From: Jens Persson
Message: 2839
Date: 2003-03-25
> Sæll Arnljótr!be
>
> --- 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
> considered to be West Norse?West
>
> Yes, 'West Norwegian' would technically be a subdivision of the
> Norse language. Also, Faroese is definitely West Norse - there isno
> question about this. Today there are 2 languages which can ONLY bediffer
> 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
> greatly regarding the question of 'what exactly, if anything, canbe
> considered West Norse in Norway today?'. Remember, Norway lost itsalso
> 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'
> shows vocabulary differences from standard Modern Danish. Until theWhen comparing spoken Norwegian, written Danish and spoken/written
> 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.
>I am not sure what the Icelandic cognate to Jamtlandic 'kjal' is, but
> > "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.
>http://www.ima.mdh.se/personal/lln/jamtamot/hederspriset/1981/1981-
> > An interesting article:
> >
> > artikel_folkstamningen.htmlpositively
> >
> > "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
> unified until at least the 13th century - the differences were tooalmost
> minor to be considered important in any way. Why can we talk with
> such a high degree of certainty about 'West Norse', which was
> certainly the dialect of a small minority? Here is the main reason:else.
> 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
> I find this fact greatly interesting in and of itself.Like you, I wish I could discuss with you in Norse instead of using
>
> Regards,
> Konrad.
>
> If I remember right, Trondheim was actually the
> > center for the Norwegian written "normal".