> I have studied modern Icelandic and I am well acquainted with the sounds of
> the language but I am correct in saying that modern Icelandic has a whole
> slew of new sounds that Old Norse did not?
I don't know about 'slew' but some, certainly :) And vice versa.
> Is it safe to say that the
> pronunciation of Icleandic has changed a lot in the past 1000 years?
Sure.
> Concerning the pronunciation of Old Norse, I should NOT pronounce:
>
> LL as in Icelandic 'sæll' (tl) but as an Icelandic L
> É as in Icelandic 'ég' (ye)
> AU as in Icelandic 'auga' (French 'euille') but as English 'cow'
> Á as in Icelandic 'ár' but as a lengthened Icelandic A
> U as in Icelandic 'eru" but as an Icelandic Ú
> Æ as in Icelandic 'þær' (English 'die') but as in English 'at'
> RN as in Icelandic 'barn' (dn) but as (rn)
> FN as in Icelandic 'nafn" but as (vn)
> RL as in Icelandic 'karl' but as (rl)
> V as in Icelandic 'vatn' but as in English 'water'
More or less.
> HV as in Icelandic 'hvað" but as in English 'what'
Well... It's not exactly the same. But it seems both are classified
as rounded voiceless labio-velar fricatives. To me the Icelandic sound
is more clearly a fricative and the English one, even when clearly pronounced,
sounds more like an approximant.
> O as in Icelandic 'kona' but as a Icelandic Ó
The Icelandic /ó/ is a diphthong but the Old Norse /o/ was supposedly
a monophthong. Got to love those phthongs.
> Y/Ý as in Icelandic 'yfir'/'ýsa' but as in a short and long German ü (über)
> or French u (tu)
> I as in Icelandic 'við' but as an Icelandic Í
More or less.
> G in medial position as in Icelandic 'segir' but as in Icelandic 'gull'
On the contrary. Medial /g/ was originally a fricative as in Icelandic 'dagur'.
In 'segir' we can assume the alveolar fricative gaining palatilization to finally
end up as /j/. In any case the /g/ in 'segir' was never pronounced as the
/g/ in MI 'gull'.
> Also I would like to know if you could tell me why the 'vér' and 'þér' of
> Old Norse are 'við' and 'þið' in modern Icelandic, which resemble more the
> dual pronouns of Old Norse.
The old plural came to be an honorific form and the dual took over its function.
This was fairly late in the day (15th-17th century?). The Icelandic bible distinguishes
between dual and plural (though I don't think either Hebrew or Koine do so).
Here's an example from the first chapter of John's gospel:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37 Lærisveinar hans tveir heyrðu orð hans og fóru á eftir Jesú.
38 Jesús sneri sér við, sá þá koma á eftir sér og sagði við þá: "Hvers leitið þið?"
Þeir svara: "Rabbí (það þýðir meistari), hvar dvelst þú?"
37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye?
They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the text states that there were exactly two disciples the translation
uses the dual (hvers leitið _þið_). Later on one of the two men says:
---------------------------
"Við höfum fundið Messías!"
We have found the Messias
---------------------------
In the sixth chapther we find this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
67 Þá sagði Jesús við þá tólf: "Ætlið þér að fara líka?"
68 Símon Pétur svaraði honum: "Herra, til hvers ættum vér að fara? Þú hefur orð eilífs lífs,
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case we know that Jesus is talking to 'the twelve' so the plural is called for.
Peter replies in the plural since he is also referring to the lot of them.
Kveðja,
Haukur