Talk:Old Norse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I removed this bit:

"Sometimes Old Norse means directly Old Icelandic."

Sometimes Old Norse means directly Old Swedish, Old Danish and Old Norwegian, too. User:Wiglaf

---

I reverted to a version with breaks in the text sample. The breaks show the line division in the manuscript. Io 14:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's much easier to compare if the others break in the same place as the original. Trousers 18:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

manuscript

it would be even better to have them in 3 paralell table rows. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:13, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

---

You're both right, although I hate to agree with two people at the same time. :) (The lines don't break exactly in the same places, but with three columns there is no way to ensure that. The only place, where the lines break do matter is in þangat fa ra which is as written with fara split in the original, but that is really a minor point.) Is the tabularization as it is now acceptable? (You may disagree about the colouring - I'm not much of a designer.) Cheers Io 20:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

I checked out the facsimile of the manuscript page I relied on and it occurred to me, that I didn't show the bönd (ties) that mark abbreviations in the original. I'll fix that later. Cheers Io 20:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Latin of the North

• Halló! google "latin of the north" finds [1] a speach of 4th president of Iceland Mrs. Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, [2] an article frum the Uppsala University and more others. To what extent Old Norse was a Lingua franca too? Regards Gangleri 01:06, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Danish tongue?

Sorry but I am going to have to criticize this. "Old Norse or Danish tongue"? Yes, people used to call it. Has anyone called it that recently? I don't think archaic English belongs here: it's as if an article on radio programming were to begin "radio, or wireless, programming", or as if the article on the French language began with "the French language, or the Gallic tongue...". Rjp08773 22:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted it. If there is a valid point here, someone might like to put a clarification somewhere in the article, but it's clearly misleading to have it baldly stated without explanation right at the start of the article, as if it were a commonly-used synonym. rossb 10:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IIRC, Norse, norrønt etc were coined in the 19th century for nationalistic reasons Fornadan 15:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Old Norse or Proto-Norse?

I think we have conflicting terms on our hands. I don't have any specific literatuer on the subject, but according to NE, Old Swedish (fornsvenska) is the name of the medieval Swedish language from about 1250 to the bible translation of 1526. The term used for Swedish spoken during the viking period (roughly 800-1250) is Runic Swedish (runsvenska).

I'm wondering if the article Proto-Norse is actually describing what is usually defined as Old Norse.

Could anyone cite some sources on this matter? Peter Isotalo 00:41, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Proto-Norse article is based on Nationalencyklopedin. I think we'd better start a discussion on this issue: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Old Norse, dates and subgroups).--Wiglaf 07:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have included more info.--Wiglaf 13:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I assume you mean the article nordiska språk ("Nordic languages") which is basically already described as the North Germanic language(s). "Urnordiska" (roughly "Proto-Norse" or "Proto-Nordic") is only a stub that explains that the term is highly speculative and without much evidence to support it (a few rune stones, loan words in Finnish and Sami and reconstructions) and so does the first article. I can find no common Swedish term used for the Nordic languages that would correspond to Old Norse.

I think our current definition is based on a misunderstanding as to what the term actually means. Either we need to check what English-speaking linguists have to say about Old Norse or we simply redirect it to North Germanic language. Nordic languages might be used as a compromise, but I'm wondering if it is actually appropriate to use in English.Peter Isotalo 14:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nice attitude, Peter. Wikipedia articles are usually projects that are to be developed, and I strongly doubt that Professor Wessén would have appreciated that you consider our knowledge of Proto-Norse to be speculations. Moreover, you call 200 runestones a few runestones and that is quite arrogant. The English term Old Norse is the term that corresponds to our term Fornnordiska whereas Proto-Norse corresponds to urnordiska.--Wiglaf 16:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to the articles svenska, danska and norska, the Scandinavian languages started diverging from a fairly uniform language around 800. The seperate languages are divided into periods that are common at least to the mainland languages. These are very rough figures and are not applicable to all languages. The transitions occured earlier in some languages than in others.

• The Viking period (early medieval) 800-1100
• The medieval languages: 1100-1500
• The National languages: 1500-

I'm not sure exactly what to call the eastern and western branches. Old East Norse is just not good English. There doesn't seem to be just Norse (Norse language simply points to North Germanic language, and why would then Old Norse be anything but Proto-Norse? East and West Norse could work, though I feel it might be better to have them all in one article. Peter Isotalo 14:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Old East Norse is just not good English. You're hardly a native speaker yourself, Peter. Here is a list of Internet sites that use the terminology Old West Norse and Old East Norse: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. Have you ever heard of Google?--Wiglaf 16:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's just a simple problem of wording that makes it sound awkward to me. Is it "East Old Norse" or "Old East Norse"? The important thing, though, is what "Old Norse" actually means, and I can't find any reliable information on this.

Few of those sites are actually about linguistics and none of them cite linguistic sources. One of them even uses just "Norse". There is also the problem of the contradiction between the NE articles and the current articles as well as the term seeming to be identical to that of North Germanic language. Why isn't the term Scandinavian language used, by the way?

