Jurgen Wullenwever wrote:along with a tendency to treat the words as particles
What does that mean?
Jurgen Wullenwever wrote:the language is still their artificial newspeak
Why don’t you change it back to what it was supposed to be?
Jurgen Wullenwever wrote:such as when Ethnologue suggested defining some dialects in Sweden as languages a few years ago, and the Swedes threatened to stop funding them if that happened.)
I don’t really get the point. What’s the purpose? On one hand, they allow a number or refugees equal to one fifth of the population of the country to come in and say “you don’t even have to learn the language, it’s okay to speak English,” on the other they kill their own dialects.
Finding more Swedish (and Finnish, and other kinds of dialects native to the land of Sweden) is very beneficial to the culture of the country, not the other way around.
France has a similar attitude toward its dialects. It’s retarded.
Jurgen Wullenwever wrote:Even back in the 1600s, the government tried to stamp out Finnish in western Sweden. It did survive somewhere in rural Värmland at the Norwegian border until after 1900, but in most places it was gone long before then.
Well, hopefully things will change. But I don’t get why we should exterminate our culture and then try to revive it, rather than doing the most we can to keep it.
Varislintu wrote:It must be, because Swedish was the language of government (and culture) for a long time, and its position has been slowly dismantled since then, whereas Finnish never enjoyed such a privileged position in Sweden.
That’s really interesting. Indeed my knowledge of Finnish history is null. Can you say more?