"I come from a small town near Kristiansand in Aust-Agder, so I speak
south norwegian."

Looking at my map, I confirm that Kristiansand is really in the
extreme south, but in Vest-Agder rather than in Aust-Agder. Farsund
and Mandal is geographically a few kilometers further to the south.

"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."

With my reference point in (nord-)tröndska, the extreme south
norwegian dialects seem to have a danish accent to some degree. But,
you have a better knowledge in your own group of dialects, so I
believe in your statement that you speak a (pure) west norwegian
dialect.

"One thing to remember, is that there are a lot of differences
between the dialects from the area between Telemark and Rogaland."

This I knew. Especially Telemark seem to be complicated dialectally,
am I correct?

"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."

Oh no, the plague is spreading!!!
Skjemt å sido, it has already happened that the appearantly dual
phonemes "thick l" and "throat r" are both used in the same dialects
in the same region somewhere in Sokn og Fjordarne fylke, am I
correct? I think this has also happened in Småland in south-east
Sweden.

By the way Terje, what about the classification about tröndska. Is it
west norwegian or east norwegian? And the dialects in north Sweden
(north of a line you draw between Oslo in Norway and Vasa in
Finland), how should one classify them? Are they intimately connected
to tröndska?

Skål ta mej faan!
/Annliautar


--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Terje Ellefsen"
<radiorabia@...> wrote:
>
> "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
> >Tröndelagen.
> >
> >"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
> >Norrlandíc, this site is interesting because it provides a very
rare
> >sample of Propago's style of writing Gutnish.
> >
> >
> >Skål 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
> > > > * 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.
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/messenger - Den korteste veien
mellom deg og
> dine venner