Re Re: Swedish/Norwegian/Danish 2

>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:
[snip]

>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}.
>Definetily.
> >  # 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 mailto:bpX@netg.se mailto:melrochX@mail.com (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. ;)