Because that would automatically include Sami and Finnish Skookum1 07:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong! The Scandinavian languages are linguistically the same as the North Germanic languages. Actually, (at least in the Nordic countries,) Scandinavia mostly refers to the countries speaking mainly a Scandinavian language (Sweden, Norway, Denmark). Not to the countries being crossed by the Scandinavian Mountains (Norway, Sweden, Finland). 85.226.122.237 18:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that Introduction to Old Norse is mentioned as a reference. Some citations would be very handy. Peter Isotalo 17:40, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Although, I am not an authority on Old Norse, I am soon to get a phD in linguistics, and I have a fairly good grip on the problems about classifying languages. In my experience Old Norse is the name that English speakers give to the language of the Vikings, i.e. fornnordiska. You'll find this usage in a fair number of reliable Internet sites. Now, there is never any clear limits when languages evolve, and the delimitation between Old Norse and Proto-Norse, and between Old Norse and later Scandinavian languages is actually a matter of convention. My intention is to develop these pages, and I hope that we can work together.--Wiglaf 18:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article on the classification of the Library of Congress seems to imply that Old Norse is in fact just a term for the "runic" West Scandinavian languages that later evolved into Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic. It would seem somewhat logical considering how "Norse" sound very similary to "norsk", the modern native term for Norwegian. Peter Isotalo 17:53, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

It does not say so. It only lists it on the same line. The main reason is that almost all the medieval literature written in Old Norse was written on Iceland.--Wiglaf 18:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LoC indicates that "Old Norse" seems to be the same thing as Old Norwegian and Icelandic, and that it is a subdivision of Scandinavian/North Germanic. It doesn't make any sense that the LoC would make Old Norse a subdivision of its own synonyms. The grouping together with Old Norwegian and Icelandic seems like a very good indication that it's actually just a common name for the both of them. Wasn't the Eddas written specifically in West Scandinavian? There is even a seperate article in NE for it; fornvästnordiska ("Old West Nordic").

It seems to me as if the term "Norse" has been taken out of context and used to describe what should should be either "North Germanic" or "Scanadinavian". It seems to have been used synonymously with "Nordic" which is somewhat misleading. You mention fornnordiska ("Old Nordic"), but the term is not used in NE to define the langauge (only mythology and culture). When Googling for it, I can only find it used as a very vague term to describe older form(s) of the Scandinavian languages and as a general adjective used to describe pre-Christian Scandinavian mythology and such. The English-Swedish dictionary of NE, states that (Old) Norse is identical with fornnordisk(a).

I know that boundaries between langauges are never certain, but this term just seems to vague to be useful in encyclopedic contexts. We can't reasonably claim that both Old Norse and North Germanic are the same thing, so one needs to be either redirected or redefined. The term seems to be appropriate to describe Scandinavian (Germanic) culture during the fist millenium AD, but not the languages spoken during this period. Peter Isotalo 19:15, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Bleh. Since I'm not a very patient editor, I seem to forget the most obvious sources. If you search Dictionary.com for Norse you get the following definition for the adjective:

1. Of or relating to medieval Scandinavia or its peoples, languages, or cultures.
2. Of or relating to Norway or its people, language, or culture.
3. Of, relating to, or being the branch of the North Germanic languages that includes Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese.

The following definitions are for the noun:

1. 1. The people of Scandinavia; the Scandinavians.
   2. The people of Norway; the Norwegians.
   3. Speakers of Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese.
2. 1. See North Germanic.
   2. Any of the West Scandinavian languages, especially Norwegian.

I also checked EB and this is what it has to say about Old Norse:

classical North Germanic language used from roughly 1150 to 1350. It is the literary language of the Icelandic sagas, skaldic poems, and Eddas. The term Old Norse embraces Old Norwegian as well as Old Icelandic, but it is sometimes used interchangeably with the latter term...

Seems to me as if we'll have to redifine this article a tad. Peter Isotalo 19:32, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Before you start to redefine the terminology of Wikipedia, check the name Britannica uses for fornnordiska. Moreover, you seem to prefer Old Norse in its narrowest possible sens. I don't think that is very useful for an encyclopedia.--Wiglaf 06:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the terminology of Wikipedia is not in tune with that of other sources, the wikiterms are the one to be changed. See No original research about defining new terms. Cite your sources if you want to support the current terminology.

There is a problem of ambiguity if we keep this as a seperate article with so conflicting definitions. If Britannica clearly defines the term as meaning the West Germanic Scandinavian langauges of the early medieval period, why should we come up with our own definition? The NE article on "fornvästnordiska" supports Britannica's definition no less. Peter Isotalo 08:47, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Britannica does not identify Old Norse as meaning West Germanic languages. I don't understand how you can confuse such basic terms.--Wiglaf 09:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I meant to say West Scandinavian, of course. Peter Isotalo 10:02, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

As for fornnordiska, how do we translate the term? I can not find it used in the sense of "common linguistic term for Scandinavian languages during the Viking era" in Swedish texts and it's certainly not identical to Old Norse considering the latter being defined as "Norwegian" or "West Scanadinavian languages" as well as just generally "Nordic". Peter Isotalo 08:47, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from quality sites, the first one has been written by an Icelander who is a regular contributor at Wikipedia:

‘Old Norse’ is a term very broad in both time and space. In Viking times, it is clear enough that people from all over Scandinavia, and from the peripheries of the Viking world, i.e. Norwegian settlements in the North Atlantic, Danish settlements in Britain, and Swedish settlements in the Baltic and south to the Ukraine, were mutually intelligible to each other in their speech.[10]

1. The North Germanic languages until the middle of the 14th century. 2a. Old Icelandic. b. Old Norwegian.[11] (quotation from the American Heritage Dictionary).

