Pron. of old norse - Vestreyi ok Austreyi - "Eyggjana" - in Wester

"As we both know, Sweden had several very closely-related languages,
while Norway had essentially only one."

I see your point here. Sweden is the centre of Scandinavia, which
means that pure Norse novations most easily become widely used in
Sweden (which would suggest that Swedish dialects are the most
typical Norse ones, if we disregard importations). The danes have to
a greater extent imported foreign novations, though.


"...there is not much basis to assume that a less-recorded dialect
like Nordlandic would differ greatly in antiquity or character from
its immeadiate neighbor, like Upplandic, which is reasonably well-
recorded."

My guess is that Nordlanders of Northern Sweden spoke Tröndish, i.e.
Northern Norwegian. Still today we see much of the West Norse traces
in both the modern dialects and in place names. Thru archaeology, we
know that between Uppland and Tröndelag for 1,500 years ago, there
was a kingdom Medelpad - "Middle Path" (trading path between Uppland
and Tröndelag) - of western origin. Even in Österbotten, Finland,
they speak dialects with traces of Tröndish.
<Of course, since the beginning of upplandic expansion (Viking age),
the northern parts of Baltic sea area have become more and more
upplandic with respect to language.


"Interestingly enough, it matches and confirms huge areas in the West

> Norse branch which otherwise differ in the other recorded East

Norse braches, despite its often radically differing phonology - no
small evidence for the archaic character of West Norse."

An offspring of Gutnish is the Estonian-Gutnish branch. It has some
odd similarities with West Norse in general and Faroese in
particular. Here is a text about the dialects of Eyggjana/Eyjana
("The Islands", i.e. Vestreyi - 'Stora Rågö' in Swedish and Austreyi -
'Lilla Rågö'):

-------------------------------
Rågö-dialekten, som f. ö. ej är fullt enhetlig -
på Stora R. förekommer ett egendomligt [gg(j)]-inskott i
former sådana som [hä]ggi höet, riggjan rian, äggjana
öarna, sagguan sån, logguan logen, i motsats mot
Lilla R.: haj e, rian, äjana, sauan, loan -, är bland
de estsvenska folkmålen närmast befryndad med den
dialekt, som talas af de få kvarvarande svenskarna
i Kreutz' socken på det estländska fastlandet, det
s. k. Wichterpalmålet. Karakteristika för båda öarnas
mål äro: den gamla diftongen au uppträder som au
(ex. au öga); hw- har blifvit kv- (ex. kvänn hvarje,
kvitan hvit); hj- motsvaras af sj- (ex. sjul hjul). -
Som språkprof anföres (i grof omskrifning) följande
berättelse från Lilla R.:

"Äjn gäng i gartin ha vari äjt brulläp, å äjn tiggjar
ha å gai ti itti brulläpe. Å så ha tam itt gävvi itta
att ann. Tå ha hann bäddi häjla brulläpskårran bli
till vargar." (En gång i gam-mal-tiden har varit
ett bröllop, och en tiggare har ock gått dit i
bröllopet. Och så ha de inte gifvit honom mat. Då
har han bett hela bröllopsskaran bli till vargar).
-------------------------------

(Found at: http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/nfcd/0026.html )

A striking similarity between Vestreyska (Stora Rågö dialect) and
Faroese/Icelandic:

Vestreyska: 'sjoggvin'
Faroese: 'sjógvin' (acc)
English: 'the sea'

Vestreyska: 'sjul' (SAMPA: [Su:l])
Faroese/Icelandic: 'hjól' (SAMPA: [tSoU:l]/[SoU:l])
English: 'wheel'

Vestreyska: 'sanddist'
Icelandic: 'sýndist'
English: 'appeared'




--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson"
<konrad_oddsson@...> wrote:

> --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "sjuler" <sjuler@...> wrote:
> > Konrad, what about those Norse dialects that were not in any way
> written down on paper? What did Norse spoken in Northern Sweden
> sound like, for example? Of course, we don't know. My point here is
> that a statement like "Fortunately, West Norse was the most
> conservative branch, often markedly so." is based only on the
> written records.
>
> True, but written records begin to exist in every Scandinavian land
> with the establishment of the Catholic church. The dawn of writing
> on skin and other book-type materials is roughly contemporary, even
> if not exactly contemporary. The oldest known book in any language
> of Sweden is Vest-Gautalög/West-Gøtalagh. It is thought to be from
> slightly after 1200 - in other words, very old. The character of

the

> law is perhaps the oldest of any - in fact, it sounds almost like

it

> was written down strait from oral tradition, singing in

alliteration

> and other mnemonic devices. The language is also quite beautiful.

