Iceland?
- Thread starter Ashlander
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Actually, strictly speaking Scandinavia is the peninsula encompassing Norway and Sweden. That's it. So if you're really picky about it, not even the Danes are Scandinavian. Of course, they get all whiney so we let them play 
(Kun en vennlig liten spøk. Dere er da så søte, at )
Iceland, however, is not part of Scandinavia by any definition. They are counted among the Nordic countries, though.
(Kun en vennlig liten spøk. Dere er da så søte, at )Iceland, however, is not part of Scandinavia by any definition. They are counted among the Nordic countries, though.
Ancient Whale
Knight at Arms
I'm an Icelander. And of course Iceland is not a part of Scandinavia. It's not part of anything, it's an entirely independent mini-continent smithed by Thor himself and has it's own weather system and star constellations and is populated by a race far superior than the puny humans that occupy the rest of the planet.
...or at least I like to think so...
...or at least I like to think so...
I ment nordic lands, not the northern lands. And the "unions" are isles some isles..Entmaster said:Audun said:Scandinavia: Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The northern lands: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and some union lands.
Simple as that
some union lands? and who are they? There has not been a union among any of the Nordic lands for about 150 years or so...
BenLevi
Actuallly they are called the "Norse lands" and the Norse people in English... This naming Vikings as "Norse" is correct since both Dnes, Norwegians and swedes had their share of Vikings. Scandinavia is Just the Danes, Swedes and Norwegians.
Scandinavia is Just the Danes, Swedes and Norwegians.They are called Nordic countries in English, as Norse refers to historical, not present geography. Also, whereas Norwegians, Swedes and Icelanders (by relation to Norwegians) were Norse genetically speaking, Danes were Germannic, or Jutes if you will. "Norse" back then, though, typically meant Norwegian. Scandinavia refers to Norway and Sweden only, as it is the name of the peninsula made up by these two countries. Denmark is commonly (but erroneously) lumped into the term "Scandinavia" as well, however.
BenLevi
Kissaki said:
I have been speaking English fluently since age five, and I have serious issues with your definition of Norse. Modern English actually uses the term Norse for the peoples who where Viking. Since Danes, Norwegians, Swedes and Iclanders where; all of them fall into the category of Norse. The term Norse in modern english has no ethnic or linguistic meaning in addition to that according to my knowledge.
The word scandinavia derrives from Latin. "Scania" which in fact litterally means "Skåne" or "Skåneland" (thus the company with the same name having a Scania Griffin in it's logo; the same griffin that one would find in the crest of Malmö and Skåne)... In other words you are saying that the Norwegian/Swedish peninsula got its name from (a then) Danish land area? Or might it be that what we now call Denmark and Skåne actually was a part of this thereof the name? Leaves me pondering upon if I missed some kind of pivotal stresspoint in your reasoning.
Neavertheless I could be wrong regarding the history since I am writing from the top of my head rather than trying to impress by googling for facts or simply visiting Wikipedia... At any rate the name issue stands fast and is of concern to your claims. But as I said, I do look forwards to getting a thorough explenation.
As an amateur linguist, I feel I should point out that no one speaks any language fluently at age five. Fluent usage of one's native language can usually be claimed at around 8-10. Anyhow, I've been speaking English since the age of four, so there. The etymology of the word is, according to Online Etymology Dictionary:BenLevi said:
Norse
1598, from obsolete Du. Noorsch (adj.) "Norwegian," from noordsch "northern, nordic," from noord "north" (see north). Also in some cases borrowed from cognate Dan. or Norw. norsk. An O.E. word for "a Norwegian" was Norðman, cource of O.Fr. Normand (cf. Normandy, "region settled by Vikings," see Norman). Norseman (1817) is not historical and appears to be due to Scott.
Indeed, when I have read about Vikings in English, it has been Danes and Norsemen.
