Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

SV: Re: Sæll Arnljótr! - Ö in 'dögum' - minor correction

Expand Messages
  • konrad_oddsson
    ... in the other cases of the same word - only it was nasalized ( = short nasal A). The pronounciation Ö (and spelling) are later. Now I see where the
    Message 1 of 27 , Mar 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Minor correction:

      > The Old Norse Ö in 'dögum' was pronounced just like the regular A
      in the other cases of the same word - only it was nasalized ( = short
      nasal A). The pronounciation Ö (and spelling) are later."

      Now I see where the confusion was coming from. Instead of 'nasalized'
      what I meant to say was that the A was pronounced "in the direction"
      of O. The short of this sound heard in 'daogum' is not nasalized - I
      hope this clears up the confusion. Please see the vowel-sets shown in
      my 3rd post about the 'vowel-system' for more information.

      Regards,
      Konrad.
    • Jens Persson
      Godan aftan, Konrad! I have been angry for some weeks now, so I have not answered this until now. [...] what I meant to say was that the A was pronounced in
      Message 2 of 27 , Apr 14, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Godan aftan, Konrad!

        I have been angry for some weeks now, so I have not answered this
        until now.

        "[...] what I meant to say was that the A was pronounced "in the
        direction" of O."

        This is exactly what I thought was the case before you told me that
        it is supposed to be nasalized.

        "The short of this sound heard in 'daogum' is not nasalized - I hope
        this clears up the confusion."

        But the u-umlauted á (often nasalized) may have been nasal? Please,
        give an example of an u-umlauted á which can be seen alive in written
        Modern Icelandic.

        Skål ta mej faan!

        Best regards,
        /arAnliotAr


        --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "konrad_oddsson"
        <konrad_oddsson@y...> wrote:
        > Minor correction:
        >
        > > The Old Norse Ö in 'dögum' was pronounced just like the regular A
        > in the other cases of the same word - only it was nasalized ( =
        short
        > nasal A). The pronounciation Ö (and spelling) are later."
        >
        > Now I see where the confusion was coming from. Instead
        of 'nasalized'
        > what I meant to say was that the A was pronounced "in the
        direction"
        > of O. The short of this sound heard in 'daogum' is not nasalized -
        I
        > hope this clears up the confusion. Please see the vowel-sets shown
        in
        > my 3rd post about the 'vowel-system' for more information.
        >
        > Regards,
        > Konrad.
      • konrad_oddsson
        Góðan aptan, Arnljótr! ... hope this clears up the confusion. ... Any vowel can be nasal or non-nasal in Old Norse - it depends on whether or not it stands
        Message 3 of 27 , Apr 15, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Góðan aptan, Arnljótr!

          --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Jens Persson" <arnljotr@y...>
          wrote:
          > Godan aftan, Konrad!

          > "The short of this sound heard in 'daogum' is not nasalized - I
          hope this clears up the confusion."

          > But the u-umlauted á (often nasalized) may have been nasal?

