Frå Gutasaga [gothic-l]/Gutnisk - text sample.

[keth at ONLINE.NO]

Hello Thomas,

you wrote:
>Keth,
>
>I would just like to make some small corrections about the gutnish
>text that is the beginning of the so called ´Guta Saga´. One of the
>reasons for considering Old Gutnish a language of its own and not
>just a scandinavian dialect is that it has some writing traditions
>and spellings that are particularly gutnish and that is not used in
>the other scandinavian languages. In Gutnish only ´þ´ are used, not
>´ð´ as in icelandic. The letter ´c´ are used instead of ´k´ except
>infront of ´i´, ´e´and ´y´. I would also like to mention that two
>different letters were used for ´r´. Not displayed below. The reason
>was probably two different sounds also seen in runic writings (two
>different ´r´ sounds exist still today). One of these ´r´ is probably
>what was ´z´ or ´s´ in Gothic and Proto-Germanic. Normally the letter
>´i´ were used in stead of ´j´. Note also that accents used in
>Icelandic indicating long vowels did not normally exist in
>Gutnish.

Yes, the spelling. This is what I think about it:

Arne Torp cahnged the spelling somewhat, in order that the
comparison with his "normalized" Icelandic version should
display only essential differences, and not unessential ones.

Old Norse, at the period under discussion, showed a variety
of spellings in the various manuscripts, and all of these
spelling systems were rather different from the "normalized"
spelling system for Old Icelandic that was introduced by scholars
in the 19th century. Thus "normalized" Old Icelandic never existed
in the Middle Ages, but only a variety of spelling conventions
that differed from monastery to monastery, so to speak, and at
the same time there were also dialectal differences, such that
it is often possible for scholars to say where in Norway or
Iceland something was written.

The original Old Norse manuscripts in fact also have the exact
same type of spelling characteristics that you below have
introduced into the Gutna saga. You have therefore "undone"
the changes Torp had made in order that the two texts should
reflect the real differences as much as possible, and not
confuse the reader who is comparing the languages, with superficial
differences.

If you want to "undo" Torp's spelling changes, then at the same
time you must ALSO undo the spelling changes of his Icelandic
translation of the text, in order to obtain an Old Icelandic
version that reflects how things were *actually spelled in
the real medieval Icelandic or Norwegian manuscripts.

This second "undoing" would then *also* involve many of the
changes you suggest for the Gutnic text, i.e. replace all
"j"-s by "i"-s  (Manuscript Old Norse had no "j")
"ð"-s by "þ"-s  (the oldest Old Norse Mss. never used ð)
Replace a lot of "u"-s by "v"-s (the two were interchangable
in Latin. Old latin only used "v").  Also replace "k"-s by "c"-s.

Well, I don't see a point in making a complete list,
which is also difficult, because in the Middle Aged
"there was no standard spelling for Norse/Icelandic".
Therefore the only feasible solution seems to be to do
what Torp has done, which is to use the 19th century
"normalized Old Icelandic" as the standard which will
then have to serve as basis for the comparison of the
two texts.

Remember that it is the spoken languages that one is
interested in comparing, not the written ones, where
the signs used to represent the sounds are somewhat
arbitrary, and differ from place to place.

Thus, one really ought to try to find aout what *sounds* the
letters represent in the different manuscripts, and then
rewrite the text using a standardized (modern) phonetic alphabet.
Well, Torp did not go that far, but has done basically the
same thing (in my opinion), which is to normalize to the
letters, that one has agreed to represent the sounds with
in normalized Old Icelandic. (which is the same as normalized
Old Norse)

Also remember that the old texts never had verse written
in columns. There is a web page where you can see GIF
images of the original verse of the Old Icelandic poems,
and you will see that they do not use columns (vellum was
expensive). They also used many abbreviations that modern
editions have expanded to the corresponding complete syllables.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You probably already knew all this. But since you raised
the question, I have tried to explain it, the way I understand
it, so that the readers who know less about old Scandinavian
languages will be able to follow the argument.

