Re: history of Icelandic

--- In cybalist@..., "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:

> > In books about the Icelandic language, it is frequently stated

that the

> > language has resisted change over the last millennium enough

that, without

> > special training, those literate in Modern Icelandic can read the

Elder

> Edda
> > in its original language. Is this accurate or an exaggeration?
>
> As far as I know, it is exaggerated, although not excessively. A
> colleague of mine is Icelandic, and says he can't understand the

stuff at

> all. Perhaps you could compare a literate modern English person

trying to

> read Chaucer.
>
> > If it is accurate, is there a clear explanation of why it has

changed so

> > little?
>
> The separation of Icelandic from the mainland was important, but

here's a

> quote with another idea:
> "While its Scandinavian congeners have carried reductionism to

extremes,

> Icelandic remains close to Old Norse. This is partly due to its
> geographical position as an outlier. More important, however, and

the major

> factor in its linguistic conservatism, was the presence in Iceland

of the

> saga literature of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries."
>
> Peter

I recall from somewhere that Icelandic (or some Icelandic) went bad
during the time of Danish domination with Low German and Danish
influence (the Danish administration and court were largely German-
speaking) and had to be rescued with a determined puristic effort.

Torsten