspond(s) to the pronunciation [ɕ]. But what about words like "chance"? Here /ch/ does not seem to consist of /sj/.Redav (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"ch" is just another way of writing the phoneme combination /sj/ in loanwords - chance is phonemically /sjaŋse/. You are confusing letters with phonemes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Danish not official in Faroe Islands

According to their constitution:

Symbols and Language (1) The Faroe Islands have a Flag and other Symbols according to statute. (2) The official language is Faroese.

http://loegmansskrivstovan.fo.dynamicweb.eu/ew/media/the.faroese.constitution.pdf ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.205.121 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This constitution is not currently in effect.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Germany

Danish not official in Germany--89.199.239.218 (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It also says "Recognised minority language", not "official language" in Germany. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Official?

List of official languages by state lists Danish language as statewide official language of Denmark, consistent with Danish language. But the article Official language lists Denmark as one of fifteen countries without an official language.

Which one is correct? Please discuss here: talk:Official language#Denmark--Nø (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Vocabulary

The article states:

The majority of Danish words are derived from the Old Norse language. However, 50-60%[35] of Danish words come from Middle Low German and were borrowed in the late medieval era (explaining the relative similarity of its vocabulary to modern Low Saxon and Dutch), for example, betale (to pay).

However, if 50-60% of Danish words are of Low German origin, the first sentence stating that majority of vocabulary comes from Old Norse is impossible to be correct. Can anybody provide more sources regarding the subject? Michalite (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It was changed from 35-40% by an IP-user.[2] The source describes the 55-60% estimate by Karl Wührer ("Der Einfluß des Deutschen auf die skandinavischen Sprachen" in Muttersprache 1954, pp. 448-459) as exaggerated, so the edit is a very selective interpretation.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Med lov skal land bygges

The infobox top right has the text:

The first page of the Jutlandic Law originally from 1241 in Codex Holmiensis, copied in 1350. The first sentence is:

"Mædh logh skal land byggas"

"With law the land shall be built".

It seems odd to me to have the ancient Danish and modren English version, but not (in between, perhaps) the modern Danish version.

... Afterthought: What is the modern Danish version, then? Fixing the spelling (which is what I meant) it is "Med lov skal land bygges", but the syntax is odd. The phrase is proverbial in modern Danish and as such acceptable and will be understood, but today it would be more like "Landet skal bygges med lov" or "Loven bruges til at opbygge landet".--Nø (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing weird about the original phrasing. I doubt anyone who have any problems with people using sentences with the same structure. "Loven bruges til at opbygge landet" however, sounds very artificial to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it is just poetic syntax "Med lov" is first for emphasis and flow. I think a more correct english version would be "Upon law, shall a nation be founded". Of course you reformulate that as "Law shall be the foundation of a nation", but then you lose poetic nature. The best modern Danish translation I can think of is "Lov skal være grundlaget for en nation".Carewolf (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• We might want to look at some sources. I certainly don't think there is anything that is not compatible with modern Danish syntax in "med lov skal land bygges". Most konfirmationssange would be considered ungrammatical if that were the case.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"Med lov skal land bygges" and "Landet opbygges med lov" doesn't mean the same. skal should be translated to must in English, This is not a description of a process, which your alternative is. 89.239.195.102 (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that seems outdated to me in "Med lov skal land bygges" is the lack of an article. "Med lov skal et land bygges" is a perfectly natural modern Danish sentence.--Klausok (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, as people seem to have no objections, I have now added the modern orthography version, so we have:

The first sentence is:

"Mædh logh skal land byggas"

Modern orthography: "Med lov skal land bygges

English translation: "With law the land shall be built".

--Nø (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be 'a land' or 'a nation' instead of 'the land'?

