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

Pronunciation

Expand Messages
  • thor33555@fuse.net
    Hello, I am a musician from Cincinnati, Ohio, and I am planning on coming out with an album titled Völuspá, because my lyrics are based largely off Norse
    Message 1 of 21 , May 4, 2005
      Hello, I am a musician from Cincinnati, Ohio,
      and I am planning on coming out with an album
      titled Völuspá, because my lyrics are based
      largely off Norse Mythology. I've read several
      articles on pronunciation of Old Norse, but I'm
      having a bit of trouble pronouncing the word. Am
      I right in thinking it is said : vuh-loo-SPAH?
      Thanks a lot for helping a lost soul!

      -Noah Halvorson
    • llama_nom
      ... Hi Noah, That depends how vuh-loo-SPAH is pronounced ;) It also depends on what date you want it to be correct for. Here are some suggestions to the best
      Message 2 of 21 , May 5, 2005
        --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, <thor33555@f...> wrote:
        > Hello, I am a musician from Cincinnati, Ohio,
        > and I am planning on coming out with an album
        > titled Völuspá, because my lyrics are based
        > largely off Norse Mythology. I've read several
        > articles on pronunciation of Old Norse, but I'm
        > having a bit of trouble pronouncing the word. Am
        > I right in thinking it is said : vuh-loo-SPAH?
        > Thanks a lot for helping a lost soul!

        Hi Noah,

        That depends how vuh-loo-SPAH is pronounced ;)

        It also depends on what date you want it to be correct for. Here
        are some suggestions to the best of my limited knowledge. Maybe
        someone who knows more can fill in the gaps and correct any
        mistakes. I've written them first using the SAMPA phonetic notation
        for computers [ http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/home.htm ],then
        explained the symbols below. The English approximations are very
        very rough, and ambiguous, and only apply to my own British accent
        (with no "r" sound after vowels), so don't take them too seriously.

        Stress in each case is on the first syllable.

        1) Modern Icelandic [v9lYspau] "vurlew-spow"
        2) late 13th century [v9lUspO:] "vurloo-spore"
        3) mid 12th century [wOlospa:] "wallow-spar"

        Luckily the earliest pronunciation is simplest for English speakers.

        [w] exactly as in "wallow".
        [O] as in German 'Schloss', or like English "law" but short.
        [l] exactly as in English here I think.

        [o] like German 'Bohne', or the first part of the vowel in some
        English pronunctiations of "go" [goU], but without the final glide.
        Or according to some discriptions the sound here would have been
        [U], as in my pronunciation of "book". I'm not really sure about
        the timing of the changes of this sound in unaccented positions.

        [sp] exactly like English.
        [a:] Long [a], there's a few of them in this recording:
        http://www.hi.is/%7Ehaukurth/norse/sounds/krakumal.html

        As for the other versions, the [9] represents a "short open-mid
        front rounded vowel" as in German 'Götter' "gods". Listen to the
        first sound in this recording [ http://www.hi.is/%
        7Ehaukurth/norse/sounds/vellekla.html ]. The Modern pronunctaion =
        the first two versions above, the Old Norse = version 3.

        I've read that the poem itself was probably written in the last half
        of the 10th or the first half of the 11th century. I wonder if
        there would have been any major differences in the way the author
        would have pronounced the word from this 12th century reconstruction.

        Llama Nom


        PS. Some general explanations of Old Norse pronunciation:

        http://www.hi.is/%7Ehaukurth/norse/articles/pronunc.html
        http://www.hi.is/%7Ehaukurth/norse/articles/altpron.html
        http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/lrc/eieol/norol-TC-X.html
      • Haukur Þorgeirsson
        The one from Ohio suggests vuh-loo-SPAH and the one loyal to the Queen suggests vurloo-spore . Pseudo-phonetic transcriptions like that must translate
        Message 3 of 21 , May 5, 2005
          The one from Ohio suggests "vuh-loo-SPAH" and
          the one loyal to the Queen suggests "vurloo-spore".

          Pseudo-phonetic transcriptions like that must translate
          wonderfully over the Atlantic :D

          I'll throw my modern pronunciation into the mix:
          http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/sounds/voluspa.wav

          Kveðja,
          Haukur
        • Patricia
          The one from Ohio suggests vuh-loo-SPAH and the one loyal to the Queen suggests vurloo-spore Haukur then contributed his version Fine - that s the one -
          Message 4 of 21 , May 5, 2005
            The one from Ohio suggests "vuh-loo-SPAH" and
            the one loyal to the Queen suggests "vurloo-spore
             
            Haukur then contributed his version
             
            Fine - that's the one - Haukur gets my vote, did you do that recording yourself Haukur
            Bless
            Patricia
            Herself don't speak Icelandic I believe
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 1:51 AM
            Subject: Re: [norse_course] Pronunciation

            The one from Ohio suggests "vuh-loo-SPAH" and
            the one loyal to the Queen suggests "vurloo-spore".

            Pseudo-phonetic transcriptions like that must translate
            wonderfully over the Atlantic :D

            I'll throw my modern pronunciation into the mix:
            http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/sounds/voluspa.wav

            Kveðja,
            Haukur



            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


          • llama_nom
            ... The one from Thule has a point. Atlantic or no Atlantic, with the finely honed phonetic tool that it English spelling, they could come out sounding like
            Message 5 of 21 , May 6, 2005
              --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, Haukur Þorgeirsson
              <haukurth@h...> wrote:
              > The one from Ohio suggests "vuh-loo-SPAH" and
              > the one loyal to the Queen suggests "vurloo-spore".
              >
              > Pseudo-phonetic transcriptions like that must translate
              > wonderfully over the Atlantic :D
              >
              > I'll throw my modern pronunciation into the mix:
              > http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/sounds/voluspa.wav


              The one from Thule has a point. Atlantic or no Atlantic, with the
              finely honed phonetic tool that it English spelling, they could come
              out sounding like anything. Maybe Wallow Spa would be slightly
              better... Oh, something I forgot to include: the first vowel is
              long now, as in Haukur's recording, but was short in the Middle
              Ages, thus

              1) Modern Icelandic [v9:lYspau] "vuuuuurlew-spow"
              2) late 13th century [v9lUspO:] "vurloo-spore"
              3) mid 12th century [wOlospa:], [wOlUspa:] "wallow-spa"

              Llama Nom
            • THORBURR
              Dear Friend I am Mamague Goodarzene I an IE linguistic researcher from Iran sice 5 years ago I start to learn old Norse as a pure IE ( Indo-European ) language
              Message 6 of 21 , May 14, 2005
                Dear Friend
                I am Mamague Goodarzene
                I an IE linguistic researcher from Iran
                sice 5 years ago I start to learn old Norse as a pure IE ( Indo-European ) language
                I am so happy for your attempt to compose the musical view from Old Northia
                The word of V�lusp� pronounce " Voelu - spaw "
                Yours
                I wish your Disire
                M. G.
                Teheran - Iran

                thor33555@... wrote:
                Hello, I am a musician from Cincinnati, Ohio,
                and I am planning on coming out with an album
                titled V�lusp�, because my lyrics are based
                largely off Norse Mythology. I've read several
                articles on pronunciation of Old Norse, but I'm
                having a bit of trouble pronouncing the word. Am
                I right in thinking it is said : vuh-loo-SPAH?
                Thanks a lot for helping a lost soul!

