To Konrad and Pelle (I think it was):
I found the following quoted in Konrad's post:
(not written by Konrad, but quoted by him)

>> of 'ö' mutated all the way to the modern version of the
>> sound in the early 13th century, which means that Snorri
>> may have pronounced 'ö' much like I do, today (somewhat
>> similar to the vowel in French "peur").

I followed the argument, and thought that both debatants were
talking about the same thing, but one with an English sound base
and the other with an Icelandic sound base. But in the above
quote a point of view is revealed which I think is plain wrong.

First of all, I think it is important to realize that the
"o" with its two horns is a graphic symbol that was invented
to be used with and within written German. But exactly when
it occurred for the first time I do not know. Was it, for
example, already used by Noetker, or did it come many centuries
later? What I do know is that it seems to have been used
extensively at the time when printed books became common
in Germany, that is, some time after 1500.

There is also a logical point to be made here, that
explains the rationale behind the choice of the two
dots above the letter, the understanding of which gives
an insight that greatly facilitates the participation
in discussions about the matter.

Try then to simultaneously answer the two questions
1) why was a "dot" used,
2) why was the dot(s) placed above the letter?
The answer, as I have understood it, is that it was
simply a question of borrowing from another letter,
namely the "i", which is the origin of the dot placed
above the letter.

Hence, by "borrowing" the dot from the "i", one tried
to indicate that the letter in question (an "a", an "o"
or a "u") had to be pronounced differently, viz. "umlauted"
in the phonetic "direction" of the "i" sound.
That must then be the reason why the name of the two
dots placed above a vowel, is called the "i-umlaut".

Then some time afterwards (probably in the 16th century)
this German grapic sign, or letter, was exported to Denmark
and Sweden, because those languages had the same kind of
i-umlaut in their phonetic systems. Hence Danish began
to use ö and Swedish began to use ä and ö.

Then some time later the "double-horned o" must have
arrived in Iceland as a Danish export and came in vogue
there.

The conclusion then, must be that the ö was never
really invented specifically for the Icelandic language
but was imported at a late date simmply because it was
in vogue in some other countries that happened to
be culturally dominant. And this must then have led to
the demise of the "hooked o" from written Icelandic,
the latter predating the former by many centuries,
and being in fact a letter that *was* specifically invented
for the Icelandic language.

Well, maybe Icelandic pronounciation had changed so much
in the intervening centuries, that a slight spelling
reform was not entirely out of order, and that this
new ö was able to incorporate some of these?

Any way, as I have understood from perusing some
textbooks on modern Icelandic, the ö is now a
diphtong - can you confirm this? (pronounced in
a way that is best reflected by the combination
"ai" relative to Norwegian)

But the original Geman ö was never a diphtong,
but rather a new vowel that slid in between
the two older vowels o and i, which is still
the phonetic value that it holds in Germany and Sweden.

And that is where we arrive at your example of the French
word "peur" in connection with "ö". Well, here you are
referring to its approximate phonetic value in Swedish
and German, which is indeed somewhat like the "eu" in
"peur". (On peut dire que c'est un peu comme le "eu" dans
le môt peur) But in Icelandic it is, if I have got it
right, phonetically totally different.

If you can confirm that the view or understanding I
have tried to represent in the above explanation
conforms more or less to what may be to some degree
acceptabele in Iceland as well, then it will be greatly
appreciated!

Thanks
Xigung