Carewolf (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Not "nation" there was no concept of "nation" when Jyske Law was written. It says "land" and the best translation is "land", the second best would be "country", the third "state".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I think the appeal of this motto through the years - e.g. when it was used for Copenhagen City Courthouse in 1815 - relies on a nation-like conception of the "land", but as a quote from Jyske Lov from 1241 that is hardly relevant.--Nø (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I know the concept didn't exist at the time. The question was a modern translation. Since "land" is an ambigious term that has drifted in meaning, the modern expression "nation" is a more precise modern translation. Note land is not used in modern English like in Danish, you would never refer to countries as lands in modern English, they are nations, states, countries, realms or kingdoms, not lands. Carewolf (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I estimate that in tn minutes I could find some fifty counter examples to that statement, in which English "land" is used in exactly the same sense as Danish "land" was in Jyske Lov - it tends to be used in a poetic or archaic register which is in fact perfect for this context. The best example of course is the idiom "the law of the land".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I stressed modern English. And most of these are idioms. The intro of Jyske Lov is not an idiom, therefore the use of 'land' there is potentially confusing unless you read it as archaic English, and not as translation to modern English. The translation is not wrong, it just not very modern or clear. Carewolf (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course the intro of Jyske lov is an idiom, and of course idioms and archaic and peotic registers are part of Modern English.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Distribution map

The map in the infobox indicates that Danish is spoken by a significant minority in Iceland. As it is a mandatory subject in school, I suppose it is spoken by an overwhelming majority as a second language (or third, in fact), but I don't think it is spoken as first language or on an equal footing with icelandic by anyone excepting a very minor minority. So, I believe either the map or the legend (or both) should be changed.--Nø (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable. Only less than a percent of icelanders have danish as a first language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

How are such maps made, I wonder? Should we request that the originator on mediawiki changes the map, or what do we do? Or can it be fixed by changing the legend? I don't see how.--Nø (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I would start by just adding a note to explain that Iceland has mostly speakers of Danish as a foreign language. Then someone will have to change the map- it is not that hard to do with an image editor (just needs to change the color of Iceland) but I cant be bothered to do it myself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

--- Another thing: In Southern Jutland, North of the German border, the map (with the present legend) indicates that Danish is a minority language in fairly large areas. I believe this is incorrect or exaggerated (but German is a significant minority language in those parts).--Nø (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

/danˀsɡ /

I would like to say that its more like /dænˀsɡ/ than /danˀsg/. Just one man's thought though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwiiz (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Danmark": In a narrow phonetic transcription it is really [ˈd̥ɛnmɑɡ̊], d and b being lenis (not fortis), and the stressed vowel being far from [a] and not even [æ], but closer to [ɛ]. Just listen to Danes speaking or some sound samples (forvo.com etc.).

And let's not forget: There is a good reason why the English word for "Danmark" is "Denmark"! Don't you think? Or otherwise, in English it would be spelled "Danmark", too! - Clearly a different vowel than in "man" or "hand"; as a German the "a" in Danish words like "dansk", "Danmark" sound completely like a German "ä" and different from an English "a" (like in "man" etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.203.78 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Danish language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625234655/http://www.midas-press.org/NR/rdonlyres/1FF1EEC7-7193-4072-81C7-88B33B31FCF2/0/Overview_Germany2007.pdf to http://www.midas-press.org/NR/rdonlyres/1FF1EEC7-7193-4072-81C7-88B33B31FCF2/0/Overview_Germany2007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221182726/http://www.kb.dk/da/kb/nb/ha/virtuelt_bogmuseum/bogmuseum_danmark.html to http://www.kb.dk/da/kb/nb/ha/virtuelt_bogmuseum/bogmuseum_danmark.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518072643/http://muds.dk/rapporter/MUDS_12.pdf to http://muds.dk/rapporter/MUDS_12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518194257/http://jysk.au.dk/fileadmin/www.jysk.au.dk/publikationer/centrets_publikationer/Lydogprosodi.pdf to http://jysk.au.dk/fileadmin/www.jysk.au.dk/publikationer/centrets_publikationer/Lydogprosodi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Copenhagen dialect

The "Copenhagen" dialect the article keeps referring to, is, in fact, not "the copenhagen dialect". It is a variant of the dialect from around Århus that was (fairly lately) adopted in Sjælland and then became standard Danish. The dialects (multiple) spoken in and around Copenhagen are very different from standard danish. Referring to standard danish as something that originates from Copenhagen is misrepresenting the actual development of the Danish language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.116.207.125 (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please present some literature in support of this claim, which is contradicted in all the literature on the development and definition of rigsdansk that I have surveyed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Utter nonsense - First of all, you make of lot of bold claims without providing any credible sources/evidence to back it up. It seems more like an personal opinion than a valid argument.