                -Noah Halvorson



                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



                Do you Yahoo!?
                Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

              • Noah Halvorson
                Many thanks for your pronunciation help and kind words for my music. I started the Norse Course to get closer to my roots and religion, and I was very
                Message 7 of 21 , May 15, 2005
                  Many thanks for your pronunciation help and kind words for my music. I
                  started the Norse Course to get closer to my roots and religion, and I
                  was very surprised and happy to find such warm responses about my work
                  here.

                  Sincerely,
                  Noah Halvorson

                  THORBURR wrote:

                  > Dear Friend
                  > I am Mamague Goodarzene
                  > I an IE linguistic researcher from Iran
                  > sice 5 years ago I start to learn old Norse as a pure IE (
                  > Indo-European ) language
                  > I am so happy for your attempt to compose the musical view from Old
                  > Northia
                  > The word of Völuspá pronounce " Voelu - spaw "
                  > Yours
                  > I wish your Disire
                  > M. G.
                  > Teheran - Iran
                  >
                  > */thor33555@.../* wrote:
                  >
                  > Hello, I am a musician from Cincinnati, Ohio,
                  > and I am planning on coming out with an album
                  > titled Völuspá, because my lyrics are based
                  > largely off Norse Mythology. I've read several
                  > articles on pronunciation of Old Norse, but I'm
                  > having a bit of trouble pronouncing the word. Am
                  > I right in thinking it is said : vuh-loo-SPAH?
                  > Thanks a lot for helping a lost soul!
                  >
                  > -Noah Halvorson
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
                  >
                  > Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
                  > <http://www.hi.is/%7Ehaukurth/norse/>
                  >
                  > To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
                  >
                  > norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > Do you Yahoo!?
                  > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard
                  > <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/spamguard/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/protection.html>.
                  >
                  >
                  > A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
                  >
                  > Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
                  > <http://www.hi.is/%7Ehaukurth/norse/>
                  >
                  > To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
                  >
                  > norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
                  >
                  > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/norse_course/
                  >
                  > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > <mailto:norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                  >
                  > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                  > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                  >
                  >
                  >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >
                  >No virus found in this incoming message.
                  >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                  >Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.10 - Release Date: 5/13/2005
                  >
                  >
                • Gabriel Oliva Brum
                  Greetings, It may seem a silly question, but I ve just started to study Old Norse and this is the main thing annoying me right now: In words with final
                  Message 8 of 21 , Oct 16, 2006
                    Greetings,
                     
                    It may seem a silly question, but I've just started to study Old Norse and this is the main thing annoying me right now:
                     
                    In words with final consonant clusters that end in "-r", such as "maðr", what is the pronunciation? Is a medial "-u-" inserted in speech? Since Modern Icelandic features such insertion in the written language itself, it seems very plausible, as far as morphological changes are concerned, assuming the modern pronunciation reflects the old one.
                     
                    Could someone confirm this?
                     
                    Thank you in advance.
                     
                    Gabriel
                  • llama_nom
                    Greetings, Gabriel, Not a silly question at all. The inserted vowel can first be observed about 1300 and seems to have been universally established by the
                    Message 9 of 21 , Oct 16, 2006
                      Greetings, Gabriel,

                      Not a silly question at all. "The inserted vowel can first be
                      observed about 1300 and seems to have been universally established by
                      the middle of the fifteenth century" (Stefán Karlsson: The Icelandic
                      Language, p. 15). As well as spellings like 'maður' for earlier
                      'maðr', from about 1300 onwards, manuscripts would sometimes have
                      erroneous spellings such as 'flugr' for 'flugur', the nominatve and
                      accusative plural of the noun 'fluga' "fly" (Stefán Karlsson: The
                      Icelandic Language, p. 47).

                      But in early Old Norse, words such as 'maðr' are generally thought to
                      have been monosyllables (EV Gordon: Introduction to Old Norse, p. 268,
                      section 11). In early manuscripts, the endings -r and -ur don't tend
                      to get mixed up, which suggests that they were originally pronounced
                      differently. More evidence for a monosyllabic pronunciation in early
                      Old Norse comes from certain sound changes, assimilations and
                      dissimilations of consonants next to 'r'. For example, there was a
                      tendency for 'n' to become 'ð' before 'r', thus *mannr > 'maðr' "man";
                      *annrir > 'aðrir' "others"; *unnr > 'uðr' or 'unnr' "wave" (sometimes
                      the 'n' was restored by analogy with other forms of the word). But
                      this change doesn't happen where there was a vowel between 'n' and
                      'r'. Similarly *vísr became 'víss' "wise; certain", but 'vísur'
                      "verses, stanzas" was never changed to 'víss'. (The asterisk before
                      these words is just to indicate hypothetical ancestral forms, deduced
                      by comparing different stages in the language, and related Germanic
                      languages.)

                      More evidence in favour of a monosyllabic proninciation in the early
                      Middle Ages comes from the way words were positioned in poetry,
                      especially those metres which were strict about the number and type of
                      syllables per line.

                      On the other hand, it's quite normal to read Old Norse texts using
                      Modern Icelandic pronunciation, as opposed to reconstructed versions
                      of what we think the medieval language could have sounded like.

                      Feel free to ask any further questions, or let me know if I didn't
                      explain that very well. Good luck with your studies!

                      Llama Nom





                      --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Gabriel Oliva Brum" <tilion@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > Greetings,
                      >
                      > It may seem a silly question, but I've just started to study Old
                      Norse and this is the main thing annoying me right now:
                      >
                      > In words with final consonant clusters that end in "-r", such as
                      "maðr", what is the pronunciation? Is a medial "-u-" inserted in
                      speech? Since Modern Icelandic features such insertion in the written
                      language itself, it seems very plausible, as far as morphological
                      changes are concerned, assuming the modern pronunciation reflects the
                      old one.
                      >
                      > Could someone confirm this?
                      >
                      > Thank you in advance.
                      >
                      > Gabriel
                      >
                    • Gabriel Oliva Brum
                      Thank you, Llama Nom! Your answer was very thorough and helpful. Actually, it was more exaustive than I could expect - which is good, since it clearly shows me
                      Message 10 of 21 , Oct 17, 2006
                        Thank you, Llama Nom! Your answer was very thorough and helpful. Actually, it was more exaustive than I could expect - which is good, since it clearly shows me the high level of this list.
                         
                        I will report here any other doubts I might have during my studies, and I hope eventually to be able to contribute to these nice discussions myself.
                         
                        Thank you again.
                         
