Re: Icelandic pronunciation and the mainland

Sæll Terje!

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Terje Ellefsen"
<radiorabia@...> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> the pronounciation in western Norway has over time developed a lot

of features shared with Icelandic, as you have written.
The "accepted" theory is that the norwegians who left for Iceland,
came from this area (even though many others would have left for
Iceland as well, e.g. from the British isles).

Well, according to a breakdown that I have seen (based on
Landnámabók), most were, in fact, from prcisely this area - Sogn,
but also Hörðaland (one step south), Rogaland (two steps south),
Sunnmoeri (one step north). Also, most of the ones who sailed west
to the Bristish Isles first probably came from these same areas
originally, such that their dialects would have matched that of the
direct-sailing settlers. Another interesting point about the Faroes
was brought up by a Faroe Islander I know, whose band played here in
Trondheim, and who speaks Icelandic as well as Faroese. He mentioned
that, traditionally, Rogaland is thought of as the big one for the
Faroes. I think he's right, at least based on the Faroese material
in the runic database. Landnámabók mentions a list of sailing-routes
from Norway-Iceland-Norway in some detail, outlining vaious routes
sailed, what the sailing-markers were, how long it took, etc. There
are also references in English/Irish about various groups of norse
persons being expelled (loosing end of battles) or otherwise forced
out of Britain (England, Ireland or Scotland) at that time. I think
this helps explain the farmer/viking dichotomy in Iceland (or the
Faroes, for that matter), perhaps. A strict reading of Landnámabók
means that the farmers (direct-sailers, non-raiders, etc.) were the
first settlers, and that they were largely established by the time
the 'viking'-settlers started to arrive, direct or via Britain. For
what it's worth, I've heard others make this same claim. Of course,
these 'vikings' didn't all end up in Iceland (some ended up in the
Faroes, others back in Norway, etc.), but I imagine that the farmers
everywhere had a hard time calming them down, employing them, etc..

> But the question here is "Did these features develop from a common

source, i.e. a variant of western Norwegian in the viking age, or
have they possibly developed independantly in Iceland and Norway at
some point between the viking age and early modern times?

I was asking the same question. Not sure if I have much of an answer
here, but it could be that certain tendencies were in place by that
time, which suggested later developments. For example, in Swedish
there is still preserved a clear distinction between long and short
vowels. This is thought to have characterized old East Norse, while
at the same time loosing the 3 diphthongs (as in Swedish and Danish)
West Norse gets the diphthongs, but the long vowels start drifting
(as in Iceland, Sogn, Faroes, Hordaland, etc.), forming diphthongs.
Could there have been a tendency in West Norse, based on a more lax
distinction between long and short vowels, that lead to this? I do
wonder. Anyway, it doesn't happen in Swedish. I've been listening to
some fine Swedish on the radio and the questions start rolling....

> As you point out, Danish ortography and vocabulary has not been

kind the the norwegian language; research into dialectic forms
during the danish period of norwegian history is a hard task.
We are, however, blessed with a large quantity of letters and
documents written in old norse, latin, middle norse and danish
called Diplomatarium Norvegicum. Here's the link: www.dokpro.uio.no
This collection, which is also available in printed editions, is our
main source of linguistic development from the middle ages until
early modern norwegian, in the 1500's.

Yes. Then there was the reformation. When I was younger, I was sent
to work on a farm (had no choice). I just wanted to hang out and
play rock music, but ended up near Skálholt (in south-west Iceland).
Things turned out well, but one thing I will never forget is seeing
the place where Iceland's last Catholic bishop was killed, along w/
two of his sons. It still makes me cry, seriously. I didn't know him
but it left a big hole in my heart. A month ago or so, I saw a rock
fortress built on a tiny island in Innherad (heading north along the
Trondheimsfjord - Sjordal, Verdal, etc.), the one where the last
Catholic erkibiskup, Ólafur Engilbrektsson (his spelling), tried to
make a last stand. Of course, the army came, and it was history for
him. 1537 was the year. 1550 was when Jón Arason, Iceland's last
c.bishop, got the axe. He went south from his bishopric in the north
(Hólar) to retake Skálholt (the other bishopric) and was killed not
far from Skálholt. Engilbrektsson's fate made me think about Jón. He
must have known of Ólafur's fate, and that he himself was doomed, 13
years before his death or so. What a nightmare...watching a waiting.
A good modern work on Jón Arason is Öxin og Jörðin. Despite the idea
of a bishop as a warrior, which is unusual in a larger context, he
is a heroic figure. It's paradoxical for a bishop, but he chose to
fight and he died valiantly. The reformation was a major threat to
the language, of course, and learning about Ólafur and co. has me
thinking about how horrible those times were, how many folk died.

