Góðan myrgin, Arnljótr!

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Jens Persson" <arnljotr@...>
wrote:
> Guäðan aptan, Konrad!

> A big part of the problem is that mideaval writers did not write
nasals (even when they pronounced them). This is the sad truth.

> --Writers usually did not emphasize vowel length either. Of
course, people did not write their texts for 21th century linguists,
but for a contemporary public that just did not need information
about vowel length, nasality or even voiced or unvoiced consonants
(Viking age runic writers). This is sad for us today.

Yes, indeed. I do not imagine that anyone one alive then could have
forseen the impending cultural and linguistic destruction that lay
ahead. No one told the American Indians about the 'white man' and
his missionaries ahead of time either. It simply happened. Modern
scholars are still trying to piece together what they can from the
remains of some surviving American Indian cultures. Others simply
became extinct. A lot of American Indians of today, especially the
younger ones, seem interested in reviving and preserving all that
they can of their pre-conquest language and culture - a good thing,
in my opinion. I think that we could do better in this respect.

> The first
> > grammatical treatise (circa 1140-1150), however, goes a long way
toward establishing the truth. It explains that the language has 9
basic vowels, each of which could be either long or short (read: 9
times 2 = 18); furthermore, it explains that each of these nine can
also occur in nasalized varieties (read: 18 times 2 = 36).

> --What about the so called "half-long vowels"? The vowels that
makes (most) Icelanders say, e.g., [laonggur] for 'langur' (adj.)?

I have been hesitating to respond to you about this. Simply put, I
have no answers and no information on this topic.

Here the 'a' was not long as in 'fá' (verb) or short as in 'rakki'
(noun). This could be denoted with a grave accent `: 'làngr'.

This is a very good idea. Here is why I think so: the accent is on
top on the letter, as is the common one for even greater length. I
like the idea of writing distinctions of length above the letter and
nasality below. This seems clearer to me. Also, a text would still
look recognizably the same were it shown without nasalization marks.
Do you have any thoughts about this subject?

> Mainland Scandinavian dialectal examples:
>
> 'toungg' (adj.) - from 'thùngr' (Överkalixmål),
> 'laungg' (adj.) - from 'làngr' (Dalska, South Jamtlandic),
> 'haul' (adj.) - from 'hàrdhr' (South Jamtlandic),
> 'uord' (noun) - from 'òrdh' (Dalska).

Here is a question which I have been meaning to ask you, but always
seem to forget whenever I log on to norse_course: are there any
dialects in Sweden where V/W survives in initial positions before
U,Ú,Y,Ý,O,Ó,OE,OÉ from the Viking Age? I am very curious about this
topic. I was very surprised after reading a list of Modern Faroese
words with V before U. Here are some examples: teir wurðu (they be-
came), teir wundu (they wound), etc.. - the list is rather long. I
suspect that V has been restored by analogy, but have no way of
knowing for certain at this time. I think we are fairly certain that
V/W disappeared before U,Ú,Y,Ý,O,Ó,OE,OÉ around 600 - at least in
West Norse. Does it survive in any dialects in Sweden?

> Why did the first grammatical treatize put these into the group of
> short vowels? (I assume it did)

I have no idea. Presumably, the grammarian felt that the vowels were
short - short enough to require no distinction in writing. However,
he may simply have decided not to comment on the topic. Some modern
scholars seem to be of the opinion that the grammarian did not want
to overload or frighten his countymenn (see Hreinn Benediktsson). He
had already distinguished (or at least indicated) 36 simple vowels,
suggested a system a small capitals for double consonants and a new
consonantal letter or two to boot (opinions differ on this). Greeks,
Romans, and God's very own Chosen People had only 24, 23, and 22
letters in their alphabets, respectively. Could the tongue of the
lowly Nordic convert require more than 36 signs for simple vowels
alone? More than the entire alphabets of the very nobles they sought
to emulate in script and culture? Perhaps the grammarian was brave.

> --Yes, of course it must have ben; even today Dalska has them in
many words:
> 'Tûosdag' - Thursday (German: Donnerstag),
> 'gôs' - goose (German: Ganze?),
> 'ô' - on,
> 'ôs' - Proto-Germanic 'ansuz',
> 'siô' - see (German: 'sehen'),
> 'ûo-' - 'un-' ('unhappy', 'uneasy' etc),
> 'bôs' - booth, stall (German: Banse).

I would like to hear a recording of these words.

> There are many more examples. One noticable thing is that 'ô'
> (nasalized 'o') is frequently occuring, which corresponds to a
> nasalized 'á' in Old Norse.

Yes, 'á' or 'aó' (hooked o) because u-umlaut is so extensive in West
Norse. Dalska 'ô' (on) looks like it was leveled by analogy, as all
of the other forms with 'ô' above had a 'u' in the next syllable in
Proto-Norse. 'ô' is preserved as 'ana' in Proto-Norse. I am assuming
that Dalska underwent u-umlaut. Nasal 'siô' is news to me.

> I definetly believes that the vowels were nasalized in most
northern Scandinavian dialects until a few centuries ago, since
there are strong traces of nasalized vowels there. Example: 'bjerkô'
(birches, dative) in Överkalixmål.

This agrees with West Norse 'bjarkan', where the 'n' is preserved.

I am still compiling a list of words with nasal vowels - the ones
where nasalization is not obvious do to linguistic changes. As far
as I know, no such list exists for West Norse.

Regards,
Konrad.