                        Gabriel 
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: llama_nom
                        Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 6:55 PM
                        Subject: [norse_course] Re: Pronunciation


                        Greetings, Gabriel,

                        Not a silly question at all. "The inserted vowel can first be
                        observed about 1300 and seems to have been universally established by
                        the middle of the fifteenth century" (Stefán Karlsson: The Icelandic
                        Language, p. 15). As well as spellings like 'maður' for earlier
                        'maðr', from about 1300 onwards, manuscripts would sometimes have
                        erroneous spellings such as 'flugr' for 'flugur', the nominatve and
                        accusative plural of the noun 'fluga' "fly" (Stefán Karlsson: The
                        Icelandic Language, p. 47).

                        But in early Old Norse, words such as 'maðr' are generally thought to
                        have been monosyllables (EV Gordon: Introduction to Old Norse, p. 268,
                        section 11). In early manuscripts, the endings -r and -ur don't tend
                        to get mixed up, which suggests that they were originally pronounced
                        differently. More evidence for a monosyllabic pronunciation in early
                        Old Norse comes from certain sound changes, assimilations and
                        dissimilations of consonants next to 'r'. For example, there was a
                        tendency for 'n' to become 'ð' before 'r', thus *mannr > 'maðr' "man";
                        *annrir > 'aðrir' "others"; *unnr > 'uðr' or 'unnr' "wave" (sometimes
                        the 'n' was restored by analogy with other forms of the word). But
                        this change doesn't happen where there was a vowel between 'n' and
                        'r'. Similarly *vísr became 'víss' "wise; certain", but 'vísur'
                        "verses, stanzas" was never changed to 'víss'. (The asterisk before
                        these words is just to indicate hypothetical ancestral forms, deduced
                        by comparing different stages in the language, and related Germanic
                        languages.)

                        More evidence in favour of a monosyllabic proninciation in the early
                        Middle Ages comes from the way words were positioned in poetry,
                        especially those metres which were strict about the number and type of
                        syllables per line.

                        On the other hand, it's quite normal to read Old Norse texts using
                        Modern Icelandic pronunciation, as opposed to reconstructed versions
                        of what we think the medieval language could have sounded like.

                        Feel free to ask any further questions, or let me know if I didn't
                        explain that very well. Good luck with your studies!

                        Llama Nom

                        .
                      • akoddsson
                        Heill Llama! ... observed about 1300 and seems to have been universally established by the middle of the fifteenth century (Stefán Karlsson: The Icelandic
                        Message 11 of 21 , Oct 18, 2006
                          Heill Llama!

                          > Not a silly question at all. "The inserted vowel can first be
                          observed about 1300 and seems to have been universally established by
                          the middle of the fifteenth century" (Stefán Karlsson: The Icelandic
                          Language, p. 15). As well as spellings like 'maður' for earlier
                          'maðr', from about 1300 onwards, manuscripts would sometimes have
                          erroneous spellings such as 'flugr' for 'flugur', the nominatve and
                          accusative plural of the noun 'fluga' "fly" (Stefán Karlsson: The
                          Icelandic Language, p. 47).

                          The change is, indeed, from the late Catholic period. The change
                          appears first in Norway and spreads therefrom to Iceland.

                          > But in early Old Norse, words such as 'maðr' are generally
                          thought to have been monosyllables (EV Gordon: Introduction to Old
                          Norse, p. 268, section 11). In early manuscripts, the endings -r
                          and -ur don't tend to get mixed up, which suggests that they were
                          originally pronounced differently.

                          In fact, -r and -ur (fem.pl.ô-stems,etc.) were never mixed upp in
                          ON, so I would call it more than a suggestion. The language changed,
                          and one of the changes was -r > -ur.

                          > More evidence for a monosyllabic pronunciation in early Old Norse
                          comes from certain sound changes, assimilations and dissimilations
                          of consonants next to 'r'. For example, there was a tendency for 'n'
                          to become 'ð' before 'r', thus *mannr > 'maðr' "man";
                          *annrir 'aðrir' "others"; *unnr > 'uðr' or 'unnr' "wave" (sometimes
                          the 'n' was restored by analogy with other forms of the word).

                          Indeed. In the 10-11 centuries, the change -nnr- > -þr- occurs as a
                          natural part of the language; however, as you you mention, a kind of
                          restoration by analogy then began to occur, leaving some words with
                          the change (often only in some cases), others without - thus, maðr
                          preserves the change in nom.sg., but not in nom.pl.(meþr > menn),
                          while fiþr looses it in the nom.pl. and, as it only occured there,
                          shows it in no cases. The change -þr- > -nn- (meþr > menn; uþr > unn
                          guþr > gunn) is older than -þr- > -nnr- (restoration), and began to
                          occur while the language showed -þr- throughout, most often in the
                          unstressed positions (þórguþr > gunn; but guþr > gunnr, etc.) - here
                          'menn' is an exception to the rule.

                          > But this change doesn't happen where there was a vowel between 'n'
                          and 'r'. Similarly *vísr became 'víss' "wise; certain", but 'vísur'
                          "verses, stanzas" was never changed to 'víss'. (The asterisk before
                          these words is just to indicate hypothetical ancestral forms,
                          deduced by comparing different stages in the language, and related
                          Germanic languages.)

                          Yes, just like -nr- > -nn- (*steinr > steinn).

                          > More evidence in favour of a monosyllabic proninciation in the
                          early Middle Ages comes from the way words were positioned in poetry,
                          >especially those metres which were strict about the number and type
                          of syllables per line.

                          Right.

                          > On the other hand, it's quite normal to read Old Norse texts using
                          Modern Icelandic pronunciation, as opposed to reconstructed versions
                          of what we think the medieval language could have sounded like.

                          Normal enough, indeed. However, many prefer the old pronunciation,
                          and as they have no reason to learn MIce. pronunciation (or any
                          other Modern pronunciation, for that matter), stick with the old
                          one. So there are clearly different approaches. Of course, it helps
                          that ON's vowel-system is well documented and that scholars have
                          never had much of a problem deducing its sounds. Also, all of ON's
                          vowel-sounds (except long a - á and long o - ó) are still living in
                          one location or another, so ON academics (and others) really have no
                          problem learning them - that is, if they choose to.

                          > Feel free to ask any further questions, or let me know if I didn't
                          explain that very well. Good luck with your studies!

                          The comments weren't intended for me, but I'll add that you explain
                          things very well :) It's tough to get the full meaning through in a
                          post of a few words, especially when the topic is academic and loads
                          of things could be added, cited or drawn in detail. Whatever one's
                          approach to pronouncing ON, it is important that the pronunciation
                          of ON be learned as it was in ON (not in any modern language), and
                          this as a part of learning ON, just like any other historic tongue.
                          Therefrom, one can choose to pronounce it differently, according to
                          one's needs or purposes or circumstances, while not being under any
                          illusion that one's pronunciation is historic ON.

