SV: Re: Sæll Arnljótr! - nasals, grave accents, a question

Guoða nåt (!), Konrad!

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

> 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 culture and the language is always and everywhere geting
destroyed. Some people call it progress. Often people with power.
Others call it a catastrophy. Often intellectual people. But most
people do not care much. People who have to work to survive the day.
Today there has not been as many intellectually educated people as
today. I hope at least some will be restored.

> > 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?
>

--The use of a grave accent was just temporary to be able to denote
it in the post. But, if acute accent is used for long vowel, why
cannot a grave accent be used for the half-long fellow vowels? What
about this three-graded vowel length system when using dotted runes?

> > 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?

--I think the V/W disappeared generally over all of Sweden. In
standard Swedish you only have the V in front of U,Y;O,Ö in foreign
words, I think. But, before Å it can be present, though, as in VÅR
(=our).
Here is a list of words starting with W in the Central Swedish
dialect of Våmhusmål (Womusmol):
http://w1.250.telia.com/~u25000104/vdialog_w.html
This dialect seems to have reintroduced W before Ó, but not before O.
Compare to:
http://w1.250.telia.com/~u25000104/vdialog_o.html

In Jamtlandic dialects, we seem to have kept the initial V before O
in a few cases, like:
VÖ(RE) (from VORIT - 'have been') or
VY(RE) (from VURIT - 'have been');
VÖRTE (from VORTIT - 'have become') or
VYRTE (from VURTIT - 'have become').
The VÖRTE/VYRTE example is probably due to analogy:
VÅ'ÅL - VÅL - VÅRT - VÖRTE/VYRTE from
varða - varð- - vart - ortit

In Älvdalska they still have the old pronunciation for this verb:
werða - werð - wart - uorteð
This is probably due to the fact that in Jamtlandic we pronunce the
initial V like English W, while the Älvdalska pronunciation is more
like the vowel U. I prefer to write V in Jamtlandic and W in
Älvdalska, though.

"teir wurðu" (Modern Faroese)
Shouldn't it be 'teir vurðu' [tair wu:ru] ? They do not have 'w' in
their alphabet, and they do not pronunce the 'ð' letter.

>
> > 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.
>

--Well, I found them all (except 'ôs' which should have been 'ôs-' in
my list; see my response to Hauks message) in a dictionary made by
Lars Steensland, a researcher of Älvdalska ('Älvdalistiker'), and the
nasalization is denoted with a small hook below the vowel. I do not
know how to find digitalized recorded samples of them.

> > 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.

--Perhaps.

'ô' is preserved as 'ana' in Proto-Norse. I am assuming

> that Dalska underwent u-umlaut.

--Yes, they did.

Nasal 'siô' is news to me.

--I do not have an explanation of this. But all Älvdalska dialects
seem to have the nasalization:
siô, sjå^, syö^ etc

>
> > 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.

--Well, it is a dative plural: BIARKUM > BJERKÔ
I cite the text I found the example from:

"Da karana fundeire opa big si stuo, sö läut di fara ipi skåoio räiv
si nevere bårda bjerko, man bjerka läupe. Sö le di äut nevere, sö e
skull äint twil-ihoåp, som en håop óana wårtánne, å sö le di to röind
twört evi neverhåopo, å sö tåongg staina der óana, sö e skull rett
si, å he kåle di kleember. Å he skull leges til vötotek."

Unfortunately, no information about nasalization is given here. A
Swedish translation:

"Då karlarna funderade på att bygga sig en stuga, så måste de fara
upp i skogen och riva sig näver från björkarna, medan björken löpte.
Så lade de ut nävern, så den inte skulle rulla ihop sig, som en hög
ovanpå vartannat, och så lade de två stänger tvärt över näverhögen,
och så tunga stenar där ovanpå, så den skulle räta ut sig, och det
kallade de klammer. Och det skulle läggas till vattutak."

Note that Överkalixmål is very careful when distinguishing half-long
vowels from short. Example: 'tek' from 'thàk'. Also note that this
dialect only has acute accent. The grave accent is unknown, which
makes the melody of speech very similar to Icelandic or Gutnish.

>
> 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.

--OK.

>
> Regards,
> Konrad.

Skål ta mej faan!

/Anlewt