> And the mere excistence of such a mass of written documents in old

norse and middle norse suggests the black death was not the final
blow against the old norse language in Norway. Indeed, it seems that
the language changes more dramatically somewhere between 1450 and
1500, judging from these letters. On the other hand, these are
formulaic documents; you can find letters from the early 1500's
starting with something like "Ollum monnum Þeim sem Þetta bref sjá
eða høyra..." (with a different ortography, of course), when it is
not at all expected from a linguistic point of view. But I think it
is also important to stress the difference between the dialects in
Norway in the middle ages. In the east, swedish and danish influence
led to a number of changes that did not occur in the west. We have
different features that make up a bigger picture of the language in
Norway: there's south-eastern, north-eastern; there's Trøndsk (in
Nidaros), north-western, south-western, and Bergensk. Those are the
main areas.

Yes, and how big the differences are! There are even trønsk sounds
that I cannot make - not a problem that I have encountered before.
Sure, I can speak a kind of Trøndersk, but I cannot form the 2 (!)
sh-sounds, the itjh-sound (heard in ikk(j)e Ice, ekki), etc. But I
can make all the West Norse sounds! Man, Trøndsk/Trøndersk is a hard
dialect. For one thing, it's East, has the jamnvektsregel (verbal
infinitives are tough!), East but totally un-Danish. Wierd, because
they usually print Bokmål her (see Adressavisen, the local-paper).
They write (unbestemt/bestemt - unbestemt/bestemt w/w/out article):

hest hesten hester hestene but pronounce:
hest hesta hesta hestan
bil bila bila bilan

I have read some archeaological literature on the Iron Age here,
etc. and earlier, etc. and have discovered, and had confirmed by a
local archeaologist, that Sweden (the old, small one), not Gautland
is where the oldest Trøndera would have come from 1000's of years
ago. In fact, only Jamt(a)land lies between, which is Swedish now,
but the folk stand fast with their Trønsk orgin, as is well known.
It makes me wonder how far back the East-West Norse division really
goes. ON in eastern Norway is thought to have been more like Danish
and, especially, Swedish, than anything in the west, even while all
were speaking ON. So, there is something that grammar and vocabulary
is not showing....

> And the western ones are more archaic and share more features with

Icelandic, whereas the eastern ones lean more in the direction of
Sweden and Denmark. I can to a certain degree agree that the
Icelandic/western Norwegian/Faroese etc. dialects were heading in
roughly the same direction, yet I believe that the norwegian
language was in a transitional phase in the middle ages, and even if
a separate norwegian written language had continued to live among
the population (and we must remember they were not all literate),
the language would in the end not have been classic old norse. The
contact with Iceland and the Faroes etc. lost some importance;
danish became the internordic lingua franca.

Some areas were Danishized much earlier than others, I think. There
seems to be a persistent memory (and a bitterness) in folk from the
old West Norse areas on this issue. I have heard it expressed many
times, so I am, in fact, certain. They were speaking ON much later
than is commonly realized, and then later fully-inflected dialects
very close to ON, when other areas were speaking something different
(as in a different language). One history book I read even reported
persecussions, which I had never heard about before. True or untrue,
I've heard it expressed several times that non-speakers of Dano-Nor
were really looked down upon and faced hard prejudice. My sense is
that the tradition is too persistent to be imaginary.

> To me, it's wonderful, and also a bit incredible that Icelandic

still is as inflected as it is. But I think it's safe to say that
it's been a long time since an icelander could step off his ship in
e.g. Stavanger, Bergen, Nidaros etc. and start a conversation with
the harbour personnell.

;) Maybe in Sogn (or parts of Hordaland)? At least pronunciation
wouldn't be an issue...Good to hear from you.

Best regards,
Konrad

> Terje
>
>
> >From: "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@...>
> >Reply-To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
> >To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [norse_course] Icelandic pronunciation and the mainland
> >Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:10:56 -0000
> >
> >Ok, notice first that this language is called sognamålet.

