Heill Óskar!

And thank you for your support!
First let me mention two things that I have arrived at. They concern
the process of learning languages:
1. Languages are best learned in close interaction with other users
of the language.
2. If one does not dare to expose one's ignorance, one will end up
learning very little.

Let me also say that Eysteinn's attack was not unexpected, since
he (+ twin) is the only real enemy that I have had on the net.
I think such an explanation is in order; but will refrain from answering,
since it will only cause escalation.

>Ketill reit:
>
>> Here I'd like to interject that the Old Norse text,
>> that I must quote from memory, of this 1st line ran
>> something like this:
>>
>> "Hjuggum vér með sverði"
>
>Well, it does say "Hjuggum vér með hjörvi" as far as I can see.
>Otherwise there wouldn't be any alliteration.
>
>
>> "Mit Schwerte schlugen wir"!
>>
>> (sounds better, and also has alliteration on "s". I hope
>> someone will help find a good as well as correct German
>translation.)
>
>That sounds good, though I'm probably not even qualified to comment; I
>don't know about alliteration in German (and I suspect there is no
>tradition for it anymore), but perhaps you'd make distinction between
>"s", pronounced [z], and "sch", pronounced [S], in it. But that just
>makes your line better, since it does alliterate in "sch" [S] :)

The reason why I try translating to German, is threefold:
1. similar morphology.
2. good excercise - then I learn some more German in addition to Old Norse.
3. hoping to get a dialogue with those who speak German, because I think
comparing similar languages is quite useful in the learning process.
I also think there is a kind of bootstrap process here.

>Any sensible student won't take all of Keth's "stuff" too seriously,
>so there's hardly any "danger" in it. And by that I am not criticizing
>his work; I think Keth's wish isn't mainly to improve "our" knowledge,
>but rather his own, and at the same time share his thoughts with the
>intermediary students. And that is all good.

I think you have seen that quite correctly, Oskar.
Note that the text I sent was merely a small piece of Old Norse
with an accompanying English translation. As I initially
said, the English was partly based on a German parallel translation.
I thought perhaps it might be a good idea to discuss the Old Norse
words used. And I did not think they were difficult: "grein" for example
= branch, which is an easy concept, even when used abstractly.


I also think I asked plenty of (easy) questions.
For example, I asked about the "tickets in their pockets" phenomenon
and how it is handled in Iceland. I also used many grammatical terms,
because I think that is the best way to learn such concepts.
Just think back to the old classroom situation, where it was extremely
important that the pupils also USED the abstract terms they learned,
in speach as well as in writing.

>But Keth, do not, by any means, feel discouraged. I know you won't :)
>Your writings are one of this list's (though not this course's) last
>straws.
>
>As to your choice of materials, Eysteinn is probably right that the
>grammatical treatises are too heavy. Haukur has a better overview than
>me over Old Norse literature, so I can't say which titles would be
>good; but I think any short Icelandic sagas, or kings' sagas, would be
>more interesting, easier, and more useful.

My experience is that books on such abstract topics as for example
mathematics, are among the best ways to learn a new language.
Why is that? Here is my answer:
1. limited vocabulary
2. text is extremely logical, forcing the student to think "exactly"
in the new language. The grammatical details will therefore be essential
right from the start. Prose texts are more a matter of acquiring a
relatively large vocabulary, which takes a long time indeed. (years!)
Texts about abstract topics such as mathematics or grammar can
however be mastered in a much shorter time, because the text itself
explains the concepts as well as the words used to describe them.
(Fachterme)

>
>Finally, about this list: our course has developed in the way that a
>very limited amount of people write on this list or to us privately;
>yet over 150 are subscribed, and perhaps some additional are using our
>homepage without being subscribed. I lament that students should not
>want to discuss more, or send us their solutions and questions more;
>mostly because as it is, we don't have a clue if anybody's actually
>using our course at all (!).

I think the course is great!
I recall a couple of years ago, people were asking if there existed
anything about Old Norse grammar on the internet, and only one place
was found where they had a web page listing som grammatical rules
and tables. But it was very little, and not very useful.
So please think of yourselves as pioneers!
You are creating something of lasting value.
Please do not stop before you have created at least 20 lessons!

Your cartoons are also great! Not only are you a talented artist,
but the texts are self-explanatory because of the pictures,
and by some miracle that includes the grammatical details!

The coloured grammar tables are also very good!
Only wish you would make them more complete.
Then they might even serve as reference!

>So if you're using our course, and have *anything* to ask/share/say,
>don't be afraid to post here, or at least send to us. Just so that we
>know you're still there :)

My personal opinion is that a silent list isn't worth much in
this regard. There has to be some activity! Otherwise you might
as well sit and study the grammar book of your choice all by yourself.
Somehow the list has to play the role of a classroom.


Any way, I thought the medieval author explained it quite well:
there are errors in a single word. (barbarism)
and errors that concern two or more words at the same time. (soloecism)

By a modern word some of the last kinds of errors are perhaps
called "error of congruence"? That is two (or more) different
words in a sentence have to agree in person, number, case and
gender. I think this was the error described by the anecdote.
I also noted that the footnotes had Latin quotes from Donatus.
"Donatus" was the Latin grammar book used throughout the Middle
Ages, just like Euclid's text was the number one text on
geometry. Unfortunately, Euclid's classic text does not suit the
modern mentality. We have become too impatient to concentrate
on all the details of a single logical sentence, until it has
been completely understood. But I do think this kind of
"medieval" attitude is needed in order to learn Old Norse.
(and math too)

Með kveðju
Ketils