Re: Dalska deciphered?

> > Iel Hokä Tuordšierssun!
>
> Hmm... Seems you used a character that doesn't
> exist in the Latin-1 character set.
>

Let me write it like this: "Iel Oke Tûôrdzhierssun!". I forgot that
dalska always drop 'h' and that there should be a nasalized 'uo' in
the 'tuor' (=thór). The combination 'zh' is here a voiced 'sh'. The '-
e' in Oke is somewhat archaic, but it is the genuine Dalska variant
of Icelandic '-ur'. In not too old unic inscriptions in Dalska there
is a '-e', like in the typical Dalecarlian name 'Ulåve' (=Ólafur).

> Hail to you, all the same. :-)
>
>
> > I see what you mean here. I would believe that long-long has only
> > survived in context of grammatical endings. I think you should
> > contact either Lars Steensland (researches about Dalska) or Bengt
> > Åkerberg (teaches Dalska) about this. You can probably easily

find

> > their e-mail addresses by e.g. www.google.com .
>
> Perhaps I will. Thank you.
>
>
> > Other examples - not of your requested kind - I found in the
> > dictionary by Lars are
> > 'nyytt' - neut sg nom of 'nyyr'/'nyy' (=new); ON 'nýtt'
> > 'smoott' - neut sg nom of 'smoor'/'smoo' (=little); ON 'smátt'
>
> In Icelandic we have "nýtt" (n. new) and "nýt" (f. useful) with
> a short vowel and pre-aspiration in the first word and a long
> vowel in the second word. If Dalska would distinguish the two
> (as well as, perhaps "nyt" (n. pl. certain type of milk)) solely
> by the length of the sounds I would be much impressed.
>

I've looked thru Lars Steensland's dictionary. But thereare only 2000
words in it, and they are the most frequently used ones, not the most
typical Dalska ones. There are probably pairs of words where the only
difference is the length of consonant: long-long vs long-short.
Probably a case of one of the types '-ýtt' vs '-ýt' or '-átt' vs '-
át'.

>
> > Älvdalsmålet, Lars Levander´s doctoral dissertation (40 SEK =

4.50

> > USD)
>
> Hmm... That could be the work for me. Thank you for your

recommendations!

>
>
> > This would cost you some, but probably not more than 50 USD, like

any

> > book in your course litterature for any course.
>
> You're right only I payed something close to 7000 Icelandic crowns
> (around 80 USD) for each of my books this semester. :|
>

I would take copies in that case. Unlegal but cheaper.

>
> > Some people thinks it sounds like Finnish.
>
> Maybe a bit. My first thought, though, was of someone reading an
> archaic language. A very solemn reading by Hr. Åkerberg.
>

I've digitalized two more poems read by Bengt, but they are a bit
bigger as sound-files (~500 KB) so I never uploaded them at the
Geocities where I keep them.

>
> > I have only heard 'dzh' (voiced 'sh' after the 'd') in Faroese,
> > Dalecarlian dialects and Norrbottniska (northeastern corner of
> > Sweden). My own dialect, standard Swedish and probably all

Norwegian

> > dialects have the pronunciation 'j'.
>
> Really? I thought they had 'dzh' somewhere in Norway. I guess I'm
> mistaken. It's certainly that way in Faroese, though, as you point

out.

>

Maybe they have. I should ask my Norwegian friend from Hordaland
about this. In Sweden you have three different pronunciations
of "gj": [gi], [dzh] and [j]. The [j] is to 99.9% the standard.

>
> > I don't know Icelandic here, but
> > I think you have either 'g' or 'j' before fronted vowels.
>
> We have a fronted 'g'. The clusters 'gj' and 'dj' are entirely
> distinct, though. (Unlike Faroese and, I suppose, Dalska).
>

Dalska has a clear distinction between 'gj' and 'dj'. E.g. 'dzhäro'
(v. gjera) and 'diuop' (adj. djópr, djúpr). There's also clear
distinction between 'kj' and 'tj': e.g. 'tshäpt' (n. kjeft)
and 'tiuov' (n. thjóf). Of course there's also a distinction
between 'skj' and 'stj': 'stshiuota' (v. skjóta) and 'stienna' (n.
stjarna).

>
> > I used 'þ' after 'r' ('garþ', 'byrþ' etc) just as a matter of
> > ortography. There are Dalska dialects that have the /eth/-
> > pronunciation even after 'r' (according to Lars Steensland). I

should

> > have changed this spelling before showing you the link.
>
> Hmm. You had the word "þar". You mean to say that some actually
> pronounce it with a fricative?

The rule in Dalska is that when a word beginning with 'd-' and comes
after a word that ends with '-r', the '-r' and the 'd-' assimilates
to a fricative 'd' (i.e. /eth/ or 'dh'). E.g. 'ir du' ("are you")
becomes 'idhu'. Bengt reads quite slow, and because of that there's
no assimilation. In the text I used they write it something like 'i/r
dhu', where /r denotes an 'r' with a bar thru it, like the Planck's
constant divided with two pi in quantum mechanics which is denoted
with an 'h' with a bar thru it. I took away the bar but kept the 'r'
and the /eth/ (or rather /thorn/).

So, 'i/r dhu' can be pronunced both 'ir du' and 'idhu' (and in fact
also 'idu' in special cases).

>
> It seemed to me that thorn had gone over to 'h' in some pronouns.
> That was a development I thought was unique for the "island

dialects"

> (Faroese, Norn).
>
>

Yes, like 'that' > 'thadh' > 'thedh' > 'hedh' > 'edh'. They have
also 'is' meaning 'this' (at least in sg fem nom). It probably comes
from an older 'his' and an even older medieval form 'this'.

> > You need to practice!
>
> Of course :-) Now that I've some idea of what sound-changes are
> in effect it should get easier.
>

Here's a small example of quite general sound-changes in Dalska (ON
long vowels and diphtongs):

Old Norse Dalska
á (á) ôô (ôô)
é (fé) ii (fii)
í (ís) ai (ais)
ó (sól) uo (suol)
ú (hús) au (aus)
ý (hýsa) åy (åysa)
/ae/ (hl/ae/ja) ää (lääa)
/oe/ (b/oe/ndir) yö (byöndrer)
ei (leita) ie (lieta)
au (auga) oo (ooga)
ey (deyja) ää (dääa)

>
> > Here's the translations to Swedish (hope you'll manage it):
>
> Thank you! Swedish is no problem. Or at least, when it is,
> I can look up the troublesome words - a luxury I don't (yet)
> have with Dalska.
>
> Kwadijón,
> HabukaR
>
> --
> Svá æ folkmýgi.

/Annliuote