From: Terje Ellefsen
Message: 2808
Date: 2003-03-18
>From: "Jens Persson" <arnljotr@...>_________________________________________________________________
>Reply-To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
>To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [norse_course] Re: Old Norwegian , the 2 Norways and the 'Black
>Death' -- another view of point
>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:41:12 -0000
>
>This was a quick answer!
>
>"South Norwegian could hardly be classified as "West Norse". It has
>to go into one of the other categories."
>
>With sout Norwegian I mean the dialects spoken not in the south east,
>but rather in the extreme south and south west. In this area people
>speak with a very strong Danish accent, which makes the
>classifications quite difficult.
>
>"I would either re-classify Throndish as "West" or re-name the whole
> > "North" group "North-West"."
>
>Well, maybe it is a good idea.
>
>"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."
>
>I am actually born and raised on the other side of the "kjal" next to
>Tr�ndelagen.
>
>"Large numbers of Throendir became Icelanders or Faroe Islanders."
>
>According to the myths and genetical research, they also went east in
>great numbers.
>
>"Historical "Throenska" is just regular old West Norse masquerading
>under a localized name."
>
>So, this makes Old Jamtlandic (and hence Old Helsingska, Old
>Angrmannalendska etc) an old west Norse dialect also?
>Still today, at least here in Jamtland, people speak dialects very
>close to the throenska ones.
>The strange thing is that modern throenska is considered to be closer
>to east Norwegian than to west Norwegian. And my classification is
>meant to be valid during the great period of Norse dialects, i.e.
>1400-1900. I think a solution is to put hroenska in a separate group
>together with its children east of the "kjal".
>
>A completely different thing. Take a look at the site
>http://www.rekordfestival.de/gutnish.html
>Since I am interested in the development of a written normal of
>Norrland�c, this site is interesting because it provides a very rare
>sample of Propago's style of writing Gutnish.
>
>
>Sk�l ta mej faan!
>
>Arnljotr
>
>--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "konrad_oddsson"
><konrad_oddsson@...> wrote:
> > 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
> > > * Sj�llandic dialects
> > > * Scanian dialects
> > >
> > > � East Norse
> > > * Svealandic dialects
> > > * �landic dialect
> > > * Norse spoken in southwest Finland
> > >
> > > � "Far East" Norse
> > > * Gotlandic
> > > * Farish
> > > * Baltic Norse (including Ucrainian divison)
> > >
> > > � Central Norse
> > > * East Norwegian dialects
> > > * Dialects spoken in G�taland
> > > * Dialects spoken in V�rmland
> > >
> > > � West Norse
> > > * West Noprwegian dialects
> > > * Faroese dialects
> > > * Icelandic dialects
> > >
> > > � North Norse
> > > * Tr�ndish 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 Bohusl�n 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.
> >
> > > Sk�l 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 'd�nsk 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. 'D�nsk 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 'Nor�-
> > > > 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.
>