> Sæll, Snæbjörn.

Saell Haukur, just thought I'd put in my thought on a couple of things.

> You are somewhat fundamentally heading the wrong way with
> this. :) It is very difficult to enter a particular language,
> grab one tiny bit, get it right and then get out. In the
> process you're almost certain to make unwarranted assumptions.

On the whole, I would agree, but give the poor yank a break! You don't
wanna scare him off, do you?

> For example you have been told, quite correctly, that an Old
> Norse word for 'axe' is "øx" and that an Old Norse word for
> 'swift' is "skjótr" Out of this you've assumed that an
> acceptable Old Norse compound word
> for 'swift-axe' is "skjotrox".

My biggest problem right now is that when I try to send extended ASCII,
I end up sending what resembles old modem line noise instead. Unable to
make the appropriate letters, I *must* fall back to unaccented
characters: for example, Voluspa instead of hooking the 'O' and
accenting the 'A' correctly.

> You've made some assumptions here:

He's not the only one...

> 1. It is appropriate to describe an "øx" with the adjective "skjótr".

Is it inappropriate? I have no basis for comparison. I can certainly
find no basis for it being incorrect.

> 2. It is acceptable to represent both 'ø' and 'ó' with 'o'
> (in an ASCII context?).

Yes. Common practice is to do exactly this when the accents are
unavailable, though I tend to follow umlauted characters appropriately
with an 'E', even if that is subsequently followed by an 'E'.
Unfortunately, we are not all accent-capable.

> 3. Compound words formed with an adjective and a noun are
> acceptable in Old Norse.
>
> 3.1. In this case the dictionary forms of each word should be used.

Er... This is the only thing I would have complained about, had I
complained at all.

> 3.2. The adjective should precede the noun in the compound.
>
> Further you seem to have assumed:
>
> 4. A compound meaning "swift axe" is an appropriate byname in
> Old Norse culture/language.

Why not, "Hawk, Spear of Thor" is appropriate, but "Swift Axe" isn't?
Let's be fair for a moment: if someone takes a name from a language they
don't understand, they should expect a bit of razzing, but I don't think
that this means that a criticism is warranted. Try to keep it
good-natured, eh?

> 5. The English alphabet is adequate to describe the
> pronunciation of Old Norse by "writing out" the words "as
> they would be pronounced".

Actually, we can reproduce most sounds in English that are in other
languages, with very little exception. Taking into account that both Old
Norse and English are Germanic languages derived from proto-Gothic and
at least two other languages from the IE tree, Old Norse would not be as
difficult as, say, something from the Congo to reproduce with enough
accuracy to be effective as a teaching aide.

> Of these 2 is defensible, 3 and 3.2 are correct, I am not
> certain about 1 and 4 while 3.1 and 5 are definitely incorrect.

5 is only incorrect because you've never tried it, but wold otherwise be
correct as an assumption from English speakers; 3.1 is blatantly
incorrect, per my agreement with you above; 2 needs no defense, you're
obviously a stranger to 7-bit ASCII; 4 is defensible; 3 and 3.2 are
absolutely correct as you said; and 1 is a toss-up and would, in my
experience, be arguable either way.

> I would suggest 'snarøx' (although I have nothing concrete
> against 'skjótøx') with the qualification that I am not sure
> if it is appropriate (doesn't seem
> to have anything specific against it, but I don't remember
> any good analogy either).

Something that doesn't fit is unique and therefore good to an American.
You'll need a stronger suggestion than that!

However, I would have to agree with snarox over skjotox, because skjotox
carries with it a connotation of moving by itself (i.e., running
swiftly) whereas snarox carries a more battle-ready sound, being quick
to be ready for the next thing. It's the difference in English between
'I am real quick' to 'I am really quick'. Correct grammar would make one
sound correct and the other to sound strange.

> As for approximate pronunciation the sound of 'ø' simply does
> not exist
> in English. Try French, as Zarco suggested. Icelanders tend
> to feel the
> closest English sound is the 'u' in 'run' or 'burn'. Others
> may perceive
> it differently.

How's this for a difference:

I'd say it's got more of an 'E' sound than either 'run' or 'burn,' much
like one is trying to slightly slur an 'E' into the word somewhere next
to the vowel by pronouncing it at the same time. It's not quite the same
as an 'O' with an umlaut, and is more open in the lips and front of the
mouth. In Swedish, it's closer to the O-umlaut.

> The 'r' should be rolled like in Spanish. The 's', 'n' and
> 'a' are not far from what an English speaker would expect in
> this environment. The 'x' is made of two sounds; the first
> does not exist in Standard English; it is like the 'ch' in
> Scots "loch" or German "hoch".

It should be noted that the 'x' slightly softer than German 'Bach', but
is otherwise unchanged in sound. The 'R' should have a heavy trill, and
Spanish isn't a good approximation: more like someone being flowery as
they rr-ecite Shakespearr-rre. Slightly softer than the Spanish trill,
but in the same range.

> The second is an 's'-sound. An acceptable variant for the
> first sound (at least in modern Icelandic) is like the 'k' in
> English 'skull'

In Old Norse, most people whom I've talked to tell me that this is
definitely the case for the modern stuff, but the ancient stuff should
simply sound slurred compared to the modern stuff. Make kind of like you
are snoring while breathing out.

> Clarifying that most people about my age pronounce the Icelandic 'x'
> like the English 'x'. Most older people have a fricative rather than
> a plosive for the first part.

And some claim the language hasn't changed significantly... Sheesh!

> Kveðja,
> Haukur

Takk, ok thakka thu fyrir (no accents, sorry),

-Ragin Bragisbjorn