          Any vowel can be nasal or non-nasal in Old Norse - it depends on
          whether or not it stands before or after a nasal consonant (or did
          stand there before the nasal consonant itself disappeared). A big
          part of the problem is that mideaval writers did not write nasals
          (even when they pronounced them). This is the sad truth. The first
          grammatical treatise (circa 1140-1150), however, goes a long way
          toward establishing the truth. It explains that the language has 9
          basic vowels, each of which could be either long or short (read: 9
          times 2 = 18); furthermore, it explains that each of these nine can
          also occur in nasalized varieties (read: 18 times 2 = 36). Although
          the grammarian implies that both long and short vowels could be
          nasalized, in actuality he only gives examples for the long grades.
          Until relatively modern times, the 'first grammarian' (as he is call-
          ed) was openly attacked as a writer of fantasies. Few believed that
          he was telling the truth about there being nasals in Norse at the
          time he lived (from 11-12th century Iceland). In short, he had been
          completely ignored. To this day, Old Norse texts are printed without
          nasalization. During the last few decades, however, the so-called
          First Grammarian has been resurrected from the dead and proven right
          - yes, PROVEN RIGHT. Modern linguists have examined the evidence
          (runic, comparative Germanic, other) and shown that there were in
          fact nasals in Old Norse during his time. Furthermore, scholars have
          even explored the issue of short nasals and determined that a) they
          existed and b) where they existed. They have even made a very good
          guess as to why the First Grammarian remained silent about short
          nasals: the evidence was confusing to him. The problem was that
          while long nasals always retained their distinctiveness (often it
          was only the nasal which distinguished two words with identical
          spellings), short nasals were often lost or new ones created through
          contraction. Here is an example: Primitive Germainic *hanhistaz,
          which means 'horse', looses its 'n' (a nasal) and thereby nasalizes
          the preceeding 'a' - later, after the medial 'h' is also lost, the
          remaining vowel-cluster 'ai' contracts to 'e' and the nasal quality
          is lost. Similarly, a short vowel could become a nasal if it ended
          up immeadiately before or after a nasal consonant through linguistic
          changes in the language. What I am saying here is true. I admit that
          I am simplifying things greatly do to lack of space. I also admit
          that my manner of writing about or discussing these matters is far
          from perfect. Nevertheless, the following are true statements: 1)
          the subject of nasals in Old Norse has benn almost entirely ignored
          (or their existence denied) by publishers and teachers of Old Norse
          texts down to our time 2) modern linguists have conclusively proven
          through runic and comparative Germanic evidence that the so-called
          First Grammarian was right - there were nasals in his mother-tongue
          in the same places he said there were (in other words, he was indeed
          telling the truth) 3) modern linguistics is enabling us to go beyond
          the limited examples the First Grammarian gave us and discover many
          other words in the language which had nasalized vowels. Please bare
          in mind that what I am saying here is enough to get me hung in some
          conservative academic circles. I am sticking my neck out. There are
          no textbooks or dictionaries showing nasals in Old Norse. There are
          no grammars telling us where they were. Simply put, no one wants to
          disturb the peace by bringing up the subject of nasals. Why? Part of
          the reason has to do with the fact that the existence of nasals has
          very big implications for how we spell Old Norse. Conservatives want
          to rest on the printed texts which already exist. Manuscript-purists
          do not want to discuss or admit that old writers failed to indicated
          nasals in writing. There are undoubtedly other reasons as well. In
          view of these facts, I ask to be patient with me on the topic of the
          nasals in Old Norse. I am swimming upstream against a mighty tide.
          Nevertheless, I can and will provide examples of nasals in Old Norse
          - I am making a list of them from various academic sources. As you
          are interested in this subject, I will post some examples of words
          with nasal vowels - some of them may shock our readers. Also, as you
          asked me about differences between East and West Norse, I looked the
          subject up in several scholarly publications and will post some of
          what I found as I find the time. Thank you for your patience.

          Regards,
          Konrad.


          Please,
          > give an example of an u-umlauted á which can be seen alive in
          written
          > Modern Icelandic.
          >
          > Skål ta mej faan!
          >
          > Best regards,
          > /arAnliotAr
          >
          >
          > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "konrad_oddsson"
          > <konrad_oddsson@y...> wrote:
          > > Minor correction:
          > >
          > > > The Old Norse Ö in 'dögum' was pronounced just like the
          regular A
          > > in the other cases of the same word - only it was nasalized ( =
          > short
          > > nasal A). The pronounciation Ö (and spelling) are later."
          > >
          > > Now I see where the confusion was coming from. Instead
          > of 'nasalized'
          > > what I meant to say was that the A was pronounced "in the
          > direction"
          > > of O. The short of this sound heard in 'daogum' is not
          nasalized -
          > I
          > > hope this clears up the confusion. Please see the vowel-sets
          shown
          > in
          > > my 3rd post about the 'vowel-system' for more information.
          > >
          > > Regards,
          > > Konrad.
        • Jens Persson
          Guäðan aptan, Konrad! ... --This is perfectly clear to me. A big ... --Writers usually did not emphasize vowel length either. Of course, people did not write
          Message 4 of 27 , Apr 16, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Guäðan aptan, Konrad!





