Hey, Sjuler.

> 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.

Yes. I suppose. Another metrical issue is syllable length which
is important in the dróttkvætt metres. In Old Norse, as in Latin
and Greek, there should be short and long syllables. In modern
Icelandic, however, all syllables are "long".

So, in theory, there may be something to gain from an accurate
reconstructed pronunciation. But to get the syllable length
right it would probably be best to get a Finnish speaker to
read. Finnish (and I think Estonian too) distinguishes
syllables like: at, aat, att and aatt by length of the sounds.

Any takers?

Kveðja,
Haukur