# Questions about Scandinavia



## drei_lengua

Hello everyone,

I have the following questions regarding Scandinavia:

*1.  What is the etymology of the word Scandinavia?*
*2.  Which countries make up Scandinavia?*  I have always been under the impression (and believe I was taught in elementary school) that Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark make up Scandinavia but when I looked it up the primary definition was Norway and Sweden.  The secondary definition included the countries I listed.
*3.  Why are there conflicting definitions of which countries make up Scandinavia?*
*4.  Is the following correct?  *I believe that the languages of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark are all Germanic and that Finland's language is related to Hungarian but is not Germanic.

Thanks so much,
drei_lengua


----------



## elroy

I, too, learned that Scandinavia was composed of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark - I was not aware of any disagreement over what countries belong to Scandinavia. I could, of course, be completely wrong.

As for the linguistic situation, you got it right: Finnish is the only non-Germanic language among the ones you listed. Its closest relative is Hungarian, and together they constitute what is known (conveniently enough) as Finno-Ungaric. I think Estonian belongs in that family too. To my knowledge, those languages, along with Basque, are the only non-Indo-European languages in Europe.

I don't know what the etymology is. 

_I am moving this thread to the Cultural Discussions forum because it does not deal with language use. _


----------



## Ana Raquel

etymonline says this

Scandinavian [URL="http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif"]http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif[/URL] 1765, from L.L. Scandinavia, a mistake for Scadinavia, from a Gmc. source (cf. O.E. Scedenig, O.N. Skaney "south end of Sweden"), from P.Gmc. *skadinaujo "Scadia island," first element of uncertain origin, second element from *aujo "thing on the water," from PIE *akwa- "water." It may truly have been an island when the word was formed; the geography of the Baltic Sea has changed dramatically since the end of the Ice Ages. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=scandinavia&searchmode=none 

but I'd look for the etymology of the word Sweden in Swedish: Sverige

As Sweden and Norway are the only countries in the Scandinavian peninsula I guess that's the reason to take only those two as the Scandinavian countries but from cultural point of view also Denmark is Scandinavia.


----------



## annettehola

*1. What is the etymology of the word Scandinavia?
2. Which countries make up Scandinavia?* I have always been under the impression (and believe I was taught in elementary school) that Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark make up Scandinavia but when I looked it up the primary definition was Norway and Sweden. The secondary definition included the countries I listed.
*3. Why are there conflicting definitions of which countries make up Scandinavia?*
*4. Is the following correct? *I believe that the languages of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark are all Germanic and that Finland's language is related to Hungarian but is not Germanic.


Ad 1) "Skadinaujo" is the etymology. The meaning is a small island. I feel this to be of Icelandic origin. Because Icelandic is the oldest Nordic language, and the root of Scandinavian tongues. One of the roots. Welch and Scottish and English and German are other roots. But I am very sure Icelandic is the oldest. I can remotely understand Icelandic, I can at least see we share the roots of our languages.

Ad 2) Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland.

Ad 3) For political reasons, I should think. Or out of Ignorance. 

Ad 4) Not fully correct. I'd rather put it this way: The Scandinavian countries (2) minus Finland, are, what I would call "Scandinavian languages." They are very similar. I can understand, speak, read and write Swedish and Norwegian. As I said, Icelandic is much more remote to me. I cannot speak it. I cannot write it. I can read it at times and grasp the meaning but I cannot pronounce it well. It is because it has different letters to it and soft and hard sounds that are not the same in Danish, which is my mother-tongue. But I agree with you that German is also an element in Scandinavian. Or not German as such, the language, but rather its structure when written and spoken. As for Finnish I cannot understand it. It is really different from the other Scandinavian languages. I think this about Hungarian influence might be true. I don't know. From what I've heard, there is also some Russian influence going on. I really don't know, sorry. Why not ask some of the Finnish people here? They might know.

All the best,

Annette


----------



## Hakro

drei_lengua said:
			
		

> *Why are there conflicting definitions of which countries make up Scandinavia?*


 Geographically, only Norway and Sweden are included in the Scandinavian peninsula.

Linguistically, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and Icelandic are called the Scandinavian languages, but maybe Finland can be included in 'Linguistic Scandinavia' because we have a Swedish speaking minority (5 %). Finland's Swedish is only very slightly different from Sweden's Swedish.

Politically these five countries belong together – there's a lot of political, economical and cultural co-operation – but they should be called the Northern countries rather than Scandinavia.