Old Norse may be succinctly characterized as the "language of the vikings"[...] In this vein it should be noted that Old Norse is a term not denoting a particularly uniform spoken language as such, but rather a collection of wide ranging dialects with extremely close affinities. Old Norse is a catch-all term for Old Icelandic, Old Norwegion, Old Swedish, Old Danish, and Old Gotlandic, though it is often used as a synonym for Old Icelandic because the majority of documents come from this region.[12]

Old Norse is a collective term for the earliest North Germanic literary languages, Old Icelandic, Old Norwegian, Old Danish, and Old Swedish. In Linguistics 315-316, Old Icelandic will be the center of attention, and the purpose is twofold: the student will gain (a) knowledge of an old North Germanic language, important from a historic al point of view, as well as (b) access to the medieval Icelandic (and Scandinavian) literature.[13]

Old Norse is the language spoken and written in Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and the colonies of the Faroes, Greenland, Shetland, the Orkneys and Vinland (North America) between the earliest recorded texts (c. 8th century) and the early modern period.[14]

It is easy to find the name Old Norse in the wide sense of Fornnordiska, and you are the first one to object at Wikipedia, ever.--Wiglaf 09:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the current article text is far too specific to one of the definitions. I'll make some edits to accomodate the EB and NE definitions later on and I'm sure we can work from there. Peter Isotalo 10:02, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I leave it in your hands, bye.--Wiglaf 11:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I am back trying to make this article as extensive as possible.--Wiglaf 18:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about you, Wiglaf, but I think you're doing a great job. Once again I apologize if you found my criticism too rash, but the changes you're making now is exactly what I wanted. And I love the map!Peter Isotalo 15:25, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I am glad that you appreciate it.--Wiglaf 19:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May I recommend Template:Prettytable for the tables, though? See Dutch language for application. Peter Isotalo 15:25, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I will absolutely use those tables.--Wiglaf 19:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adapting to template

I reorganized the sections and subsections, wrote a more thorough intro and made some other minor changes. I tried to model the article on Wikipedia:WikiProject Language Template, though I'm hesitant to actually use the infobox. Peter Isotalo 11:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I have also thought of the infobox, and now that you mention it, I think it should be on the page, just like there is one on the Gothic language page.--Wiglaf 11:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gothic was a clearly seperate language, though. Unlike Gothic Old Norse didn't die out, but rather evolved into seperate languages. Somewhat like Vulgar Latin. I think it might be a bit confusing to use the infobox for previous stages of different languages like Old Icelandic or New Swedish. What's your view on that? Peter Isotalo 13:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well, since both Latin and Gothic language have infoboxes, Old Norse should too. Gothic is extinct, and Latin has diverged into many modern languages, so Old Norse could be treated as something in between. It is true that one can see it as a transitory stage, but it is treated as a language in scholarly works. Actually I think no one would ever object to an infobox. It would only make the article look better.--Wiglaf 13:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree that Old Norse as defined by this article could very well be considered a single language, but the problem is that it has since diverged into seperate languages and there are other articles that describe the earlier forms of those languages. Latin and Gothic are clearly seperate languages that can be distinguished from other closely related languages or, in the case of Latin, later descendants. Old Norse is probably more appropriately likened to Vulgar Latin, though the latter is far less specific term.Peter Isotalo 12:24, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Now, Peter. Languages are in constant change, and dates when one language turn into another don't exist. It is a fact that the Scandinavians of the Viking Age considered their tongues to be one language. It is also treated as such by scholars. Now, I understand that you want to remove Old Norse as a language, but that is original research.--Wiglaf 20:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think previous stages of developments of living languages that weren't actually used at a later date (like Latin or Sanskrit) should use the infobox, since it introduces a whole bunch of very sketchy parameters that don't apply. At the very least I think you might want to wait before using the template before latest modular revamp has been finished at Template talk:Language. There is a module for extinct languages being worked on, but it doesn't really fit Old Norse. Peter Isotalo 12:24, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so you also suggest that the template be removed at Gothic language as well? You see, the standard version of Gothic is Wulfila's Gothic which was a transitory form of a language. Languages change, period.--Wiglaf 20:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the template since Karmosin has expressed doubts about its relevance and no other user has approved of it.--Wiglaf 12:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just read this conversation after added template:language to the article. I hope it fits. I have simply added information already present in the article. Please do, of course, alter anything that is wrong. --Gareth Hughes 13:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Old Norse phonology

Is the current inventory of Old Norse sounds complete? Are all the phonemes listed? If so, I wouldn't mind making a table and perhaps requesting a vowel chart.