                          Lastly, some notes about adopting Icelandic pronunciation. Now, Jón
                          Helgason, one of the great ON scholars, once said that even Snorri
                          Sturluson would, now doubt, fail an Icelandic-examination if it were
                          left to Egill Skallagrímsson to do the examining. Snorri was writing
                          around 1220+, while Egill was dead before 1000, and they came from
                          different cultural worlds, to boot - so one can see clearly where
                          the problem lies. Furthermore, while it is often popularly thought
                          that MIce. is basically the same language, scholars really disagree
                          on this point. In many ways, Modern Icelandic differs from ON and
                          there is no point in trying to hide this fact. There are changes in
                          grammar, syntax, vocabulary (both in the meanings of words, and in
                          the loss/addition of words), usage, etc. - thus, pronunciation,
                          which has changed even further after Snorri time than between his
                          time and Egil's, is not the only thing separating Modern Icelandic
                          from ON. The fact the knowing Modern Icelandic enables a person to
                          be able to read a basic ON text without too many difficulties just
                          reflects that the language has been more conservative than others.
                          Greatly simplifying a very complex issue, I'll stop here ;)

                          -K


                          > Llama Nom
                          > .
                          >
                        • llama_nom
                          Heill Konráð! I was trying to put together some notes a while ago on pronunciation, aiming to describe the stage of the language that s reflected by the
                          Message 12 of 21 , Oct 19, 2006
                            Heill Konráð!

                            I was trying to put together some notes a while ago on pronunciation,
                            aiming to describe the stage of the language that's reflected by the
                            normalised spelling used in introductory books and texts that
                            beginners are likely to encounter, that is: appropriate to the early
                            13th century. A later date, e.g. about 1300 would be another
                            possibility, but earlier is better for etymology--and it's easier to
                            ignore distinctions once you've learnt them than to learn new ones.
                            Any earlier than that though and you need specialised knowledge to
                            apply that pronunciation to the texts as normally printed, e.g. when á
                            = /a:/, when /O:/, and when either of these should be nasal. Anyway,
                            I got bogged down eventually on a certain details, and now your posts
                            on Norwegian dialects have opened up whole new cans of worms :-) E.g.
                            it's tricky thinking of a test for the pronunciation of 'll' at any
                            given stage in the language, since whatever the pronunciation, this
                            wouldn't necessarily affect rhymes. Is it possible to tell whether
                            miðli > milli = midli all along? How old are spellings like 'valla'
                            for 'varla'?

                            Of course, it would also be good to pin down the details of the
                            language of the previous century, and see texts where all the
                            distinctions that were later lost still in place, including nasalised
                            vowels!

                            Anyway, early 13th c. (unless I'm mistaken) would mean distinct ø and
                            hooked o, distinct long ø and æ, but á and long hooked o fallen
                            together as /O/ (the pronunciation of long hooked o), and e and hooked
                            e fallen together (but I'm not sure whether the resulting value was
                            open or close), and probably ø1 and ø2 having fallen together. Again,
                            I'm not sure what the value of resulting sound would be -- maybe open,
                            since that would make it closer to hooked o, which eventually merged
                            with it -- but maybe it's not possible to be so precise?

                            According to Gordon, a 13th century date would mean [v] instead of
                            earlier [w]. He suggests that the phoneme went through a transitional
                            phase of being a voiced bilabial fricative in the 12th century.
                            Evidence for 'v' becoming a fricative comes from the confusion of
                            medial 'v' and 'f'. But when exactly do manuscripts first start to
                            show this confusion. I'm also wondering about the proninciation of
                            'f' at this stage. Could it still have had a bilabial pronunciation
                            in the 13th century? I think Adolf Noreen mentions spellings such as
                            'røfr' for 'refr', which might imply rounding of the vowel caused by a
                            bilabial 'f'. But I'm not sure when and where these forms are from.

                            A related dilemma: what about the later changes exemplified by 'kveld'
                            > 'kvöld' and 'váru' > 'voru'? Could these mean that 'v' was still
                            either [w] or a voiced bilabial fricative in these positions at the
                            time of these changes?

                            Presumably there was no major difference in quality between long and
                            short vowels at least up to c. 1200 when the lengthenings happened in
                            words such as 'ulfr'. Similar changes in early Middle English suggest
                            that the tense/lax distinction in /I/ : /i:/ and /U/ : /u:/ found in
                            many Germanic languages isn't an inherited feature. According to
                            Stefán Karlsson /i/ and /u/ were lengthened and other vowels either
                            lengthened or diphthongised before /ng/ about 1300. If that's right,
                            I guess, short /i/ and /u/ would have still been tense in all stressed
                            positions at least up to then. But is this the only possible
                            interpretation of the evidence? I was curious to read at that link
                            you posted about similar behaviour of vowels in Sognamálit. But what
                            might that imply, a tendency the settlers brought with them, or a
                            later innovation at a time when close contacts were maintained with
                            the mainland and with these regions in particular?

                            LLama Nom
                          • akoddsson
                            Heill Llama! ... pronunciation, aiming to describe the stage of the language that s reflected by the normalised spelling used in introductory books and texts
                            Message 13 of 21 , Oct 19, 2006
                              Heill Llama!

                              > I was trying to put together some notes a while ago on
                              pronunciation, aiming to describe the stage of the language that's
                              reflected by the normalised spelling used in introductory books and
                              texts that beginners are likely to encounter, that is: appropriate
                              to the early 13th century.

                              Yes, Snorri's language.

                              > A later date, e.g. about 1300 would be another possibility, but
                              earlier is better for etymology--and it's easier to ignore
                              distinctions once you've learnt them than to learn new ones.

                              True. Always good arguments for learning an earlier stage. About the
                              language of 1300-plus: while studying the changes herefrom is needed
                              to understand the development of Modern Icelandic, it is unnecessary
                              for an understanding of ON. It becomes an abstract study of little
                              or no relevance to students of ON proper. Linguists aside, most folk
                              learning ON are interested in ON proper, and especially the culture
                              stage represented by the Viking Age. Odds are likely 100:1 that this
                              is the stage most ON students are interested in. Furthermore, as the
                              linguistic developments post-1300 are irrelevant to the ON language
                              of the period in question, as well as the cultural developments, the
                              traditional schoarly concensus is to cut the ON-period at Snorri. It
                              is somewhat artificial, at least linguistically, but it does work in
                              practice, as it meets the interests of students eye to eye.

                              > Any earlier than that though and you need specialised knowledge to
                              apply that pronunciation to the texts as normally printed, e.g. when
                              á = /a:/, when /O:/, and when either of these should be nasal.