            --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "konrad_oddsson"
            <konrad_oddsson@y...> wrote:
            > Góðan aptan, Arnljótr!
            >
            > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Jens Persson" <arnljotr@y...>
            > wrote:
            > > Godan aftan, Konrad!
            >
            > > "The short of this sound heard in 'daogum' is not nasalized - I
            > hope this clears up the confusion."
            >
            > > But the u-umlauted á (often nasalized) may have been nasal?
            >
            > Any vowel can be nasal or non-nasal in Old Norse - it depends on
            > whether or not it stands before or after a nasal consonant (or did
            > stand there before the nasal consonant itself disappeared).

            --This is perfectly clear to me.


            A big
            > part of the problem is that mideaval writers did not write nasals
            > (even when they pronounced them). This is the sad truth.

            --Writers usually did not emphasize vowel length either. Of course,
            people did not write their texts for 21th century linguists, but for
            a contemporary public that just did not need information about vowel
            length, nasality or even voiced or unvoiced consonants (Viking age
            runic writers). This is sad for us today.

            The first
            > grammatical treatise (circa 1140-1150), however, goes a long way
            > toward establishing the truth. It explains that the language has 9
            > basic vowels, each of which could be either long or short (read: 9
            > times 2 = 18); furthermore, it explains that each of these nine can
            > also occur in nasalized varieties (read: 18 times 2 = 36).

            --What about the so called "half-long vowels"? The vowels that makes
            (most) Icelanders say, e.g., [laonggur] for 'langur' (adj.)? Here
            the 'a' was not long as in 'fá' (verb) or short as in 'rakki' (noun).
            This could be denoted with a grave accent `: 'làngr'.
            Mainland Scandinavian dialectal examples:

            'toungg' (adj.) - from 'thùngr' (Överkalixmål),
            'laungg' (adj.) - from 'làngr' (Dalska, South Jamtlandic),
            'haul' (adj.) - from 'hàrdhr' (South Jamtlandic),
            'uord' (noun) - from 'òrdh' (Dalska).

            Why did the first grammatical treatize put these into the group of
            short vowels? (I assume it did)


            Although
            > the grammarian implies that both long and short vowels could be
            > nasalized, in actuality he only gives examples for the long grades.
            > Until relatively modern times, the 'first grammarian' (as he is
            call-
            > ed) was openly attacked as a writer of fantasies. Few believed that
            > he was telling the truth about there being nasals in Norse at the
            > time he lived (from 11-12th century Iceland). In short, he had been
            > completely ignored. To this day, Old Norse texts are printed
            without
            > nasalization. During the last few decades, however, the so-called
            > First Grammarian has been resurrected from the dead and proven
            right
            > - yes, PROVEN RIGHT. Modern linguists have examined the evidence
            > (runic, comparative Germanic, other) and shown that there were in
            > fact nasals in Old Norse during his time.

            --Yes, of course it must have ben; even today Dalska has them in many
            words:
            'Tûosdag' - Thursday (German: Donnerstag),
            'gôs' - goose (German: Ganze?),
            'ô' - on,
            'ôs' - Proto-Germanic 'ansuz',
            'siô' - see (German: 'sehen'),
            'ûo-' - 'un-' ('unhappy', 'uneasy' etc),
            'bôs' - booth, stall (German: Banse).

            There are many more examples. One noticable thing is that 'ô'
            (nasalized 'o') is frequently occuring, which corresponds to a
            nasalized 'á' in Old Norse.

            I definetly believes that the vowels were nasalized in most northern
            Scandinavian dialects until a few centuries ago, since there are
            strong traces of nasalized vowels there. Example: 'bjerkô' (birches,
            dative) in Överkalixmål.