 To make it even more complicated, there's also the conception 'Fennoscandia' that includes Norway, Sweden and Finland but not Denmark and Iceland. It's based on the similarities in geographic, climate, nature etc.

  Finnish and Hungarian are both *fenno-ugrian* languages but not very close related. Closest to Finnish are Karelian, Ingrian and Estonian in this order.

  By the way, ethnologically Finns and Hungarians have nothing in common except the origins of the languages.


----------



## annettehola

"they should be called the Northern countries rather than Scandinavia."

Yes; I agree with this. But, Hakro, I think it is because the term "skandinaujo" is ancient. "Scandinavia" at the time this word was made part of language must have looked very much different. Maybe there simply was no more than the two countries: Sweden and Norway then. Imagine that! And then the word "skandinaujo" was perhaps the world as seen from an Icelandic point of view: That little peninsula outside of Iceland. I imagine it to be like that. I think we are talking about the times before what we term the times of the Vikings. We are around the times of Saxo here..i.e. before the 9th century..maybe very much earlier even..

Annette


----------



## Hakro

annettehola said:
			
		

> "they should be called the Northern countries rather than Scandinavia."
> 
> Yes; I agree with this. But, Hakro, I think it is because the term "skandinaujo" is ancient. "Scandinavia" at the time this word was made part of language must have looked very much different. Maybe there simply was no more than the two countries: Sweden and Norway then. Imagine that! And then the word "skandinaujo" was perhaps the world as seen from an Icelandic point of view: That little peninsula outside of Iceland. I imagine it to be like that. I think we are talking about the times before what we term the times of the Vikings. We are around the times of Saxo here..i.e. before the 9th century..maybe very much earlier even..
> 
> Annette


 It's an interesting idea, Annette, but I'm afraid there was no 'Icelandic point of view' before the 9th century because there were no human beings on that island.

According to the pre-historic maps that I found there was no such time (after the last ice age) that only Norway and Sweden existed. On the contrary, In Denmark there was much more dry land than today.

I have to correct my own text: Geographically, Norway, Sweden and a small part of northwestern Finland are included in the Scandinavian peninsula.


----------



## Outsider

If you include Iceland in Scandinavia, you should probably include the Faroe Islands as well.

The main non-Indo-European languages of Europe are Basque (language isolate), Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian and Lapp (Uralic), Turkish (Altaic) and Maltese (Afro-Asiatic).


----------



## Hakro

Outsider said:
			
		

> If you include Iceland in Scandinavia, you should probably include the Faroe Islands as well.


  It depends how you define Scandinavia. 
Politically Faroe Islands belong to Denmark in a similar way as Aland belongs to Finland. No need to mention it separately.
Geographically Faroe is not a part of Scandinavia, nor is Greenland that's also belonging to Denmark.
Linguistically Faroese is one of the Scandinavian languages. I'm sorry I forgot it.


----------



## panjandrum

Finno-Ugric Languages


----------



## annettehola

Yes, yes. The Fairy Islands - in Danish:"Faeroeerne" - are certainly included. This is sure. Greenland; too, I should say (???), as it forms part of Denmark politically spoken. But this is really....something I am NOT sure about. Greenland is normally not considered a part of Scandinavia, you know. But politically it logically should be considered so considered its relations with DK. This is why Hakro is right in saying that what is termed "Scandinavia" today would be better off under the name of "Nordic countries;" fx. It is really very confusing this about "Scandinavia."

Hakro, is it really true that Iceland was uninhabited before the Vikings came? But, then, where did the Vikings come from? 
And another question: If DK had much more dry land thence, then, couldn't that just as well point to the fact that DK was part of Both Sweden and Norway? I mean inexistent as an individual country, simply? What was then called "Scandinavia" would have been just that whole lump of what we know of as individual countries today; all of them into one big occurance with no other name than "Scandinavia"?

It's just an idea.

Annette


----------



## Hakro

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Finno-Ugric Languages


There are four different forms: Fenno/Finno-Ugrian/Ugric. I don't know why.


