A few points on the difference between learning Old Norse and learning Icelandic.
I have recently been made aware of a view
to this course that goes somewhat like this:
"Why are you trying to teach Old Norse?
Why not just teach modern Icelandic?
They're basically the same and trying to
put the former up as a separate language
is just misleading and silly."
Yet I claim to be teaching Old Norse and not
Modern Icelandic. I'd better try and explain
myself :-)
While Old Norse, in the widest sense of the word,
is not the same as Modern Icelandic it is true that
the particular version of Old Norse taught in this
course is quite similar.
When I started writing the course I decided that
the point of reference should be the language of
Snorri Sturluson. It was my impression then, and
still is, that most people seeking to learn Old
Norse were interested in such works as Snorri's
Edda and Heimskringla. Another policy making
decision was to use the spelling used in the
publications of Hið íslenzka fornritafélag.
So while Old Norse in the sense of the language
of 9th century Swedish runestones has some important
differences (as regards grammatical forms and syntax)
from Modern Icelandic it is true that the language
of Snorri Sturluson (especially when represented with
standardized spelling) has few.
Whether you spell a word as "heimr" or "heimur"
or whether you say "ek kallaða" or "eg kallaði"
is not enough of a difference to make a sharp
distinction between modern and old Icelandic,
on the order of Modern English and Anglo-Saxon.
I still maintain that the course I am writing
is a course in Old Norse and NOT a course in
Modern Icelandic. Furthermore I will say that even
if I changed "konungr" to "konungur" every time
it occurs and made the few other necessary
grammatical "updates" this would STILL be a course
in Old Norse - and not in Modern Icelandic.
What do I mean by this? That the vocabulary
is more important than the grammar? Partly,
but that's not the whole story. The major
difference is simply that of perspective
and priorities. The subject of this course
is (drums, please):
_Icelandic as a Classical Language_
rather than:
_Icelandic as a Modern Language_
So what is the difference between teaching a
modern language and a classical language?
Well, when you study a modern language you
will learn how to say things like these:
* Hello, my name is Haukur.
* Could you please tell me what time it is?
* It is half-past three.
* How much does this cost?
* Six hundred crowns.
* When does the bus leave?
* Good night.
I can say all of these things in German;
I can say none of them in Latin - even
though I've studied those two languages
about as much.
Furthermore, when I say those things in
German I will (usually) be understood.
If I were to read similar Latin sentences
to a resurrected Catullus that probably
wouldn't get me very far. I don't have
much of a clue as to how the Romans pronounced
their language (Óskar knows, though ;-).
I do know some of the latin poetic metres
and the major Roman poets. I know next to
nothing about German poetic tradition.
To sum up here are some typical modern language learning emphases:
* Correct (or at least understandable) pronunciation
* Practical colloquial dialogue
* Understanding newspaper extracts on current affairs
And some typical classical language learning emphases: