Hi Dan,

I think that the most important reason to make a recording in a
reconstructed Old Norse is that the metre recitation will be more
accurate (in theory). E.g., Modern Icelandic often has an extra
syllable (Eirikur instead of Eirikr) which makes a recitation
somewhat invalid.

/Sjur

>
> Hi Sjur,
>
> You wrote:
>
> <Since Latin has been a spoken language in
> <the church and in the academical world anyway, there is no problem

to

> <make such a learning tape.
>
> Precisely, but this has little to do with reconstructive phonology.

As

> you pointed out Latin was used as an academic, administrative and

sacred

> language to this day, but in its various national pronunciations.
> Nowadays many Latin teachers follow more closely the reconstructed

and

> attested pronunciation of the classical or "golden" Latin period.

This I

> find preferable. Of course it always comes down to the reader being

able

> to emulate these sounds and give a rough approximation of what

it "could

> have sounded like". This can also be done for Old Norse, as no

single

> variety of modern Scandinavian is phonologically so conservative to

have

> retained a general character of Old Norse. Even Icelandic, which has
> undergone tremendous changes since the Old Norse period, not to

mention

> the scarcely attested Viking period.
>
> <I don't know Ancient Greek to well to say anything about it, but I
> <assume that it has no natural offspring.
>
> I suppose one could call the "Katheravousa" variety of Greek an

academic

> a offspring of Old Greek. In the past 30 years this variety has been
> largely replaced by the "Dimotiki" "the people's language" (i.e.
> Standard Modern Greek). Katheravousa is used only in the judicial
> language, in universities and a few newspapers. Most of the Greek
> emigrants throughout the world still feel that "Katheravousa" ought

to

> be standard Greek and deplore the switch to Dimotiki. Off course the
> pronunciation, like modern Latin is not like Old Greek, but it uses
> forms and lexical items found in the ancient language.
>
> <So, the reason that Old Norse is special is that
> <(1) It has a close offspring which can be "taped" instead,
> <(2) the amount of potential users is rather small since it is the
> <language of the Icelandic Sagas, not the root language of western
> <civilization.
>
> <(1) and (2) points in the direction that Old Norse learning tapes

are

> <quite uninteresting (just take a Modern Icelandic one instead).

But,

> <I should point out that, personally, I like to reconstruct Old

Norse

> <pronunciation.
>
> <A question: If such an Old Norse learning tape would be recorded,
> <which nationality or region should the reader be from (i.e. what
> <accent should he have)? If we identify Old Norse with Old

Icelandic

> <it is obvious. I wouldn't make that identification. I would prefer

a

> <reader from my own region. A Scanian would prefer a Scanian

reader. A

> <Gutlander would prefer a Gutlandic reader. A Finland-swede would
> <prefer a Finland-Swedish reader. Etc.
>
> As a reconstructed Old Norse phonology would be unlike Finland-

Swedish,

> Gulandish or Scanian, it wouldn't matter where the speaker came

from.

> S/he wouldn't even have to be Scandinavian.
>
> I'm sure it would be helpful to record Old Icelandic/Norse literary
> works and give a carefully reconstructed sound-guide to the
> reconstructed phonemes as well as the metre intended in recital. I
> disagree with you on your latter point.
>
> I can recommend the CD "Edda - Myths from Medieval Iceland" by
> Sequentia, sung recordings of part of the Edda using a reconstructed
> Norse phonemic system.
>
> Dan
>
>