According

> >to my source (who speaks it), it is pronounced sognamaúle (the t

> >here silent). The aú sound is identical to Icelandic á and occurs
> >where the chanracter aa/å is found. Notice also the genitive
> >plural 'sogna', over against Dano-Norwegian 'sogne'. Notice that

the

> >pronunciation is sogna, not songna (but written sogne), as is the
> >case everywhere else in Norway (and Denmark), with the exception

> >a few neighboring areas to Sogn. Furthermore, note that long o
> >(written ó in Icelandic) is no longer just a long version of short
> >o, but a new diphthong (oú - the same sound as in Icelandic).

Notice

> >that a > á (aú) before nk/ng (as in Icelandic):laong taong baong
> >(Ice: löng töng banki). Notice u > ú (written o in Sogn) before
> >nk/ng: tong monk (Ice þung(ur) munkur) o here = ú. Notice ll > dl:
> >kalla (pronounced kadla - as in Icelandic) - but this rule goes

even

> >further in Sogn than in Icelandic: 'kenna' is pronounced 'kenna'

> >Icelandic, 'kedna' in Sogn. Lastly, rn > dn is completed in Sogn,
> >but not yet in Icelandic (headed that way though): born korn
> >(Icelandic börn korn) are pronounced bodn kodn. Icelandic
> >pronunciation of börn is something like bördn (but bödn is
> >occuring). Notice also the comments in the link I provided about

the

> >dative, that it is still living in Voss, Sunnfjord, Sognfjøra, and
> >in parts of Indre Sogn (all neighboring areas). Notice also nn >

> >in many environments (se link). So, it is really not that

surprising

> >that folk thus speaking are often mistaken for being Icelanders

who

> >are speaking Norwegian. Lastly, notice also that this language

just

> >has stress on the first syllable (like Icelandic), and lacks the
> >quality called 'tonefall' in Norwegian. This quality produces the
> >unique sing-song effect in Norwegian dialects and is notoriously
> >difficult to learn. There are many local variations and folk tend

> >find them charming, but can't reproduce them. In Soganmålet, there
> >is the staccato instead (just like in Icelandic). Hearing

Sognamålet

> >has given me a whole new ideas about ON pronunciation history.

Now,

> >as we can see that Sognamålet and Icelandic agree on the

consonants,

> >and on the vowels so far, lets see where they disagree. Ok, au is

> >(au not aú, like Ice á/Sogn å, but a plus u - an original ON sound
> >preserved in Sogn, but not in Icelandic, which says ey here). This
> >one is tricky. aa/á and au are very diffent sounds in Sogn, but

the

> >first is = Ice. á, while au is an archaic survival of the original
> >ON sound in this instance, which Ice. once had (after hearing it

and

> >comparing it to Ice. au (=ey), I can almost hear how the change

went

> >into effect, as they are quite close in a way, especially after

loss

> >of original ey in Icelandic (>ei, but written ey). So,

essentially,

> >there is one more diphthong in Sogn (both Ice. and Sogn have more
> >than ON, which had only 3, but both also write only the 3 old ones
> >as real diphthongs). ei is ei. _but_ (please note): in Icelandic

not

> >only is ey ei, but y is i and ý is í. Big changes? Well, some

would

> >call Icelandic pronunciation totally isolated and unlike ON. Not

> >fast. Many Norwegian dialect pronounce ey as ei, y as i and ý as

í,

> >including parts of Sogn, parts of Nordmøre, etc.etc., even though

> >is not a majority pronunciation. Thus, there is really _nothing_
> >isolated about Icelandic prounuciation with the possible exception
> >of au=ey (I am uncertain about this one, but will ask about it).

So,

> >one should note that the pronunciation preserved by the

descendants

> >of the last ON speakers in Norway agrees with Icelandic to a

degree

> >that is shocking, in near total contradiction on a very large

number

> >of point with the entirety of modern mainland Scandinavia. It

should

> >be obvious that West Norse was heading a certain way by the time

> >black death, and that the pronunciations that survived the black
> >death (when most folk died, causing radical changes in society and
> >language) in Iceland, Norway, and Faroes were extremely similar,

and

> >that not much separates them even today.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>