Also, is there any point in trying to add spoken samples Old Norse? Are the linguists fairly certain about how it was spoken? Would it be fairly accurate or too general an approximation? I was thinking that a native speaker of Icelandic (if we can find one with a mic), would be the closest thing to how at least West Old Norse sounded. Peter Isotalo 12:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Here is a site with the information, I think you are looking for [15]--Wiglaf 13:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Old Norse consists of two languages; Old Norwegian, and old Icelandic. Old Swedish and old Danish are two separate languages. While old Norse is a westscandinavian language, old Swedish and Danish are east scandinavian.

Old Norse consists of two languages; Old Norwegian, and old Icelandic. Old Swedish and old Danish are two separate languages. While old Norse is a westscandinavian language, old Swedish and Danish are east scandinavian.

Old Norse consists of two languages; Old Norwegian, and old Icelandic. Old Swedish and old Danish are two separate languages. While old Norse is a westscandinavian language, old Swedish and Danish are east scandinavian.--Allmektige.peder 6 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I suggest you go to the library and start reading.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

ö, ø and œ

Can someone explain the difference between these three letters. What phonemes do they represent? The page Wiglaf linked to above honestly doesn't make me any wiser. --Salleman 23:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, my recordings aren't perfect :) Anyway, in what format would you like the answer? IPA? - Haukurth 00:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

IPA will do great. :) --Salleman 03:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, basically the phonemes /ø/ and /œ/ represent a short and a long version of a similar sound. Probably one was more open than the other, maybe even /ø/ = [ø] and /œ/ = [œ:]. The sounds arose (mostly) with i-umlaut from /o/ and /ó/. For example *dómijan > dœma. The /ö/ (hooked-o), arising as u-umlaut from /a/, represents another short sound, similar to "o" like in English "bond". Old Norse "bönd" was probably pronounced very similarly to English "bond". Confusion arises from the fact that all these phonemes changed drastically in later Icelandic. - Haukurth 12:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I suppose that the "o in bond" corresponds to an open-mid back vowel, unrounded /ʌ/ or rounded /ɔ/. You should definitely put this in the article in a phonology section. From what I know of Icelandic, "ý" is /y:/ whereas "y" is /i/; moreover, "í" is /i:/ but "i" is /e/. I would very much like to know what the Old Norse i and y sounded like. --Salleman 22:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, o-with-hook represents an open-mid rounded back vowel. In modern Icelandic "ý" and "í" are [i] and [i:] depending on position whereas "y" and "i" are [I] and [I:] depending on position. - Haukurth 23:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading an article in your Old Norse for Beginners, by Óskar Guðlaugsson, and he sais that œ is pronounced [øː], not [œː]. Normally I'd dismiss it as divergent opinions (not uncommon in Old Norse), but as it comes from your site... Ciacchi 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

texts

what are the main early texts of Old Norse? What are the earliest non-runic texts? Is there any Icelandic literature recorded prior to the 13th century? (I realize that the Edda may go back several centuries, but afaik it was recorded only in the 13th century). What are the longest pre-13th c. runic inscriptions? the Eggjum stone? dab (ᛏ) 18:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The oldest extant Icelandic manuscript fragments date from the mid-12th century. The oldest text known to have been written with the latin alphabet in Iceland dates from 1106. That was a part of the legal codex of the Commonwealth, preserved in later manuscripts. Íslendingabók was written a bit later. As for runic inscriptions the Rök stone has a long one. - Haukurth 18:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks, I am taking note of this at Germanic languages. dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Old Norse (?) translation

I am currently participating in a contest at Universal Studios Florida. One of the clues is in a foreign language which I BELIEVE may have Old Norse roots. I thought that perhaps someone here might be able to assist me.

The clue is in an audio file, which you can hear by going to the Halloween Horror Nights website and doing the following. As it is an audio file, you will need a computer with sound.

1) Go to: http://themeparks.universalstudios.com/orlando/hhn/?__dest=hhn.OFFER_right_1 2) Click on the book in the upper right hand corner (Next to FAQ's) 3) Click on the skull in the bookcase 4) Click on the large skull at the upper right hand of map. It is here that you will hear the audio file.

Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. In the event that the audio file is not of Old Norse roots, does anyone have any idea of what language it may be in? I have already confirmed that it is not in Latin.

Thank you for your assistance.

-Steve 10/29/2005

You may also go to the following link and listen to the file.

Http://www.nicksvideo.com/chant.zip

This is actually a better source as you should be able to start and stop the chant. Several have suggested that this may be Tolkien in nature rather than Old Norse.

For what it's worth, this sounds like Tolkien mixed with English. It is certainly not Norse in any of its forms. Cheers Io 20:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Inflection?

It appears that Old Norse was a highly inflected language, can anyone mention this? I don't have enough knowledge to talk intelligently about it but looking at declension charts reveal about ~10 different noun declensions etc..

I guess so, at least to the same degree as other old indo-european languages.

