SV: Re: Sæll Arnljótr! - Ö in 'dögum' + other things

Godan aftan!

"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."

This is actaully new to me. I have always thought that an u-umlauted
was pronunced like modern Norse 'å'. The nasalization ã is very
unlogical here. I am used to speak a dielct with lots of "evening
outs", like
vika > wåkå (=week)
bera > bara (=to carry)
koma > kåmå (=to come)
stufa > stugu (=cottage)
hari > hara (=hare)
mykit > mysjy (=much).
When I pronunce 'dagum' in my own dialect dialect very fast, I tend
to say 'dågåm'. E.g. in a sentence like "Hu jett jara nagu ta dagum"
(=She must do something with the days), which, when pronunced fast,
becomes "Hu jett jara nata dågåm".

"Have a look at the genetic studies which 'proved' that the Vikings
were from the Middle East."

I understand that you shouldn't believe in everything you hear and
read. The only true sciences are mathematics and physics. In fact, I
do not believe in much that is said about Old Norse (excpet for what
you actually see printed). I have folloed the duscussion about the
origin of the conjunction 'ok'. Of course, speculations of this kind
is light years from science. But, people may dream, and people want
too believe what they wish to believe.

"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."

Of course, I have never really believed that icelanders are 40%
irish. But that is what you often hear, and I wanted to tease you a
little.
Please, what values do X,Y and Z take here (as belived
by "scientists")?

"...as my girlfriend, who is 100% Irish, has pointed out..."

So, this is an assumption? 100% irish, not many people from Iceland
are 100% irish (and I always thought 40% was a too high number!)

"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."

Well, remember that mainland Scandinavia had a heathen population
long before Iceland. Hence, mainland Scandinavia should be more
heathen, by definition.
My point: Yes, heathens founded Iceland, but what scandinavians were
not heathens in the 9th century? Of course, icelanders acepted
christianity as easy as any scandinavian (except from the rulers in
the south, maybe).

Skål ta mej faan!

/Adnlyoutur


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

> 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".