                              Ok, linguists and ON academics will hold us to the stage described
                              by the first grammarian, and print their forms using the alphabet
                              outlined by the first grammarian. Thus, while regular students of ON
                              have traditionally studied Snorri's language, as it is the language
                              of his works (containing what most students are interested to learn)
                              and other contempory works of interest, linguists and academics will
                              use the same standards applied in other dead languages, demanding a
                              correct writing-system - thus, as the first grammarian's system is a
                              'correct' one, accurately representing his own language, this is now
                              the standard for academics. Modern etymological works, textbooks,
                              etc. (and other contexts where correct citation is required), are no
                              longer using the standard spelling printed for editions of Snorri,
                              for instance. Instead, the first grammarian's spelling is used. So,
                              the situation is a bit strange. For instance, Finnur Jónsson used ON
                              normalized early 13th cent. in his popular, and excellent, edition
                              of Heimskringla, but used the first grammarian's spelling (and older
                              forms) in academic works (with commentary, etc. - such as his work
                              on Hávamál, where in the text itself it is called hávamó,l). So, in
                              reality, this situation is quite old. About nasals: these are shown
                              by the edition of a super-script dot over the vowels, as the first
                              grammarian advises - thus, there are 2 series of the 9-vowels long
                              and short (36 total), one with and one without the nasalizations. In
                              modern practice, linguists place the nasalization-dots according to
                              Germanic Linguists - that is, where nasalization would be inherited.
                              As this works, no problems here. However, as ON short nasal-vowels
                              always occur where the nasalizing consonant is preserved, there is a
                              leading school of thought which simply leaves the dots out for the
                              short vowels, seeing it as unnecessary (a practice I also follow).
                              Furthermore, it is acceptable to leave out the nasalization dots for
                              long vowels as well, as it makes citation easier, more practical and
                              avoids script-problems, but this is avoided in technically 'correct'
                              contexts. Lastly, the practice of not writing ð is consistent with
                              the first grammarian's recommendations, who himself wrote only þ, as
                              did other writers of his time. Of course, he probably had never seen
                              ð before, as it is believed to have originated in a some Norwegian
                              monestary around 1200 (Benediktsson, etc.) and spread thence. Modern
                              academics, in writing only þ, aren't agreeing with the grammarian by
                              not writing ð, but are reflecting his own writing-style and the fact
                              that if one writes ð, then one should also write reverse ð (ebh) for
                              f in medial positions (fara, hafa/habha), which character was really
                              not used by the Catholic writers themselves, is not found in any ON
                              standard texts, and has no use by tradition. Sort of a default to þ,
                              which is, interestly enough, how ð is always written in runes. So,
                              there are some interesting issues here, indeed.

                              > Anyway, I got bogged down eventually on a certain details, and now
                              your posts on Norwegian dialects have opened up whole new cans of
                              worms :-) E.g. it's tricky thinking of a test for the pronunciation
                              of 'll' at any given stage in the language, since whatever the
                              pronunciation, this wouldn't necessarily affect rhymes.

                              True, but actual ON speakers said -ll-, not -dl- etc., and this is
                              shown conclusively by runic writing, where *-tl- for -ll- does not
                              occur. So, as far as learning ON is concerned, -ll- is the only one
                              folk need to learn. If modern descendants of ON folk chose to say -
                              dl- instead, as that is the majority pronounciation in all the west
                              norse areas where descendants of ON (west) persons currently live,
                              then that is another question ;) 'Standard' pronounciation of ON (at
                              least the ON West variety) by ON descendants is, essentially, a
                              question of familiarity, practicality, often compromise. It really
                              has nothing to do with ON learning for historical reasons. No one is
                              saying that we can't pronounce ON as we choose to. If a 'ban' were
                              implemented against our modern pronounciation, then the ON situation
                              would degenerate into an aboriginal rights conflict between scholars
                              or creative anachronists and the actual ON descendants, a bizarre
                              situation that is, fortunately, never going to happen ;)

                              > Is it possible to tell whether miðli > milli = midli all along?
                              How old are spellings like 'valla' for 'varla'?

                              The change rl>ll is post Shorri, later reversed. miþli/miðli is the
                              only correct form (originally dative, against accusative á meþal)
                              for the first grammarian's language, but Snorri would likely have
                              said 'milli', but been familiar with 'miðli' as a form occuring in
                              the language of the oldest generation (or perhaps just poems).

                              > Of course, it would also be good to pin down the details of the
                              language of the previous century, and see texts where all the
                              distinctions that were later lost still in place, including nasalised
                              vowels!

                              Well, you have the consensus of modern ON academics in electing to
                              cite forms, standardize pieces from oral tradition, etc. in the 1st
                              grammarian's spelling (and language) ;) The fact that, essentially,
                              nothing separates this language (aside from a few contractions, etc)
                              from the language of the pre-christian period (that is, the last ON
                              west norse one) is not going to hurt you either, as this actually
                              _is_ the period ON students are most interested in, generally. So,
                              one can have it both ways: 1)learn Snorri's language (and standard
                              ON orthography) 2)use the first grammarian's in academic contexts.
                              More later ;)

                              -K


                              > Anyway, early 13th c. (unless I'm mistaken) would mean distinct ø
                              and
                              > hooked o, distinct long ø and æ, but á and long hooked o fallen
                              > together as /O/ (the pronunciation of long hooked o), and e and
                              hooked
                              > e fallen together (but I'm not sure whether the resulting value was
                              > open or close), and probably ø1 and ø2 having fallen together.
                              Again,
                              > I'm not sure what the value of resulting sound would be -- maybe
                              open,
                              > since that would make it closer to hooked o, which eventually
                              merged
                              > with it -- but maybe it's not possible to be so precise?
                              >
                              > According to Gordon, a 13th century date would mean [v] instead of
                              > earlier [w]. He suggests that the phoneme went through a
                              transitional
                              > phase of being a voiced bilabial fricative in the 12th century.
                              > Evidence for 'v' becoming a fricative comes from the confusion of
                              > medial 'v' and 'f'. But when exactly do manuscripts first start to
                              > show this confusion. I'm also wondering about the proninciation of
                              > 'f' at this stage. Could it still have had a bilabial
                              pronunciation
                              > in the 13th century? I think Adolf Noreen mentions spellings such
                              as
                              > 'røfr' for 'refr', which might imply rounding of the vowel caused
                              by a
                              > bilabial 'f'. But I'm not sure when and where these forms are
                              from.
                              >
                              > A related dilemma: what about the later changes exemplified
                              by 'kveld'
                              > > 'kvöld' and 'váru' > 'voru'? Could these mean that 'v' was
                              still
                              > either [w] or a voiced bilabial fricative in these positions at the
                              > time of these changes?
                              >
                              > Presumably there was no major difference in quality between long
                              and
                              > short vowels at least up to c. 1200 when the lengthenings happened
                              in
                              > words such as 'ulfr'. Similar changes in early Middle English
                              suggest
                              > that the tense/lax distinction in /I/ : /i:/ and /U/ : /u:/ found
                              in
                              > many Germanic languages isn't an inherited feature. According to
                              > Stefán Karlsson /i/ and /u/ were lengthened and other vowels either
                              > lengthened or diphthongised before /ng/ about 1300. If that's
                              right,
                              > I guess, short /i/ and /u/ would have still been tense in all
                              stressed
                              > positions at least up to then. But is this the only possible
                              > interpretation of the evidence? I was curious to read at that link
                              > you posted about similar behaviour of vowels in Sognamálit. But
                              what
                              > might that imply, a tendency the settlers brought with them, or a
                              > later innovation at a time when close contacts were maintained with
                              > the mainland and with these regions in particular?
                              >
                              > LLama Nom
                              >
                            • Meghan Roberts
                              I m interested in c.1000 pronounciation. My main goal is to recite stuff, but a longer term goal is to speak conversationally somewhat. I went digging and
                              Message 14 of 21 , Oct 19, 2006
                                I'm interested in c.1000 pronounciation.  My main goal is to recite stuff, but a longer term goal is to speak conversationally somewhat.  I went digging and came up with a whole lot of what's been flying back and forth on this thread plus or minus a few things, and came to the following conclusion:
                                 
                                Preparing my own texts indicating in one way or another what sounds I think I should use is prohibitively time-consuming, even if it weren't also prohibitively difficult at this point.
                                 
