Monday 8 November 2010

Aa or Å?

Danish has three letters not found in non-Scandinavian languages. 'Æ' is an amalgam of a and e, as you sometimes see in words like mediæval; while 'ø' is like the German 'ö', and is also used as the empty set in mathematics. The third one, 'å', was originally a long 'a' which gradually came to be written 'aa' (even though it is pronounced a bit like the o in the word go; the Danish word for go is, in fact, gå). Following a spelling reform in 1948, Danish adopted, instead of 'aa', the "bolle a" with the little o on top, which had been formally incorporated into Norwegian in 1917, and which had existed in Swedish as far back as the Middle Ages.

Who gives a ... , as my elder son would say? Well, some Danish people give a lot, for two reasons. The first is that 'a' is the first letter in the alphabet, whereas 'å' is the last one, so people flicking through an index of (say) place names are less likely to have the patience to get to the 'å' section at the end. That was the reason why the town of Aabenraa was given a dispensation, and allowed to retain its old-style spelling instead of changing to Åbenrå.

Secondly, in an electronic age dominated by the English language, it is felt that 'å' words are put at a disadvantage, since they can't be searched on the average English keyboard. That at any rate is the view of the city council of Århus, Denmark's second city. They have just decided that from 1 January next year, the name of the town will be Aarhus. Changing all of the signs will undoubtedly cost money; but that will be more than outweighed in their view by increased numbers of visits from simple-minded foreigners, who otherwise wouldn't have been able to find it.

Mmm. I have to admit I am not convinced by either of the above arguments. In fact, I have never seen the point of the extra letter; if it sounds like an 'o', why not just write 'o'? But then I am just a fåreigner.

Wålter Blåtscher

7 comments:

  1. There are so many things wrong with this post, I can't even count...

    ReplyDelete
  2. We, your devoted audience, will look forward to reading what is wrong with this post. It must be countable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Joachim,

    Crikey, what have I done wrong? How about dispensing with the infinite number of mistakes and giving me the first three?

    Regards,

    Walter

    ReplyDelete
  4. Firstly, I doubt your eldest son has such a simple mind as to dismiss any subject on grounds of boredom or irrelevance to his interests.

    Secondly, your conclusion is wrong. "Go" and "Gaa" sound VERY different, and as a consequence mean very different things, here "good" and "go" respectively. While English is spoken with the front of the mouth, Danish is spoken using the back of the mouth, which is one of the reasons it gets trashed by Norwegian / Swedish listeners and is subsequently very difficult for any foreigner to learn.

    Third, many Danish words also incorporate silent consonants to alter the meaning of the word - examples are "ved", "hvede" and "vade", "vaad", "vaager". In these examples, the vowel is pronounced differently, although the spelling of the word is similar.

    Fourth, the Danish language has fewer words than English, but more sounds. It is my impression that the frontal part of the mouth restricts the number of sounds made, but English compensates this with a much larger vocabulary. Anyway, the Danish language thus evolved adding sounds, rather than conjuring up new words. Æ, Ø and Å were originally written "ae", "oe" and "aa". This was later revoked, partially because of the simplicity of reading them, but also because the sounds needed to be defined. So before 1900, most texts and names were not the modern version we see today, for example Adam Oehlenschlager.

    Finally, it seems that every language has something unique about it, making it different from all others. Finnish, Swahili, Danish, English and Chinese are all different, yet they still work in their own way. Language and culture are bound together, so criticizing a language is bound to step on peoples toes. And if there is a language that should be evaluated, it should most certainly be English - the second most spoken language in the world, and not even spoken correctly in its home nation. What does that say about British culture?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I totally agree with this person's comments. And very clever they are too. English speakers - perhaps you should "sweep in front of your own door before you complain about others not sweeping front of theirs" (Danish proverb)!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Joachim,

    I think that you and Anonymous are accusing me of something I did not do, namely making an assault on the Danish language. The point of the blog was to show that it is Danes themselves, namely the city councils of Aabenraa and Aarhus, that want to change their own language, for reasons that I do not agree with (or, more precisely, can't see the point of). Basically, I don't believe that "state-sponsored" spelling changes are a good idea (remember the outcry over the recent German one?). And the Aarhus decision, in particular, will lead to a fair amount of cost without - in my view - a lot of benefit.

    My comment in passing that I couldn't see the point of introducing the bolle a in 1948 is along the same lines. After all, Danes managed quite happily without it for five hundred years or more, even though the former -aa was pronounced in a number of different ways.

    On your comments about Danish itself, I agree that a large part of its complexity reflects the fact that, like English but in contrast to (say) Spanish or German, Danish spelling does not reflect its phonetics. But I am not sure it has more sounds or oddities than English. Consider, for example, the different a's in all, after, haste, man, and alert. Or the many homonyms (which and witch, reed and read, be and bee). Or the number of different sounds represented by -ough (bough, cough, dough, lough, borough, through, rough). And although there are some sounds in Danish which English doesn't have, the converse is also true; the middle r's in "terror", for instance, the 'j' in "just" or the -ew in "few".

    I agree that language and culture are closely interlinked. Which means that I am still puzzled why the powers-that-be in Århus want to change its name.

    Regards,

    Walter

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Walter,

    Apologies for my reply of sounding accusing - it was merely meant as a clear answer upon request.

    It seems your interest when writing the blog was not so much anything to do with language, but with politics. As you clearly state in your reply, it is the powers-that-be which induced this change, and thus this case suddenly has multiple agenda.

    I believe it has to do with marketing, showing Århus from it's international best and setting it on an international map in an English-speaking global community. The coincidence that this transition was a reversal of the change made 50-odd years ago merely adds to the confusion.

    Århus is trying to compete with Copenhagen, since these two are Denmarks only real city. Copenhagen has the advantage, with different recognisable names and spelling and a large "city" brand. Århus is, despite its cultural initiatives, often just seen as another local town. It is often Copenhagen and the rest. To break free of this label, the politicians apparently believe that the gains of the "modern" name outweigh the language clashes and administrative costs. I think they might just pull it off!

    ReplyDelete