Godan aftan!
--- In
norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Jens Persson" <arnljotr@...>
wrote:
> 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'.
Yes, close to modern AA (English-only computer). The short version of
this sound can be heard in 'landum' and the long in 'aa" (=on). The
point is that the standard orthography with O is misleading. If you
examine the usage of modern scholars carefully, you will find quite a
few who write the short as 'a' with a tail below and the long as 'a'
with a tail below AND with an accent above (=long). These 2 symbols
correspond to the commonly printed O with a tail and long (accented)
O with a tail. Remember, modern Norse AA is a nasal; however, this
modern Norse nasal only occasionally descends from the Old Norse one.
The long of this sound was quite rare in Old Norse, despite the fact
that a separate rune existed to express it. Some of the words in
which it occured, however, were very common (like 'aa' = 'on').
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".
The AA here in the dative case-ending itself is example of what I
mentioned above: most instances of modern nasal AA do not actually
descend from the Old Norse nasals, long or short.
>
> "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.
I enjoy researching the origins of Norse words. I agree that where
there are no perfect sources, there is no perfect science. What we do
in researching Germanic languages is more like a sport - there are
rules to play by, a history of games and teams, and a handful of very
good players in the 'hall of fame'.
> "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")?
I forget.
> "...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 guessed, this comment was intended as tongue-in-cheek. For the
record, my girlfriend is not from Iceland - she is North Ameri-Irish.
Her ancestors left Ireland during the great famine, when the mercan-
aries of Cromwell tried to destroy the nation. '100% Irish' means
that she has no known ancestors which were not from Ireland (which is
true - she is technically 100% Irish). Nevertheless, Norse family
names exist in her family from long ago, as is the case with a lot of
Irish (and Scotish and English) folk. The Norwegian Vikings were at
least as powerful a force in Scotland, Ireland, and Manx as their
Danish counterparts where in England (so say the historians) - in
fact, many leaders and generals in these countries are believed to
have actually encouraged further settlement by Norwegian Vikings in
order to increase the size of the workforce and ESPECIALLY the army,
which was always (then and now) busy fighting the English (who are
called Saxons in Irish). I suspect that most of the new citizens from
Norway won their citizenship the hard way - on the battlefield. Good
fighters were welcome anywhere in those olden days.
> "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.
Not 'more' - remember, these mainlanders were the ancestors of groups
like the Icelanders and Faroe Islanders (whose ancestors have been
heathen as long as anyone else's). Long before the modern ideas of
'nationality' existed, our ancestors belonged to a common culture - a
kind of 'nation' in-and-of-itself. As this 'nation' was heathen, so
would its modern descendants stand in the same relation to it.
> My point: Yes, heathens founded Iceland, but what scandinavians
were not heathens in the 9th century?
Not many. My point was simply that scholars tend to focus a lot on
Iceland in this respect, as it givens them a rare opportunity to see
what kind of society a pre-Christian European population would have
build for itself outside of the control of kings and bishops. Many
scholars seem to want to know what the pre-Christian folk would have
done had they been given the freedom to do it - thus, they seem to
look to early Iceland as their golden opportunity.
Of course, Icelanders accepted
> christianity as easy as any scandinavian (except from the rulers in
> the south, maybe).
They were allowed to remain heathen in private at a time when almost
everyone was at least nominally heathen - this was unique and, in the
view of many scholars, decisive for the transmission of knowledge
about heathen beliefs to younger generations. The very few who knew
the very most were allowed to live and pass on their knowledge. In
most of Scandinavia, the most knowledgable were killed as examples -
thus interupting the transmission of information on this topic. In
the year 1000 or so, Icelanders had the following choice: formally
adopt Christianity and let Olafr Tryggvason know about it, or face
the execution of captive Icelandic chieftains' sons in Norway AND the
military invasion of Iceland by the superior Christian forces of the
king, who had promised mass-slaughter. Not a pleasant choice to make
- I think they could read the writing on the wall.
Regards,
Konrad.
>
> 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".