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

"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 come from a small town near Kristiansand in Aust-Agder, so I speak south
norwegian. Yet to me, it's not that much Danish. True, many of us use soft
consonants rather than hard (e.g. d instead of t), but I think there's a
common misconception that down south, we speak almost Danish. When Ivar
Aasen gathered samples to create Nynorsk, he avoided the south because of
this. Yet if you look at the rhythm in the dialects and the basic
pronounciation of the words, it's much closer to Norwegian than Danish.
One thing to remember, is that there are a lot of differences between the
dialects from the area between Telemark and Rogaland. This whole region has
got a lot of dialects (even though east Norwegian is winning territory).
One remarkable thing, though, is that the way we pronounce the letter R (We
don't roll our R's.) in the south is spreading throughout the country.

Terje

>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.
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og
dine venner