Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re Re: Swedish/Norwegian/Danish 2

From:BP Jonsson <bpj@...>
Date:Wednesday, August 30, 2000, 12:33
>Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:09:27 GMT >From: Oskar Gudlaugsson <hr_oskar@...> >Subject: Re: Swedish/Norwegian/Danish >To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
> >From: BP Jonsson <bpj@...> > >Subject: Re: Swedish/Norwegian/Danish > >Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:27:18 +0200
> >I don't know if I think they **should** -- I'm too anarchic at heart and > >too pessimistic by experience to envisage some kind of official-level > >merger --, but I think they could, and I wish they were, if only as a > >wayto at all preserve Scandinavian in the face of Global >>Californication.
>I know what you mean. I'm also not radical enough at heart to truly >follow up these ideas. I'm too moderate and realistic, but I think >that's better.
>It's a matter of approach. It's dangerous to approach this matter >on nationalistic grounds, with pretexts like "we're one people, we >should speak one language (and belong to one state, by >implication)". That's too political. We have to appeal to our sense >of practicality. So I say instead, "a common Nordic language would >serve to strengthen Nordic culture and literature towards the rest >of the world, as a language giving access to all of the Nordic >world would appeal to much more people, meaning that people around >the world might actually start learning our language. And we could >more easily expect our language to be represented/supported on >products, in computers, in international politics, etc etc." And >that's not mentioning the advantages for inter-Nordic culture. >Common TV, radio, newspapers, literature, etc. It's not that hard >to do, it just needs some political and social will.
And costs in university text-book productions! BTW: one project of mine is to make available on the net nordic classics in original language with glosses rather than in translation!
> >Which of course is the situation actually applying in Lucus! :-) > >Modern Norse (Nýnorrœna) is the official language of all the Islands > >(including Orkney and Shetland), as well as of North Vinlandia. Sweden >and > >Denmark use what they call Nordiska (_Nýsuðrœna_ in Modern Norse!), based > >on the 15th century chancery language, and comparatively archaizing.
>What Christian year is it in your Lucus world? Year 2000?
I channel at sundry times and places. Generally speaking the further you get from 642 CE the more different Lucus gets from Here, and the more confusing to me! I think that some time in the 20th century the Emperor of the Romans is Gallianos Kalomeros, son of the ruling Basilissa Theodora III and the Prince Consort Louis-Jerome Bonaparte, which has caused some political ruccus in France. Most of my "contemporary" contacts are with Vinlanders. I have as yet not forayed into the post-2000 CE period of Lucus, and I don't think it is quite possible.
> > OLD NORSE MODERN NORSE VINLANDIC > > hatr hàtr /ha:tür/ /hæatør/ > > hetja hètja /hë:tja/ /heätça/ > > hiti hìti /hete/ /hiäti/ > > hopa hòpa /hå:pa/ hâpa /hwapa/ > > hug hùg /hü:g/ /hüög/ > > Hørvi Hørvi /hö:rve/ Hörvi /hoarwi/ > > > >It is commonly said in Lucus (or _Véheimr_ /vjeimür/) that the only >respect > >in which most Vinlanders live up to the standard but Icelanders don't is > >that they pronounce _hv_ as [x]: > > Vinlander: Hann sagði að ég sé Skrælingr! > > Icelander: Hvàð? > > Vinelander: Nei, hann kvàð ekki, hann èr ekkert skáld! > > /Næe, han kwæaz eççi, han eär eççert skaolt/ > >In fact the Vinlander's pronunciation sounds to the Icelander as > > "Næ, hann kvarð ehi, hann jær ihirt skállt", > >and in Real World terms it is based on my own worst (i.e. most > >brennivín-og-vatn-influenced) pronunciation of Icelandic!
>I like this stuff. I don't understand your phoneticizing well, >though. I understand SAMPA best.
OK, here is a key of sorts: BPJ's SAMPA Latin-1-IPA ä 6 å Q æ { æø {& ç C ð D ë E ö 9 ø 2 ü } üö }& BTW you have revealed to me the cooloquial names of _Nýnorrœna_ and _Nýsuðrœna_: _Eyjamál_ and _Austmannamál_, with Vinlanders of course calling their own variety _Vestmannamál_! :-)
> >Norðmål solves the "problem" of Danish consonant-lenition by positing >three > >series of intervocalic obstruents:
>We have the "variable auxlang" tactic in common, then. I like to >make auxlangs that achieve compromise by using original root- >phonemes, which the languages share, but allowing different >versions for each, representing the modern reflexes of those >phonemes.
Would you like to expand on how you might do that in practice?
> >The only other consonantal adaptation regards initial ON _hv_ which >becomes > >_gv_ as in some Norwegian and Swedish dialects: _gvem, gvað, gvit_.
>That is quite debatable. I'd personally reject anything which I >know I'd never hear in a "Scandinavian" conversation. I've had a >number of those, and I've never heard [kv] or [gv] used for /hv/. >Only [v]. So I'd consider /hv/ and /v/ to be merged, and make it so >in the common Nordic.
