Sæl Pelle!

> Perhaps it should be stated, for the benefit of the beginners
> and in the interests of accuracy, that this particular theory
> is also new to most of the rest of us, and all Old Norse
> linguists I have the luck to know.

It should not be so. The short vowel heard in pl. 'lönd' derives
from A by way of U-umlaut. It does not derive from O, as the conven-
tion of printing O with a tail would suggest. For this reason, and
because the international phonetic alphabet lists the sound as the
short of the sound heard in 'áss', many scholars have began using
the symbol A with a tail for this sound. The practice is especially
widespread in transcriptions of runic inscriptions. I have myself
noticed that actual Viking Age inscriptions prefer to use regular
runic A in words like 'lönd'; however, the 'áss'-rune occasionally
occurs as well. In either case, a connection with A rather than O is
clearly implied. While I agree that the Ö in 'lönd' derives from A
and not from O, I have no real objection to the traditional spelling
with hooked O - in fact, I use modern pronounciation unless called
upon to do otherwise by the audience.

None of the experts

> I've asked agree that the "hooked o" was identical to the "a",
> nasalised or otherwise. The "hooked o" was, of course, not
> pronounced like the modern Icelandic "ö", but it was not the
> same sound as "a".

I agree. It was not the 'same' sound as regular A. If my choice of
words was strong here, the reason has been to draw attention to the
issues: 1) the sound derives from A rather than O 2) it must have
been pronounced with some hint of A - the glyph AO is actually used
by many old clerics 3) many modern scholars, especially runologists,
have decided to use the charcater A with a tail for this sound 4)
lack of representation of nasals in old manusripts may be largely
responsible for some of the overlapping use of vowel-glyphs seen
there - compare the objections of the First Grammatical Treatise.

At least not according to my teachers at the

> University of Iceland. My grammars indicate that it would have
> been more like the "o".

In pronounciation or printed convention?

Examine the 4 issues mentioned above. Let me know what your thoughts
on these issues, as I have gone to great lengths to help elucidate
the Old Norse vowel-system. Also, keep in mind how deep an influence
printed Latin tradition and Latin thinking about language in general
has had on the Icelandic academic establishment from Judeo-Catholic
times. Lastly, given that many modern scholars use the glyph hooked
A as against the older printed tradition employing hooked O, how do
you feel about resurrecting the old AO glyph instead?

Regards,
Konrad.

>
> Regards
> Pelle