From: Bottom (METRO)
Message: 3280
Date: 2003-06-17
> Sæll, Metro-Bottom.Saell. I'm still setting up a new computer with Linux, so the sticky
> > Again, your "correct" version is actually dogmatic and stodgy, and doesFair enough.
> > 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 whatTradeoffs can be corrected. It's a matter of slowly pulling someone out
> > 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 - evenI use words like "tend" and "tendency toward" so that people learn that
> 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"I never said it was. I actually argued against it. However, I was
> 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 mightWriting evolved as an approximation of speech. It's natural to learn
> 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:Where you both speak English to some degree, that makes perfect sense. I
>
> - - -
> 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.As a native speaker of English, I can say honestly that I don't
> > ON/b = Old Norse/Bokmal (forgive the lack of accents, I'm in a rush toOld Norse broke into two distinct branches: Old Icelandic (what we
> > 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)?
> > All joking aside, I think that we simply have a difference of opinionActually, that's my name. My mother's American-Irish, and I suspect she
> > 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.