--- In norse_course@..., "Óskar Guðlaugsson" <hr_oskar@...> wrote:

> I disagree. Some say the best way to learn French is to learn Latin
> first, because then everything will somehow be magically clear; I
> think the best way to learn French is to learn French.

If you consider the difference between Latin and French
to be similar to that between Old Norse and Modern Icelandic,
then I understand perfectly why you disagree ;-)

But I think your point about "sandwiching" is rather
misleading. It is simply not possible to learn Old Norse
and not learn a lot of Icelandic during the process. The
too are far too similar for you to learn one and exclude
the other. Arlie has already made that point rather well.
You are forced to buy both hamburgers, even if you only
wanted one.

For example, let's say a student goes on studying Old Norse
until he is able to read, say, Egils saga in the "Íslenzk
fornrit" edition, I'm sure he'll find that he can understand
most of Sigurður Nordal's introduction (in Modern Icelandic)
as well.

I unhesitatingly claim that it is quite impossible to reach
any fluency in Old Norse without picking up all the basic
elements of Modern Icelandic during the process. And if that
is true, I simply cannot understand why you disagree.

But I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.

Sæll að sinni,
Eysteinn