Norwegian or Swedish?

Post Reply New Topic

I would like to start learning a new language, and I think it's time for me to learn a Scandinavian one. English is my first language, and I know German--obwohl mein Deutsch ist etwas eingerostet! My other languages are French (once fluent, now very rusty) and Scottish Gaelic (near-fluent). Scottish Gaelic, though firmly a Celtic lanague, does have a little influence from the Norse.

I was thinking Norwegian, or maybe Swedish, because when I hear them spoken I often get the gist what they are saying, event hogu i've never studied either language. Spoken Danish is incomprehensible to me. But I don't know if there's an adavantage to learning either Norwegian or Swedish. Does anyone have an opinion on this? Which would be better for me to learn?

BTW, I learn to read in a new language quickly--it's learning to speak that is hardest for me.

They're so similar that you might as well learn both. The difference between them are so small -- just randomly pick one and start with it for a month or so and then start with the other and you'll realize that you practically already know it.

Swedish is spoken by roughly twice as many people as Norwegian.

Thanks. I already have some materials for learning Swedish. So perhaps I'll just dive into those.

but in norwegian the dialect diversity is so profound, so the fluently spoken norwegians comprehend swedish dannish and quite a bit faro islandish as well. but this is written two year too late i guess, did you learn swedish tread starter??

I would say Swedish would be a better choice, unless there is some particular reason why knowing Norwegian would be better for you (going there, interested in something particular that is based in Norway, etc.)

1) Swedish is spoken by more people and has more cultural richness to it (this is the perception anyway), and whereas Norway is (comparatively) more of a backwater. This is probably going to tick people off, but it's essentially true; and it's the common stereotype Swedes seem to have of Norwegians. Sweden generally would be considered more urban and sophisticated. The languages are fairly similar however. But there will be more resources available to you learning Swedish. I kind of like Swedish because it retains more of the original distinct vowel sounds in the endings and so on (things don't so much become "ə").

2) Norwegian comes in two entire different official "versions", namely bokmål vs nynorsk. If I'm not mistaken they were supposed to be merged, but this was abandoned. So you'd be learning one variety and there would still be another official variety to deal with.

If you REALLY want to be ambitious, learn Icelandic. Ha! The nice thing (for learners) about these nordic, Germanic-based languages is that the grammar has been GREATLY reformed and simplified. German for example has far more of this kind of thing. Iceland being fairly remote and secluded however, they have retained all of this. A lot more of this even than German. Icelandic would be like learning Polish or something in terms of the grammar. It would be fascinating to learn if you had the inclination, but it would also be much harder and a lot fewer people to talk to. It's very similar to Old Norse in which the old mythological sagas were originally recorded, and i'f i'm not mistaken I believe people who speak Icelandic can pretty much read and understand them in the original.

Well, I started and then stopped. I got to lesson 9 in my textbook. but I've recently started again. I hope to finish my textbook by the end of the year. If I do that I'll be between A2 and B1 levels.

Last edited by Mercurial on 05 Sep 2012, 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yeah, I was aware of this. It's one of the reasons I didn't go with Norwegian.



Between Germanand Swedish (as well as my native English), I think I'm pretty content with Germanic languages. I don't have much interest in Icelandic but it is a lovely language.

This is a nice way of presenting and demonstrating the differences. The "backwater" or the "culturally rich" noble monarchy of Sweden. A place where the inhabitants have a stereotype of their neighbouring Norwegians as inferior and insignificant, or Norwegians themselves. It's everyone's choice to make which side he/she wants to focus on. They consist of two completely different characters, although the cultures are similar.



No, they're not entirely different. They are very similar, almost the same. They were never supposed to be merged, they have always competed with each other. Nynorsk is seen as a symbol of the traditional Norwegian spoken in the districts. Bokmål is comprehended by all of the Norwegians, and the vast majority use it as a writing standard, maybe 90%. You don't have to worry about there being two at all.

Of course! This goes without saying--where did I indicate differently?




I never said they were "entirely different"--I said "entire, different". "Entire" isn't a modifier or intensifier of "different" (an adverb), it is a modifier of "language". They are each officially considered "languages" rather than variations, dialects, etc--hence each is an "entire language". Clearly they are extremely similar however. Indicating that they aren't was not my point.

Participants may freely can check out info concerning "the now abandoned official policy to merge Bokmål and Nynorsk into one common language" elsewhere on the web if the'd like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_ ... e_conflict

Thanks for your input though, Underscore!

It did not go without saying in my comment.



Haha, that's some vague way of expressing oneself, pretty vulnerable for misunderstanding by international speakers



Ok, I don't know about wikipedia, but I know that samnorsk and the merging you are talking about was just something initiatied by a very small, alternative subdivision which is barely mentioned in text books today. They may have been passionate about it, but they haven't made any significance. I can't see what sources they base this on in the wikipedia article. Everything is 404. Merging has never been a probable issue according to the people who have taught me about this in school. I can't see what you mean.

Yes, I think it did. You're welcome to your opinion though.



Thanks for your input on my way of expressing myself--this is very helpful.

My impression was that the question was being asked by a native English speaker. I could be incorrect on this of course. This is the basis on which I formulated my response. Please feel free to correct me if this was an incorrect assessment. Thanks! look forward to your response, and to finding out, one way or the other.



You are right! Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate. Personally I would recommend not trusting a word it says. If you'll notice however, I included the Wikipedia like as merely one source, stating that participants may freely can check out info this elsewhere on the web, if they'd like.

Thank's again for your helpful input! Sorry you had trouble understanding what I meant. Again, there is plenty of information on this subject online--I'm sure some of this would explain the subject in a matter that would be clearer for you given what you indicate was your difficulty in understanding my way of expressing myself.

I think not. And you are welcome to yours. If we should be as correct as you seem to be making this ^^



I'm glad to help


I would very much like to correct you on this. I would like to remark that if you talk about a country in the way you did, saying among other things: "This is probably going to tick people off", you refer to people, if you want it or not, that these comments apply to. Or anyone who is interested in this. And I believe that those people I'm describing can be many, and that this therefore should not be considered as a conversation only between you and the OP. Sheesh, my English is getting stretched to its poor limits with this, I am sorry if you don't understand me.


Understanding is one thing. Seeing the details is another. Clearer for me? Did I indicate that it was just a difficulty in understanding you? I don't think this communication across languages is going so well. I'm trying to find out what is correct, if you were wrong, and you refer to other possible sites on the internet?

I think so, and and so are you welcome to yours! Your second sentence here is difficult to understand.



That is great!




Haha, that's some vague way of expressing oneself, pretty vulnerable for misunderstanding by international speakers. I'm not sure what exactly your answer was to the point you were responding to. Sorry




I totally agree! If you thought I was wrong, you're welcome to submit your sources, if it is meaning for you to prove this. I take your word for it--you seem entirely credible to me This is how it works: I make a point and provide sources--if you disagree, you make a counterpoint and provide your own sources negating what I said. We probably have significant cultural differences but I think this arrangement is generally considered fair, n'est,-ce pas? Thanks again for your great input!