Re: Old Norwegian , the 2 Norways and the 'Black Death' -- another

It is quite amusing to draw linguistical borders in Scandinavia. One
thing that is clear is that the borders in 14th and 15th centuries
seem to have been more or less static during the years. I would like
to propose the following rough subdivision of the Norse dialects
(note that I have rejected the traditional definition of East and
West Norse):

§ South Norse
* Jutlandic dialects
* Själlandic dialects
* Scanian dialects

§ East Norse
* Svealandic dialects
* Ålandic dialect
* Norse spoken in southwest Finland

§ "Far East" Norse
* Gotlandic
* Farish
* Baltic Norse (including Ucrainian divison)

§ Central Norse
* East Norwegian dialects
* Dialects spoken in Götaland
* Dialects spoken in Värmland

§ West Norse
* West Noprwegian dialects
* Faroese dialects
* Icelandic dialects

§ North Norse
* Tröndish dialects
* Jamtlandic dialects
* Norrlandic dialects
* Norse spoken in west Finland

Dalecarlian may be put in either "§ East Norse" or "§ North Norse"
(originally the former, I guess).
Northern Norwegian may be put in either "§ West Norse" or "§ North
Norse" (originally the former, I guess).
The dialect of Bohuslän may be put in either "§ South Norse" or "§
Central Norse" (probably the latter).
One could also think of putting some South Norwegian dialects in
either "§ West Norse" or "§ South Norse" (probably the former).
I also wonder if some Norse dialects in Finland and Russia should be
in "§ East Norse" or in "§ "Far" East Norse" (probably the former).

I think this subdivision is more adequate than the simple East and
West Norse one, at least for the period 1400-1900. In fact, instead
of speaking about an important west vs east branch of Norse, one
should speak about a south vs north branch, and an Atlantic branch vs
a mainland one (probably equally important, more or less).

I hope Konrad will give his personal opinion on this.

Skål ta mej faan!

/Arnljotr (or whatever my name is)


--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "konrad_oddsson"
<konrad_oddsson@...> wrote:

> Here is what Gordon says about Old Norwegian:
>
> "Icelandic and Norwegian remained very similar until the 13th
> century, when important differences began to appear. There were
> dialects within Norwegian itself, which may be divided into two
> groups, East and West Norwegian. The dialectical boundary was
> roughly a line drawn from Grenland to Raumsdal. East Norwegian
> differed from Icelandic more than West Norwegian, agreeing with Old
> Swedish in most of the additional differences."
>
> I fully agree with Gordon on this. Having recently examined some of
> the surviving early manuscripts in Old Norwegian of the western
> variety, I have come to the rather old conclusion that Norway is
> linguistically speaking two separate countries. One can understand
> why speakers of surviving West Norse dialects in Norway have had to
> fight an unending battle for recognition against the richer and

more

> numerous Danish-speakers in the south. Had it been up to linguists
> to decide where the boundary lines were drawn, they would likely
> have followed Gordon and partitioned Norway into two countries. I
> can testify from my own personal reading that the languages of the
> Faroe Islands, Iceland and Northern and Western Norway were for all
> practical purposes the same language into the 13th century. In

fact,

> the diffences were so few that one could almost get away with using
> the phrase 'exactly the same'. Old West Norse is a unique

language,

> even within Scandinavia. It differs at times rather widely from the
> Eastern Scandinavian languages in various ways, including the way

in

> which it re-analyzed the Proto-Norse vowel-system. It even differs
> at times in the gender and declension of nouns, the conjugation of
> verbs, and other obvious features. Before the Black Death killed

off

> more than half the population of Norway and what remained fell

under

> Danish administration, the seat of Norwegian power was in the

north.

> It is strange for those of us living today to imagine a Norway

where

> West Norse was not only spoken over a rather wide area, but was

even

> the administrative language of the land. Most of the surviving manu-
> scripts in Old Norwegian are in West Norse and are believed to have
> been written in some of the numerous monastaries which once existed
> throughout Norway before the Black Death and the Reformation. To

say

> that the loss of Norway was a major tragedy for the West Norse

world

> would be an understatement. It was a near death-blow. The changes
> that began in Norway with the Black Death effectively wiped out the
> majority of West Norse speakers and most of the language itself in
> less than 100 years. When the seat of national power moved to Oslo
> in the south, the process was complete - West Norse had effectively
> become extinct. During the many centuries to come, the emerging
> merchant class centered in the south would determine the future of
> the country. Unfourtunately for West Norse speakers, this merchant
> class consisted mostly of 3 non-West Norse speaking groups: 1) the
> descendants of East Norse speaking natives from before the Black
> Death 2) the Danish East Norse speaking immigrants who came to fill
> in the buisness and administrative void 3)Germans and others from
> the mainland of continental Europe, including many Scots and Dutch.
>
> When Snorri uses the phrase 'dönsk tunga' to describe his language,
> he is merely applying a formal title to the speech of Scandinavia
> during the centuries leading up to his time. 'Dönsk Tunga' makes a
> fine proper title for the common language of Gothic Scandinavia -

it

> has a formal ring to it (at least to West Norse ears). However,

from

> a strictly linguistic point of view, it is rather obvious why West
> Norse was and is properly called 'Norroena' (or more

correctly 'Norð-

> roena') - no serious linguist would take issue with this. There are
> simply too many differences between the East and the West, both in
> Norway itself as in all of Scandinavia.
>
> Regards,
> Konrad.