You're clearly know very little linguistically when it comes to the danish language. Yes, there is in fact a uniquely danish Copenhagener dialect - both vocally and written. It's beyond ridiculous to proclaim that a dialect, geographically the furthest from Århus (and Jutland) is an offspring of Jutlandish. Get real, and do some proper research. Furthermore, you're also wrong about all the Copenhagen dialects being different from "Standard Danish" (Rigs Dansk) - true that a lot them arent exept 1: the historical and current dialect of the monarchy and Queen - located in Copenhagen. Du må være en fornærmet Jyde. 81.161.157.240 (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

[ˈdanˀsɡ] and Other Phonetically Inaccurate Transcriptions

re: Maunus' edit on 20:09, 16 May 2018

My "source" is that I have a really good understanding of the IPA and the cardinal vowels. I've been studying phonetics for over a decade, as I wrote earlier. That and the fact that I'm not deaf. "Dansk" does not have the same vowel as (or even a similar vowel to) Spanish "mapa." A sound like the Spanish "a" is what [a] is supposed to represent in the IPA. [ˈdanˀsɡ] (if you ignore the stød) is closer to the Swedish or Norwegian pronunciation of that word. "Dansk" in Danish actually sounds very similar to English "dense." Anyone who isn't deaf or hard of hearing should be able to hear that. Listen to the audio clips in the article. That clearly isn't [a] in "Dansk."

If that source isn't good enough, for some odd reason, then there is this blog post. That's from the phonetic blog of British phonetician John C. Wells. You'll notice the broad phonemic transcription he gives for Danish "mad" is /mað/, but the phonetic transcription (in brackets, not slashes!) he gives afterwards is [mɛð̞]. That's because the vowel in that word is phonetically nothing like the "a" of Spanish, Italian, etc. To native speakers of English, Danish "a" in "mad" sounds like the vowel of English "dead" (which is never [a]). To Italians it would probably sound like the stressed first vowel of "guerra" ("war"); that vowel is also not [a] (John Wells transcribes it ɛ).

In a broad phonemic transcription of Danish, you can use /a/ in words like "Dansk." In fact, using Roman letters like "a" in a phonemic transcription is desirable. Look at the following quote from the 1949 IPA Principles booklet (§20) (emphasis mine),

When a vowel is situated in an area designated by a non-roman letter, it is recommended that the nearest appropriate roman letter be substituted for it in ordinary broad transcriptions if that letter is not needed for any other purpose. For instance, if a language contains an ɛ but no e, it is recommended that the letter e be used to represent it. This is the case, for instance, in Japanese…

The Danish vowel in words like "Dansk" and "mad" is phonetically around ɛ. According to the above IPA principle, you have 2 options for transcribing that vowel in a broad phonemic transcription: /e/ and /a/. You shouldn't use /ɛ/ unless you have to, because it isn't a Roman letter. You guys have chosen /a/; that's fine. But you should put it between slashes, e.g., /'mað/, /ˈdanˀsɡ/, not between brackets [], as you have in this article. ˈmað and ˈdanˀsɡ are phonemic transcriptions, not phonetic ones, so they should be written /ˈmað/ (or /'mad/) and /ˈdanˀsɡ/. Brackets [] and slashes // are not interchangeable in IPA transcriptions. Putting those transcriptions between brackets is misleading to foreigners who are familiar enough with the cardinal vowels to know what sound [a] stands for. John Wells isn't a better source than me or anyone else who understands the IPA and has decent hearing.