It

> is not, however, as old in character (morphology and phonology) as
> contemorary Norwegian or Icelandic manuscripts. While the

difference

> is not very great, it is noticable and there appears to be a

certain

> consensus on this point among scholars. As we both know, Sweden had
> several very closely-related languages, while Norway had

essentially

> only one. This can be shown concretely simply by comparing lawbooks
> from many parts of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. While it is true

that

> not all Swedish dialects were well-recorded, there is not much

basis

> to assume that a less-recorded dialect like Nordlandic would differ
> greatly in antiquity or character from its immeadiate neighbor,

like

> Upplandic, which is reasonably well-recorded. Still, there are some
> undeniable archaisms in Runic Swedish which are not found in any of
> West Norse areas after 900. A good example is R, which disappeared
> from West Norse completely around 900. Excepting its runic

material,

> which is meagre, Gutnish went unrecorded until around 1300, at

least

> as far as we can tell (many 'Catholic' books were 'accidently' lost
> by the new authorities ;) Still, it rivals contemporary Icelandic

in

> nearly every way with regard to antiquity. I have no doubt that the
> Gutnish of 1100 was at least as archaic as the oldest contemporary
> West Norse, in some ways even more so. However, Gutnish was

isolated

> island-speak, much like Faroese and Icelandic were later to become -

> the island-speak of the east. I suspect that every scholar who has
> looked into these matters would agree that the Gutnish is truely

the

> most archaic branch of East Norse, at least as far as records

reach.

> Interestingly enough, it matches and confirms huge areas in the

West

> Norse branch which otherwise differ in the other recorded East

Norse

> braches, despite its often radically differing phonology - no small
> evidence for the archaic character of West Norse. Also, common

sense

> tells us that Western and Northern Norway were, along with Nordland
> in Sweden, perhaps the most isolated areas of Scandinavia until and
> into the Viking Age, when locations like Faroese and Iceland would
> would begin to rival and eventually surpass the most isolated parts
> of Norway in linguistic archaisms. This seems perfectly natural and
> rather geographic. It seems natural to conclude, for instance, that
> the archaic character of the oldest Icelandic and Faroese has a lot
> to do with the original homeland of the earliest settlers. If

Norway

> had what was, on the balance, the oldest living Scandinavian tongue
> in its isolated western regions, then Faroe-Islanders and

Icelanders

> had exactly the right linguistic-starting point to end up speaking

a

> more archaic language. Also, the norse linguistic uniformity of the
> early settlers of Faroes and Iceland helped prevent the breakdown

of

> the language. No East Norse-related innovations (or archaisms) were
> admitted to these languages until hundreds of years later. There

are

> scholars who would relate West Norse linguistic archaisms solely to
> the earlier dawn of writing in the west, but I would disagree. In

my

> opinion, the writing had very little impact on linguistic antiquity
> at this early stage. People simply spoke the way they did. The

usual

> culprit is the Erkibiskupsstóll at Niðaróss in Þrándheimr. This is,
> no doubt, were writing was first employed in Scandinavia. This

seems

> to be the emerging scholarly consensus. By 'writing' here I mean

the

> creation of nordic-language books. Iceland and the Faroes fell

under

> this Erkibiskupsstóll, while each had its own bishop (later two for
> Iceland). Icelanders and Faroe-Islander experienced early literacy,
> almost from the dawn of Catholicism due in large measure to the

very

> strong monastic and clerical influence exterted from this

bishopric,

> turning their own cloisters into centers of haliographic writing.

In

> Iceland, however, the sons of the aristocracy broke into the

growing

> tradition of writing and turned it to their own ends, creating a

new

> literate on native nordic themes, and not always churchly ones - in
> no small measure related to native poetic genius and a deep

interest

> in their own origins and history, as well as to the generally

weaker

> hold of church doctrine. Remarkably, the much more church-oriented
> Norwegian aristocracy were receptive in large measure to this kind
> of nordic learning and poetry, at least in part. This was no small
> relief, for it meant opportunities for Icelandic and Faroese

writers

> and poets in Norway, a larger land where the same language was also
> spoken. Personally, I think that this is all that was needed to

help

> turn, say, Icelandic monastary X into a nordic culture factory:

just

> a few sharp cats with time on their hands, native poetic genius and
> the opportunity to sell it abroad. No doubt, it also helped that

the

> folks most knowledgable about nordic culture, history and beliefs
> were merely muzzled and punished at the conversion and not

slaughted

> like sheep, as their cousins in Norway were, for instance. In

Sweden

> they were slaughted, too - just read Eiríks Saga ;)
>
> > POerhaps Northern SCandinavians still spoke Viking age Norse in
> Medieval times. We don't know, and therefore one should restrict
> oneself to a statement like "Fortunately, West Norse was the most
> conservative branch amongst the known Norse dialects, often

markedly

> so."
>
> Hmmm...I doubt anybody spoke Viking Age norse in medieaval times.

