SV: Re: SV: Old Norwegian - 'bokmål' is Danish', Þroendir

God afton, Konrad!



--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "konrad_oddsson"
<konrad_oddsson@...> wrote:

> 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.

When comparing spoken Norwegian, written Danish and spoken/written
Swedish, I realize that the former two languages seems to be
practically the same. Especially bokmål and written Danish are
difficult to separate. It took me long time to figure out that the
Norwegian you can read on the packages of food etc is actually
something different from the Danish on the same packages. I was a
very confused kid, you see :-)

Please Konrad, give me -- let's say -- a dozen systematic features in
West Norse which is different from East Norse. One thing is that the
u-umlaut of a is stronger in West than in East (E.g.
Icelandic 'dögum' -- Gutnish 'dagum').

>
> > "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.

I am not sure what the Icelandic cognate to Jamtlandic 'kjal' is, but
it should mean "unpopulated area". In the extreme south of the 'kjal'
separating Sweden from Norway -- i.e. Dalsland and southern Värmland -
- the population density is fairly high, but the further to the north
you go, the more unpopulated the 'kjal' becomes. I Jamtland the first
germanic settlers were miners from the eastern Norrlandic kingdom, or
from Tröndelagen in the west. This mining settlement existed about 0-
500 AD. Between about 500-800 AD there were only sami people, but
something seems to have happened in the 9th century. Suddenly a great
farming populating has arrived, and from archaeology and genetics
(and from other facts), it seems plausible that they came from
Tröndelagen. Konrad, you are evidently a product of 9th century
migration from Tröndelagen yourself (well, you are probably 40%
irish, 40% southern norwegian and only 20% thröndish -- well, you and
most other icelanders know the numbers better than 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.

Like you, I wish I could discuss with you in Norse instead of using
English or a Scandinavian language which one of us is less fluent in.
Well, if this wasn't a forum with English as standard language, I
could use Swedish, and you Danish (?) without greater problems. But I
think your Swedish is better than my Danish, though.

Regards,
Anliautar

>
> Regards,
> Konrad.
>
> If I remember right, Trondheim was actually the
> > center for the Norwegian written "normal".