You have a point there. In my experience the v/kv variation is one big problem in communication, and _gv_ spellings would be a paedagogic device to make people used to the variation. My own native dialect has a distinction _v > v_ but _hv > w_, so I'm used to keeping _hv_ distinct. I also just happen to like the /gv/ sound sequence ever since I saw the Icelandic word _gvass_ = 'gouache', and find it far too infrequent.
>Also, I wouldn't use 'ð' in my orthography, ever. I'm wholly >against this superfluous letter in my own language, and would never >support its superfluous use in a conlang like "Nordic".
I agree it is superfluous **in Icelandic** -- altho I like it for aesthetic reasons --, but it is **not** superfluous in Norðmál, since a three-way distinction obtains there. Moreover the preferred form in Norðmál is an ordinary straight "d" with a cross-bar: + C| along with C| for its velar counterpart, + Which you can think of as a "d" with the cross-bar of a "t", rather than as an Old English/Icelandic "ð"! The only alternative strategem would be to use: ON p t k b d g #_ p t k b d g V_ bp dt gk b d g And are _gabpe, gadte, kagke_ really more aesthetic than _gade, gläðe_?
> >When it comes to distribution of vowels there seems only to exist one way > >to be fair to all Continentals, namely to let our Classical Language -- >Old > >Norse -- be the arbiter. Hence ON vowels are turned into Norðmål ones > >according to this scheme: > > > > í i é e æ a á o ó u ú ý y ø ö œ au ey ei ja jö jó jú > > | \ | / | | | \ | / | |/ |/ \ | / | | | \ / > > i e ä a å o u y ö ø æ jä jo jy > > /e/ /E/ /O/ /o/ /u/ /ø/ /øy oy/ /ei ai/ > >
>Having the /öy/ diphthong is interesting. I don't seem to know >enough about Norwegian for this, actually. A lot of surprises >there. But I think I'd support it being separate from /ö/. As well >as /ei/.
The problem is that öy/oy exists in all of Icl Far Nor, but represents three ON entities: Icl /öy/ < ON /au/ Far /oy/ < ON /ey/ Nor /öy/ < ON /ey/ And to make things worse /æu/ is _au_ in Nor but _ú_ in Far. Moreover ON _œ_ > /ö/ everywhere except in Icl, where it merges with _æ_ as /ai/, but in Far /ai/ < _ei_... On second thought I also think that NM should have /ai/ for _æ_! Many dialects of southern Sweden and Norway have this development also.
>Using ON to justify these would be practical, as I think >that language holds respect among educated Scandinavians. Danish, >for example, often seem to have respect for Icelandic, as they have >the misconception that it represents an older form of their own >language.
It is very widespread in Sweden and Norway too, and not wholly misconceived (esp. not in Norway!)
> > # All final vowels are merged as {e}.
> > # Non-neuter nouns form their plurals in _-er_. This includes agent > > nouns in _-er_, which thus have _-erer_ in the plural! > > # Neuters which end in vowels in ON have that vowel optionally removed > > _auga_ > _øg_ or _øge_, _hjarta_ > _hjärt_ or _hjärte_. > > # Neuters ending in consonants form their plurals optionally in zero or > > _-e_, and neuters ending in vowels optionally in zero or _-r_. No > >Swedish-style _-n_ plurals, thus!
>Er. Don't know what to say about this system. Seems like an >overcomplification. What about the Danish way: if the singular ends >in -e, the plural is -er; if the sing is -, the plural is -e.
The problem is that all Danish non-neuters with plural in -e have -r in Nor and Swe, plus that all three have a large neuter class with no plural marker. In that sense my system is a compromise: non-neuter = -er, neuter in consonant = -e, neuter in vowel = -r.
>So agents in plurals, for example, would be -ere, as I've always >perceived as "good Scandinavian". But then I'm heavily influenced >by Danish, I'll admit.
And I'm influenced by Icl -ari/-arar, and NNor which also has -ar/-arar without blinking. My peeve is that in Swedish words like _fiskare_ have no distinct plural, and _fiskarna_ may be both the hunters and the hunted! (Older usage, like my late grandmother's would distinguish the hunters as _fiskarna_ vs. the hunted _fiskarne_, however.)
>And about the Swedish -n plurals: that's weird, cause I heard those >for the first time in my life _today_. And now you mention them. I >was very puzzled at being asked for "tvo stucken frimarken". >Sounded German to me. What's the story with that, I mean, that's >certainly not standard Swedish, is it?
It is standard Swedish! Historically it is the definite ending (as in treen < tree-in) which got reinterpreted as a plural **indefinite** ending. German may have played a rôle in establishing acceptance as standarnd, I think! Do you live in Sweden? Where?
> > # Singular nouns form their definite form in _-en_ or _-et_.
>Would there be problems defining gender? Or are they pretty much >the same throughout the continuum, given a system of neuter vs >common gender?