Indeed, "Scandinavia" derives from Pliny's Latin texts (and is actually a misspelling of Scadinavia), but his meaning is not altogether clear. It is in any case not his definition we go by today, and "Scandinavia" was hardly ever used until the 19th century, when it was given cultural/political meaning. That's also when Denmark was decidedly lumped together with Norway and Sweden, in an effort to forge a common identity between Norway, Sweden and Denmark -- the "three brothers" referred to in the 6th verse of the Norwegian national anthem, commonly ommitted today for some reason. Scandinavia in its modern sense does refer to the peninsula, however, but this definition is hardly ever adhered to. The only two countries that must be included in Scandinavia, whichever way you look at it, are Norway and Sweden. Denmark is commonly included, and often even Finland (though including Finland would make it "Fennoscandia" -- but that is hardly ever adhered to, either). Because correct usage of language depends on common usage of language, it is not wrong to include Denmark in Scandinavia. The clinical definition of Scandinavia, though, is the Scandinavian peninsula -- Norway and Sweden.
BenLevi
Kissaki said:
I agree, It is unusual Yes. But not at all unheard of. Online Etymology Dictionary and other such sources always mention what is concidered as 'normal' (whatever that is), something that is not applicable in my case I am afraid. I understand your concern and agree with your point in general. (I would probably have reacted in the same manor as u did if somone made that claim.)
Kissaki said:
Basically you are believing in one theory and one use of the word, and I am fore another... Although I am guessing my use is more based on my understanding and use of the english language and yours is of what u concider historical facts meaning both of us could be right at the same time.
I could easily boast speaking five languages, too, but that would include Norwegian, Swedish and Danish -- and that's "cheating", because of their similarities. I can actually communicate with certain Swedes with less frustration than certain Norwegians, because of my dialect. No matter how many languages you were exposed to, though, I know of very few cases in history where a five-year old spoke even his own language fluently. I have read about prodigies reading Shakespeare at the age of four or five, but how much they were able to get out of it is a different matter, as in-depth interpretation requires in-depth understanding -- a pre-pubescent child is not able to understand mature emotions because he has no common ground with adults -- he cannot identify. Language is different, of course, but even here I am skeptical to claims of absolute language comprehension at the age of five.BenLevi said:I agree. Nor is it normal to be fluent in more than 3 languages at age five... Maby that was the reason my and my brother was a part of a scientific program investigating heritage and the effect of perfect ear (as in music) and language aprahention... U see my brother is completely 'normal' though I have a slight advantage to most when it comes to certain areas of the brain. Both my parents are linguisticly gifted, but only one has a good musical ear. Something that I too have but my brother lack... At any rate, the experiment conducted was to let me and my brother be 'subdued' to hearing and reading several languages. Five of them in our houshold. (Fx Swedish at dinner, danish at the TV etc). The result was that I spoke several´ languages and continued to have an interest in my adult life, and my brother is still to this date refusing to speak any foreign languages. I should say I spoke fluent at age 4, as did my oldest daughter fx. It is unusual Yes. But not at all unheard of. Online Etymology Dictionary and other such sources always mention what is concidered as 'normal' (whatever that is), something that is not applicable in my case I am afraid. Thus I understand your concern and agree with your point. (I would probably have reacted in the same manor as u did if somone made that claim.)
The etymology of words, by the way, doesn't apply to "your case" -- it applies to words. In this case the paragraph I quoted didn't even touch on what's "normal" or not. And the fact is, the original meaning of Norse is Norwegian, and very few sources describe Danes as being "Norse".
Anyway, this whole thing started because you corrected someone for saying "Nordic lands" -- which is the correct term, by the way -- and claiming "Norse" should be used.
Yes, Scania/Scadia predates the use of Scandinavia. That was precicely my point. It does not predate its prolific usage of the 19th century by much, and it had a largely political meaning of union in a largely national romantic time, in what is now known as Scandinavianism.
