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

[thomas.gahm at TELIA.COM]

--- In gothic-l at y..., keth at o... wrote:

Hi Keth,

OK Keth, I can accept that you try to normalize two writing 
traditions so that you easier can compare them. I did not understand 
that also the Gutnish text were "normalized". I saw it as a quote and 
then I think it should be correct, preferable with misspellings and 
every thing. 

About the term "normalize" as used in normalize Gutnish to Icelandic 
or Old Norse, I don´t think it´s quite correct using that term in 
this case, even if renowned teachers or professors might use them. If 
you call Icelandic and Gutnish scandinavian languages or dialects is 
not that important, there are some differences though which I think 
is enough to call them different languages/dialects. Even if the 
sources for Icelandic is far greater than those of Gutnish and the 
other nordic languages I do not think that it is proper to have Old 
Icelandic as a norm for the Common Scandinavian language as it 
sometimes seems to be. There are differences in the languages and I 
don´t think that there ever was a truly Common Scandinavian 
language.  

Furthermore, I must admit that the text from ´Guta Saga´ which I 
wrote has its small faults, as you have mentioned. I use for example 
no abbrevations that are normal in the manuscripts. I did not have 
the original in front of me and most often the copies have faults. I 
could of course have mentioned that.

I believe it is a good thing to mention if the original texts are 
changed with a purpose so that unneccesary misunderstanding does not 
have to occur. Really this is not much to argue about and I guess you 
are correct in most of your corrections, even if it seems like your 
source is not quite correct either. The differences are small.
 

Sincerely,
Tomas 



> Hello Thomas,
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> .........'


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/