Re: Nimrina phonology

Herman Miller skrev:
> Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
>
>> Or maybe it still is /dl/!  BTW if Nimrína is
>> supposed in Scandinavia -- *here* or somewhere
>> *else* -- it might be a good touch to have an
>> [r`] allophone of /l/, since [r`] for historical
>> reasons functions as an allophone of /l/ in many
>> Swedish and Norwegian dialects.  At some point
>> /rD/ became [r`], and at some later point this
>> /r`/ and /l/ merged in some or all positions,
>> leaving [r`] as the *only* allophone of /l/ in
>> many dialects.  (I myself have for some reason
>> [r`] for /l/ only after labials, and [d`] for
>> */rD/!)  The putative presence in Scandinavia of
>> a language without an r/l distinction may serve
>> to 'explain' these strange historical mergers! :-)
>
> In that case, I could have [r`] in place of [4] as the intervocalic
> allophone of /l/. Or it could vary depending on the vowels. I seem to be
> having a little difficulty pronouncing "tilin" (small) as [t_jir`in].
> But pronouncing "hlýlu" (leaf) as [K1:r`u] or "zelen" (feather) as
> [zEr`En] seems easier.
Hm, I can't feel any difference, but then I've been able
to imitate Swedish all-[r`] dialects since I was a kid.
BTW there are Dalecarlian dialects that have [d`] for
word-initial /l/, whereas [d`] would elswhere occur for
*ld or in [n`d`] < *rnd, or for *rD where it does not
become [r`] in Swedish dialects.

>>> The absence of males in Swedish legend could simply be a result of
>>> the rarity of encountering one in the first place.
>>
>> Yes, or maybe there is greater morphological difference
>> between the sexes in huldrer than in humans, e.g. the
>> males may be wholly fur-coated while the females are
>> partially naked and so more human-like.  This may
>> cause humans not to recognize that they are the same
>> species. It might also mean that while the females
>> appear sexually enticing to humans the males don't,
>> and are perhaps not perceived as human-like at all.
>> More on that below.
>
> Interesting idea, but I was thinking more of people who could pass
> themselves off as human (if they wear clothing that hides their tails).
> Maybe a small group of them could have come across the Atlantic with the
> other Scandinavian immigrants to the US.
I see, but the males could still be more hairy than the
females, as even human males tend to be hairier than
human females, as long as they have execcively 'too
much' facial hair -- which could anyway be shaved off
in order to appear more human.  In fact the tail would
be more of a problem to a male, since 19th century human
males would wear trousers, while women would wear skirts
(even several of them).  Even possible pointed and hairy
ears would be less of a problem, since a male could wear
a (knitted) cap among humans, although it would be more
normal for women of the time to wear a headcloth at all
times.  I suppose you read the story about the boy who
politely pointed out that the _skogsfru_'s 'underskirt'
showed?

>
>> I can't help think of images I've seen of American Indians
>> wearing wolf skins with the wolf's head as a hood and the
>> tail hanging down their back.  In Norse tradition there is
>> the _úlfheðinn_, a berserk in hairy wolfskin jacket.  There
>> are archeological finds depicting such figures, looking
>> like men with wolfs head and tail(*).  Maybe this is the male
>> of the species.  The thought that the male of the species
>> is behind the belief in werewolves would not be too great
>> a leap!  There is _huldumaðr_ 'cairn-troll' in my Old Norse
>> to Norwegian dictionary, but that would seem to relate
>> primarily to the Irish-influenced Icelandic huldufólk.
>
> But this brings up another possibility; they may have had populations in
> both continents from way back in the Atlantean days (if I go with the
> idea that they're related to the Atlanteans).
In which case they would probably have several languages too.
There isn't even any guarantee that Atlantis had only one language!

BTW I wondered why  _Atlantean_ is used for 'of Atlantis'
in English, when _Atlanteus_ actually meant 'of the Atlas
mountains' in Latin -- thinking that 'of Atlantis' ought to
be _Atlantidian_ --, but it seems _Atlanteios_ is the adjective
actually used by Plato! FWIW my pet theory is that Atlantis
was located in the pre-desiccation Sahara basin, but that
they for whatever reason preferred to sail by the pillars
of Hercules rather than from the Mediterranean coast of Africa.
And nothing would have technically stopped them from sailing
across the ocean either.  This is at least as likely as
a large island sinking into the Atlantic within the last
ten thousand years!

--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se

    "Maybe" is a strange word.  When mum or dad says it
    it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
    means "no"!

                            (Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)

Reply