>--- In norse_course@..., keth@... wrote:
>> I think the reason why there is no Eng.-ON dictionary available,
>> is because it is not necessary when you merely read ON texts
>> and are not interested in learning to *speak* Old Norse -- an
>> almost impossible task any way -- see the posts by Gordon who
>> has discussed this topic in a very interesting way.
>
>Heill ves þú!
>As far as the goal of being fluent in ON.
>To attain this goal, it might be effective to learn Modern Icelandic
>in conjunction with Old Icelandic.
>There is a group that teaches modern Icelandic.
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LearningIcelandic
>The list owner is an American who is fairly fluent in it.
>He recommends to listen to Icelandic radio as well in which he can
>understand iy at this point.
>Scholars generally feel that the only practical way to speak ON is to
>use the pronunciation of modern Icelandic.
>

Thanks for the tip Anthanareiks.

It is however like this: Learning Norwegian will not make you
fluent in Swedish or Danish. The way we do it, is just to
speak our own language a bit more slowly, and perhaps
inserting a few words from the other language here and there.

The only way to become fluent in another language is by living
in a country where they speak the language for a number of years.

For this reason it is impossible to become fluent in Old Norse,
because it is a dead language. It is however possible to become
more or less fluent in modern Icelandic, and that is then the
next best choice.

I had a teacher of Old Norse, who read Old Norse according
to the reconstructed pronounciation. It sounded very nice.
He was also a teacher of modern Icelandic, and was able to speak
it more or less fluently. When he did that he switched his mode
of pronounciation, and it sounded entirely different.

I have also heard that many American and British scholars of Old
English and Old Norse (the two are usually combined, I hear)
have lived in Iceland for a number of years. And I have also
heard that their approach to Old Norse is pretty much by adopting
modern Icelandic pronounciation. But I am not sure if it is done
that way in Europe. Most European Old Norse textbooks I have
seen start with a chapter on pronounciation, and it is not the
same as modern Icelandic. I hear it is an advantage to know
the early medieval pronounciation when working with such things
as runic inscriptions and place names. That is because they wrote
it pretty much the way they spoke it back then. That is my
take on it.

Thanks for the topic!

Best regards
Keth