--- In norse_course@..., Arlie Stephens <arlie@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:22:24AM -0800, Keth wrote:
> Hi Keth,
>
> I think people learn very differently. I find the stuff you post to
be
> "interesting", but hard to understand. Plus, if I'm remembering
right,
> rather well supplied with errors.
It is true that I did try my hand at some ON sentences,
and there were a couple of errors. But that was to be expected!
The point is, that when you don't know a language, there
will allways be errors. It is the same with Swedish: I can
read it almost as easily as if it was Norwegian, and carry on
conversations with Swedes. But I wouldn't be able to write it error
free. That is an illusion. Reading ability and the ability to converse
are the first step. Writing is a later step. But saying sentences
is more like an early step, since it is important for conversation.
>Net result: I haven't been making
it
> a priority to attempt to translate your attempts at Icelandic.
I just thought you might read it - not translate.
That's what I do with Old Norse. I just read it.
Translating can be quite hard and timeconsuming.
But reading often gives a good understanding,
even if you miss some details. Often it suffices
to look up just one word, and the sentence falls into place.
BTW it wasn't Icelandic that I tried to write, but Old Norse.
But I admit I cheated by using an Icelandic dictionary here
and there. I do however find MI difficult. The advantage
is that there are more complete dictionaries available than in ON.
(I can look up any word and find what it is in Icelandic)
>(And
why
> is it that you never seem to use vocabulary from the course, but
always
> words the other students have probably never seen?)
I thought you all had an ON dictionary. No?
>
> Daily portions would be fine ... but from my point of view as a
fellow
> student, I would prefer daily portions that (a) are correct and (b)
that
> build on what I already know.
If they are quotes from old texts then we might call them correct.
But if I wrote sentences myself.. well there would be errors.
But such efforts have the advantage of "finding" what kinds
of words are needed for internet communication. For example
"I like someone/something" was a phrase I needed. And so I found
the verb geðjast, because it somehow had an archaic sound to it.
> Yes, can you imagine the mess I'd make if I tried posting these
> comments in Icelandic (old or modern)? My vocabulary is far too
> limited. And even if I succeeded perfectly, who here would
understand
> me? Probably only the native Icelandic speakers ...i.e. our
teachers.
If you didn't make too many errors, I would!
> Yet I could post simple sentences ... drawn from the vocabulary and
> grammar I've learned so far ... and probably have them be mostly
correct.
The disadvantage of the internet is that we are too hung up
about "writing". What we "write" has to be "correct" -- always.
But when we "speak" - we just say whatever comes into our minds
and have a great time. It is the latter form of interchange that
causes people to become fluent. But on the internet writing and
speaking has become blurred. I am sure the Italian girl I
mentioned, wrote (or "spoke") A LOT. She learned by doing.
> But this would be things like: "I am called Arlie." Nothing too
complex.
> Not much use for interesting conversations.
For me that would be interesting enough!
Tell us about what the weather is like, where you live.
(but in ON)
> I don't see the point of phrases. I mean, suppose I know the words
> (and declensions/conjugations) for "food", "porridge", "fish",
"cheese",
> "meat" along with "eat", "hunt", "cook", "want", and "hungry". With
these,
> I can say a number of things. Whereas with phrases, I might have "I
am
> hungry","You cook porridge","Olaf has some cheese", etc. ... I
wouldn't
> be able to say anywhere near as much.
You can use substitution - but of course, you need to
know some grammar too.
> We will get to the genitive case ... and feminine nouns ...
reasonably soon.
> (So says the proofreader, who sees lessons before they are released
to the
> list.)
Oops! I forgot that feminine nouns were not there yet!
(but you can look in Zoëga??)
> > So, I therefore *propose* the following *solution* :)
> > vík, víkr, vík, vík; víkr, víka, víkum, víkr.
> > (s;p/N,G,D,A)
> I'll let one of the teachers comment, except to say that this looks
> strange to me. It could be what Barnes calls a "strong feminine" ...
but
> in that case, I'd have expected víkar (or perhaps víkir) where you
have víkr.
You are right. That the difficulty, as I saw it too!
Any way, I jotted it down from Zoëga, and it said gen. víkr,
pl. víkr. I did however leave the dictionary in the library.
What I have here is only the dative which is vík too.
(ok hittumk í vík Varins - Helga kv. Hj. 22.)
> But perhaps I've missed some rule here.
There are a lot of exceptions in ON.
> > The goal then is - to be able to decline any ON
> > noun ........ a distant asymptotic goal.
> Not that distant, really. And surely not asymptotic.
If you are a good memorizer, you'll make it!
Cheers,
Keth