This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
I am not an expert on this field, but as far as I understand also Høgnorsk has both strong and weak nouns. The nouns used are "dag", meaning "day" (strong, masculine), "hane", meaning "rooster" (weak, masculine), "tid", meaning "time" (strong, feminin), "visa", meaning "poem" (weak, feminin), "hus", meaning "house" (strong, neuter") and finally "auga", meaning "eye" (weak, neuter).
In fact, strong and weak nouns are found in all Germanic languages, at least historically. In Germanic philology, "weak nouns" refers to nouns whose stem historically ends in -n, and "strong nouns" refers to all others. Compare Proto-Germanic grammar. At least in Modern German, the distinction is still made, while in Modern English, Frisian, Dutch, Low German, Danish and Swedish, noun morphology is simplified so much that the distinction doesn't seem to have much use anymore. But it was still useful even for Middle English and the medieval stages of the other languages. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just rated this article as "list class". It is clearly not a list, but it just explains the terminology of two philological traditions in a concise and probably quite exhausting way. Little additional work to do, or little notablity. If anyone can suggest better raiting criteria, I'd be interested to hear them. (I am not watching this page.) Best, G Purevdorj (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]