> > Okay... number one: I was trying to simplify the pronunciation for
> > someone who probably has no real interest in the language
> as a whole.
>
> Isn't that assuming a bit too much? Especially considering
> the hombre's repeated statements to the contrary?

You may be right, but I recall no statements that he was sincerely
interested in learning the language: he just wanted a pronunciation for
his name.

> > Number two: the poor hick doesn't understand what a trill (rolling
> > 'R') is, so the point is lost on him.
>
> My point is that whether or not he understands it doesn't
> change the reality. The whole point of learning is to gather
> _new_ knowledge. If I can't tell people anything they don't
> know already or anything involving them doing a little work
> then I can't do very much at all.

Knowledge is useless without understanding. Without a basis to
understand *with*, of what use is having knowledge to begin with? Often,
we must begin where someone understands and progress into unknown
territory, as a paradigm shift is often too much if one begins in
unknown territory.

> > Let's be a *little* understanding of levels of
> understanding (or lack
> > thereof), eh? Trying to help someone out who obviously
> doesn't want a
> > complete discourse on pure pronunciation doesn't ensure
> accuracy, but
> > for SCA stuff, I didn't see a big problem with it.
>
> I didn't give anything like "a complete discourse on pure
> pronunciation". I explained the matter in the simplest way I
> knew while still being correct. I'm sorry if that wasn't
> simple enough for our friend to understand but that doesn't
> mean that it should be made "simpler" to the point of being wrong.

Again, your "correct" version is actually dogmatic and stodgy, and does
not take into account the lack of knowledge that this individual has. By
bringing him up to speed by starting at his own level, one is sure to
have more effective instruction.

Sometimes, a *little* incorrectness isn't wrong. You start with what
people know and then work to correct it. Correction is not always
immediate, especially when there is no ready method in a text-based
forum to convey the sound of something (especially in the absence of a
native speaker).

> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
> simpler." - A. Einstein

I agree. But the core of this is the 'as possible' clause, in which
Einstein realizes that there is a point at which oversimplification
results in overcomplication. By not making it as simple as possible, you
were complicating his understanding.

> > > The Old Norse spelling of the above names is Haukr and Þorsteinn
> > > respectively.
> >
> > Haukr = Right
> >
> > Thorsstein = More correct for ON/b than ON/I. Depends on
> the source as
> > to whether or not the double-S is necessary. I find both
> spellings in
> > old texts. The single-S version is more favored in the Eastern
> > dialects such as those found on the mainland, but in Iceland the
> > double-S seems to be about even, where preferences are concerned.
>
> There's an amazing amount of packet loss in our
> communications. Once again I don't know what you're talking
> about. What is ON/b and what is ON/b?

ON/b = Old Norse/Bokmal (forgive the lack of accents, I'm in a rush to
get out the door) and ON/I = Old Norse/Icelandic. There is a distinct
fracture between the two languages, though they have the same roots. I
was demonstrating that what one person knows is not always apparent to
another, especially when one uses terms that the other doesn't
understand.

> > In addition, I was using 7-bit ASCII characters to try to lower the
> > confusion threshold. Oh, excuse me: Þreshold...
>
> Yeah. Ðæt was much better. Glæd you're coming around. ;)
>
> Kveðja,
> Haukur

Hehehe... Þhought yú might like thæt.

1 4m n0'// 4 l337 7r4n5l4t0r... ;)

Anyway...

All joking aside, I think that we simply have a difference of opinion
where styles themselves are concerned. It's not that I doubt you know
your stuff (you've demonstrated admirably that you do), it's more that
you are at such a high level that the lower levels are beginning to
escape you.

I myself am more interested in learning to speak it, as my written
skills are at least passable, but without an understanding of the oral
language, it's beginning to be a difficult task to translate some older
documents. I'm falling into the same traps that a lot of others fall
into: mistaking one word for another.

Takk,
-Ragin Bragisbjörn Gullintannisson