            [...]
            I am swimming upstream against a mighty tide.
            > Nevertheless, I can and will provide examples of nasals in Old
            Norse
            > - I am making a list of them from various academic sources. As you
            > are interested in this subject, I will post some examples of words
            > with nasal vowels - some of them may shock our readers.

            --I look forward to see examples. I don't know if I will be shocked,
            but it will affect me somehow.


            Also, as you
            > asked me about differences between East and West Norse, I looked
            the
            > subject up in several scholarly publications and will post some of
            > what I found as I find the time.

            --Will definitely be interesting.

            Thank you for your patience.

            --As a good scandinavian, I thank you in return.

            >
            > Regards,
            > Konrad.
            >

            /Arnljotr

            >
            > Please,
            > > give an example of an u-umlauted á which can be seen alive in
            > written
            > > Modern Icelandic.
            > >
            > > Skål ta mej faan!
            > >
            > > Best regards,
            > > /arAnliotAr
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "konrad_oddsson"
            > > <konrad_oddsson@y...> wrote:
            > > > Minor correction:
            > > >
            > > > > The Old Norse Ö in 'dögum' was pronounced just like the
            > regular A
            > > > in the other cases of the same word - only it was nasalized ( =
            > > short
            > > > nasal A). The pronounciation Ö (and spelling) are later."
            > > >
            > > > Now I see where the confusion was coming from. Instead
            > > of 'nasalized'
            > > > what I meant to say was that the A was pronounced "in the
            > > direction"
            > > > of O. The short of this sound heard in 'daogum' is not
            > nasalized -
            > > I
            > > > hope this clears up the confusion. Please see the vowel-sets
            > shown
            > > in
            > > > my 3rd post about the 'vowel-system' for more information.
            > > >
            > > > Regards,
            > > > Konrad.
          • Haukur Thorgeirsson
            ... Interesting. But how did the word for the heathen gods survive at all in daily speech in Dalska? Kveðja, Haukur
            Message 5 of 27 , Apr 16, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              > 'ôs' - Proto-Germanic 'ansuz',

              Interesting. But how did the word for the heathen gods
              survive at all in daily speech in Dalska?

              Kveðja,
              Haukur
            • konrad_oddsson
              Góðan myrgin, Arnljótr! ... nasals (even when they pronounced them). This is the sad truth. ... course, people did not write their texts for 21th century
              Message 6 of 27 , Apr 18, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Góðan myrgin, Arnljótr!

                --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Jens Persson" <arnljotr@y...>
                wrote:
                > Guäðan aptan, Konrad!

                > A big part of the problem is that mideaval writers did not write
                nasals (even when they pronounced them). This is the sad truth.

                > --Writers usually did not emphasize vowel length either. Of
                course, people did not write their texts for 21th century linguists,
                but for a contemporary public that just did not need information
                about vowel length, nasality or even voiced or unvoiced consonants
                (Viking age runic writers). This is sad for us today.

                Yes, indeed. I do not imagine that anyone one alive then could have
                forseen the impending cultural and linguistic destruction that lay
                ahead. No one told the American Indians about the 'white man' and
                his missionaries ahead of time either. It simply happened. Modern
                scholars are still trying to piece together what they can from the
                remains of some surviving American Indian cultures. Others simply
                became extinct. A lot of American Indians of today, especially the
                younger ones, seem interested in reviving and preserving all that
                they can of their pre-conquest language and culture - a good thing,
                in my opinion. I think that we could do better in this respect.

                > The first
                > > grammatical treatise (circa 1140-1150), however, goes a long way
                toward establishing the truth. It explains that the language has 9
                basic vowels, each of which could be either long or short (read: 9
                times 2 = 18); furthermore, it explains that each of these nine can
                also occur in nasalized varieties (read: 18 times 2 = 36).

                > --What about the so called "half-long vowels"? The vowels that
                makes (most) Icelanders say, e.g., [laonggur] for 'langur' (adj.)?

                I have been hesitating to respond to you about this. Simply put, I
                have no answers and no information on this topic.

                Here the 'a' was not long as in 'fá' (verb) or short as in 'rakki'
                (noun). This could be denoted with a grave accent `: 'làngr'.

