It has recently been brought to my attention that I used poor
wording and was unclear about the topic of pronounciation and the
different approaches to learning ON, etc. I now wish to clarify this
situation. First, there are different approaches to learning this
language. Next, the best approach is the one most suitable to the
learner and his/her needs. The two most common approaches are
probably: 1)learning the old standard pronounciation, as desribed by
scholars in the grammars, etc. 2)learning Modern Icelandic
pronounciation, as used today in Iceland. The best approach is in
accordance with your own needs as a student. My experience, not
necessarily that of others, is that most students with an interest
in the historical language only, and with no practical use for the
language (as in speaking it) tend to prefer option 1. On the other
hand, students with an interest in speaking it tend to prefer option
2. I make no judgement there. Now, the most popular author is Snorri
Sturluson, which is one good reason why his language, and the
language of his time in Iceland, is taken as the standard place to
start. Now, I think that this is a good idea, but that is just my
opinion. I also want to be clear that when it comes to modern
scholarly citation of ON words, etc.(as in technical works relating
to Germanic languages, etc.), the standard spelling system of the so-
called 1st Grammarian (early-mid 12th century) is normally used
today, as it describes a stage of the language which linguists, etc.
deem more informative, at least etymologically. Now, it was brought
to my attention that I remarked that changes in the language from
the time of Snorri Sturluson until Modern Icelandic were irrelevant
to ON 'proper'. I want to clarify this situation, as it apparantly
was misleading. Traditionally, later Icelandic, as in after his time
or the reformation or wherever one draws the line, has not usually
been called ON, or OI, or anything like that, but simply Icelandic.
I want to clarify this because, if one's approach is to learn the
old historical language only, then the changes (in pronounciation,
grammar, spelling, syntax, etc.) that produce Modern Icelandic are
probably not a useful study (option 1 above - but I certainly
encourage learning all about it if one wants to). On the other hand,
if one's appraoch is 2 above (using Mod. Ice. pronounciation), then
any and all changes producing Modern Icelandic (pronounciation,
spelling, grammar, syntax, etc.) are important to the learner. Now,
I am aware that there are at least two approaches here, and I want
to make this clear, even if one can name others as well. It may have
sounded as if I were talking about ON as a dead language. Let me
clarify a few points here. First, there is an approach to learning
it as a dead language, just as one would learn ancient Greek, Hebrew
etc.. Second, there is also an approach to learning it as a living
language. I'm not going to judge which is best, as that's up to the
student and his/her needs. My personal experience is that most ON
students are interested in it because it was the Viking language -
that is, once the common language of old Scandinavia (dönsk tunga,
norroena, norroent mál, etc.), and that learners of Modern Icelandic
focus on precisely that - Modern Icelandic. But this is just a trend
that I have observed, not a fixed reality, and there are many, many
exceptions, I am sure. Perhaps my observation is flawed itself, and
I do not insist upon its truth. That being said, let me ask: Is this
really a 'dead' language? My answer is no. Instead, I would answer
that it is a living language. But that doesn't mean that one cannot,
or should not, approach it as a 'dead' language, if that is the way
that works best according to one's need as a student. Have there
been changes in the language? Yes. How substantial are they? Well,
in my opinion, not substantial enough to talk about a 'different'
language. This is a judgement-call, and if someone disagrees, then I
offer no objections, because 'technically', unless there is zero
change, one can always argue that a language is not the 'same' (as
in, no change whatsoever, none). I simply prefer to call Icelandic,
as in Modern Icelandic, the 'same' language as a 'living language'.
That's how I see it, personally. I feel that this reflects language
change as an ongoing, natural phenomenon. Now, I personally do use
Modern Icelandic pronounciation almost exclusively. I have practical
needs to speak Modern Icelandic, and I find switching pronounciation
difficult and confusing. It works for me. However, I also want to
make it clear that I absolutely advocate the learning of the old,
standard pronounciation scheme for ON. It's more historically
'correct', especially if one is interested in learning only the
'historical' language. I personally find it useful in comparing to
other Germanic languages, but that is only my personal need, as I am
interested in Germanic linguistics, etc.. Another person may have
the same, another, or no need for this pronounciation. Now, a word
about underlining and stressing the changes into Modern Icelandic. I
tend to feel that doing so is a very good idea, not because I wish
to portray the language as very different, or virtually unchanged,
but because I feel that it helps us understand what the differences
are, what they largely consist of, and helps us get some idea of the
degree of change involved. I feel that is gives us a better idea in
terms of orientation. Personally, I do not feels that these changes
are so sustantial that we need to talk about a 'different' language
or anything like that. That's my judgement-call (see above). Now, I
posted and discussed the issue of Modern Icelandic pronounciation as
it relates to mainland Scnaidnavia. One reason I did this is due to
a persistent opinion I have heard expressed that Modern Icelandic
pronounciation is 'very' different from ON, so much so that it is
not really relevant to learning the language as a 'dead' language at
this point in time. Well, I make no judgment about that. But to tell
it like it is, I became very curious about this view, as it tends to
portray Icelandic pronouniation as totally isolated, or something
like that. What I found out was that there are no sounds in Modern
Icelandic which are not typical in western Norwegian dialcts - that
is, absolutely none. Furthermore, there are overall pronounciation
schemes there which mirror Modern Icelandic very closely, which no
single scheme is identical on all points. Now, I posted example and
things from Norwegian dialects, not to distract students from the
task of learning ON, but because I found it relevant. What it tells
us is something like this: Modern Icelandic pronounciation appears
to be more of a 'natural' result, by comparision with the other so-
called West Norse dialects, than the view seeing it as 'isolated'
seems to support. I think what it says is simply that while, yes,
the vast majority of modern Scandinavian pronounciation schemes do
agree with each other against Icelandic, West Norwegian dialects on
the other hand tend to agree with Icelandic. I'm not judging here
about what is, or is not, the 'most changed' pronounciation from ON
times, when the language was common, but simply pointing out for any
interested persons, that I think the 'isolated' characterization is
incorrect. Enough on that. If I have been unclear about something,
or if further explanation is need, then I will happily provide it as
best I can. Thank you for your patience.