Later on there was no impetus to seek Nordic unity through a common consciousness, and "the Scandinavian peninsula" emerged, to be used interchangeably with "Scandinavia". The new definition is particularly useful in archaeology and genetics, as Norwegians and Swedes are genetically more similar to eachother than either people is to Danes. Not that this definition has become the one and only definition in these disciplines anyway, far from it. But the potential is there. Denmark has also had more cultural influence from the Germans in the South, owing to sharing a land border with them. Similarly, Norway and Sweden share a land border that Denmark does not. Of course, the Kalmar Union and the Danish-Norwegian union evened out many wrinkles, causing among other things a radical change of the Norwegian language.
But like I said, including Denmark in Scandinavia is not wrong. But if we do, we cannot be talking about a "peninsula".
Asbjoern_Skoedt
Recruit
Kissaki said:I could easily boast speaking five languages, too, but that would include Norwegian, Swedish and Danish -- and that's "cheating", because of their similarities. I can actually communicate with certain Swedes with less frustration than certain Norwegians, because of my dialect. No matter how many languages you were exposed to, though, I know of very few cases in history where a five-year old spoke even his own language fluently. I have read about prodigies reading Shakespeare at the age of four or five, but how much they were able to get out of it is a different matter, as in-depth interpretation requires in-depth understanding -- a pre-pubescent child is not able to understand mature emotions because he has no common ground with adults -- he cannot identify. Language is different, of course, but even here I am skeptical to claims of absolute language comprehension at the age of five.BenLevi said:I agree. Nor is it normal to be fluent in more than 3 languages at age five... Maby that was the reason my and my brother was a part of a scientific program investigating heritage and the effect of perfect ear (as in music) and language aprahention... U see my brother is completely 'normal' though I have a slight advantage to most when it comes to certain areas of the brain. Both my parents are linguisticly gifted, but only one has a good musical ear. Something that I too have but my brother lack... At any rate, the experiment conducted was to let me and my brother be 'subdued' to hearing and reading several languages. Five of them in our houshold. (Fx Swedish at dinner, danish at the TV etc). The result was that I spoke several´ languages and continued to have an interest in my adult life, and my brother is still to this date refusing to speak any foreign languages. I should say I spoke fluent at age 4, as did my oldest daughter fx. It is unusual Yes. But not at all unheard of. Online Etymology Dictionary and other such sources always mention what is concidered as 'normal' (whatever that is), something that is not applicable in my case I am afraid. Thus I understand your concern and agree with your point. (I would probably have reacted in the same manor as u did if somone made that claim.)
The etymology of words, by the way, doesn't apply to "your case" -- it applies to words. In this case the paragraph I quoted didn't even touch on what's "normal" or not. And the fact is, the original meaning of Norse is Norwegian, and very few sources describe Danes as being "Norse".
Anyway, this whole thing started because you corrected someone for saying "Nordic lands" -- which is the correct term, by the way -- and claiming "Norse" should be used.
Yes, Scania/Scadia predates the use of Scandinavia. That was precicely my point. It does not predate its prolific usage of the 19th century by much, and it had a largely political meaning of union in a largely national romantic time, in what is now known as Scandinavianism.
Later on there was no impetus to seek Nordic unity through a common consciousness, and "the Scandinavian peninsula" emerged, to be used interchangeably with "Scandinavia". The new definition is particularly useful in archaeology and genetics, as Norwegians and Swedes are genetically more similar to eachother than either people is to Danes. Not that this definition has become the one and only definition in these disciplines anyway, far from it. But the potential is there. Denmark has also had more cultural influence from the Germans in the South, owing to sharing a land border with them. Similarly, Norway and Sweden share a land border that Denmark does not. Of course, the Kalmar Union and the Danish-Norwegian union evened out many wrinkles, causing among other things a radical change of the Norwegian language.
But like I said, including Denmark in Scandinavia is not wrong. But if we do, we cannot be talking about a "peninsula".
Do you have any sources that can lay weight behind your arguments?
Regards Asbjørn
