It should be noted here that in Central and Northern Scandinavia (but
not in Western, Southern nor Eastern) there is a rule for how old -
a, -i and -u endings has developed into modern language. This rule is
called "The Law of Balance". It states that words with different stem
syllable lengths treat their endings (-a, -i or -u) in diferent ways.
The original rule is that words with a short stem syllable preserve
the quality of the ending (i.e. -a -> -i, etc) but words with a
(super-) long one transform the endings like
-a -> -ä,
-i -> -e,
-u - > -o,
This is regerded as a weakening of the ending, but it shouldn't be
confused with the kind of weakening Danish has developed.
(in words with a multisyllable stem, the ending often even
disappeared)
Modern Swedish examples:
gårdfarihandlare vs backe,
gatukök vs sidoruta
(I can't find examples of -a -> -ä, unfortunately)
In modern dialects the system may be somewhat modified. E.g. Modern
Dalska spoken in Central Sweden has:
Short stem:
-a -> -å, (e.g. sofa -> såvå)
-i -> -i, (e.g. heri -> eri)
and
-u -> -u, (e.g. viku -> wiku)
Long stem:
-a -> -a, (e.g. vrÃða -> rwaiða)
-i -> -e, (e.g. bróðir -> bruoðer)
and
-u -> -u, (e.g. sÃður -> saiður)
We see that only -u ending is undifferentiated.
Of course, employing these rules on Old Norse wouldn't be more
confuing than using the umlauts. One may see these rules as a kind of
umlaut; a "stem syllable length umlaut".
Regards,
Sjúrður
--- In
norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Terje Ellefsen"
<radiorabia@...> wrote:
> In Norway we say Snorre, because the old Norse /i/ often turned
into
> Norwegian /e/. (e.g: ON Hrafninn - No. ravnen) Snorre is a normal
name here
> too, even if it isn't common. Though I believe it was the
translation of
> Heimskringla to Norwegian which caused Snorri/e to be reintroduced
into the
> language of Norway. I can't be certain though. Thus We say Snorre
Sturlason,
> not Snorri Sturluson because the translators made it so. All old
names were
> modernized, and I believe they did a good job.
>
> Terje
>
>
> >From: "xigung" <xigung@...>
> >Reply-To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
> >To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [norse_course] Re: Orthography in Old Icelandic; 檬
Haukur minn,
> >hvernig var ??ur?
> >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:30:29 -0000
> >
> >Hi BerLaug,
> >I have also noted the great variation in, for example, the final
> >-i versus a final -e. My first idea connected with that, is
> >that when I see modern Icelandic references, it is always
> >"Snorri", whereas in Norway the normal form is "Snorre".
> >I have also seen a final -e like that in some of the older
> >MSS. I wonder if it could not also be a matter of dialectal
> >differences - differences that grew stronger as time went by.
> >
> >Best
> >Xigung
> >
> >
> >
> >--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, Berglaug ?mundardó´´©r
> ><berglauga@...> wrote:
> > > Might it not be that he's simply using the oldest spelling
rules for old
> > > icelandic (not norse), say, they first grammarians spelling? It
sure
> >looks
> > > to me as if he's using the oldest Icelandic vowel system I
learned.
> >Haukur
> > > may remember this better than I do (since I was the one drawing
> >little comic
> > > series about evil umlauts chasing innoccent vowels, in class),
but
> >using e
> > > for i in an unstressed syllable was commonplace at least until
the
> >twelfth
> > > century, I think, because of the complicated vowel system. At
that
> >time, i
> > > was closer to í ´han it later became, and the unstressed frontal
> >unrounded
> > > vowel was closer to the stressed vowel e than i (that is, it was
> >written e
> > > because that sound was phonologically closest to an [I] sound).
I'm
> >not sure
> > > about the others, but æ ¨an open e, often written with a hooked
e) was a
> > > part of the vowel system at that time, it's the i-umlaut from
a. And
> >o was
> > > used for u in unstressed syllables, and even where it is
stressed, o
> >and u
> > > have a sligt tendency to get in each other's way (a mess caused
(I
> >seem to
> > > recall) by the language's indecision about a-umlaut). And what
have
> >you got
> > > against two e's in ellefo? It's spelled with two e's in modern
> >icelandic,
> > > you know. (although the unstressed o has changed to u). Using
the first
> > > grammarian's spelling (at least in vowels, not so sure about
> >'há³´eflingar')
> > > seems like rather good practice to me, not at all an error.
> > >
> > > Again, this is just a suggestion, I'm hoping that Haukur will
shed some
> > > light on the matter
> > >
> > > Berglaug
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > That's a lot of misspellings.
> > > > Did Lass make as many misspellings for the other Germanic
languages?
> > > > I noticed that the copyright is 1994,
> > > > but can you verify that this is the first edition,
> > > > and not just a new printing with the first edition
> > > > being, say, 1904, or something like that?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 11/21/2003 2:25:11 PM Eastern Standard
Time,
> > > brahmabull@... writes:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Greetings!
> > > > >
> > > > > I am an amateur, interested in Old Norse as part of early
> >Germanic. I
> > > > > have been reading Roger Lass's <Old English: A historical
linguistic
> > > > > companion> (Cambridge: 1994) and find it helpful in getting
> >control of
> > > > > some basics.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are some misprints or mistakes in the book, and one
whole
> >class
> > > > > of them involves Old Icelandic. Can anybody tell me what
these forms
> > > > > represent? Oldest attestations, or maybe a mnemonic scheme
for
> >learning
> > > > > the paradigms? I have Gordon's book, which I take as my
authority.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Lass has /e/ for /i/ wherever this appears in the dative
singular
> > > > > masc and neut. Even /deg-e/, where he explains the stem
change
> >is due
> > > > > to i-umlaut. For i-stem gestr Lass gives nom. pl. gest-er
and
> >acc. pl.
> > > > > gest-e.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. The u-stem example is even stranger:
> > > > > sg.
> > > > > N sun-r for son-r
> > > > > G son-ar
> > > > > D syn-e for syn-i
> > > > > A sun for son
> > > > > pl.
> > > > > N syn-er for syn-ir
> > > > > G son-a
> > > > > D sun-um
> > > > > A sun-o for sun-u
> > > > >
> > > > > BUT a dative -i for foet-i (with oe=ligature)
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Here is the present conjugation of bera
> > > > > sg
> > > > > 1 bæ²a
> > > > > 2 bæ²er
> > > > > 3 bæ²e
> > > > > pl
> > > > > 1 bæ²em
> > > > > 2 bæ²eÞ> > > > > 3 bæ²e
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand from Gordon that ?ook o) to á ¡nd then i-ulaut
to æ®> > > > > So why /e/ for /i/ in all the endings?
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Last thing: for '9' and '10' Lass gives OIc nió ¡®d tió¬¦gt; =
>instead of
> > > > > the expected níµ and tíµ» '11' is ellefo for ellifu.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not an exhaustive list! I am going to write all
these up for
> > > > > the author, but before I can do that I would like to have
some
> >idea his
> > > > > reasoning.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Gazariah
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
> > > > >
> > > > > Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
> > > > >
> > > > > To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail
to:
> > > > >
> > > > > norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
> > > >
> > > > Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
> > > >
> > > > To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
> > > >
> > > > norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/messenger Den korteste veien mellom
deg og
> dine venner