Sæll, Metro-Bottom.

> Again, your "correct" version is actually dogmatic and stodgy, and does
> not take into account the lack of knowledge that this individual has. By
> bringing him up to speed by starting at his own level, one is sure to
> have more effective instruction.

Fair enough. It may be worth mentioning, though, that he didn't seem to
understand your "simple" version any more than my "dogmatic" one :)

> Sometimes, a *little* incorrectness isn't wrong. You start with what
> people know and then work to correct it. Correction is not always
> immediate, especially when there is no ready method in a text-based
> forum to convey the sound of something (especially in the absence of a
> native speaker).

You're right, of course. There is a continuum where you can choose various
levels of accuracy and simplicity. Ideally explanations are both very simple
and completely accurate but in reality there's often a tradeoff between the two.

I'm wary, however, of saying anything that isn't strictly correct - even
if it's "helpful". Plans like that tend to backfire. If I tell one person
that he's probably best of pronouncing Old Norse 'x' as English 'x' - and
even if I qualify it heavily with words like APPROXIMATELY - things can
quickly get out of hand. That person will tell the next person to prounounce
ON 'x' as English 'x' and he will omit my qualifications. Then we have someone
"knowing" something which is plainly wrong and me being the ultimate source
for it.

You can easily imagine how misunderstandings like "Final 'r' in ON is silent"
can arise with this method (and in other ways as well as I've mentioned before).

But of course pronunciation is always approximate to some degree and I might
as well admit to using the "write it out as it's pronounced" method myself :)

A recent IM communication with my 11 years old brother went something like this:

- - -
Sverrir: "Hvernig er enska orðið yfir 'vísindi'?"

Haukur: "Það er 'science', borið fram 'sæens'."
- - -

Of course "science" isn't really pronounced exactly as Sverrir will
read "sæens" but I know it's good enough to be useful and then some.
The Icelandic orthography is also probably more useful for pseudo-phonetic
transcription than the English train-wreck.

And then, I don't pronounce English perfectly either. See the next post.

> ON/b = Old Norse/Bokmal (forgive the lack of accents, I'm in a rush to
> get out the door) and ON/I = Old Norse/Icelandic. There is a distinct
> fracture between the two languages, though they have the same roots. I
> was demonstrating that what one person knows is not always apparent to
> another, especially when one uses terms that the other doesn't
> understand.

I've never heard of "Old Norse/Bokmål" but I assume you mean Old Norwegian.
So, do you have an example of a manuscript that spells the name as you
suggest (with two s's and one n)?

> 1 4m n0'// 4 l337 7r4n5l4t0r... ;)

V3ry l337 1nd33d :)

> Anyway...
>
> All joking aside, I think that we simply have a difference of opinion
> where styles themselves are concerned. It's not that I doubt you know
> your stuff (you've demonstrated admirably that you do), it's more that
> you are at such a high level that the lower levels are beginning to
> escape you.

Fair enough. Or close enough to fair enough.

> -Ragin Bragisbjörn Gullintannisson

I've never heard the names 'Ragin', 'Bragir' or 'Tannir'.
It seems likely to me that you are confused about the genitive
ending of weakly declined masculine words

nom. Bragi
acc. Braga
dat. Braga
gen. Braga

So "Bragi's bear" is 'Bragabjörn' etc. Look this up in your grammar.

Kveðja,
Haukur