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

Re: [norse_course] Skjót_er_øx_Óláfs_en_skjóttr hestr hans.

Expand Messages
  • Mark Grass
    Hmmm. Now you see I have no grasp of any language. I have a hard time speaking correct english. I m something of a hick to be entirely honest. I didn t
    Message 1 of 40 , Jun 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hmmm. Now you see I have no grasp of any language. I
      have a hard time speaking correct english. I'm
      something of a hick to be entirely honest. I didn't
      actually assume any of these. Now you see I can barely
      say my first name and that is after 2 years of being
      called by it. What I am wondering is what a
      translation of Swift-axe would be in Old Norse as that
      is not my byname but a dubbing recieved by my Jarl. My
      full name is Snaebjornr Haakonsson called Swiftaxe.
      I'm trying to find the correct way to say this in Old
      Norse so as I may present it to the College of
      Heralds. As for using the o to represent the other
      character. I don't have a font that reproduces those
      characters otherwise I would have the character
      itself. O was just the one that looks most like it at
      this point and time. I do appreciate all of the help
      rest assured and I don't mean to make assumptions. As
      for the asking it to be spelled as its pronounced;
      that is to insure i say it correctly even though its
      not spelt that way. Thank you again.
      Snaebjornr
      --- Haukur Thorgeirsson <haukurth@...> wrote:
      > S�ll, Sn�bj�rn.
      >
      > You are somewhat fundamentally heading the wrong way
      > with this. :)
      > It is very difficult to enter a particular language,
      > grab one tiny
      > bit, get it right and then get out. In the process
      > you're almost
      > certain to make unwarranted assumptions.
      >
      > For example you have been told, quite correctly,
      > that an Old Norse
      > word for 'axe' is "�x" and that an Old Norse word
      > for 'swift' is "skj�tr"
      > Out of this you've assumed that an acceptable Old
      > Norse compound word
      > for 'swift-axe' is "skjotrox".
      >
      > You've made some assumptions here:
      >
      > 1. It is appropriate to describe an "�x" with the
      > adjective "skj�tr".
      >
      > 2. It is acceptable to represent both '�' and '�'
      > with 'o' (in an
      > ASCII context?).
      >
      > 3. Compound words formed with an adjective and a
      > noun are acceptable
      > in Old Norse.
      >
      > 3.1. In this case the dictionary forms of each word
      > should be used.
      >
      > 3.2. The adjective should precede the noun in the
      > compound.
      >
      > Further you seem to have assumed:
      >
      > 4. A compound meaning "swift axe" is an appropriate
      > byname in Old Norse
      > culture/language.
      >
      > 5. The English alphabet is adequate to describe the
      > pronunciation of Old
      > Norse by "writing out" the words "as they would be
      > pronounced".
      >
      > Of these 2 is defensible, 3 and 3.2 are correct, I
      > am not certain about 1
      > and 4 while 3.1 and 5 are definitely incorrect.
      >
      > - - -
      >
      > I would suggest 'snar�x' (although I have nothing
      > concrete against 'skj�t�x')
      > with the qualification that I am not sure if it is
      > appropriate (doesn't seem
      > to have anything specific against it, but I don't
      > remember any good analogy either).
      >
      > As for approximate pronunciation the sound of '�'
      > simply does not exist
      > in English. Try French, as Zarco suggested.
      > Icelanders tend to feel the
      > closest English sound is the 'u' in 'run' or 'burn'.
      > Others may perceive
      > it differently.
      >
      > The 'r' should be rolled like in Spanish. The 's',
      > 'n' and 'a' are not
      > far from what an English speaker would expect in
      > this environment.
      > The 'x' is made of two sounds; the first does not
      > exist in Standard
      > English; it is like the 'ch' in Scots "loch" or
      > German "hoch".
      > The second is an 's'-sound. An acceptable variant
      > for the first
      > sound (at least in modern Icelandic) is like the 'k'
      > in English 'skull'
      >
      > Clarifying that most people about my age pronounce
      > the Icelandic 'x'
      > like the English 'x'. Most older people have a
      > fricative rather than
      > a plosive for the first part.
      >
      > Kve�ja,
      > Haukur
      >
      >
      > Hinn 05. j�n� 2003 l�t Mark Grass �etta fr� s�r
      > fara:
      > > Ok. Now can I ask one more favor? You seem I'm
      > rather
      > > bad with languages so could you just write out
      > > Skjotrox as it would be pronounced? I've a real
      > bad
      > > time understanding languages unfortunately. This
      > is
      > > one of the reasons I joined to the list. To try
      > and
      > > improve that skill.
      > > Snaebjornr
      >


      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
      http://calendar.yahoo.com
    • Bottom (METRO)
      ... Saell. I m still setting up a new computer with Linux, so the sticky keys haven t been enabled yet. No accents. ... Fair enough. ... Tradeoffs can be
      Message 40 of 40 , Jun 16, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > Sæll, Metro-Bottom.

        Saell. I'm still setting up a new computer with Linux, so the sticky
        keys haven't been enabled yet. No accents.

        > > Again, your "correct" version is actually dogmatic and stodgy, and does
        > > not take into account the lack of knowledge that this individual has. By
        > > bringing him up to speed by starting at his own level, one is sure to
        > > have more effective instruction.
        >
        > Fair enough. It may be worth mentioning, though, that he didn't seem to
        > understand your "simple" version any more than my "dogmatic" one :)

        Fair enough.

        > > Sometimes, a *little* incorrectness isn't wrong. You start with what
        > > people know and then work to correct it. Correction is not always
        > > immediate, especially when there is no ready method in a text-based
        > > forum to convey the sound of something (especially in the absence of a
        > > native speaker).
        >
        > You're right, of course. There is a continuum where you can choose various
        > levels of accuracy and simplicity. Ideally explanations are both very simple
        > and completely accurate but in reality there's often a tradeoff between the two.