                This is a very good idea. Here is why I think so: the accent is on
                top on the letter, as is the common one for even greater length. I
                like the idea of writing distinctions of length above the letter and
                nasality below. This seems clearer to me. Also, a text would still
                look recognizably the same were it shown without nasalization marks.
                Do you have any thoughts about this subject?

                > Mainland Scandinavian dialectal examples:
                >
                > 'toungg' (adj.) - from 'thùngr' (Överkalixmål),
                > 'laungg' (adj.) - from 'làngr' (Dalska, South Jamtlandic),
                > 'haul' (adj.) - from 'hàrdhr' (South Jamtlandic),
                > 'uord' (noun) - from 'òrdh' (Dalska).

                Here is a question which I have been meaning to ask you, but always
                seem to forget whenever I log on to norse_course: are there any
                dialects in Sweden where V/W survives in initial positions before
                U,Ú,Y,Ý,O,Ó,OE,OÉ from the Viking Age? I am very curious about this
                topic. I was very surprised after reading a list of Modern Faroese
                words with V before U. Here are some examples: teir wurðu (they be-
                came), teir wundu (they wound), etc.. - the list is rather long. I
                suspect that V has been restored by analogy, but have no way of
                knowing for certain at this time. I think we are fairly certain that
                V/W disappeared before U,Ú,Y,Ý,O,Ó,OE,OÉ around 600 - at least in
                West Norse. Does it survive in any dialects in Sweden?

                > Why did the first grammatical treatize put these into the group of
                > short vowels? (I assume it did)

                I have no idea. Presumably, the grammarian felt that the vowels were
                short - short enough to require no distinction in writing. However,
                he may simply have decided not to comment on the topic. Some modern
                scholars seem to be of the opinion that the grammarian did not want
                to overload or frighten his countymenn (see Hreinn Benediktsson). He
                had already distinguished (or at least indicated) 36 simple vowels,
                suggested a system a small capitals for double consonants and a new
                consonantal letter or two to boot (opinions differ on this). Greeks,
                Romans, and God's very own Chosen People had only 24, 23, and 22
                letters in their alphabets, respectively. Could the tongue of the
                lowly Nordic convert require more than 36 signs for simple vowels
                alone? More than the entire alphabets of the very nobles they sought
                to emulate in script and culture? Perhaps the grammarian was brave.

                > --Yes, of course it must have ben; even today Dalska has them in
                many words:
                > 'Tûosdag' - Thursday (German: Donnerstag),
                > 'gôs' - goose (German: Ganze?),
                > 'ô' - on,
                > 'ôs' - Proto-Germanic 'ansuz',
                > 'siô' - see (German: 'sehen'),
                > 'ûo-' - 'un-' ('unhappy', 'uneasy' etc),
                > 'bôs' - booth, stall (German: Banse).

                I would like to hear a recording of these words.

                > There are many more examples. One noticable thing is that 'ô'
                > (nasalized 'o') is frequently occuring, which corresponds to a
                > nasalized 'á' in Old Norse.

                Yes, 'á' or 'aó' (hooked o) because u-umlaut is so extensive in West
                Norse. Dalska 'ô' (on) looks like it was leveled by analogy, as all
                of the other forms with 'ô' above had a 'u' in the next syllable in
                Proto-Norse. 'ô' is preserved as 'ana' in Proto-Norse. I am assuming
                that Dalska underwent u-umlaut. Nasal 'siô' is news to me.

                > I definetly believes that the vowels were nasalized in most
                northern Scandinavian dialects until a few centuries ago, since
                there are strong traces of nasalized vowels there. Example: 'bjerkô'
                (birches, dative) in Överkalixmål.

                This agrees with West Norse 'bjarkan', where the 'n' is preserved.

                I am still compiling a list of words with nasal vowels - the ones
                where nasalization is not obvious do to linguistic changes. As far
                as I know, no such list exists for West Norse.