The text of "Guta saga" is also in Friedrich Ranke and Dietrich
Hoffmann's "Altnordisches Elementarbuch" (Sammlung Gösschen), where
they used the unnormalized (diplomatic) spelling. If I compare your
version with Ranke's, I believe we shall see the same text.
Below I have marked the differences I see between your's and Ranke's
text:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>The correct text as seen in the original ´Guta Saga´:
>
>´Gutland hitti fyrsti maþr þan sum þieluar hit. Þa war Gutland so
>eluist at þet daghum sanc oc natum war uppi. En þann maþr quam fyrsti
>eldi a land oc siþan sanc þet aldri. Þissi Þieluar Hafþi ann sun sum
                                                   1^
>hit Hafþi, en Hafþa cuna hit Huita Stierna. Þaun tu bygþu fyrsti a
                                  2^
>Gutlandi. Fyrstu nat sum þaun saman suafu þa droymdi henni draumbr,
>so sum þrir ormar warin slungnir saman i barmi hennar oc þitti henni
                                                          3^
>sum þair scriþin yr barmi hennar. Þinna draum segþi han firi Hafþa,
>bonda sinum. Hann riaþ draum þinna so:
>                    "Alt ir baugum bundit
>                    Bo land al þitta warþa
                      4^
>                    Oc faum þria syni aiga"
>
>Þaim gaf hann namn allum o fyþum:
                          5^
>                    "Guti al Gutland aigha
>                    Graipr al annar haita
>                    Oc Gunfiaun þriþi"
>
>Þair sciptu siþan Gutlandi i þria þriþiunga, so at Graipr, þann
>elzti, laut norþasta þriþiung oc Guti miþal þriþiung, en Gunfiaun
                                           6^
>þann yngsti, laut sunnarsta.´

The differences were:
^1: Hafþi -> hafþi  (lower case, it is a verb)
^2: Huita Stierna -> Huitastierna (one word)
^3: þitti -> þytti (to think)
^4: Bo land -> boland (one word, not capitalized)
^5: o fyþum ->ofydum  (one word)
^6: miþal þriþiung -> miþalþriþiung (one word)

So there are some differences, but they are not important.
(also the punctuation largely agrees, though Ranke sometimes uses
a semi-colon, where your text has period followed by u.c.)
Ranke also has som flat accents on some vowels. I don't know
if that is original. (op.cit. pp. 149-150, de Gruyter 1988;
A small but concise little book that is not expensive. A good
reference book, that includes a glossary for the sample texts)

I thank you for your response, and for pointing out
the problems with the spelling. I do not know if my
understanding is the same as Torp's. In the above I have only
explained what seems most reasonable to me.

Best regards
Keth



>best regards,
>Tomas
>
>--- In gothic-l at y..., keth at o... wrote:
>> The following sample of a Gutnish text have I typed up from
>> a book by Arne Torp: "Nordisk språk i nordisk og germansk
>> perspektiv." Novus forlag, Oslo 1998, isbn 82-7099-298-4,
>> 123 pages. It has been written as a textbook for studies
>> in the Nordic languages at the University of Oslo, and Torp
>> is a well known teacher there, who has Nordic linguistics as
>> his specialty. The below sample is printed in his book on
>> page 44-45. The nice thing about this Gutnish text sample,
>> is that below it he has printed another sample of the same
>> text, but now normalized (or translated if you like) to
>> Icelandic. In that way it is possible to compare the two
>> languages word for word. I will send the Icelandicized
>> text in a mail that follows upon this one.
>>
>>
>> Frå Gutasaga (handskrift ca. 1350)
>> ----------------------------------
>> Gutland hitti fyrsti maðr þann sum þjelvar hit. Þá var Gutland sá
>elvist at þet
>> dagum sank ok nátum var uppi. En þann maðr kvam fyrsti eldi á land,
>ok síðan
>> sank þet aldri. Þissi Þjelvar hafði ann sun sum hít Hafði. En Hafða
>kuna hít
>> Hvítastjerna; þaun tú byggðu fyrsti á Gutlandi. Fyrstu nát sum þaun
>saman
>> sváfu, þá droymdi henni draumbr, só sum þrír ormar várin slungnir
>saman í
>> barmi hennar, ok þýtti henni sum þair skriðin ýr barmi hennar.
>Þinna draum
>> segði hán firi Hafða, bónda sínum; hann rjað draum þinna só: "Allt
>ir baugum
>> bundit; bóland al þitta varða, ok fáum þría syni aiga." Þaim gaf
>hann namn
>> allum ófýdum: "Guti al Gutland aiga, Graipr al annar haita ok
>Gunfjaun þriði."
>> Þair skiptu síðan Gutlandi í þría þriðjunga só at Graipr, þann
>elzti, laut
>> norðasta
>> þriðjung ok Goti miðalþriðjung, en Gunfjaun, þann yngsti, laut
>sunnarsta.
>> .........'.........'.........'.........'.........'.........'........
>.'.........'



You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/