Talk:Bokmål

Merged Bokmål/Riksmål/Dano-Norwegian

As you can see, I have merged the text from the Riksmål and Dano-Norwegian articles into the Bokmål article and redirected those articles here. I figured it was easier to just show how it could be done than to ask for your opinions beforehand. Now that you can see the result, your opinions are greatly appreciated.

Plutix 21:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I should add that the main motivation was to avoid redundancy. The three articles told the same story with just somewhat different emphasis.

Plutix 21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this was an improvement. Well done!Inge 11:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy should be solved using links. To redirect to "Bokmål" from "Riksmål" is bound to cause confusion. Someone searching for "Riksmål" may, upon being redirected, assume they are the same thing (which is a common misunderstanding). --84.211.138.201 (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"Bokmål vs. Riksmål"

The title of that section should maybe be changed. How about Riksmål? --Normash (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Etymology or origin of the term

It's very basic and simple where the term originated.

«bok» = Book

«mål» = Goal (or objective, meaning, intent, etc.) cf. Swedish «tungomål», dialect; literally, the meaning, intent, or "goal" of tongue or spoken language.

Kids are going to school and there is (or was at one time) a unified curriculum or literally a "Book Goal" for reading, writing, and speaking proper Norwegian. justinacolmena (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Reading and writing, yes. Speaking, no. Everyone speaks their local dialect, with unique grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation (or, to be more accurate, a unique combination of the three). This sharply contrasts with Swedish. Even the name Bokmål betrays this: books (boka) are all about reading and writing.

Even Urban East Norwegian is not a perfect representation of Bokmål in speech:

• There are letters with multiple pronunciations (such as Template:Angbr for both and and Template:Angbr IPA for both and , though there's also Template:Angbr which can only be )
• There are sounds with multiple spellings (such as with the spellings Template:Angbr and Template:Angbr)
• There are silent letters not sounded in UEN (such as the Template:Angbr in bønder 'farmers', homophonous with bønner 'beans' if you ignore tone (they are perfectly homophonous in singing)).

Since not all dialects do this (in many other dialects, the vowel corresponding to UEN is often when the Bokmål spelling is Template:Angbr (giving it a more consistent pronunciation) and West Norwegian distinguishes Template:Angbr from Template:Angbr and some dialects sound the d in bønder, thus ), even UEN is not spoken Bokmål in the literal sense of the term, it's just another Norwegian dialect that happens to be really close to Bokmål, likely closer than any other dialect (but, as I said, there are things that other dialects "do better", or are more consistent at, than UEN). Speakers outside Østlandet are unlikely to consider UEN to be a pronunciation standard in any way. Its origins are the 19th century Norwegian elite's pronunciation of Danish (the former literal language of Norway), but it's since evolved into a dialect of its own (consider the recent merger of Template:Angbr with Template:Angbr in most positions, resulting in a complete overhaul of the distribution of Template:IPAblink and Template:IPAblink and the subsequent phonemicization of as the most common lateral approximant. They only contrast after and , where Template:IPAblink is velarized to Template:IPAblink (which, AFAIK, is a sound unique to UEN and maybe some neighboring dialects). And, of course, the (equally recent?) merger of with , found in Oslo and several other big cities outside Østlandet).

(Conversely, tone is not indicated for most words in Bokmål, and pitch accent appears in almost all dialects of Norwegian, with many (most?) but not all words agreeing in tone across all of the dialects. The bønder–bønner pair and similar pairs are an exception to the rule (the one regarding pitch accent not being indicated in orthography), but there are more exceptions when you delve deeper into morphology. Wetterlin's Tonal Accents in Norwegian seems to be an excellent read on the topic (you can access parts of it on Google Books), but its price is insane. Also, Nynorsk indicates some minimal pairs that are written alike in Bokmål).

(Also, in , Template:Angbr IPA is nothing more than a generic symbol for Tone 1, which may or may not be the same as the Oslo realization. I prefer this instead of ad-hoc transcriptions such as , which is not IPA usage. Hopefully the phonemic slashes make my use of Template:Angbr IPA considerably less confusing.) Sol505000 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sol505000 Even though we're not a dictionary, I wonder whether a brief mention of earlier uses of bokmål might be in order, to avoid the impression that it was an entirely new word. This NAOB entry mentions its earlier use for Latin as used in Norse times, and for literary as opposed to everyday language in the 19th century. In fact they give a Norse origin for both of those. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"Is a . . . variety of . . . Danish"