In any thorough grammar you'll get ca. 60 paradigms for nouns, so yes, it was and is highly inflected. Then add similar numbers of adjectives, verbs and pronouns, and you have a fair profusion, even if ON only possessed four cases and so on. Then you can add the complexities of the definite article. All in all, don't go there unless you're really interested. Cheers Io 18:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, can you mention this in the article? --Godtvisken 22:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Myth au > ø in OEN Revealed

In a table displaying an example of the monophtongization of OEN one has the example OWN and OG auga 'eye' vs OEN øgha. Isn't the development au > ø a special feature of Old Danish and written Old Swedish rather than a general OEN feature? We know that actual spoken Old Swedish had the development au > ö (with a middle step öu; here ö of course stands for the hooked-o) rather than the described one. Then one should actually write OWN and OG auga 'eye' vs ODan øga vs OSwe öga. (Note here that I throw away the redundant h in "gh" as well.) Of course, the danish ø prevailed over the swedish ö in the end since the literary upper class swedes - who were in minority - early started to use ø both in speech and writing. Note here that the monopthong ö instead of ø survived in Dalecarlia, Herdalia and in parts of Norway and southern Norrlandia and that in Iemtia (except for the eastern parts which has ö) one is on the middle stage öu.
The main point here is that the diphtongs au and ey didn't converge into one single monophtong ø in OSwe, but rather stayed separated even after the monophtongization as ö (middle stage öu) and ø (middle stage øy). The converging to one monophtong ø was a general feature of Old Danish and some special formal styles (especially the written one) of Old Swedish only. Most Old Swedish speaking swedes must have had separated monophtongs as described. Note that I am not dedscribing my own "crazy" theory here, but a rather accepted and logical one.
Jens Persson, E-mail: jepe2503~hotmail~com (2005-12-18)

Old Icelandic hnefi vs Old Norwegian næve/neve?

In the article it is stated that:

"Old Norwegian differentiated early from Old Icelandic by the loss of the consonant h in initial position before l, n and r. This meant that whereas Old Icelandic had the form hnefi (fist), Old Norwegian had the forms næve and neve."

The problem here isn't the statement OIce hn- vs ONorw n- (i.e., dropped h- in mainland dialects) but the fact that one mixes a normalised Old Icelandic spelling with a non-normalised Old Norwegian spelling. Of course one should either write OIce hnefi vs ONor nefi (normalised) or OIce hnæve/hneve vs ONor næve/neve (non-normalised). More generally, the same should be the case for Old West Norse vs Old East Norse. One should normalise the Old East Norse examples as well. Only by normalising things we can make relevant comparison. [ As an example of the asymmetry between the treatment of OWN and OEN in the article, consider "For instance in East Norse stain became sten, whereas it became steinn in West Norse. " Since the OWN steinn is clearly normalised - one could expect e.g. stæin in manuscripts - one should normalise the OEN word as well giving sténn. Note here that in at least OSwe, ai > ei > é (ex. stainn > steinn > sténn), au > ǫu > ö (ex. auga > ǫuga > öga) and ey > øy > œ (ex. heyra > høyra > hœra) using a normalised spelling were ö is used as the long counterpart of ǫ. Thus, one would write e.g. bjǫrn (from Proto-Germanic bernuz through u-breaking) rather than *björn in normalised OEN.]

Jens Persson, jepe2503 at hotmail dot com (30 Jan 06)

Definition of old Norse

I would just like to point out that the definition of Old Norse as the language of all Scandinavia in the middle ages is not in agreement with the use of the term in present day Scandinavia. In Norway today, norse language (norrønt) is defined as the language of Norway and Iceland (and other norse North Sea-settlements) in the middle ages. The languages of Sweden and Denmark are not called Old Norse (although they were of course mutually intelligible, which they still are today). This is also what the norwegian and danish language wikipedias use. (Barend 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC))

I guess that corresponds to the West Norse/East Norse distinction. 惑乱 分からん 23:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well in Denmark Old Norse corresponds to all of Scandinavia and not only Iceland and Norway. Old Norse does not correspond to the middle ages (that would be Old Danish, Old Icelandic, Old Norwegian and Olde Swedish). Old Norse is all of Scandinavia before the middle ages. If we choose to use the Norwegian/Icelandic definition then this article isn't about the Danish Tongue. And the info box and the content of the article is then grossly misleading. Old Icelandic was not called Danish by its native speakers. Nor was Old Norwegian. Old Norse as a synonym for Danish Tongue only corresponds to the Viking Era and not the middle ages. Old Norse used as a synonym for Old Icelandic/Norwegian corresponds to middle ages but does not correspond to Danish Tongue. Is this article about Old Icelandic/Norwegian or about the Danish Tongue? The term "Danish Tongue" redirects to the Wikipedia article on Modern Danish rather than this one. Seems like we have a northern nationalist agenda battling here.Dylansmrjones (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of g

A recent edit reads: The /g/ phoneme is realized as a voiced velar fricative [ɣ] between back vowels, and a palatal fricative [ʝ] after and before front vowels (which has turned into [j] in modern Norwegian, cf. Old Norse végr [we:ʝr] > Norwegian vei [ʋæj]). None of the (several) grammars I have read mention palatal fricative pronunciation of g in old norse. This probably came later, possibly at a very late stage of old Norse or middle Norwegian. I don't think it belongs in an article on old Norse. (Barend 13:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

As far as I know, you're correct here. But [ɣ] > [j] in front of a front vowel must have happened very early, probably in late Old Norse time (in the 14th century). Even Icelandic has this development. It was probably completed at the same time when [g] in front of a front vowel had become palatalised to [gʲ] (Icelandic is on this stage today). I guess that [ɣʲ] more or less automatically becomes [j] (through an intermediate step [ʝ]).