No, some words differ in gender betweeen the standards and between dialects, so I would leave that choice to each writer/speaker.
> > # Plural nouns in _-r_ form their plural form in _-rne_ and plural >neuter > > nouns ending in a consonant form their definite form in _-en_, and >this > >is extended to loans with plurals in _-s_.
>Again, I refer to the Danish system mentioned above.
Yet we'll have to live with those Anglicisms, and _emailsen_ is much better than such things as **emailsarna** <revulsion warning!>
> > > >I would impose no rules wrt application of umlaut or assignment of > >particular words to genders or inflectional classes, except that verb >stems > >ending in sonorants {-r -rg -rj -l -lg -lj -m -n -ng} should not have the > >preterite ending _-de_ attached to them, but rather the form _-te_. This > >is for reason of clarity, since the preterite marker _-d-_ would tend to > >disappear after these sounds in some accents: _glømte_ rather than > >**glømde; _hengte_ rather than **hengde, _seljte_ or _solgte_ rather than > >**selde/**solgde.
>I agree on the last point. But I don't agree with your liberty in >the assignment of umlaut, genders, inflections, etc. These things, >unfortunately, have to be decided, because else it wouldn't be >possible to teach the language. If we want a standard, it's got to >be fixed at some point, otherwise we're back to the situation of >today. Forstår du meg?
Yes. There would be a standard (based on ON) for foreign learners, but individual writers should have the right to break rules in these matters, a bit like in the Nor standards, with _hovedformer_ and _sideformer_.
> >When it comes to words that are different or false friendfs between > >Swe/Dan/Nor these should be replaced by the corresponding ON (or > >Icelandic!) word, except where one or two of the Continental lgs have an > >international word, e.g. _konkludere, konklusjon_ rather than **ålyktan.
>Purism would probably please Icelanders, some intellectuals, and >Neo-Nazis.
Glottaesthetically I'm for purism, but I agree it smacks of neo-Nazism! <shudder -- the Ashkenazi 16th of my genes is freezing!>
>For practical reasons, I'm all for using the Greco-Latin >and German vocab already present. No need to "clean up" there. It >would also be good for the "Common Nordic"'s image in the >international field. More "international" recognizability would >make it a more popular language, which is a concern of mine (BTW, >how do you feel about that issue?).
In prionciple I agree, but when different Nordic languages use different Germanisms, to hell with thwem all and use Icelandisms! I love Icelandic and (aesthetically) dislike German.
> > BTW Lucus Modern Norse is far less puristic than Icelandic here, > >inter_alia it adopts international nouns in _-ion_ into the class to >which > >_ályktun_ belongs: _konklúsjun, nattjun, missjun, varjasjun_, and Latin > >words in _-us_ ar adopted with _-r_ just as _Kristr_ was Here. Latin >Words > >in _-um_ are adopted as if the Latin nominative were their dative plural: > >_fakt, fakt, fakti, fakts; fökt, fökt, föktum, fakta_.
>So it'd have, say, "kalkúlur" and "statur" for "calculus" and >"status"? The latter would be funny, as it would be almost too >close to its Icelandic cognate "staður".
No, it has "státtur" /stawhtYr/, just as Icelandic Here has "nattúra"! My point is that many of the arguments Icelandic purists give against foreign words are false: -ion words could e.g. be adapted to the inflectuion of Icelandic feminines in -un: vísjunin vísjanirnar vísjunina vísjanirnar vísjuninni vísjununum vísjunarinnar vísjananna
>To make an ending conclusion, I want to sum up how I envisage >Norrmål:
> Nordic school children, as well as Icelandic, Faroese, > Greenlandic, and Finnish, would receive an early education in > Standard Nordic. Most of their teaching material, particularly in > the later years, would be in SN. In all inter-Nordic activities, > competitions, conventions, tourism, etc, SN would be used. A > number (~1-3) of jointly funded SN TV-stations would be run, as > well as radio and newspapers. If English were not used, > Scandinavian diplomats would use SN in communication with other > countries. Teaching of SN in other parts of the world would be > encouraged and well supported. SN literature would be well > supported to begin with, in order to further increase the value > of the language. Icelanders would no longer be taught Danish, but > rather good SN. As would Finnish no longer learn Swedish, just > SN. The Scandinavian countries would form a joint committe or > academy of the SN language, to supervise a strict standardization > of its orthography and some (less strict) of its lexis. It would > have a strictly defined orthography, grammar, and lexis (though a > somewhat large vocabulary), but a liberal pronunciation. > Everybody working in tourism or national politics in Scandinavia > would be required to have a good command of SN.
Mjög gott!
>Have I forgotten anything? Oh, I'll include it next time ;)
>Hej då, >Oskar
Ha det! /BP 8^)> -- B.Philip Jonsson (delete X) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Truth, Sir, is a cow which will give [skeptics] no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull." -- Sam. Johnson (no rel. ;)