From: Jens Persson
Message: 2860
Date: 2003-03-27
> Góðan aptan, Arnljótr!but
>
> --- 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,
> I do know that it is not 'West Norse' according to the linguists. "degree
> > >
> > > > 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
> to which they descend from Old Norse as opposed to Modern Danish.if
> Linguists differ greatly regarding the question of 'what exactly,
> anything, can be considered West Norse in Norway today?'. Remember,today
> Norway lost its original language - the dominant language used
> is the same as Modern Danish, but it is pronounced in a 'Norwegian'the
> 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
> titlepage, in the preface, or in the book proper.spoken/written
> >
> > When comparing spoken Norwegian, written Danish and
> > Swedish, I realize that the former two languages seems to bethe
> > practically the same. Especially bokmål and written Danish are
> > difficult to separate. It took me long time to figure out that
> > Norwegian you can read on the packages of food etc is actuallyfeatures
> > 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
> in West Norse which is different from East Norse. One thing is thatin
> 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
> the other cases of the same word - only it was nasalized ( = shortto
> 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
> this day, universal in the west, it was never so in the east. Herewas
> is what scholars believe happened in the east: the same u-umlaut
> in existence, but was often levelled by analogy with the othercases
> - thus it sometimes occurs and sometimes does not, depending on theall
> age and proximity of the language. Analogy was a strong force in
> recorded dialects of Old Norse, east and west, but it did notalways
> operate in the same way. Time exaggerated the differences. As faras
> giving a dozen systematic features in which East and West Norseshow
> differences is concerned, I have never tried to organize or writethe
> anything definitive about this subject. If something comes to mind,
> bring it up - I will do the same. My research, however, confirms
> same old conclusion others came to long before me: the older is thethe "kjal"
> 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
> at the latitude of Tröndelagen. In Jamtland, the first realsettlers
> came in 9th century, and according to both myths and geneticalguessing,
> 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
> that is all. Have a look at the genetic studies which 'proved' thatget
> the Vikings were from the Middle East. Remember, these people 1)
> paid to publish conclusions 2) are not without personal orpolitical
> bias 3) get more attention and fame by publishing unusual results.the
> 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
> further to the north you go, the more unpopulatedthe 'kjal'becomes.
> I Jamtland the first germanic settlers were miners from the easternevidently
> 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
> a product of 9th century migration from Tröndelagen yourself (well,Danish,
> 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%
> etc., etc., etc. But there is no real way of knowing this - it isarea
> 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
> have aleady pointed this out - and I agree with them. For over 10name
> 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
> to begin with. Ari Fróði and the writers of Landnámabók wrote downearly
> 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
> Icelandic settlement than the modern church wants us to believe. Inliars' -
> saying this, I am not trying to say that 'all Christians are
> Ari and his contemporaries were Christians too. The difference, asnothing
> far as I can see, is that they were also HONEST men - it has
> to do with religion as such. If you actually look at the names andbe-
> genealogies contained in the early Icelanders own record of their
> origins, they do not at all match what the church now wants us to
> lieve. To begin with, the number of Irish settlers was quite small;the
> 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,
> Irish also descend from 'heathen' Indo-Europeans originating in theindividuals
> 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
> (who are all named) who were Christian became non-Christians, someof
> 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
> the many different things that the church of today does not want ushttp://www.ima.mdh.se/personal/lln/jamtamot/hederspriset/1981/1981-
> 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:
> > > >
> >
> > > > artikel_folkstamningen.htmlin
>
> 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
> my usage when I speak of 'dialects' here."The 'standardized'
> > >
> > > > 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.
> form of the written language dates from long after the introductionpositively
> 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:
> 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".