Saell Arnljotr!
--- In
norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Jens Persson" <arnljotr@...>
wrote:
> 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.
Yes. As to how to classify south Norwegian I am not sure, but I do
know that it is not 'West Norse' according to the linguists.
> "I would either re-classify Throndish as "West" or re-name the
whole "North" group "North-West"."
>
> Well, maybe it is a good idea.
I am not an expert on Scandinavian dialects. Those of you who speak a
living dialects of 'eastern' Norse are in a better position to say
what dialect belongs where. By 'eastern' I mean all dialects except
West Norse as traditionally and academically defined.
> "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.
Interesting.
> "Large numbers of Throendir became Icelanders or Faroe Islanders."
>
> According to the myths and genetical research, they also went east
in great numbers.
Yes, they would have had strong ties to those living east of the
'keel' even in ancient times. As language is often only a question of
majority-rule, those Thoendir who went 'east' must have adopted the
'eastern' idiom?
> "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?
No. Throendska (before the Black Death and the 'Danish Bible') can be
conclusively proven on linguistic grounds to be West Norse - compare
any of the surviving manuscripts from the 13th century or earlier
from this region to Icelandic, Faroese or other West Norwegion dial-
ects and you will see what I mean. In fact, many linguists would ar-
gue that the West Norse of the 13th century or earlier actually shows
too few differences from one region to another to speak of 'dialects'
- I am being liberal in my usage when I speak of 'dialects' here.
The 'dialects' east of the 'keel' are classified as 'east' in every
account of Old Scandinavian that I have ever seen. While it is un-
doubtedly true that the Germanic spoken by people on both sides of
the 'keel' was fundamentally the 'same' language up into the 13th
century, there had nevertheless been enough differences from the
Viking Age onward for linguists to draw a division line between east
and west from that time onwards. Whatever the differences were, I
doubt that people living on either side on the keel had any real dif-
ficulty understanding one another at least until the Black Death.
Today, the dialects on the Swedish side are the 'older' and 'purer'
ones according the modern dialecticians - but they still show signs
of strong influence from 'standard' printed Swedish of the kind they
teach in school and publish in the tourist guides. I understand why
some Swedes take an interest in 'purifying' the language today. In my
*personal* opinion, however, the Swedes on the whole still speak bet-
ter Norse than the Norseman or the Danes do. Even though I have lots
of Norwegian ancestors and no Swedish ones (at least not that I am
aware of), I would choose to Swedish over Norwegian if I had to pick
only one - it has nothing to do with 'ancestry' as such, it is just a
linguistic issue for me. I prefer the old to the new.
> Still today, at least here in Jamtland, people speak dialects very
close to the throenska ones.
I believe you.
> The strange thing is that modern throenska is considered to be
closer to east Norwegian than to west Norwegian.
Hmmmm. Modern Throenska 'should' show strong Modern Danish influence -
I remember it as such the last time I was in Throendalog. I can tell
you that it is not the same as what the southerners speak, however.
Southern Norwegian 'Bokmaal' IS Modern Danish pure and simply. It
does not matter that it is pronounced differently than in Denmark or
that there are occasional differences in vocabulary, it is still the
'same' language in the same way American or Canadian English is the
'same' language as English English. Tony Blair does not require an
interpreter when he talks to George Bush. Speakers of Modern Danish,
whether in Denmark or Norway, cannot speak to Icelanders or Faroe-
Islanders - it is usually up to the speaker of Icelandic or Faroese
to make himself understood. I know from personal experience because I
have been in this situation hundereds of times. Throendska, however,
is not 'southern' Norwegian - it is only strongly influenced by it.
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".
The basic rule of thumb I follow for 'dating' Norwegian is this: the
'older' it is, the more like Swedish. Yet there are many exceptions.
> 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.
I will have a look at this sight. As you may already know, I have
something of a 'serious' interest in Forn Gutniska. Strangely, it is
amazingly close to Old Icelandic for a dialect spoken as far away
from Iceland as you can get and still be in 'Scandinavia'. I would
agree with the many linguists who isolate Forn Gutniska, creating a
3rd and separate category for it within 'Old Norse'. There are 3
things about Gutniska which make me very sad: 1) there is no surviv-
ing pre-Christian songs or literature beyond the many undoubtedly
archaic and pre-Christian phrases and sentences in both the 'Laws'
and the 'Saga' (which are of great importance to us linguistically
AND culturally) 2) there are few runic inscriptions from the Viking
Age proper on Gotland, making it difficult to acertain *exactly* how
the language looked in the pre-Christian period 3) the neglect, open
hostility and ridicule shown toward Gutniska since the reformation
has helped to seriously undermine the language as spoken today. Why
is Gutniska so interesting to West Norse like mysely? It represents
the other linguistic extreme and thus helps complete the circle for
me - other dialects are somewhere in between.
Regards,
Konrad.
> 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.