----------



## Hakro

annettehola said:
			
		

> Yes, yes. The Fairy Islands - in Danish:"Faeroeerne" - are certainly included. This is sure. Greenland; too, I should say (???), as it forms part of Denmark politically spoken. But this is really....something I am NOT sure about. Greenland is normally not considered a part of Scandinavia, you know. But politically it logically should be considered so considered its relations with DK. This is why Hakro is right in saying that what is termed "Scandinavia" today would be better off under the name of "Nordic countries;" fx. It is really very confusing this about "Scandinavia."
> 
> Hakro, is it really true that Iceland was uninhabited before the Vikings came? But, then, where did the Vikings come from?
> And another question: If DK had much more dry land thence, then, couldn't that just as well point to the fact that DK was part of Both Sweden and Norway? I mean inexistent as an individual country, simply? What was then called "Scandinavia" would have been just that whole lump of what we know of as individual countries today; all of them into one big occurance with no other name than "Scandinavia"?
> 
> It's just an idea.
> 
> Annette


 According to Wikipedia, Iceland was uninhabited before the 9th century. Earlier I had read that those Vikings were Norwegian but Wikipedia says that immigrants came also from Ireland and Scotland (many of them may have been of Scandinavian origins).

As the maps (link in #7) show, 10 000 years ago you could walk from Denmark to Sweden but not directly to Norway. On the other hand, I read that Sweden was populated only 6000-8000 years ago when there was no land connection from Denmark anymore, so they had to swim.


----------



## annettehola

"immigrants came also from Ireland and Scotland"

Yes, this must be true. In Scottish today there are many words to be found that are almost the same in Danish/Swedish/Norwegian. "Bairn," fx. which is "Barn" in Danish (= Child). And many others. Now; it can mean one of two things; right? Either that the folks from "Scandinavia" went to Scotland and Ireland or else the other way round. Or, clearly!, both. It must have been an exchange, don't you think? Or wars determined migration. But this about Iceland.....The literature we have from there...you know; also before Saxo and his "Chronicle"...it is actually historical stuff, this.....about families from Iceland..I want to find an example at home. This weekend. This is not an easy task. For it cannot be known to what extent the sagas (= to tell, the "tellings" - it's an Icelandic word this) are examples of historical "facts" or mythology.

What an interesting thread this is!

Annette


----------



## Outsider

Annettehola, the general trend was that Scandinavians (and, more specifically, Danes and Norwegians) migrated to the British Isles, Iceland, the Faroes, and Greenland. This was during the Viking period. There may, of course, have been a little migration in the opposite direction throughout the centuries, but it was much less significant.


----------



## Hakro

All of you who are interested in Scandinavia should read the _sagas_ written by Icelandic Snorri Sturluson in the 13th century. They are translated in several languages and in English you can find them also at Project Gutenberg.


----------



## annettehola

And for those interested in Denmark in particular it is greatly recommended to read The Chronicles by Saxo. It is the oldest historical document in written form - on paper, I mean, the stones with inscriptions on them, the Runer are much older than any book of course - that we know of about the history of Denmark.

Annette


----------



## annettehola

I had another look this weekend in books on Nordic history that I have at home. So many interesting things! But in particular I noticed this which is fantastic: 1) I tried to read an old book in Icelandic with comments in Danish by a scholar on these matters, and, by Thor and Odin and Freyr and Tyr, I could understand it! Not all, no, but certainly with the help of the notes and the comments it is indeed possible! It is more than just the roots of language that we share, then! We share words. 2) The book is called "Isléndingabók," and can best be translated into English one of these two ways: 1) "The book of Iceland" or 2)"The Islander book." The book is written by an Icelandic man called Are. It is written in what we call "Oldnordisk" in Danish. It means: Old Norse. And now I think this: Old Norse was perhaps the oldest Nordic language before the national dialects appeared in the individual countries. You see, what I mean? That before we had Sweden and Norway and so on we had - so it seems to me - a common Scandinavian language which was Old Norse. And now, listen, the book in question says that the first people on Iceland were recluses from Ireland. They lived there but left no real trace, says the book. That's interesting on two fronts: 1) To find out where Old Norse comes from. 2) To question that theory about Iceland being uninhabited before the Vikings came, which I don't believe in. 3) To find out who the Vikings were. It is my personal belief that the Vikings moved more about than many other peoples, and I think this is due to their maritime artistery. They were very good and skilled sailors. And I find it funny that they should be called VIK - INGS if they did not come from a....VIK = creek. The suffix is also used in Danish, and will mean: "people from that place." We are talking, then, about people from a creek who could sail.
The question is: What creek?
Annette


----------



## Outsider

> *Viking*: The word is a historical revival; it was not used in M.E., but it was revived from O.N. _vikingr_, which usually is explained as prop. "one who came from the fjords," from _vik_ "creek, inlet" (cf. O.E. _wic_, M.H.G. _wich_ "bay," and second element in Reykjavik). But O.E. _wicing_ and O.Fris. _wizing_ are almost 300 years older, and probably derive from _wic_ "village, camp" (temporary camps were a feature of the Viking raids), related to L. _vicus_ "village, habitation" (see _villa_). The connection between the O.N. and O.E. words is still much debated.


