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

[keth at ONLINE.NO]

Hi Thomas,
Thank you for your response.
As I have disovered, by and by, the Old Norwegian language, in
contrast to the Old Icelandic language, had some spelling
conventions that differed, without it being at all possible
for me to define exactly what those differences were. I know
Marius Heggstad wrote a book about the Old Norwegian dialects
(målføre), but I have not studied it. What I did discover,
however, is that the "normalized" version of Old Norse, that
you find in most textbooks, has been chosen such as to incorporate
many spelling conventions that are typical for Old Icelandic
manuscripts that are somewhat later than the earliest ones.
At present I am unable to be more precise than this, because
I have not studied the differences in detail. All I know is
that when I look at a diplomatic edition of an Old Norwegian
text, that it conveys a totally different impression from
the socalled "normalized" version. But I suppose that once
this standard has been created, we are more or less stuck
with it, because all the most important reference books on
the Old Norse language reflect this standard.

Therefore, and I think this is important, it is only a
practical necessity that causes one to draw in "normalized
Old Norse" when comparing Old Gutnish texts with the
contemporary Nordic languages and dialects.


You wrote:
>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.

I suppose I hadn't been clear about it, and so it was good that
you brought it up.


>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.

That is why I mentioned Marius Heggstad's book (Vestnorske målføre?),
because he there goes into all the differences that existed between
the different languages/dialects that were spoken in West Norway
around 1200. Since we know East Norse differs even more, it is
obvious that Old Gutnish would differs at least as much from
West Norse, as East Norse does. (which is an a priori consideration)


>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.

Perhaps someone ought to suggest to the right person that it
would be of interest to have scanned images of the oldest
or best Gutasaga manuscripts on the web? We probably wouldn't
be looking very often, but if it was there in a legible form, one might
easier ascertain how various editors have treated the text ?
I know that Gotland is not a very large place in terms of area,
but that it is a place that many tourists like to visit.
Perhaps such web mss. versions would have a certain public
relations interest ?  I know other places have done similar things
in order to increase public awareness for a place.

Actually, I thought it was nice that you wrote Hafþi's reading
of the Huita Stiarna's dream in a column, because that makes
the modern reader aware of the "stavrim". (= stave rhyme)

Best regards
Keth


>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.


>> >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
>> >hit Hafþi, en Hafþa cuna hit Huita Stierna. Þaun tu bygþu fyrsti a
>> >Gutlandi. Fyrstu nat sum þaun saman suafu þa droymdi henni draumbr,
>> >so sum þrir ormar warin slungnir saman i barmi hennar oc þitti
>henni
>> >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
>> >                    Oc faum þria syni aiga"
>> >Þaim gaf hann namn allum o fyþum:
>> >                    "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
>> >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/