Góðan aptan, Arnljótr!
--- In
norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Jens Persson" <arnljotr@...>
wrote:
> 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').
The Old Norse Ö in 'dögum' was pronounced just like the regular A in
the other cases of the same word - only it was nasalized ( = short
nasal A). The pronounciation Ö (and spelling) are later. Old manu-
scripts usually, but not always, show O with a tail - this sign is
older, but can be misleading because it looks related to O instead
of A. For Old Norse in Latin-characters, I prefer to use either the
diphthong AO (short = no accent, written as a single character) or
regular short A with a tail. While this U-umlaut was, and remains to
this day, universal in the west, it was never so in the east. Here
is what scholars believe happened in the east: the same u-umlaut was
in existence, but was often levelled by analogy with the other cases
- thus it sometimes occurs and sometimes does not, depending on the
age and proximity of the language. Analogy was a strong force in all
recorded dialects of Old Norse, east and west, but it did not always
operate in the same way. Time exaggerated the differences. As far as
giving a dozen systematic features in which East and West Norse show
differences is concerned, I have never tried to organize or write
anything definitive about this subject. If something comes to mind,
bring it up - I will do the same. My research, however, confirms the
same old conclusion others came to long before me: the older is the
language, the more similar is east and west.
> >
> > > "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.
If I were you, I would ignore anything called 'genetic research' in
this area - there is no certain way of knowing anything for certain
about the population of 1000 years ago or more. People are guessing,
that is all. Have a look at the genetic studies which 'proved' that
the Vikings were from the Middle East. Remember, these people 1) get
paid to publish conclusions 2) are not without personal or political
bias 3) get more attention and fame by publishing unusual results.
How do I know this? I have friends who work in this field and hear
it from the inside every week. What they CANNOT do is tell you much
of anything about where person or population A came from, what they
CAN do is identify predisposition to disease.
> >
> > 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).
Somewhat more than half of my family is Norwegian, which according
to other 'reliable research' means X% German, Y% Scotish, Z% Danish,
etc., etc., etc. But there is no real way of knowing this - it is
mostly guess-work, even according to those doing the guessing. What
do I think about the different 'results' pertaining to Icelanders?
After being presented with different versions of these numbers, I
have decided that they are poppycock - pure political nonsense with
less than noble aims in mind. Some of the best scholars in this area
have aleady pointed this out - and I agree with them. For over 10
centuries, the church has been trying to stamp out everything which
is 'un-Christian' about Iceland, from the names of the days of the
week to just about everything else. Over-estimating the percentage
of Irish settlers is one of the current tactics of Judeo-Christian
fundamentalists - they are trying to convince Icelanders that their
ancestors were for the most part always 'Christian', as Ireland was
already a Christian country during this period. As you can probably
imagine, the church has always had a harder time in Iceland than in
other parts of Scandinavia - the land was founded by heathens, most
of whom were not killed or prosecuted during the 'conversion' like
other places in Scandinavia; also, the 'conversion' was only in name
to begin with. Ari Fróði and the writers of Landnámabók wrote down
the names and origins of the earliest Icelanders. Unlike the modern
speculators, they were in a position to know - to few generations
had passed for people to have forgotten the names of their first an-
cestors on the island. Ari, who was renowned for his objectivity,
and his contemporaries painted a very different picture of the early
Icelandic settlement than the modern church wants us to believe. In
saying this, I am not trying to say that 'all Christians are liars' -
Ari and his contemporaries were Christians too. The difference, as
far as I can see, is that they were also HONEST men - it has nothing
to do with religion as such. If you actually look at the names and
genealogies contained in the early Icelanders own record of their
origins, they do not at all match what the church now wants us to be-
lieve. To begin with, the number of Irish settlers was quite small;
secondly, they had married into heathen families and 'converted' to
the heathen religion, mostly before arrival. By far the majority of
early Icelanders were from Western Norway (as can also be seen by
the language, which is a sure indicator). Of those that came by way
of Ireland, most were from the Norwegian settlements there - those
who were not would likely have married in by this point. I have no
doubt that there were many Irish who would gladly have given up on
Christianity, given the chance, and married a viking - remember, the
Irish also descend from 'heathen' Indo-Europeans originating in the
east (as my girlfriend, who is 100% Irish, has pointed out) and are
believed to have had very similar gods and beliefs to the Norse. In
Landnámabók, which was written by 'Christians', it is stated on no
uncertain terms that Iceland was 'alheiðit' (100% heathen) - Ari
also admits this much - and that the childern of the few individuals
(who are all named) who were Christian became non-Christians, some
even raising pagan sanctuaries. So who are we supposed to believe?
Personally, I believe Ari and his contemporaries - they were in a
position to know. Secondly, the Irish-element was not 'large and
100% Christian' - it was 'small and 100% un-Christian' according to
what the 'Christians' themselves had to say about it. This is one of
the many different things that the church of today does not want us
to know about early Iceland. Similar deceptions exist in many other
Scandinavian and European countries - for some of the better ones,
have a look at Lithuania, which was only 'converted' a couple or so
centuries ago - the language is the oldest in Europe.
> >
> > > An interesting article:
> > >
> http://www.ima.mdh.se/personal/lln/jamtamot/hederspriset/1981/1981-
> > > artikel_folkstamningen.html
Interesting article.
> > > "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.
You can write Swedish to me - I understand most of it and always
enjoy trying to read it, even if I sometimes need a dictionary. Of
course, you can write any kind of Old Norse you want and expect to
get a response in kind.
Regards,
Konrad.
> Regards,
> Anliautar
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Konrad.
> >
> > If I remember right, Trondheim was actually the
> > > center for the Norwegian written "normal".