                                <sigh>
                                 
                                Next question: where can I find reasonably close texts?
                                 
                                Answere so far: not so freaking easy either.
                                 
                                My questions for ye all:  What do you do?  Why?  How happy are you with this approach?  What would you do if you could? 
                                 
                                -Unnr/Uðr/lets not even get into the Magn thing.

                                 
                                On 10/19/06, akoddsson <konrad_oddsson@...> wrote:

                                Heill Llama!

                                > I was trying to put together some notes a while ago on
                                pronunciation, aiming to describe the stage of the language that's
                                reflected by the normalised spelling used in introductory books and
                                texts that beginners are likely to encounter, that is: appropriate
                                to the early 13th century.

                                Yes, Snorri's language.

                                > A later date, e.g. about 1300 would be another possibility, but
                                earlier is better for etymology--and it's easier to ignore
                                distinctions once you've learnt them than to learn new ones.

                                True. Always good arguments for learning an earlier stage. About the
                                language of 1300-plus: while studying the changes herefrom is needed
                                to understand the development of Modern Icelandic, it is unnecessary
                                for an understanding of ON. It becomes an abstract study of little
                                or no relevance to students of ON proper. Linguists aside, most folk
                                learning ON are interested in ON proper, and especially the culture
                                stage represented by the Viking Age. Odds are likely 100:1 that this
                                is the stage most ON students are interested in. Furthermore, as the
                                linguistic developments post-1300 are irrelevant to the ON language
                                of the period in question, as well as the cultural developments, the
                                traditional schoarly concensus is to cut the ON-period at Snorri. It
                                is somewhat artificial, at least linguistically, but it does work in
                                practice, as it meets the interests of students eye to eye.

                                > Any earlier than that though and you need specialised knowledge to
                                apply that pronunciation to the texts as normally printed, e.g . when
                                á = /a:/, when /O:/, and when either of these should be nasal.

                                Ok, linguists and ON academics will hold us to the stage described
                                by the first grammarian, and print their forms using the alphabet
                                outlined by the first grammarian. Thus, while regular students of ON
                                have traditionally studied Snorri's language, as it is the language
                                of his works (containing what most students are interested to learn)
                                and other contempory works of interest, linguists and academics will
                                use the same standards applied in other dead languages, demanding a
                                correct writing-system - thus, as the first grammarian's system is a
                                'correct' one, accurately representing his own language, this is now
                                the standard for academics. Modern etymological works, textbooks,
                                etc. (and other contexts where correct citation is required), are no
                                longer using the standard spelling printed for editions of Snorri,
                                for instance. Instead, the first grammarian's spelling is used. So,
                                the situation is a bit strange. For instance, Finnur Jónsson used ON
                                normalized early 13th cent. in his popular, and excellent, edition
                                of Heimskringla, but used the first grammarian's spelling (and older
                                forms) in academic works (with commentary, etc. - such as his work
                                on Hávamál, where in the text itself it is called hávamó,l). So, in
                                reality, this situation is quite old. About nasals: these are shown
                                by the edition of a super-script dot over the vowels, as the first
                                grammarian advises - thus, there are 2 series of the 9-vowels long
                                and short (36 total), one with and one without the nasalizations. In
                                modern practice, linguists place the nasalization-dots according to
                                Germanic Linguists - that is, where nasalization would be inherited.
                                As this works, no problems here. However, as ON short nasal-vowels
                                always occur where the nasalizing consonant is preserved, there is a
                                leading school of thought which simply leaves the dots out for the
                                short vowels, seeing it as unnecessary (a practice I also follow).
                                Furthermore, it is acceptable to leave out the nasalization dots for
                                long vowels as well, as it makes citation easier, more practical and
                                avoids script-problems, but this is avoided in technically 'correct'
                                contexts. Lastly, the practice of not writing ð is consistent with
                                the first grammarian's recommendations, who himself wrote only þ, as
                                did other writers of his time. Of course, he probably had never seen
                                ð before, as it is believed to have originated in a some Norwegian
                                monestary around 1200 (Benediktsson, etc.) and spread thence. Modern
                                academics, in writing only þ, aren't agreeing with the grammarian by
                                not writing ð, but are reflecting his own writing-style and the fact
                                that if one writes ð, then one should also write reverse ð (ebh) for
                                f in medial positions (fara, hafa/habha), which character was really
                                not used by the Catholic writers themselves, is not found in any ON
                                standard texts, and has no use by tradition. Sort of a default to þ,
                                which is, interestly enough, how ð is always written in runes. So,
                                there are some interesting issues here, indeed.

                                > Anyway, I got bogged down eventually on a certain details, and now
                                your posts on Norwegian dialects have opened up whole new cans of
                                worms :-) E.g. it's tricky thinking of a test for the pronunciation
                                of 'll' at any given stage in the language, since whatever the
                                pronunciation, this wouldn't necessarily affect rhymes.

                                True, but actual ON speakers said -ll-, not -dl- etc., and this is
                                shown conclusively by runic writing, where *-tl- for -ll- does not
                                occur. So, as far as learning ON is concerned, -ll- is the only one
                                folk need to learn. If modern descendants of ON folk chose to say -
                                dl- instead, as that is the majority pronounciation in all the west
                                norse areas where descendants of ON (west) persons currently live,
                                then that is another question ;) 'Standard' pronounciation of ON (at
                                least the ON West variety) by ON descendants is, essentially, a
                                question of familiarity, practicality, often compromise. It really
                                has nothing to do with ON learning for historical reasons. No one is
                                saying that we can't pronounce ON as we choose to. If a 'ban' were
                                implemented against our modern pronounciation, then the ON situation
                                would degenerate into an aboriginal rights conflict between scholars
                                or creative anachronists and the actual ON descendants, a bizarre
                                situation that is, fortunately, never going to happen ;)

                                > Is it possible to tell whether miðli > milli = midli all along?
                                How old are spellings like 'valla' for 'varla'?