                Regards,
                Konrad.
              • Jens Persson
                Guoðan aftan, Okär! But how did the word for the heathen gods survive at all in daily speech in Dalska? In place names and related words, of course (such
                Message 7 of 27 , Apr 18, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Guoðan aftan, Okär!

                  "But how did the word for the heathen gods survive at all in daily
                  speech in Dalska?
                  "

                  In place names and related words, of course (such as 'ôska', meaning
                  thunderstorm)!
                  At home in Central Jamtland, e.g., we have a site called 'Ås', since
                  it was an important religious place in the heathen time. We don't
                  pronunce it with a nasalized 'å', though.

                  /I, a.k.a Arnljuter


                  --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, Haukur Thorgeirsson
                  <haukurth@h...> wrote:
                  > > 'ôs' - Proto-Germanic 'ansuz',
                  >
                  > Interesting. But how did the word for the heathen gods
                  > survive at all in daily speech in Dalska?
                  >
                  > Kveðja,
                  > Haukur
                • Jens Persson
                  Guoða nåt (!), Konrad! ... linguists, ... --The culture and the language is always and everywhere geting destroyed. Some people call it progress. Often
                  Message 8 of 27 , Apr 18, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Guoða nåt (!), Konrad!

                    --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "konrad_oddsson"
                    <konrad_oddsson@y...> wrote:
                    > Góðan myrgin, Arnljótr!
                    >
                    > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Jens Persson" <arnljotr@y...>
                    > wrote:
                    > > Guäðan aptan, Konrad!
                    >
                    > > A big part of the problem is that mideaval writers did not write
                    > nasals (even when they pronounced them). This is the sad truth.
                    >
                    > > --Writers usually did not emphasize vowel length either. Of
                    > course, people did not write their texts for 21th century
                    linguists,
                    > but for a contemporary public that just did not need information
                    > about vowel length, nasality or even voiced or unvoiced consonants
                    > (Viking age runic writers). This is sad for us today.
                    >
                    > Yes, indeed. I do not imagine that anyone one alive then could have
                    > forseen the impending cultural and linguistic destruction that lay
                    > ahead. No one told the American Indians about the 'white man' and
                    > his missionaries ahead of time either. It simply happened. Modern
                    > scholars are still trying to piece together what they can from the
                    > remains of some surviving American Indian cultures. Others simply
                    > became extinct. A lot of American Indians of today, especially the
                    > younger ones, seem interested in reviving and preserving all that
                    > they can of their pre-conquest language and culture - a good thing,
                    > in my opinion. I think that we could do better in this respect.
                    >

                    --The culture and the language is always and everywhere geting
                    destroyed. Some people call it progress. Often people with power.
                    Others call it a catastrophy. Often intellectual people. But most
                    people do not care much. People who have to work to survive the day.
                    Today there has not been as many intellectually educated people as
                    today. I hope at least some will be restored.


                    > > The first
                    > > > grammatical treatise (circa 1140-1150), however, goes a long
                    way
                    > toward establishing the truth. It explains that the language has 9
                    > basic vowels, each of which could be either long or short (read: 9
                    > times 2 = 18); furthermore, it explains that each of these nine can
                    > also occur in nasalized varieties (read: 18 times 2 = 36).
                    >
                    > > --What about the so called "half-long vowels"? The vowels that
                    > makes (most) Icelanders say, e.g., [laonggur] for 'langur' (adj.)?
                    >
                    > I have been hesitating to respond to you about this. Simply put, I
                    > have no answers and no information on this topic.
                    >
                    > Here the 'a' was not long as in 'fá' (verb) or short as in 'rakki'
                    > (noun). This could be denoted with a grave accent `: 'làngr'.
                    >
                    > This is a very good idea. Here is why I think so: the accent is on
                    > top on the letter, as is the common one for even greater length. I
                    > like the idea of writing distinctions of length above the letter
                    and
                    > nasality below. This seems clearer to me. Also, a text would still
                    > look recognizably the same were it shown without nasalization
                    marks.
                    > Do you have any thoughts about this subject?
                    >

                    --The use of a grave accent was just temporary to be able to denote
                    it in the post. But, if acute accent is used for long vowel, why
                    cannot a grave accent be used for the half-long fellow vowels? What
                    about this three-graded vowel length system when using dotted runes?