My

> accessment of general linguistic antiquity is, I believe, standard,
> if I am not mistaken. I think most scholars would agree that, say,
> the Icelander Ari Fróði could speak to a West Norse viking with

very

> little difficulty at all, and I agree. The changes were so precious
> few at that point.,.vowel harmony, a sound here and there, some new
> latin/hebrew vocab at church...not much.
>
> > BTW, since Icelandic did preserve vocabulary, grammar etc in an
> almost uncanny way, but did not preserve stuff like pitch accent,
> short and over-long syllable lengths and nasal vowels, it may be
> interesting to listen to a dialect that did. Here are some sound
> samples:
> >
> > http://www.unilang2.org/wiki2/wiki.phtml?
> > title=Dalecarlian_sound_samples
>
> Indeed ;)
>
> > Konrad, any comments on it?
>
> Sounds good ;)
>
> > /Sjuler
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson"
> > <konrad_oddsson@...> wrote:
> > > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, Berglaug Ásmundardóttir
> > > <berglauga@...> wrote:
> > > > Sjuler wrote: "As far as I know, the only sound which
> Icelandic
> > has
> > > preserved better than all other Scandinavian dialects is the þ-
> > sound
> > > (like 'th' in English 'thing')."
> > >
> > > > Don't forget our lovely unvoiced resonants, which all you
> > > scandinavians seem to have lost in some freak accident! ;)
> > > >
> > > > unvoiced r, l, m, n are fun to say!
> > >
> > > Lovely, I might add ;)
> > >
> > > > and wouldn't ð also be a 'preserved sound'?
> > >
> > > Yes, no doubt.
> > >
> > > > i'm well aware that icelandic isn't anything like old norse
> was,
> > > but really, it's mostly in the vowels and their surroundings
> (that
> > > would be lenght of syllables), the consonant changes are
> minimal.
> > >
> > > I agree. ll, nn, g between vowels(segir), maybe final d/b
> > (land/lamb)
> > > and a few others. Not much of a change at all. However, as you
> > point
> > > out, the vowel-system is changed. I would say quite radically
> so.
> > If
> > > we had a living speaker, however, I think we could learn it
> without
> > > having to learn the whole language over again.
> > >
> > > (hmm.. same as with english,
> > > > really, their vowels are all messy nowadays.. compared to a
> > > thousand years ago, at least)
> > >
> > > English is nowhere near the same tongue it was a thousand years
> > ago.
> > > The price of an empire, I suppose.
> > >
> > > I think what students need to understand about old

pronunciation

> is
> > > this: there were many 'old norse' languages and just as many
> ways
> > of
> > > pronouncing them. In Sweden, for instance, we had the

Gautlandic

> of
> > > east and west, Swedish proper, Gutnish and others. In my
> opinion,
> > it
> > > was the Old Gutnish that was the 'jewel of the east' -
> > conservative
> > > like the oldest West Norse, but with a radically differing
> > phonology
> > > and even usage. Danish was also markedly different in
> > pronunciation,
> > > and to some extent in usage and vocabulary, from West Norse.

The

> > way
> > > I see it, one of the main advantages of old West Norse is that
> it
> > is
> > > considered to have been very uniform (einsleit). Because

Faroese

> > and
> > > Icelandic were once the same language as West Norwegian,
> matching
> > on
> > > vocabulary and usage as well, we can get a fairly good idea of
> how
> > > it was pronounced by comparing the how these tongues are
> pronounced
> > > today and doing the math. Although it had the most complicated
> > vowel-
> > > system (through more mutations) and the least speakers of any
> > nordic
> > > tongue from the 9-10 centuries, West Norse is now by far the
> > easiest
> > > tongue to reconstruct, as there is a firm basis for comparison.
> > This
> > > is ironic, perhaps, given the numerical inferiority ;)
> Fortunately,
> > > West Norse was the most conservative branch, often markedly so.
> > Only
> > > Gutnish equals its antiquity. Shamefully, Gutnish was

neglected,

> > set
> > > out to die and never used as a literary tongue. Our only book

in

> > the
> > > tongue was written in the early 14th century. Fortunately, it

is

> > old
> > > enough to give us some idea of the tongue in its golden age. I
> > think
> > > we are very lucky, on the other hand, that Old Icelandic was
> used
> > as
> > > a literary tongue in the west as early as 1100-1130, when the
> > tongue
> > > was only slightly changed from its golden age.
> > >
> > > Vesið ér heil (pronun.: uesið êr hæil (short æ+i - between ei &
> > ai ;)
> > >
> > > Konrad
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Konrad
> > >
> > >
> > > > Berglaug