Sæll Arnljótr!

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

> God kväll, Konrad!
>
> "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. "

> Well, but what about West Norwegian? I am a bit confused; is West

Norwegian a subdivison of West Norse? If it is not, could faroese be
considered to be West Norse?

Yes, 'West Norwegian' would technically be a subdivision of the West
Norse language. Also, Faroese is definitely West Norse - there is no
question about this. Today there are 2 languages which can ONLY be
classified as 'West Norse': Faroese and Icelandic. Additionally, a
handful of dialects in northern and western Norway can sometimes be
classified as 'West Norse', depending on the degree to which they
descend from Old Norse as opposed to Modern Danish. Linguists differ
greatly regarding the question of 'what exactly, if anything, can be
considered West Norse in Norway today?'. Remember, Norway lost its
original language - the dominant language used today is the same as
Modern Danish, but it is pronounced in a 'Norwegian' way that shows
influences from an older time. Occasionally, Norwegian 'bokmål' also
shows vocabulary differences from standard Modern Danish. Until the
time of Norwegian independence or so, 'bokmål' was called 'Danish'.
I have numerous books from the 19th century or earlier where the
language is called 'Danish' on the titlepage, in the preface, or in
the book proper.

> "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? "

> A small problem: there were no norse people east of the "kjal" at

the latitude of Tröndelagen. In Jamtland, the first real settlers
came in 9th century, and according to both myths and genetical
reaserach, they came from Tröndelagen. Hence, there were no eastern
idiom to adopt. The eastern idiom was spoken 500 km to the south
east in Uppland.

Very interesting. This is new to me.

> An interesting article:
> http://www.ima.mdh.se/personal/lln/jamtamot/hederspriset/1981/1981-
> artikel_folkstamningen.html
>
> "I can tell you that it is not the same as what the southerners
> speak, however. (about modern Thröndska)"
>
> Yes, naturally. The geography, you know.
>
> "In fact, many linguists would argue 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."

> Isn't this appearant uniformity just an effect of a standardized
> written language?

No, exactly the oppostite is true: the uniformity was real and the
written language divergent from hand to hand. The 'standardized'
form of the written language dates from long after the introduction
of the printing press in the 16th century. Despite the erratic and
unstandardized spelling seen in old manuscripts, however, linguists
can positively determine that the underlying language was positively
unified until at least the 13th century - the differences were too
minor to be considered important in any way. Why can we talk with
such a high degree of certainty about 'West Norse', which was almost
certainly the dialect of a small minority? Here is the main reason:
both Iceland and the Faroes Islands were settled in 'the same time'
and from 'the same place' - if we compare these two both with each
other and with what survives of 'Old Norwegian', then we are in a
position to understand Old West Norse in very great detail. Given
old settlement patterns and our current state of knowledge, we are
not in a position to understand East Norse, which was (and is) by
far the dominant branch, with the same razor-sharp precision. Some
East Norse dialects may have already begun to diverge in the Viking
Age, while others (like Gutniska) may already have diverged from an
earlier time. This is not true about West Norse of the same period.
Fortunately for us, the basic language was everywhere the same -
east or west, north or south. No translators were necessary at all -
a speaker from anywhere could speak to a speaker from anywhere else.
I find this fact greatly interesting in and of itself.

Regards,
Konrad.

If I remember right, Trondheim was actually the

> center for the Norwegian written "normal".