From the Online Etymology Dictionary.


----------



## annettehola

How about "Viking" as an abbreviation for "Reykjaviking"? 
Think about it! It happens a lot in spoken language!
That would actually indicate that the Vikings came from Iceland originally.
Unless, of course, Reykjavik - is so much younger.
???
Annette


----------



## Outsider

annettehola said:
			
		

> How about "Viking" as an abbreviation for "Reykjaviking"?
> Think about it! It happens a lot in spoken language!
> That would actually indicate that the Vikings came from Iceland originally.


I think the Vikings travelled from Scandinavia to Northern Europe (British Isles, Northern France, etc.) before they colonized Iceland.


----------



## annettehola

Yes, but it's necessary to define what is meant by "Scandinavia" at the time we are discussing, i.e. from the mid-8th century to about the mid-11th.

More investigation into this is necessary. I, personally, cannot get the idea out of my head that the vikings were a part of the people from Iceland. Let's continue!

Annette


----------



## Carl. F.

drei_lengua said:
			
		

> 1. What is the etymology of the word Scandinavia?


Scandinavia (originally Scadinavia) is a latinized form of Proto-Norse Skaðinawjō, not Icelandic as anettehola suspects (Icelandic as a language appears much later than this word). Skaðin has something to do with harm or dangerousness, awjō meaning peninsula or island.
It refers to Skåne (Scania) in southernmost Sweden (Danish until 1658), and probably it's then feirce inhabitants (200-800 AD I think).
So initially Scandinavia was not the vast region we call Scandinavia today but actually the really petite Skåne.


----------



## Brioche

> So initially Scandinavia was not the vast region we call Scandinavia today but actually the really petite Skåne.


 
Many geographic names get stretched.

Italy originally was what is now Calabria, gradually the name crept northwards. By the time of Julius Caesar, Italy extended to the Arno and the Rubcion. North of that was Cisalpine Gaul. By 42 BC "Italy" reached the Alps.

Consider also the growth of "Russia" from a little settlement in Novgorod, to a country extending from the Baltic to the Pacific.


----------



## CrazyIvan

Outsider said:
			
		

> I think the Vikings travelled from Scandinavia to Northern Europe (British Isles, Northern France, etc.) before they colonized Iceland.


 
I happened to know a bit of Nordic history and those swedes got their power extended to the eastern of Baltic sea, even to Ukraine.


----------



## Lingvisten

Denmark was also geographically a part of Scandinavia. Scandinavia was originally Skåne, wich was a natural part of Denmark (until 1658, as said earlier). In the middleages it was rough terrain and woods wich seperated contries, not som much water (could easilier be crossed). The big woods north-east of Skåne was what seperated Danes from Swedes, not "Øresund" (the water betwen Skåne and Sjælland). If the word Scandinavia points to a natural part of Denmark, to call this country non-scandinavian would be very strange

a little map showing the pre 1658 borders:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/ward_1912/scandinavia_1523.jpg

this is not meant to be a nationalistic or politic message.


----------



## Sepia

Lingvisten said:


> Denmark was also geographically a part of Scandinavia. Scandinavia was originally Skåne, wich was a natural part of Denmark (until 1658, as said earlier). In the middleages it was rough terrain and woods wich seperated contries, not som much water (could easilier be crossed). The big woods north-east of Skåne was what seperated Danes from Swedes, not "Øresund" (the water betwen Skåne and Sjælland). If the word Scandinavia points to a natural part of Denmark, to call this country non-scandinavian would be very strange
> 
> a little map showing the pre 1658 borders:
> http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/ward_1912/scandinavia_1523.jpg
> 
> this is not meant to be a nationalistic or politic message.




Noteworthy is also that what was originally called Scandinavia was at the time not known to be a peninsula - obviously. Nobody had yet tried to sail around it. 

However: No matter how wide the definition of "Scandinavia" has been extended over the centuries I have no idea how anyone suddenly came up with the idea that it included Iceland! Why not include the Shetlands and Greenland too? And Ireland for that matter. Is it that they cannot understand that there is a difference between geography and politics - and confuse Scandinavia with the Nordic Countries? Or is it the language? In that case they should include Greenland - but then they should also count North America and Australia to the British Isles!

Sometimes it is really unbelievable what people are being taught in school.


----------



## epam

I had the idea that Scandinavia includes any country that has part of it above the Arctic Cycle, and is not Russia or Canada.


----------