Turklshdelight (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Turklshdelight: We use an IPA (or at least IPA-based) system that reputable sources use - see Help:IPA/Danish and Danish phonology. It's not that we "chose" anything, if we had an actual choice we'd probably go for narrow IPA to show the actual phonetic qualities of the vowels. But we don't, per WP:RS and WP:OR. We'd also have to moderate every Danish IPA posted on Wikipedia to match our system, rather than the established set of symbols used by reputable sources. Also, see the conservative vowel chart in our article on Danish phonology to see that the set of symbols we use for Danish vowels is justified by how the vowels were realized decades ago. In Conservative Standard Danish, what we write [a] and [æː] (which are an actual short-long pair like the sounds we conventially write [ʌ] and [ɔː]) are exactly that: [a] and [æː]. In Modern Standard Danish, these are [æ] and [ɛː] or even [ɛ] and [ɛː].

You're mistaking phonetic transcription for (fully) narrow phonetic transcription, which is just a subset of the former. You also seem not to distinguish between phonetic and phonemic transcription, which is an amateurish mistake - for instance, */ˈdanˀsɡ ˈsbʁɔwˀ/ as a phonemic transcription is plain wrong, as the final phoneme of sprog is /ɡ/, [w] (more accurately: [ʊ̯], but Help:IPA/Danish uses a broad transcription) is just an allophone of it (but I have no idea how to transcribe the whole word in phonemic transcription - I guess it's something like /ˈsbrɔːɡ/?)

Truly narrow transcriptions of Dansk and Dansk Sprog as pronounced by speakers of Modern Standard Danish are probably [ˈtænˀsk] (or [ˈtɛnˀsk] for speakers that don't distinguish between these vowels, which nowadays may be the majority (I don't know that)) and [ˌtænˀsk ˈspʁ̞ɔ̽ʊ̯ˀ, ˌtɛnˀsk -]. To write the variant with [ɛ] (or [æ] as we transcribe it on Help:IPA/Danish) would be redundant anyway as the merger is probably far from being complete and it's pretty obvious anyway (you just need to use your ears and/or read a bit on the minutiae of Danish vowels). Again, see Danish phonology for the explanation. Mr KEBAB (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Basbøll who is a main expert on Danish phonetics and phonology, and who, I can assure you, has a very fine understanding of the cardinal vowels and has studied phonetic for a number of decades, transcribes this vowel as [a] in his phonetic transcriptions (he does not in his main book on Danish phonology transcribe the word "dansk" but he transcribes the word "dans" which has the same vowel). There is no comparable tradition that I am aware of of trandscribing these vowels as [ɛ]. If there is, then kindly cite it as we cannot accept your stated superior understanding of IPA and cardinal vowels as an authority. By the way, for a native Danish speaker the vowel in "mad" and "Dansk" sounds quite a bit lower than the vowel in most english pronunciations of "dead", In fact if I pronounce the word mad with the same vowel as in dead, it becomes indistinguishable from "med", which is a different Danish word. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"Basbøll who is a main expert on Danish phonetics and phonology, and who, I can assure you, has a very fine understanding of the cardinal vowels and has studied phonetic for a number of decades, transcribes this vowel as [a] in his phonetic transcriptions (he does not in his main book on Danish phonology transcribe the word "dansk" but he transcribes the word "dans" which has the same vowel)."

If he thinks the vowel in "Dansk" is [a], then he is very far from being an expert I'm afraid. He'll need quite a bit more ear training before he gets to my level. He might need hearing aids too. So will you, if you think "Dansk" is pronounced [ˈtænˀsk]. Both of those transcriptions of that vowel are incorrect. I have Professor John Wells on my side though, so I'm not alone.

"By the way, for a native Danish speaker the vowel in "mad" and "Dansk" sounds quite a bit lower than the vowel in most english pronunciations of "dead"..."

To a Danish speaker with horrible hearing, yes.

"You're mistaking phonetic transcription for (fully) narrow phonetic transcription, which is just a subset of the former. You also seem not to distinguish between phonetic and phonemic transcription, which is an amateurish mistake - for instance, */ˈdanˀsɡ ˈsbʁɔwˀ/ as a phonemic transcription is plain wrong, as the final phoneme of sprog is /ɡ/..."