Jens Persson jepe2503 [at] hotmail [dot] com (130.242.128.85 19:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

This is right. It was one of several phonological changes that happened at this time, at the transition to the middle Norwegian period. Several of these changes did not occur in Iceland. For instances, [k] in front of front vowels was also palatalized, the consonant-clusters <sj> <sk> and <skj> were assimilated into one sibilant-sound, the th-sound disappeared, etc. I think these processes belong more properly in a separate article on middle Norwegian. (Barend 08:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

As far as I know, Icelandic has [kʲ] and [skʲ] for k and sk in front of a front vowel in analogy with how it works for g. Furthermore, Icelandic has [skʲj] and [sʲj] for skj and sj. I am sure that late Old Norwegian worked like Modern Icelandic in this respect. I doubt that Middle Norwegian had assimilated sj, skj and sk in front of a front vowel to [ʃ]. It is more likely that this belongs to Modern Norwegian (i.e., "nynorsk"; post AD1500). It is more likely that Middle Norwegian had [sj] (and later [ʃj]) for sj and [stʃ] (and later [ʃtʃ]) for skj and sk in front of a front vowel. There are still many traditional dialects in Sweden which are on this stage even today, e.g. the ones spoken in southern Härjedalen which are recognised as being norwegian dialects, linguistically. (Fx., in the southern Härjedalen dialects, the verb 'shoot', Swe. skjuta and Ice. skjóta, is pronunced [stʃøːtə], usually spelled "stjöte" rather than "sjöte" by people writing in dialect.) In Älvdalen speech, the most archaic in this context (and most other contexts as well), one even pronunces sj as [sj] or, which probably is more like Viking age pronunciation, [sɪ]. (Fx., the verb 'see', Swe. se and Ice. sjá, is pronunced [sɪõː].)

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 19:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Most widely spoken European language & Harald Gillekrist

A little correction may be due - I think it would be more precise to say it was the most widely spoken language in a geographical sense. One could hardly say it was the most widely spoken language in a demographical setting. Also, I react to this whole sentence, since it refers to East Norse:

In the 11th century, it was the most widely spoken European language ranging from Vinland in the West to the Volga in the East.

I just want to point out that West Norse was spoken from Vinland to Constantinople (Varangian guard) - Sigurd Jorsalfar left many of his people in Constantinople after his trip to the Holy Land.

Also, this passage under dialects seems a little far-fetched, since it refers to a norwegian king of IRISH descent (Harald IV of Norway):

...stirt var honum norrœnt mál, ok kylfdi mjǫk til orðanna, ok hǫfðu margir menn þat mjǫk at spotti.[2] ...the Norse language was hard for him, and he often fumbled for words, which amused people greatly.

There is no wonder people were greatly amused, since he probably was talking gaelic originally! --SWA 23:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Yes, the passage refers to the fact that Harald Gillekrist spoke the Norse language poorly, as he was born and raised in Ireland. I included the passage to illustrate an example of the language being called norrœnt mál in contemporary usage. Maybe this information would fit better some other place in the article though. --Barend 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Crimean Peninsula?

The caption to the map states that the red area is where Old West Norse was spoken, Orange where Old East Norse was, Pink where old Gutnish was, and Green where other Germanic languages were. But down at the southern tip of the Crimean Peninsula, quite distant from everything else, there is a splotch of teal coloured land, and there is no mention of this in the Caption or the rest of the article. Does anyone know what this is from? - Uniqueuponhim 12:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Crimean Gothic language Haukur 12:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Old Norse language → Old Norse – as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), there's no need to disambiguate in this case; compare Latin, Esperanto. Blisco 17:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support --Ptcamn 02:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Húsönd 00:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Diacritic Marks

Were diacrtic marks such as acute accents, macrons, and kroužeks used in Old Norse? Or are these purely modern (Post-ON) additions? I thought the article was vague on this. Thank you. ~Sven Ingmarsen

One sometimes used length marks, e.g. acute accent, macron etc., but this was hardly a standard. In late Old NOrse manuscripts one preferred writing a double vowel for length. E.g. the aa was the Late Medieval way of writing Mainland Scandinavian å. Of course, today centuries later a spelling like aa instead of å looks quite awkward.

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 17:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Better info on similarities with english

I as a semi-english swede is quite interested in the similarities between the modern nordic languages and the modern english. Perhaps someone more educated in the matter could add something about this?