                                The change rl>ll is post Shorri, later reversed. miþli/miðli is the
                                only correct form (originally dative, against accusative á meþal)
                                for the first grammarian's language, but Snorri would likely have
                                said 'milli', but been familiar with 'miðli' as a form occuring in
                                the language of the oldest generation (or perhaps just poems).

                                > Of course, it would also be good to pin down the details of the
                                language of the previous century, and see texts where all the
                                distinctions that were later lost still in place, including nasalised
                                vowels!

                                Well, you have the consensus of modern ON academics in electing to
                                cite forms, standardize pieces from oral tradition, etc. in the 1st
                                grammarian's spelling (and language) ;) The fact that, essentially,
                                nothing separates this language (aside from a few contractions, etc)
                                from the language of the pre-christian period (that is, the last ON
                                west norse one) is not going to hurt you either, as this actually
                                _is_ the period ON students are most interested in, generally. So,
                                one can have it both ways: 1)learn Snorri's language (and standard
                                ON orthography) 2)use the first grammarian's in academic contexts.
                                More later ;)

                                -K



                                > Anyway, early 13th c. (unless I'm mistaken) would mean distinct ø
                                and
                                > hooked o, distinct long ø and æ, but á and long hooked o fallen
                                > together as /O/ (the pronunciation of long hooked o), and e and
                                hooked
                                > e fallen together (but I'm not sure whether the resulting value was
                                > open or close), and probably ø1 and ø2 having fallen together.
                                Again,
                                > I'm not sure what the value of resulting sound would be -- maybe
                                open,
                                > since that would make it closer to hooked o, which eventually
                                merged
                                > with it -- but maybe it's not possible to be so precise?
                                >
                                > According to Gordon, a 13th century date would mean [v] instead of
                                > earlier [w]. He suggests that the phoneme went through a
                                transitional
                                > phase of being a voiced bilabial fricative in the 12th century.
                                > Evidence for 'v' becoming a fricative comes from the confusion of
                                > medial 'v' and 'f'. But when exactly do manuscripts first start to
                                > show this confusion. I'm also wondering about the proninciation of
                                > 'f' at this stage. Could it still have had a bilabial
                                pronunciation
                                > in the 13th century? I think Adolf Noreen mentions spellings such
                                as
                                > 'røfr' for 'refr', which might imply rounding of the vowel caused
                                by a
                                > bilabial 'f'. But I'm not sure when and where these forms are
                                from.
                                >
                                > A related dilemma: what about the later changes exemplified
                                by 'kveld'
                                > > 'kvöld' and 'váru' > 'voru'? Could these mean that 'v' was
                                still
                                > either [w] or a voiced bilabial fricative in these positions at the
                                > time of these changes?
                                >
                                > Presumably there was no major difference in quality between long
                                and
                                > short vowels at least up to c. 1200 when the lengthenings happened
                                in
                                > words such as 'ulfr'. Similar changes in early Middle English
                                suggest
                                > that the tense/lax distinction in /I/ : /i:/ and /U/ : /u:/ found
                                in
                                > many Germanic languages isn't an inherited feature. According to
                                > Stefán Karlsson /i/ and /u/ were lengthened and other vowels either
                                > lengthened or diphthongised before /ng/ about 1300. If that's
                                right,
                                > I guess, short /i/ and /u/ would have still been tense in all
                                stressed
                                > positions at least up to then. But is this the only possible
                                > interpretation of the evidence? I was curious to read at that link
                                > you posted about similar behaviour of vowels in Sognamálit. But
                                what
                                > might that imply, a tendency the settlers brought with them, or a
                                > later innovation at a time when close contacts were maintained with
                                > the mainland and with these regions in particular?
                                >
                                > LLama Nom
                                >




                                --
                                My page: http://unnr.freelinuxhost.com/ReEnactment
                              • llama_nom
                                Heil Konráð ok Meghan, One other advantage of a reconstructed pronunciation based on a 12th century norm is that that is the one stage in the medieval
                                Message 15 of 21 , Oct 19, 2006
                                  Heil Konráð ok Meghan,

                                  One other advantage of a reconstructed pronunciation based on a 12th
                                  century norm is that that is the one stage in the medieval language
                                  that we have a detailed description of from the time. It also avoids
                                  the problems of deciding when exactly certain later changes happened,
                                  relative to each other, so as to get a consistent early 13th c.
                                  reconstruction.

                                  Konrad wrote:

                                  > Linguists aside, most folk
                                  > learning ON are interested in ON proper, and especially the culture
                                  > stage represented by the Viking Age.

                                  Yes, that's certainly an attraction, to get a feeling for the actual
                                  sound of the language of the Vikings, the old poems, and so on.

                                  The advantage of using an early 13th c. pronunciation is that, given
                                  the textbooks that are currently used, it allows beginners to start
                                  reading the texts as they find them with a pronunciation that's
                                  reasonably consistent to a particular time without having to keep
                                  stopping and wondering about the etymology. Of course, modern
                                  Icelandic pronunciation would also satisfy that need, albeit taking us
                                  that much further from the pronunciation of both the Viking Age and
                                  the time when the classical sagas were written, and requiring further
                                  study in itself.

                                  Meghan wrote: "My questions for ye all: What do you do? Why? How
                                  happy are you with this approach? What would you do if you could?"

                                  When I began, and wanting to get as far back as possible without
                                  running into inconsistencies due to my ignorance of the etymology, I
                                  settled on trying to recreate the sound of c. 1200 as best I could
                                  manage. As I went on, I met more texts written according to a later
                                  spelling, and shifted my pronunciation to what I imagined would be
                                  appropriate to the late 13th c. -- blurring ø and hooked o, for
                                  example. Again this was a matter of convenience based on the texts
                                  (of sagas) that I was reading. As I learnt more vocabulary and
                                  started to get a clearer idea of the history of the language, and the
                                  historical origins of the various mutated vowels, it became possible
                                  for me to read texts printed according to a late medieval or modern
                                  norm and back-engineer the vowels in my head if I wanted to sound them
                                  out, no doubt far from perfectly, but hopefully impriving a bit as I
                                  went along. I wanted to get back to earlier forms, for the reasons
                                  Konrad has mentioned: both for its own sake and because this helps
                                  with learning about the history of the language.

                                  As I started learning a bit about Modern Icelandic, I would alternate
                                  when reading old texts, sometimes attempting modern pronunciation for
                                  practice, sometimes using this early 13th c. norm as best I understood
                                  it. The modern pronunciation is more complicated in lost of ways,
                                  whereas an early medieval pronunciation matches much closer to how the
                                  texts are written; on the other hand, it's easier to find samples of
                                  modern Icelandic pronunciation to listen to and try to immitate.
                                  Since these are two quite dictinctive poles -- now that I was making a
                                  difference between /oe/ and /ae/, and between hooked o and ø -- it was
                                  easier not to get them mixed up. Recently I've been trying to get the
                                  hang of switching between these two norms, c. 1200 and modern, when
                                  reciting old poems from memory. The tricky thing was that I'd
                                  memorised things at different times, with different pronunciations!
                                  So I sometimes have to stop and think, but really this is just and
                                  matter practice.

