understanding older language??

[Alveranter]

Altair.. your proficiency in swedish is stupenduous.. I could not have translated the text more accurately than that.. Yes.. the spelling was weird.. and had probably nothing to do with the actual pronunciation.. a spelling reform was enacted some decades ago.. (in the 50's I think).. up until then..(on formal occations) words such as "vara" (to be) was spelled like: hwara and modern "bli" (to become) spelled blifva.. even today.. the actual pronunciation of swedish has practically nothing to do with how it's spelled.. and I don't think that's just a local thing. Compared to spanish, in which all syllables are pronunced clearly (with some regional exeptions of course) swedish spelling is fairly rediculous.. as you might know, the pronimina "mig" (me) and dig" (you) are pronounced "mej" and "dej" respectively (and sometimes that spelling is accepted today) "och" (and) is another strange example... but of course, that is the case for english and numerous other languages as well.

Yes, in the northern pars of Sweden, so called "Älvmål" is spoken among the population.. although their numbers attenuate (?) (I mean decrease) as we speak, and will probably be extirpated within the next generation. This vernacular is (I've heard) totally incomprehensible for a standard-swedish speaker.

There is actually a special word for the icelandic behaviour (never to use any foreign words or idioms in their own language) but I forgot it.. hm. Thus, their langugage have remained practically intact over the past centuries, and probaly resemble the pristine nordic language like you say.. (this language now being branched into the three "dialects" swedish, danish and norwegian) but I am no expert.. i intend to get more aquainted with danish by the way.. it seems to me to be a mixture between swedish and german (which I am well versed in) so there should really be no problem.. Norwegian is easy to follow.. danish on the contrary can be quite difficult when spoken fast and blurry..

As for Shakespeare, Me, I'd most likely not get the context at all if watching a play. (at least not if it's one of the more complicated ones)

[Elliott]

As a semi-native speaker of both English and Spanish, my impression is that European and American Spanish are considerably more similar than European and American English.

[Altair]

As a semi-native speaker of both English and Spanish, my impression is that European and American Spanish are considerably more similar than European and American English.

I am not sure if I am right or wrong, but let me give some examples.

In Spain, "tirar" and "coger" are absolutely normal and extremely common words for "to take or throw" and "to take." In many parts of the Americas, these words are absolutely taboo and equate to "f*ck." On airplane doors in the Americas, you always see "Jale" as the equivalent of "pull." I think this is to avoid offending people, but it might also be to avoid any ambiguity.

I cannot really think of any similar problems between English and American. There are some strong expression in England that are relatively colorless in America, like "randy" or "bloody"; but I think the dichotomy is less than with Spanish.

In Spain, a phrase like: "De donde estais vosotros?" (Where are you guys from?) is unremarkable. In all of the Americas, this is almost tantamount to saying: "Where are ye from?"

Much of the South Cone has forms like "De donde sos?" or "Que tenes con vos que sirva? These forms no longer exist in Spain for normal usage, as far as I know.

There are, of course, more subtle differences like: "What did you do today." I think in Spain they would naturally say: "Que has hecho hoy?; whereas in the Americas most would say: "Que hiciste hoy?" I think there is also a marked difference between the frequency of use of forms like "viniese" versus "viniera."

Over the years, I have read about differences in American and English grammar, but I must say that most of these are quite subtle. I usually cannot pick out who is American and who is not on this forum unless people make some explicit cultural reference. There are, of course, the minor spelling differences, but I am not sure that counts.

The one major difference between American and English grammar that jumps to mind is "I shall" versus "I will" and "I should" versus "I would." "I shall" is not used in America, and "I should" is limited to a meaning of obligation. "I should like to visit China some day" would not normally come from the mouth of an American.

I read once that Americans still freely use subjunctives forms like "I insist that he come on time"; whereas non-Americans strongly prefer constructions like "I insist that he should come on time."

There are, of course, regional American expressions such as "you guys," "you all," "y'all," "youse." Perhaps these are arguably the equivalents of some of the Spanish examples I cited.

Based on these examples, what do you think?