As a side note people in the nordic countries are generally quite good english speakers compared to other parts of europe. One contributing factor might be that we don't have a tradition of dubbing movies and interviews, but after some thought the Old Norse might have something to do with this. --

Most Germanic languages are quite closely related. You could also check out List of English words of Old Norse origin, but generally most Germanic languages were quite closely related and had for a long time more or less evolved with constant loaning of words to and from the different languages. 惑乱 分からん 17:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Name of the article... again

There is still no citation for the decision to include Old Swedish, Old Danish and Old Gutnish into Old Norse, which I find distrubing. For instance, Jan Terje Faarlund's article on Old and Middle Scandinavian in this book is quite explicit (p. 38): Old Norse is only Old West Scandinavian. In practice, Old Norse almost always means Old Icelandic because that's where the sources are from. Usually Scandinavia is said to have a common language up to the end of Viking Age (around 1050), and that's Common Scandinavian (see the same article by Faarlund, for instance); most extant sources for Old Norse are later than that. It seems that the current state of the article is somewhat NPOV, because it represents this view (essentially standard) as a minority opinion. The lack of a direct reference is particularly glaring. Edricson 10:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In practice, Old Norse almost always means Old Icelandic because that's where the sources are from. This is not correct. Although probably more than 50% is old Icelandic, there is a very large body of old Norwegian texts as well. Otherwise, I agree that it is problematic to try to include old Swedish, old Danish and old Gutnish into the same article.--Barend 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's perhaps overstated; still, Cleasby & Vigfusson is a dictionary of Old Icelandic, and Old Icelandic was well in use for what we'd term as Old Norse today until perhaps the mid-20th century (and still is e. g. in Russia, while "Old Norse" hasn't really caught on). Anyway, I think we'll wait for others' coments before overhauling the article. Edricson 22:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Old Icelandic is a perfectly acceptable term for the language in Iceland in the middle ages, just as Old Norwegian is in use about the language in Norway. But is has never been common usage to refer to the old Norwegian language as old Icelandic.--Barend 13:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was not saying that of course. What I meant was that in philologist practice, if you need to cite a generic Scandinavian form, you usually identify it as Old Norse (unless it's specifically, say, Old Swedish or otherwise of restricted distribution. It used to be perfectly acceptable to call such forms Old Icelandic (even if they happened not to be actually attested in Icelandic sources). Edricson 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Phonology

A way of improving the tables in the Phonology section would be to add, beside the IPA sign, the letter that corresponds to it, e.g. A [a], É [eː] etc., as it can not be readily deducted. Ciacchi 20:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about meaning of "Danish" in "Danish tongue"

Just browsing the article after a minor grammar edit and wondering in ref to:

The Icelandic Gray Goose Laws stated that Swedes, Norwegians, Icelanders and Danes all spoke the same language, dǫnsk tunga. In the eastern dialect, which was spoken in Sweden and Denmark, this would have been dansk tunga and this translates as the "Danish tongue". It was also called norrœnt mál ("Norse language").

Isn't it important to say that "Danish" at the time did not so much have a national meaning, more like "brave/noble" and so dansk tunga is "tongue of the valiant"; my understanding, from more than one book I've read, is that Danish tongue didn't originally mean "from Denmark", but both country-name and language-name came from the same context of "dansk", which then evolved into the usage for people from Denmark per se; norrœnt mál to me seems more maybe appropriate as "northerners' speech" or "northern speech"?? tunga is language, mál is more like "talk/speech" (hence its use in poem titles/forms, which you never see tunga for.Skookum1 00:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it important to say that "Danish" at the time did not so much have a national meaning, more like "brave/noble" and I've never heard this and I assume it must be based on speculative etymology because 'danskr' means "Danish" as far back as records go. Haukur 00:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and take the time to pull out what books I think I saw the comment in; not immediately but I know I've seen this; it's not that it didn't mean "danish" but that "Danish" itself meant something different, i.e. about a national characteristic rather than the land, with the land taking its names from the Danes, "the brave/valiant" who lived there, the "march if the Danes", where "march" is a territory or frontier/stronghold.Skookum1 00:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My theory is that since

(1) the North Germanic language was originally geographically confined around the old Danish area (in what today is Southern Sweden) and

(2) the novations have always been introduced in Danish first and then spread northwards,

the danes were assumed to speak the true, core North Germanic language which one had to be updated against. The Proto-Norse runestones probably show their uniformity due to having the Danish dialect as a standard which the upper class northern germanics were assumed to master. There are indications that in Northern Sweden people still spoke Proto-Norse as late as in the Viking age, which means they hadn't updated their North Germanic to the "Danish tongue" at this time prior to the colonization of the area by norwegians and swedes.

Jens Persson (213.67.64.22 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

Uist

There are two islands in Scotland called North Uist and South Uist. The derivation of the name is apparently that 'uist' or possibly 'yoo-ist' means 'west' in Old Norse. However, the only source I can find that refers to this is (a) not clear about the spelling of this Old Norse word, and (b) does not make any reference to the Old Norse name for the islands. On the latter front it is possible that it was simply 'Uist' for 'North and South Uist and Benbecula', which form part of a small chain of islands separated by narrow passages. Any help in resolving this would be much appreciated. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Old Norse word for west is vestr. Haukur 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As in Westray of course! So does anyone know what, if anything 'uist/yoo-ist' means in Old Norse - or any other Scandinavian language of a similar age? Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, Uist looks like a slightly altered Uibhist, which is the Gaelic name for the islands. AFAIK, there are no other Scandinavian languages in which Uist can have any meaning.--Berig 20:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. I will pursue the issue further with my long-suffering Gaelic speaking acquaintances. Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen an article linking the name Uist with a word Ivist which is said to mean dwelling or habitation. Is Ivist a Norse word? Lurker 15:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And does this citation of the word prove anything? Lurker 15:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a verb vista ("seek a lodging") and a passive form vistast ("dwell")[16], and a nominalization inn-vist ("dwelling")[17], of which your ivist is probably a variation. In modern continental Scandinavian you also find the verb but the nominalization appears as viste ("dwelling").--Berig 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is potentially very helpful indeed. Can you offer a description of the reference that is slightly more specific than 'Germanic Lexicon Project' as I can't seem to access the detail online myself? Also, can you confirm that the nominalization is inn-vist rather than inni-vist which the earlier inni-hus entry implies? Many thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it should be inni-vist, but you can look at the pages in more detail by clicking on them.--Berig 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility

