What did our ancestors call their spoken tongue?
This is a good question.
Ari Fróði wrote "at norroenu máli". Ari and Landnámabók, which is
the Icelandic book of settlements, both describe the landnámsmenn
(first settlers) as "norroenir". The earliest Faroe Islanders, whom
we are presently studying, are also so described. This designation
clearly implies that both those inhabiting Norway at the time and
their relatives abroad were refered to as "norroenir". The tongue
which they spoke was called "norroena" or "norroent mál". When one
considers its speakers geographical position in the world, such a
name seems entirely appropriate. Nevertheless, "norroena" could
hardly have been the one and only name for this spoken tongue.
Were there also other names for the same spoken tongue?
Yes. Snorri Sturluson and the First Grammatical Treatise, which was
found appended to an old manuscript of Snorri, both describe the
same language as "dönsk tunga", which means the Danish tongue.
Why did Norwegians, Icelanders, and Faroe Islanders describe their
spoken tongue as Danish?
Norwegians, Icelanders, and Faroe Islanders all descend from the
same group of tribes. These tribes inhabited Norway prior to the
unification of the country into one kingdom under Harald Fairhair.
These tribes spoke a common language and many of their names can
still found as the names of districts in modern Norway. For example,
the Þroendir inhabited Þroendalög and the Rogar Rogaland. There are
many such examples. What really matters is that the territory called
the North Way was literally the way north, in this case for the
inhabitants of ancient Denmark and Sweden. Although the inhabitants
of these lands did not refer to themselves exclusively as Swedes or
Danes during the age of settlement in Norway by this Indo-European
people, they nevertheless formed some idea of national unity within
the borders of modern Sweden and Denmark at a time when those of
their cousins who had ventured up the North Way existed as separate
tribal units. For example, Denmark had a single king and the Svíar
and Gautar had already united for political reasons prior to the
time of Harald Fairhair. Groups like the Rogar must have been aware
that they were culturally and linguistically as Danish as their
cousins across the water. The had the same culture and spoke the
same language. Denmark itself consisted of different tribes, such as
the Jótar, each with its own name. The Danish tribe, which is now
believed to have entered Denmark from somewhere in southern Sweden
or Norway, achieved political dominance over their cousins from the
other related tribes. These tribes consolidated into one political
entity and accepted a king from the Danish tribe as their political
leader, much as the Gautar had accepted a king from the Swedish
tribe as their political leader. Despite any political differences
which may have existed at the time, all of these tribal groups were
culturally and linguistically very much the same. While they may at
times have served different kings and belonged to different things,
they were brothers and sisters and fellow descendants of the same
ancient folk. When the kings slept, the folk were friendly with one
and other. When the kings fought, brother was often forced to kill
brother. After the kingdom of Denmark had been founded and the name
of the original Danish tribe had come into use as a description of
the spoken language, the tribes in Norway began to use the new name
for the tongue in addition to their individual tribal names for it,
such as Rogiska or Þroendska. It was and is a beautiful formal title
for the beautiful common tongue of a common folk. We can and should
safely forget any silly and wholely modern notions of nationalism in
regard to the name of our ancestors´ common tongue. They all spoke
Rogiska and they all spoke Jytska. They all accepted Dönska Tunga as
a formal title for their common tongue, even if they lived somewhere
in Norvegr. They all accepted Norroena as a title and an accurate
description of their common tongue, even if they lived somewhere in
the Woods of King Danr. If we learn to think a little more like our
ancestors and a little less like modern politicians, then it should
not be difficult to understand that one and the same tongue can be
called by many and various names.
What did the Swedes and the Gautar call their spoken tongue?
Terms like Gautska, Soenska or Svenska come to mind. The Gotlanders
seem to have called their tongue Gutniska. The people of the Dales
would likely have understood Dalska. Again, one and the same tongue
can be called by many and various names. Although the Svíar seem to
have been the single most powerful tribe in ancient Scandinavia, the
other tribes did not universally refer to their spoken tongue as
Swedish. This suggests that individual tribal names were the rule in
earlier periods, even if everyone was a linguistic Swede. After the
Norwegians had come to be called Norðmenn and their common tongue
Norðska, or Norska as it is called today, the term Norroena seems to
have come into gradual use as a term for the common spoken tongue of
the Scandinavian Indo-Europeans. Although we know that the Rogar
spoke Rogiska and that the Swedes probably never used Norroena as a
formal title for their tongue, it has clearly become the dominant
and nearly universal term for the common language of our ancestors
during the centuries which have passed since the Viking Age. Thus,
while the inhabitant of old Norway itself had specific tribal names
for their common tongue and eventually accepted "dönsk tunga" as a
formal title alongside the more general term "norroena", and while
the Swedes and the Gautar seem to have called their spoken tongues
neither Danish nor Norse, the term "norroena" seems to have become
the most generally accepted term for what was once a common tongue
called by many uncommon names. Icelanders, Faroe Islanders and the
other settlers of the Western Isles are the only Scandinavians to
have called their common tongue "norroena" from the time that these
lands were first settled. The reason for this is not difficult to
understand when we consider that that term "norroena" was a generic
term accepted by all of the various tribes that had previously been
busy exploring and settling the North Way. Terms like Rogiska made
less sense to Faroe Islanders, escecially if their new neighbors had
just arrived from Þroendalög or Harðangr. The modern descendants of
those who settled the Hebrides still call their tongue "norn". Their
is even a modern movement afoot in their part of the world to apply
proper Old Norse words to places and things whose names have been
replaced or modernized in a fashion not to their liking (note: this
is a positive trend). Nevertheless, the inhabitants of the Western
Isles seem also to have understood the title "dönsk tunga" as quite
appropriate to their common tongue. Stranger things have happened.
As the speech of Icelanders and Faroe Islanders began to diverge
from that of Norwegians, the terms "íslenzka" and "færeyska" began
to be used with greater frequency, eventually surpassing the older
terms in common usage. Although these terms are younger than terms
like "norroena" or "dönsk tonga", they would nevertheless have been
understood by even the earliest settlers of Iceland or the Faroes.
In short, our ancestors accepted many terms for their common tongue.
It is only we modern folk who find it difficult to come to terms
with the poetic temper of our own ancestors. As our ancestors had a
common culture and a common tongue, it makes no difference if use
the term "dalska" or "hálogalenzka" in describing their speech. It
is for this reason that I find any number of terms acceptable for
the tongue of the last period of Scandinavian linguistic unity. Any
district speaking the same tongue as any other can freely apply
their own name to that same tongue as long as their own speech shows
no fundamental differences beyond pronounciation and a handful of
local expressions. This seems entirely fair to me. Therefore, in the
interest of linguistic unity and historicity I propose that any and
all historic terms can be applied to the common tongue of the last
unified linguistic period, whatever minor differences may have
existed at the time. On the other hand, I would also like to suggest
that the term "rúniska" be found acceptable by all as very literal
and accurate name for this common tongue as represented in written
runic characters and correctly transcribed (rýniska with i-umlaut).
I welcome your thoughts on these matters.