At 11:44 25.1.2001 -0800, you wrote:

>> And I think you've missed a certain important
>> point. Old Norse isn't really a long-dead language!
>> It is basically the same as Modern Icelandic. The
>> difference is mostly in spelling. (Eysteinn)

>From what I understand, there was also a significant difference
>in pronunciation. Though that shouldn't affect whether 'ei' and 'é'
>were distinguishable. (Even if the two sounds seem to be rather
>difficult for an english speaker to distinguish.) (Arlie)

Yes, it seems certain that the pronounciation has changed
in many ways. But I am rather uncomfortable with the scholars'
reconstruction of "correct" Old Norse pronounciation. I don't
think Haukur and Óskar agree with me on this, but I'm all for
students simply using Modern Icelandic pronounciation. This is
the usual practice among academics (at least the academics I
know), and I'm sure that Haukur and Óskar would never seriously
converse in "reconstructed" Old Norse, unless they were trying
to show off ;-)

The difficulty (for the Icelander) of pronouncing Old Norse in
the "reconstructed" way, is that it is very difficult to do for
more than a few seconds without laughing!

In Modern Icelandic the difference between "ei" and "é" is
ROUGHLY the difference between the vowel sounds (in American
English) in "bait" and "beer".

Best wishes
Eysteinn