I never claimed to be an expert on Danish phonology specifically. I don't know all the phonemic oppositions of Danish, but I clearly am much better at phonetics than either of you two or this "Basbøll" person. I actually know the difference between [ɛ] and [a], for one thing.

"There is no comparable tradition that I am aware of of transcribing these vowels as [ɛ]"

So what? That just means that the tradition is a phonetically inaccurate one and people just keep transcribing the vowel in "Dansk" [a] because other people did in the past. Which is stupid.

Turklshdelight (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

A genius such as yourself should be able to find somewhere other than wikipedia to publish your grundbreaking research on Danish phonology and phonetics. Please do, and then we can include your proposed transcriptions citing your published works.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"A genius such as yourself should be able to find somewhere other than wikipedia to publish your grundbreaking research on Danish phonology and phonetics. Please do, and then we can include your proposed transcriptions citing your published works."

There's certainly a chance of that happening. Although Danish is an unimportant language, so I probably wouldn't do research on it. It isn't high on my list of languages to do research on. It's "groundbreaking", by the way. Turklshdelight (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Turklshdelight: I can see that you largely ignored what I wrote and that you haven't read Basbøll's book. Is Wells's blog your only source?

Just one thing:

To a Danish speaker with horrible hearing, yes.

You don't know the cardinal vowel system at all then, just like you don't know the difference between broad and narrow phonetic transcriptions. I see no point in continuing this conversation as you have a history of being WP:DISRUPTIVE. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

If you think so highly of your understanding of the IPA's principles, then you must be very familiar with the 1999 Handbook of the IPA, which superseded the 1949 Principles half a century later, and what it says in the section "Broad and narrow transcriptions", pages 28–30. But unfortunately, your remarks show that you are not. Nardog (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"You don't know the cardinal vowel system at all then, just like you don't know the difference between broad and narrow phonetic transcriptions."

I'm afraid it's both of you who don't understand the cardinal vowel system at all. It's clear by reading your comments that that makes you feel very inferior to me, which is completely understandable. Anyone who thinks that "Dansk" is pronounced [ˈdanˀsɡ] in Danish has no understanding of the cardinal vowels. The vowel in "Dansk" sounds nothing like the Spanish a sound. I know the truth hurts, but someone has to write it, right? Turklshdelight (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this discussion should

1. either be a discussion of how the principles of Help:IPA/Danish apply to the IPA used in this article,
2. or be a discussion of those principles and hence take place here: Help talk:IPA/Danish,
3. or perhaps even be a discussion of this: MOS:IPA, and hence take place here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation.

And I think personal attacks should be avoided.--Nø (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Danish language/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mr. Guye (talk · contribs) 01:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I will be the one reviewing this nomination. Sorry that it took so long for someone to take a look at it.

Thanks, I am traveling and will not be able to respond quickly or with sufficient access to literature untill the middle of August.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Seems to have the basics down. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): I'm currently trying to improve this. I think it is decent enough. The manual of style is very big and is too difficult for any one person to review. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): 86+ citations. Very well-sourced, though I still see very infrequent instances of uncited significant claims that I'd recommend be verified or removed if this article were nominated to for . I might be able to find sources during this review. b (citations to reliable sources): Very reliable sources here. The article actually relies mostly on print books written by Danish linguists. The sources that aren't in print tend to be university research and scholarly academic societies. Article possibly over-relies on the Haberman print source, but I think its fine. c (OR): There doesn't seem to be original research, as almost everything is sourced. d (copyvio and plagiarism): The only stuff I saw were mirror sites and popular quotes. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): Seems to cover everything an article about a language should. b (focused): All content is topical and the article is organized well so all aspects of the subject can be explored. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Sometimes reads like an essay. Trying to fix. I have improved it to a degree that meets the criterion, though more improvements need to be made if there is a desire to get it classed higher than GA. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: There are some unresolved disputes, at least one involving the nominator, but no edit wars and they seem resolvable. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Everything seems fair as far as I can tell. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Yes, every last image has a relevant caption.
Overall: Pass/Fail: Pass
· · ·

Decision

• I think the article is of high-enough quality to be certified a Good article.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Numbered positions in Main clauses