                                  In the light of this discussion though, I'd like to going to make an
                                  effort to familiarise myself with the earier, 12th c., pronunciation.
                                  At the moment when I try to recreate it, I have to go very very
                                  slowly and constantly have to go back and correct myself over the
                                  nasals the open and close e, etc. There are also some words, e.g.
                                  obscure names, where I'm just not in a position to know how to
                                  back-engineer an earlier pronunciation since I don't know the
                                  etymology. If I was starting from scratch learning Old Norse and
                                  hadn't studies other early Germanic languages, I wouldn't have a clue
                                  even about the basic vocabulary and would probably still settle on
                                  Snorri's language as the norm, just because that's how so much of the
                                  material is printed.

                                  But wouldn't it be great to learn some poems in true Viking Age
                                  pronunciation!

                                  Llama Nom
                                • Meghan Roberts
                                  ... ... Which is approximately where I m at. ... I m managing this for some things. But VERY few. And I m sure with many many errors. ...
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Oct 19, 2006
                                    > Heil Konráð ok Meghan,
                                    <Snip>
                                    > Meghan wrote: "My questions for ye all: What do you do? Why? How
                                    > happy are you with this approach? What would you do if you could?"
                                    >
                                    > When I began, and wanting to get as far back as possible without
                                    > running into inconsistencies due to my ignorance of the etymology, I
                                    > settled on trying to recreate the sound of c. 1200 as best I could
                                    > manage.

                                    Which is approximately where I'm at.

                                    <snip>
                                    > As I learnt more vocabulary and
                                    > started to get a clearer idea of the history of the language, and the
                                    > historical origins of the various mutated vowels, it became possible
                                    > for me to read texts printed according to a late medieval or modern
                                    > norm and back-engineer the vowels in my head if I wanted to sound them
                                    > out, no doubt far from perfectly, but hopefully impriving a bit as I
                                    > went along. I wanted to get back to earlier forms, for the reasons
                                    > Konrad has mentioned: both for its own sake and because this helps
                                    > with learning about the history of the language.

                                    I'm managing this for some things. But VERY few. And I'm sure with
                                    many many errors.

                                    > Recently I've been trying to get the
                                    > hang of switching between these two norms, c. 1200 and modern, when
                                    > reciting old poems from memory. The tricky thing was that I'd
                                    > memorised things at different times, with different pronunciations!
                                    > So I sometimes have to stop and think, but really this is just and
                                    > matter practice.

                                    Un-hunh. Same here. And when I'm learning new stuff, I sometimes
                                    drift from word to word based on when I "got" the word through my
                                    skull.

                                    > In the light of this discussion though, I'd like to going to make an
                                    > effort to familiarise myself with the earier, 12th c., pronunciation.
                                    > At the moment when I try to recreate it, I have to go very very
                                    > slowly and constantly have to go back and correct myself over the
                                    > nasals the open and close e, etc.

                                    I'm quite sure I'm completely mucking up the nasals.

                                    > But wouldn't it be great to learn some poems in true Viking Age
                                    > pronunciation!

                                    You have a gift for understatment.

                                    Hmm. Ok, I'll keep beating my head against it, pending other ideas!

                                    -Unnr
                                  • Mariana Rebello
                                    Hi everybody =) I m new in this Old Norse stuff and I m having some trouble with pronunciation. I couldn t find audio files with simple sentences that I could
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Apr 10, 2009
                                      Hi everybody =)

                                      I'm new in this Old Norse stuff and I'm having some trouble with pronunciation. I couldn't find audio files with simple sentences that I could reapet, I just found readings that are a little bit too fast for me to fully understand the pronunciation. Most of the websites have indications of the phonetic alphabet, but I'm afraid I'm not pronuncing it correctly, since there's no one to correct me. I listened to the words that are on the group files, but I still feel I need listening to more stuff. So, is there any place where I can find "slow-read" audio files?

                                      Thanks!
                                      And sorry for my bad english.


                                      Mari Rebello
                                    • Schuyler Himberg
                                      im not sure if this helps very much, but heres a website that is nifty in pronouncing pagan words.
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Apr 10, 2009
                                        im not sure if this helps very much, but heres a website that is nifty
                                        in pronouncing pagan words.
                                        http://www.thestonepentacle.com/project/dictionary.html#hwords
                                        enjoy,
                                        schuyler Himberg

                                        >>> Mariana Rebello <mari.rebello77@...> 04/10/09 11:29 AM >>>
                                        Hi everybody =)

                                        I'm new in this Old Norse stuff and I'm having some trouble with
                                        pronunciation. I couldn't find audio files with simple sentences that I
                                        could reapet, I just found readings that are a little bit too fast for
                                        me to
                                        fully understand the pronunciation. Most of the websites have
                                        indications of
                                        the phonetic alphabet, but I'm afraid I'm not pronuncing it correctly,
                                        since
                                        there's no one to correct me. I listened to the words that are on the
                                        group
                                        files, but I still feel I need listening to more stuff. So, is there any
                                        place where I can find "slow-read" audio files?

                                        Thanks!
                                        And sorry for my bad english.


                                        Mari Rebello
                                      • Scott
                                        What bad English? I wish that I could write as fluently in Spanish or Italian as you do in English N. Scott Catledge Professor Emeritus history & languages
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Apr 10, 2009

                                          What bad English?  I wish that I could write as fluently in Spanish or Italian as you do in English

                                           

                                          N. Scott Catledge

                                          Professor Emeritus

                                          history & languages

                                           


                                          From: norse_course@yahoogroups.com [mailto:norse_course@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mariana Rebello
                                          Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:30 AM
                                          To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: [norse_course] Pronunciation

                                           




                                          Hi everybody =)

                                          I'm new in this Old Norse stuff and I'm having some trouble with pronunciation. I couldn't find audio files with simple sentences that I could reapet, I just found readings that are a little bit too fast for me to fully understand the pronunciation. Most of the websites have indications of the phonetic alphabet, but I'm afraid I'm not pronuncing it correctly, since there's no one to correct me. I listened to the words that are on the group files, but I still feel I need listening to more stuff. So, is there any place where I can find "slow-read" audio files?

                                          Thanks!
                                          And sorry for my bad english.


                                          Mari Rebello

                                        • Mariana Rebello
                                          @ schuyler Himberg I think it isn t gonna help me that much with Old Norse, but I had a lot of fun and learned the pronunciation of many words that I always
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Apr 11, 2009
                                            @ schuyler Himberg
                                             
                                            I think it isn't gonna help me that much with Old Norse, but I had a lot of fun and learned the pronunciation of many words that I always wanted to know! Thank you very much =)
                                             
                                            @ N. Scott Catledge
                                             
                                            hahaha, thank you!
                                             
                                             
                                            Mari Rebello
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.