I don't feel is a Norwegianised variety of the Danish language is accurate—it implies the language is still Danish, and maybe even that Bokmål aims to be Danish. I think something like derives from 19th-century written Danish, made progressively more Norwegian over many decades would be better. Musiconeologist (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The examples in a typical NAOB entry give an idea of how much it's changed. Musiconeologist (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The section "språkloven" shuld not be it's own section

The section "språkloven" should not be it's own section. From what i have gleand from the edditing logs the paragraph was writen to justify the lead sentence, which was removed by another edditor for being based on anecdotal sources. The lead is somwhat incoherent, arguably on account of being originally not about tha 2021 language law. The rest of the paragraph is not relevant to bokmaal the way the paragraph in question is written now; it seams mostly like padding to make the paragraph more than one sentence long. A paragraph on the 2021 language law may be relevant to this article but as it is now the paragraph shuld be removed. Herman Mortensen (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You are wrong, its a Subsection in the Controversy section. And it is relevant and should not be removed. Slagmannen924 (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

In what way is it relevant as to the toppic of bokmaal spesificaly as writen? Herman Mortensen (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Herman Mortensen (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I see that i can't convince you that the section isn't needed so i expanded it to make it read better. I wan't to work together to make the article the best that it can be so don't just revert without mediating first. Herman Mortensen (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

You are removing content without any good reason again and again that's why I have called it vandalism. Also you are adding content with spelling mistakes and bad grammar. I would remind you that this article is about Bokmål and not Nynorsk (you are removing criticism about Nynorsk). Slagmannen924 (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

That is the literal problem, why does an article about Bokmål sudenly start being about Nynorsk without anny other reason than that som people how belive this write Bokmål. It is the lead sentence in a paragraph that does'nt have anyting to do with Bokmål users opionins on Nynorsk. The state and the 2021 language law er not at all sinonymus. I have looked into the edditing logs and noticed that the lead sentec used to be in another section befor an editor removed it for being based on anecdotal sorces (witch is true most the sorces are opionpaces) witch is persumebly why the first sentence isn't realy about the 2021 norwegian language law. Stating the opions of Riksmålforbundet in wikivoice brakes NPOV and that fits wikipedias defenision of vandalism so at least that part has to be removed. The other parts of the paragraph is a discrimination of the language law, witch is fine, but when the rest of the paragraph does'nt tie in with Bokmål either than non of it shuld be in the article.

I am sorry for the speling mestakes, I am dislexic and I try to corect any spelling and grammar mistakes I make, but that in itself is not a good reason to remove the contet itself. Herman Mortensen (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

You don't write English very well, sorry. Again this content is in the Controversy section and fits in this section. That you don't like the content doesn't make you right to remove it. And yes some criticism about Nynorsk by people that use/have Bokmål fits well in the Controversy section. You don't seem to understand the context. Slagmannen924 (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

But why is it in the start of a paragraph about språkloven? I have read the section repeatadly and no, it really does not fit where it is at the moment; in the controversy section maybe, but as writen right now it does not fit in and shuld be removed. From a general writing perspectiv, the first sentence should lay out the themes of the rest of the paragraph; at the moment the first sentence unaquivicaly does not do this. Also, Bokmål users belive a lot of things about topics that are not bokmål, even linguistic topic but thos don't desurve metioning? You seem to be very convised that your version of the paragraph is better then my compremise (I still think non of it should be in the article) I would apriciate if you responde to my points individualy, ad homonum atacks don't exactly convice me of your point. Herman Mortensen (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Your English and grammar is very bad. You removing content from the Controversy section thats fits the section again and again is not good. And it is very obvious what you are doing (You are a Nynorsk activist removing content from the Bokmål article). I recommend you focusing instead on the Nynorsk article. Slagmannen924 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

You have accused me of vandalising, being a secret activist, removing things for no reasons. What you have not doen is say why you are so convinced the article is good as is, you seem completely convinced of this but refused to say why. You hold all the keys to make this pointless bickering stop. Herman Mortensen (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

That you are a Nynorsk activist thats not difficult to find out: Post by Noregs Mållag and plus some of your edits here on wikipedia. The problem here is that you are removing content from the Bokmål article that there is no reason to remove. Slagmannen924 (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I use Nynorsk as my main language but none of my edits have any pro Nynorsk bias at all; I only eddit according to my belief in free knowledge and that is incompatible with pro Nynorsk bias. At the same time the values of wikipedia are incompatible with all kinds of bias I believe that restating the opinions of Riksmålsforbundet (witch are fringe beliefs held by a smal amount of the population) is not in line with the values of wikipedia. Herman Mortensen (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)