In the section Main clauses, there is a table with 8 numbered positions. The number 6 is missing. I tried to correct it, but when I edit the number is there, and I see no difference from the other numbers. Could someone with more understanding of the syntax fix this?--Klausok (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. (In each table line, two vertical bars go between each column - one of them was a single vertical bar instead.) Please verify that the table now actually shows what it is meant to show!--Nø (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

And him Per hadn't given a thought in years

May we know the English meaning, please? Is it: "And Per hadn't given a thought to him in years."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.97.75 (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct. The construction is a little artificial (in order to show all eight positions in one example, I guess). Same basic meaning could be conveyed by, e.g., "I årevis havde Per ikke skænket ham en tanke". The particular word order may shift the emphasis - I'd say the sentence in the article suggests a surprise by the fact that, now, suddenly, Per did think of him. PS. I'm a native Danish speaker - but otherwise not an expert.--Nø (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"Main difference"

Following a statement on dialects and regional variants, the lead says:

The main differences in language are between generations, with youth language being particularly innovative.

That seems to me to imply that (assuming some measure of difference between language variants) you should find larger difference between a 15-year-old and an 80-year-old living in the same part of the country, than between a Dane living on Bornholm and one living in Western Jutland, say. That is not a correct picture, I believe. Rather, I'd say there is a continuum from B-80 (an 80 year old living on Bornholm) over B-15 to WJ-15 to WJ-80 - the largest difference found between older people in different parts of the country, not between old and young. There are certainly markes (e.g., slang) that would place B-15 and WJ-15 close together, and further from both B-80 and WJ-80, but still, I donit think the wording is true. Not sure how to express it clearly, though (and missing a source).--Nø (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Cyrillic writing system

An anonymous user (93.160.57.138) has added Cyrillic as a writing system for the Danish language. I removed it again, but (s)he added it again. In a mail correspondance, (s)he calls me an idiot and claims that any language can be written in Cyrillic. The consequence of that would be that all "XXX Language" pages need to have Cyrillic added as writing system, which I believe is absurd. But then again, I'm not a language expert. So can someone else weigh in: Should Cyrillic really be added as writing system for the Danish Language. Troels Arvin (talk)

Hi there, im danish myself and I mean that Cyrillic should be added as a writing system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.83.200.22 (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

If Danish is written in Cyrillic then it should not be difficult to get a reliable source to back this claim up. If you find one you can add the claim back in with a citation. It would also be ideal for this information to be located in some place else in the article, with further information about its use and extent, rather than just the infobox which is intended for quick reference. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no source on this, but a lot of Danes speak Danish Cyrillic every language can be written in Cyrillic - go look up "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillization_of_German" of which you can see latin German is made into Cyrillic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.83.200.22 (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. Nobody speaks "Danish Cyrillic". Yes, Danish can be translitterated into Cyrillic. Doesn't mean Cyrillic is used for writing Danish. And a lot of Danish sound lacks in every cyrillic alphabet. You cannot write the sounds Æ. Ø and Å using the Russian Cyrillic alphabet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madglad (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

We could add hexadecimal ascii, Greek letters, stenographic shorthand, katakana, and others. And the same would be true for pretty much all other languages. It's pointless. Danish is written in the latin alphabet augmented with æ, ø and å - period! (And I am Danish too.) Oh, and of old, Danish was written in Futhark, of course.--Nø (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

3rd p. ref. possesive

Under pronouns, the bottom line says that sin/sit/sine is used for plural owners. As far as I now, "deres" is always used. "De tog deres gode tøj og gik." "Sit" would just be plain wrong, Klausok (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Where are you seeing any reference to "plural" owners? The bottom line in the schema is not specified for number. The examples with possessives are translated to English singular forms, except sig, which is used with plural reference. You could add a note explaining this or something, but remember a source. By the way, calling it "plain wrong" is definitely an overstatement. -- Replayful (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the "p." in the column may look like it's short for plural, which is indicated with pl.. I'll try to remove them as they are redundant since the column says "person" at the top. -- Replayful (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)