        Tradeoffs can be corrected. It's a matter of slowly pulling someone out
        of their old habits by replacing them (often one at a time) with newer,
        better habits. This process can be time-consuming, and there are bound
        to be errors.

        It also teaches people not to believe everything I say simply because I
        say it's so. Though I like it when people believe me, I would prefer
        that people question me because it is evidence of THOUGHT and this is
        the key to true understanding. Working with Americans has taught me that
        the bulk of us are notoriously lazy thinkers. Getting them out of that
        habit is the first step.

        > I'm wary, however, of saying anything that isn't strictly correct - even
        > if it's "helpful". Plans like that tend to backfire. If I tell one person
        > that he's probably best of pronouncing Old Norse 'x' as English 'x' - and
        > even if I qualify it heavily with words like APPROXIMATELY - things can
        > quickly get out of hand. That person will tell the next person to prounounce
        > ON 'x' as English 'x' and he will omit my qualifications. Then we have someone
        > "knowing" something which is plainly wrong and me being the ultimate source
        > for it.

        I use words like "tend" and "tendency toward" so that people learn that
        this may not be 100% correct. Pronunciations of words is one example:
        this is why the process I use to teach is:

        1) Creation of Paradigm
        2) Habit Formation
        3) Correction
        4) Refinement
        5) Self-Directed Perfection
        6) Perfection with Feedback
        7) Habit Formation
        8) Refinement
        9) Perfection

        It is long, arduous, tedious, and boring from both the instructor's and
        student's perspectives, but the end result is one of quality, and this
        process can be used for anything.

        Saying something that is 'APPROXIMATELY' holds little meaning for those
        who are in a hurry. By notifying them that you're giving them something
        close, you ultimately increase the chances that they're likely to be
        automatons who never seek for themselves, relying on you for their
        answers. In my way, I teach people to become students rather than
        relying on them to simply be so.

        Both ways have their strong and weak points. This person wasn't serious
        about learning, or he would have asked for more detail.

        > You can easily imagine how misunderstandings like "Final 'r' in ON is silent"
        > can arise with this method (and in other ways as well as I've mentioned before).

        I never said it was. I actually argued against it. However, I was
        ultimately shot down by the fact that I didn't start low enough on the
        linguistic end of things for this person's understanding.

        > But of course pronunciation is always approximate to some degree and I might
        > as well admit to using the "write it out as it's pronounced" method myself :)

        Writing evolved as an approximation of speech. It's natural to learn
        this way.

        > A recent IM communication with my 11 years old brother went something like this:
        >
        > - - -
        > Sverrir: "Hvernig er enska orðið yfir 'vísindi'?"
        >
        > Haukur: "Það er 'science', borið fram 'sæens'."
        > - - -
        >
        > Of course "science" isn't really pronounced exactly as Sverrir will
        > read "sæens" but I know it's good enough to be useful and then some.
        > The Icelandic orthography is also probably more useful for pseudo-phonetic
        > transcription than the English train-wreck.

        Where you both speak English to some degree, that makes perfect sense. I
        see no fault with it at all.

        > And then, I don't pronounce English perfectly either. See the next post.

        As a native speaker of English, I can say honestly that I don't
        pronounce it perfectly, either.

        Don't sweat it. Your old habits stay with you beginning about age 15.

        > > ON/b = Old Norse/Bokmal (forgive the lack of accents, I'm in a rush to
        > > get out the door) and ON/I = Old Norse/Icelandic. There is a distinct
        > > fracture between the two languages, though they have the same roots. I
        > > was demonstrating that what one person knows is not always apparent to
        > > another, especially when one uses terms that the other doesn't
        > > understand.
        >
        > I've never heard of "Old Norse/Bokmål" but I assume you mean Old Norwegian.
        > So, do you have an example of a manuscript that spells the name as you
        > suggest (with two s's and one n)?

        Old Norse broke into two distinct branches: Old Icelandic (what we
        commonly refer to as Old Norse), and a modern dialect, Bokmal.
        Linguistically, both are in the Northern Gothic language tree.

        As for the name, I was pulling it out of my head, and I meant two N's.

        > > All joking aside, I think that we simply have a difference of opinion
        > > where styles themselves are concerned. It's not that I doubt you know
        > > your stuff (you've demonstrated admirably that you do), it's more that
        > > you are at such a high level that the lower levels are beginning to
        > > escape you.
        >
        > Fair enough. Or close enough to fair enough.
        >
        >
        > > -Ragin Bragisbjörn Gullintannisson
        >
        > I've never heard the names 'Ragin', 'Bragir' or 'Tannir'.
        > It seems likely to me that you are confused about the genitive
        > ending of weakly declined masculine words
        >
        > nom. Bragi
        > acc. Braga
        > dat. Braga
        > gen. Braga
        >
        > So "Bragi's bear" is 'Bragabjörn' etc. Look this up in your grammar.

        Actually, that's my name. My mother's American-Irish, and I suspect she
        had large influence in that. My father was away for six months in Viet
        Nam at the time I was born, so I don't think he had a lot of say in the
        matter.

        Ragin is probably Regin. I never asked. It's pronounced the same,
        though.

        Gullintannisson is the surname on that one. Probably Gullintannir's Son,
        but I haven't ever tried to break it down. My dad's father wasn't known.

        Bragabjorn makes more sense, though, you're right.

        Once again, forgive the lack of appropriate accenture.

        Takk, ok thakka thu fyrir!

        -Ragin
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.