                    > > Mainland Scandinavian dialectal examples:
                    > >
                    > > 'toungg' (adj.) - from 'thùngr' (Överkalixmål),
                    > > 'laungg' (adj.) - from 'làngr' (Dalska, South Jamtlandic),
                    > > 'haul' (adj.) - from 'hàrdhr' (South Jamtlandic),
                    > > 'uord' (noun) - from 'òrdh' (Dalska).
                    >
                    > Here is a question which I have been meaning to ask you, but always
                    > seem to forget whenever I log on to norse_course: are there any
                    > dialects in Sweden where V/W survives in initial positions before
                    > U,Ú,Y,Ý,O,Ó,OE,OÉ from the Viking Age? I am very curious about this
                    > topic. I was very surprised after reading a list of Modern Faroese
                    > words with V before U. Here are some examples: teir wurðu (they be-
                    > came), teir wundu (they wound), etc.. - the list is rather long. I
                    > suspect that V has been restored by analogy, but have no way of
                    > knowing for certain at this time. I think we are fairly certain
                    that
                    > V/W disappeared before U,Ú,Y,Ý,O,Ó,OE,OÉ around 600 - at least in
                    > West Norse. Does it survive in any dialects in Sweden?

                    --I think the V/W disappeared generally over all of Sweden. In
                    standard Swedish you only have the V in front of U,Y;O,Ö in foreign
                    words, I think. But, before Å it can be present, though, as in VÅR
                    (=our).
                    Here is a list of words starting with W in the Central Swedish
                    dialect of Våmhusmål (Womusmol):
                    http://w1.250.telia.com/~u25000104/vdialog_w.html
                    This dialect seems to have reintroduced W before Ó, but not before O.
                    Compare to:
                    http://w1.250.telia.com/~u25000104/vdialog_o.html

                    In Jamtlandic dialects, we seem to have kept the initial V before O
                    in a few cases, like:
                    VÖ(RE) (from VORIT - 'have been') or
                    VY(RE) (from VURIT - 'have been');
                    VÖRTE (from VORTIT - 'have become') or
                    VYRTE (from VURTIT - 'have become').
                    The VÖRTE/VYRTE example is probably due to analogy:
                    VÅ'ÅL - VÅL - VÅRT - VÖRTE/VYRTE from
                    varða - varð- - vart - ortit

                    In Älvdalska they still have the old pronunciation for this verb:
                    werða - werð - wart - uorteð
                    This is probably due to the fact that in Jamtlandic we pronunce the
                    initial V like English W, while the Älvdalska pronunciation is more
                    like the vowel U. I prefer to write V in Jamtlandic and W in
                    Älvdalska, though.

                    "teir wurðu" (Modern Faroese)
                    Shouldn't it be 'teir vurðu' [tair wu:ru] ? They do not have 'w' in
                    their alphabet, and they do not pronunce the 'ð' letter.



                    >
                    > > Why did the first grammatical treatize put these into the group
                    of
                    > > short vowels? (I assume it did)
                    >
                    > I have no idea. Presumably, the grammarian felt that the vowels
                    were
                    > short - short enough to require no distinction in writing. However,
                    > he may simply have decided not to comment on the topic. Some modern
                    > scholars seem to be of the opinion that the grammarian did not want
                    > to overload or frighten his countymenn (see Hreinn Benediktsson).
                    He
                    > had already distinguished (or at least indicated) 36 simple vowels,
                    > suggested a system a small capitals for double consonants and a new
                    > consonantal letter or two to boot (opinions differ on this).
                    Greeks,
                    > Romans, and God's very own Chosen People had only 24, 23, and 22
                    > letters in their alphabets, respectively. Could the tongue of the
                    > lowly Nordic convert require more than 36 signs for simple vowels
                    > alone? More than the entire alphabets of the very nobles they
                    sought
                    > to emulate in script and culture? Perhaps the grammarian was brave.
                    >
                    > > --Yes, of course it must have ben; even today Dalska has them in
                    > many words:
                    > > 'Tûosdag' - Thursday (German: Donnerstag),
                    > > 'gôs' - goose (German: Ganze?),
                    > > 'ô' - on,
                    > > 'ôs' - Proto-Germanic 'ansuz',
                    > > 'siô' - see (German: 'sehen'),
                    > > 'ûo-' - 'un-' ('unhappy', 'uneasy' etc),
                    > > 'bôs' - booth, stall (German: Banse).
                    >
                    > I would like to hear a recording of these words.
                    >