This paragraph claims that the mutual intelligibility between Old Norse and Old English is overstated and was no greater than between English and Dutch:

It has been said that old Norse was mutually intelligible with Old English, Old Saxon and Old Low Franconian, which however is an overstatement. Although the languages were closer then, a Scandinavian of the time would not have understood an Anglo-Saxon better than a present day Englishman understands, for instance, Dutch.

AFAIK, they were not *that* different. Opinions?--Berig 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to compare things like that but I'd say the paragraph is probably close to the mark. Old English and Old Norse have a lot of vocabulary and grammar in common but so do Dutch and Modern English. Maybe we could compare some bible verses - there should be some we could find in all four languages. Haukur 15:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, if you think that the statement is rather accurate, I reinsert it again.--Berig 15:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In the end it should come down to sources, I suppose, but I can still speculate :) I'd say ON and OE were probably a bit closer than ME and Dutch but still not what we would normally call mutually intelligible. Haukur 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you're in a good position to tell Haukur, since you have good knowledge of both English and Old Norse.--Berig 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know English and Old Norse and I've even studied a bit of Old English but I still cannot easily understand Old English so I find it hard to believe that it was intelligible to our ancestors without training - that statement in the First Grammatical Treatise notwithstanding :) Haukur 18:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing that suggests a lack of mutual intelligibility is the word pair skirt/shirt. Usually when two idioms have mutual intelligibility, cognate forms have a one-to-one relationship, but apparently the people of medieval England did not feel that skirt and shirt were the same word.--Berig 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm . . . or did they? It didn't refer to the same item back then. We'd call it a tunic - which possesses properties of both a shirt and a skirt, if we consider Modern English the measure of all things.

Gemination of vowels

The vowel phonemes mostly come in pairs of long and short. The orthography marks the long vowels with an acute accent in West Old Norse while East Old Norse generally leaves it unmarked or less frequently geminated.

According to the gemination article this term applies only to consonants and not to vowels. What is this sentence supposed to mean in simpler words? Alæxis_¿question? 11:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the intended meaning is that in West Old Norse, a long a vowel would be written á while in East Old Norse it would be written a or aa. However, there isn't any context about who is marking the vowels in this way, and more importantly when. Obviously(?) they wouldn't put acute accents on runes. — The Storm Surfer 00:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Similarity with modern Icelandic exaggerated

The article at present includes the following, in the introduction: "But regarding the phoneme system itself the language (i.e. modern Icelandic) still retains more of the Old Norse system of phonemes than do the others as it is more or less identical to the 13th century western Old Norse system of phonemes while all in all being very similar to the more archaic versions found during the later Viking age. The differences are in fact so minute that someone reading a text might need to sift through several sentences before being able to spot a single ancient/modern difference."

I disagree with this. I would say it may be argued that modern Norwegian preserves as much of the old Norse phoneme system as modern Icelandic, at least the vowels. For instance, Icelandic has lost the <y>- and <æ>-phonemes, which survive in Norwegian. At least, it is clear that the modern Icelandic system of phonemes is not "more or less identical" to old Norse. The modern Icelandic pronunciation differs from the old Norse one for the graphemes á, é, ó, u, y, ý, æ, ö, and old Norse ´ø has become modern Icelandic æ. The diphthongs 'ey' and 'au' have also changed their pronunciation. Nearly the whole vowel system has changed. As for the several sentences required to spot the difference - here are the first three sentences from the top news item on www.mbl.is at the moment: "Nawaz Sharif, fyrrverandi forsætisráðherra Pakistans, flaug frá Lundúnum til Islamabad í kvöld en hann hefur verið í útlegð í sjö ár. Ætlar Sharif að reyna að koma í veg fyrir að Pervez Musharraf verði endurkjörinn forseti landsins. Sharif hefur dvalið í Sádi-Arabíu og Bretlandi í útlegðinni." I admit both my old Norse and my Icelandic is less than perfect, but as far as I can tell, the old Norse version of this might be: "Nawaz Sharif, fyrrverandi forsætisráðherra Pakistans, flaug frá Lundúnum til Islamabad í kvöld en hann hefr verit í útlegð í sjau ár. Ætlar Sharif at reyna at koma í veg fyrir at Pervez Musharraf verði endrkjörinn forseti landsins. Sharif hefr dvalit í Sádi-Arabíu ok Bretlandi í útlegðinni." That's ten ancient/modern differences in three sentences. I would argue this section has to be revised. --Barend 22:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I more or less agree, though I suppose it depends upon exactly what is meant by "system of phonemes". Haukur 23:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, the similarities still seem to be striking, the languages don't appear as more different than, let's say, Serbian and Croatian. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)