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

Saell Arnljotr!

I like your more precise classification-system. See my comments below
under your heading "North Norse" and also about "South" Norwegian. I
am only offering comments about this classification in so far as I
know what I am talking about from study and experience.

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Jens Persson" <arnljotr@...>
wrote:

> 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

I would either re-classify Throndish as "West" or re-name the whole
"North" group "North-West". Trondish is not only on the other side of
the "keel" separating Norway from Sweden, it is also historically the
"same" language as Icelandic or Faroese. Large numbers of Throendir
became Icelanders or Faroe Islanders. Historical "Throenska" is just
regular old West Norse masquerading under a localized name.

> * 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).

Exactly. "North" and "West is the same for Norway, Iceland, Faroes.

> 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).

South Norwegian could hardly be classified as "West Norse". It has to
go into one of the other categories.

> 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).

The dialectical situation in Scandinavia is certainly quite a bit
more comlicated than many are either aware of or want to admit. With
the onset of the 13th century (and especially after the Black Death),
the situation became far more complicated than it had ever been at
any point in the history of Scandinavia from the time the earliest
Germanic settlers arrived. While Proto-Norse is thought by modern
linguists to have had some dialectical differences along lines
of "east" and "west", these differences were very minor. That Proto-
Norse was fundamentally the "same" language throughout Scandinavia is
strongly supported by modern research. The division into "east" and
"west" dates from the Viking Age. According to this traditional div-
ision, all modern Scandinavian should be classified as "east" Norse
with the sole exceptions of Icelandic, Faroese and **very few West
Norwegian minority-dialects of "landsmal" (such as that spoken in
Sunnmoeri, for example)**. The asteriks are there because many modern
linguists would agree that 'there is no true West Norse in Norway'.
Classifying "west" Norse is easy today, but classifying "east" Norse
would be very difficult. For the purposes of your classification, I
would do 3 things: 1) throw Icelandic and Faroese into the same cat-
gory and forget about them 2) ignore "west" and "north" Norwegian for
the time being 3) spend a lot of time thinking about the rest of
Scandinavia - the part that goes under the heading "east".

> I hope Konrad will give his personal opinion on this.

There is certainly a lot to think about here.


Regards,
Konrad.

> 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.