                    --Well, I found them all (except 'ôs' which should have been 'ôs-' in
                    my list; see my response to Hauks message) in a dictionary made by
                    Lars Steensland, a researcher of Älvdalska ('Älvdalistiker'), and the
                    nasalization is denoted with a small hook below the vowel. I do not
                    know how to find digitalized recorded samples of them.


                    > > There are many more examples. One noticable thing is that 'ô'
                    > > (nasalized 'o') is frequently occuring, which corresponds to a
                    > > nasalized 'á' in Old Norse.
                    >
                    > Yes, 'á' or 'aó' (hooked o) because u-umlaut is so extensive in
                    West
                    > Norse. Dalska 'ô' (on) looks like it was leveled by analogy, as all
                    > of the other forms with 'ô' above had a 'u' in the next syllable in
                    > Proto-Norse.

                    --Perhaps.

                    'ô' is preserved as 'ana' in Proto-Norse. I am assuming
                    > that Dalska underwent u-umlaut.

                    --Yes, they did.

                    Nasal 'siô' is news to me.

                    --I do not have an explanation of this. But all Älvdalska dialects
                    seem to have the nasalization:
                    siô, sjå^, syö^ etc

                    >
                    > > I definetly believes that the vowels were nasalized in most
                    > northern Scandinavian dialects until a few centuries ago, since
                    > there are strong traces of nasalized vowels there.
                    Example: 'bjerkô'
                    > (birches, dative) in Överkalixmål.
                    >
                    > This agrees with West Norse 'bjarkan', where the 'n' is preserved.

                    --Well, it is a dative plural: BIARKUM > BJERKÔ
                    I cite the text I found the example from:

                    "Da karana fundeire opa big si stuo, sö läut di fara ipi skåoio räiv
                    si nevere bårda bjerko, man bjerka läupe. Sö le di äut nevere, sö e
                    skull äint twil-ihoåp, som en håop óana wårtánne, å sö le di to röind
                    twört evi neverhåopo, å sö tåongg staina der óana, sö e skull rett
                    si, å he kåle di kleember. Å he skull leges til vötotek."

                    Unfortunately, no information about nasalization is given here. A
                    Swedish translation:

                    "Då karlarna funderade på att bygga sig en stuga, så måste de fara
                    upp i skogen och riva sig näver från björkarna, medan björken löpte.
                    Så lade de ut nävern, så den inte skulle rulla ihop sig, som en hög
                    ovanpå vartannat, och så lade de två stänger tvärt över näverhögen,
                    och så tunga stenar där ovanpå, så den skulle räta ut sig, och det
                    kallade de klammer. Och det skulle läggas till vattutak."

                    Note that Överkalixmål is very careful when distinguishing half-long
                    vowels from short. Example: 'tek' from 'thàk'. Also note that this
                    dialect only has acute accent. The grave accent is unknown, which
                    makes the melody of speech very similar to Icelandic or Gutnish.

                    >
                    > I am still compiling a list of words with nasal vowels - the ones
                    > where nasalization is not obvious do to linguistic changes. As far
                    > as I know, no such list exists for West Norse.

                    --OK.

                    >
                    > Regards,
                    > Konrad.

                    Skål ta mej faan!

                    /Anlewt
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.