Góðan aptan, Arnljótr!

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Jens Persson" <arnljotr@...>
wrote:

> Godan aftan, Konrad!

> "The short of this sound heard in 'daogum' is not nasalized - I

hope this clears up the confusion."

> But the u-umlauted á (often nasalized) may have been nasal?

Any vowel can be nasal or non-nasal in Old Norse - it depends on
whether or not it stands before or after a nasal consonant (or did
stand there before the nasal consonant itself disappeared). A big
part of the problem is that mideaval writers did not write nasals
(even when they pronounced them). This is the sad truth. The first
grammatical treatise (circa 1140-1150), however, goes a long way
toward establishing the truth. It explains that the language has 9
basic vowels, each of which could be either long or short (read: 9
times 2 = 18); furthermore, it explains that each of these nine can
also occur in nasalized varieties (read: 18 times 2 = 36). Although
the grammarian implies that both long and short vowels could be
nasalized, in actuality he only gives examples for the long grades.
Until relatively modern times, the 'first grammarian' (as he is call-
ed) was openly attacked as a writer of fantasies. Few believed that
he was telling the truth about there being nasals in Norse at the
time he lived (from 11-12th century Iceland). In short, he had been
completely ignored. To this day, Old Norse texts are printed without
nasalization. During the last few decades, however, the so-called
First Grammarian has been resurrected from the dead and proven right
- yes, PROVEN RIGHT. Modern linguists have examined the evidence
(runic, comparative Germanic, other) and shown that there were in
fact nasals in Old Norse during his time. Furthermore, scholars have
even explored the issue of short nasals and determined that a) they
existed and b) where they existed. They have even made a very good
guess as to why the First Grammarian remained silent about short
nasals: the evidence was confusing to him. The problem was that
while long nasals always retained their distinctiveness (often it
was only the nasal which distinguished two words with identical
spellings), short nasals were often lost or new ones created through
contraction. Here is an example: Primitive Germainic *hanhistaz,
which means 'horse', looses its 'n' (a nasal) and thereby nasalizes
the preceeding 'a' - later, after the medial 'h' is also lost, the
remaining vowel-cluster 'ai' contracts to 'e' and the nasal quality
is lost. Similarly, a short vowel could become a nasal if it ended
up immeadiately before or after a nasal consonant through linguistic
changes in the language. What I am saying here is true. I admit that
I am simplifying things greatly do to lack of space. I also admit
that my manner of writing about or discussing these matters is far
from perfect. Nevertheless, the following are true statements: 1)
the subject of nasals in Old Norse has benn almost entirely ignored
(or their existence denied) by publishers and teachers of Old Norse
texts down to our time 2) modern linguists have conclusively proven
through runic and comparative Germanic evidence that the so-called
First Grammarian was right - there were nasals in his mother-tongue
in the same places he said there were (in other words, he was indeed
telling the truth) 3) modern linguistics is enabling us to go beyond
the limited examples the First Grammarian gave us and discover many
other words in the language which had nasalized vowels. Please bare
in mind that what I am saying here is enough to get me hung in some
conservative academic circles. I am sticking my neck out. There are
no textbooks or dictionaries showing nasals in Old Norse. There are
no grammars telling us where they were. Simply put, no one wants to
disturb the peace by bringing up the subject of nasals. Why? Part of
the reason has to do with the fact that the existence of nasals has
very big implications for how we spell Old Norse. Conservatives want
to rest on the printed texts which already exist. Manuscript-purists
do not want to discuss or admit that old writers failed to indicated
nasals in writing. There are undoubtedly other reasons as well. In
view of these facts, I ask to be patient with me on the topic of the
nasals in Old Norse. I am swimming upstream against a mighty tide.
Nevertheless, I can and will provide examples of nasals in Old Norse
- I am making a list of them from various academic sources. As you
are interested in this subject, I will post some examples of words
with nasal vowels - some of them may shock our readers. Also, as you
asked me about differences between East and West Norse, I looked the
subject up in several scholarly publications and will post some of
what I found as I find the time. Thank you for your patience.

Regards,
Konrad.


Please,

> give an example of an u-umlauted á which can be seen alive in

written

> Modern Icelandic.
>
> Skål ta mej faan!
>
> Best regards,
> /arAnliotAr
>
>
> --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "konrad_oddsson"
> <konrad_oddsson@...> wrote:
> > Minor correction:
> >
> > > The Old Norse Ö in 'dögum' was pronounced just like the

regular A

> > in the other cases of the same word - only it was nasalized ( =
> short
> > nasal A). The pronounciation Ö (and spelling) are later."
> >
> > Now I see where the confusion was coming from. Instead
> of 'nasalized'
> > what I meant to say was that the A was pronounced "in the
> direction"
> > of O. The short of this sound heard in 'daogum' is not

nasalized -

> I
> > hope this clears up the confusion. Please see the vowel-sets

shown

> in
> > my 3rd post about the 'vowel-system' for more information.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Konrad.