| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:31 am
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | sigvald@binet.is> spake thusly:
the Omrud wrote:
I will rephrase - I thought that Icelandic was Danish with few
differences. AIUI, Norwegian is also a form of Danish, but shares
the alphabet, I think. I can't understand spoken Norwegian on TV but
I can follow the subtitles quite well by pretending to be from
Cumbria.
No, Icelandic is the modern form of "Old norse", the language of the
Vikings, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish all derive from that language
and are thus, in a sense, dialects of Icelandic.
(One can also claim that English is an Icelandic (or Icelandic/Latin)
dialect.)
Norwegian, Danish and Swedish are quite different from one another and
they put subtitles on when there is something from the other countries
on TV, Icelandic is also very different from the Scandinavian languages.
Thank you. Sadly, I have never visited Iceland.
I'm curious. Do you read AUE avidly, waiting for anybody to mention
Iceland so that you can help us with local knowledge, or do you scan
all the newsgroups looking for a mention of your country or language?
|
I do an occasional Google search on a variety of topics, Icelandic and
Iceland among them , and hop in when people start to get things mixed
up.
Why are you curious, have you seen my name here before?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:47 am
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
Mark Brader:
| Quote: | But seriously, there are lots of other cases of closely related
languages (or dialects if you like) where one uses a letterform that
another does not....
|
Evan Kirshenbaum:
| Quote: | English and German...
|
Yes, well, I meant closer than that.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "I don't have *any* minions any more."
msb@vex.net -- Clive Feather |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:55 am
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
<sigvald@binet.is> spake thusly:
| Quote: |
the Omrud wrote:
I'm curious. Do you read AUE avidly, waiting for anybody to mention
Iceland so that you can help us with local knowledge, or do you scan
all the newsgroups looking for a mention of your country or language?
I do an occasional Google search on a variety of topics, Icelandic and
Iceland among them , and hop in when people start to get things mixed
up.
Why are you curious, have you seen my name here before?
|
I was curious because you answered within a few hours of my
mentioning Icelandic, so I wondered if you are generally lurking in
AUE. I think I have seen you post here before but only once or
twice. So either you read everything here and only delurk when your
special subject is mentioned, or you scan all newsgroups for relevant
material.
I often wonder how many passive readers we have. Could we be the
subjects of a vast sociological research effort by folk we don't
know?
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:36 am
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
| Quote: | Mark Brader:
But seriously, there are lots of other cases of closely related
languages (or dialects if you like) where one uses a letterform
that another does not....
Evan Kirshenbaum:
English and German...
Yes, well, I meant closer than that.
|
How about British and American? We seem to have established that "æ"
is still alive an well in the UK.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When you rewrite a compiler from
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |scratch, you sometimes fix things
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you didn't know were broken.
| Larry Wall
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:13 am
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
In message <nq4nm154817flv5l0s0lim3cfrgmgp7j9b@4ax.com>, Don Aitken
<don-aitken@freeuk.com> writes
| Quote: | On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:19:09 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks. I thought that Icelandic was a dialect of Norwegian/Danish?
More like a fossilized version of Old Norse; Danish and Norwegian have
changed a lot, but Icelandic hasn't. Are there any theories as to why
some languages change faster than others? I don't think I've ever seen
any attempt to explain it.
We had some discussion here recently about "evolution" of languages, |
which (I think) drew in parallels with Darwinian evolution. In the case
of the evolution of species, the process runs faster in isolated
communities (the Galapagos islands being the text-book example). If the
parallel held, one might expect Icelandic to have "evolved" faster than
Danish and Norwegian.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:52 am
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
Paul Wolff <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> writes:
| Quote: | Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> writes
More like a fossilized version of Old Norse; Danish and Norwegian
have changed a lot, but Icelandic hasn't. Are there any theories as
to why some languages change faster than others? I don't think I've
ever seen any attempt to explain it.
We had some discussion here recently about "evolution" of languages,
which (I think) drew in parallels with Darwinian evolution. In the
case of the evolution of species, the process runs faster in isolated
communities (the Galapagos islands being the text-book example). If
the parallel held, one might expect Icelandic to have "evolved" faster
than Danish and Norwegian.
|
In reality, what you find is that colonies and frontiers tend to be
more conservative than the perceived "center" of a language.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If a bus station is where a bus
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |stops, and a train station is where
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a train stops, what does that say
|about a workstation?
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:15 pm
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:19:09 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
John Flynn <johnpf@lineone.net> spake thusly:
the Omrud wrote:
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> spake thusly:
A friend sent me a pointer to this animated history of the alphabet:
http://janpeters.net/pics/stuff/alphabet.gif
Where is the D with a line across the upright used?
Icelandic.
Thanks. I thought that Icelandic was a dialect of Norwegian/Danish?
More like a fossilized version of Old Norse; Danish and Norwegian have
changed a lot, but Icelandic hasn't. Are there any theories as to why
some languages change faster than others? I don't think I've ever seen
any attempt to explain it.
|
Population size matters.
In Iceland almost all of the (very small) population
has always been living in just one town,
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:45 am
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
| Quote: | Paul Wolff <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> writes:
Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> writes
More like a fossilized version of Old Norse; Danish and Norwegian
have changed a lot, but Icelandic hasn't. Are there any theories as
to why some languages change faster than others? I don't think I've
ever seen any attempt to explain it.
We had some discussion here recently about "evolution" of languages,
which (I think) drew in parallels with Darwinian evolution. In the
case of the evolution of species, the process runs faster in isolated
communities (the Galapagos islands being the text-book example). If
the parallel held, one might expect Icelandic to have "evolved" faster
than Danish and Norwegian.
In reality, what you find is that colonies and frontiers tend to be
more conservative than the perceived "center" of a language.
|
Yes, but in the case of Icelandic and the Scandinavian languages,
Icelandic is the "center" as it is the modern version of the "Old
norse" language, while the other languages are derived from the "old
norse". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:15 am
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
J. J. Lodder wrote:
| Quote: | More like a fossilized version of Old Norse; Danish and Norwegian have
changed a lot, but Icelandic hasn't. Are there any theories as to why
some languages change faster than others? I don't think I've ever seen
any attempt to explain it.
Population size matters.
In Iceland almost all of the (very small) population
has always been living in just one town,
|
No, until quite recently the population was almost all rural, the towns
came very late. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:26 pm
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
sigvald@binet.is writes:
| Quote: | Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
In reality, what you find is that colonies and frontiers tend to be
more conservative than the perceived "center" of a language.
Yes, but in the case of Icelandic and the Scandinavian languages,
Icelandic is the "center" as it is the modern version of the "Old
norse" language, while the other languages are derived from the "old
norse".
|
By the "center" I meant the high-status place where fads (linguistic
and otherwise) start. In English for a long time it was London and
the royal court. In America, the places that had more frequent
contact with England tended to change faster and adopt innovations
like non-rhoticity, while as you went to the fronteir and places like
the Applachians, you found more conservative dialects that tended to
change much more slowly.
I suspect that Iceland worked as a frontier for Norse for a long time
and Icelandic is the most conservative version for that reason. I'd
also suspect that within Icelandic, the farther you get from
Reykjavik, the more conservative (and closer to Old Norse) you get.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There's been so much ado already
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that any further ado would be
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |excessive.
| Lori Karkosky
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:16 am
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
<sigvald@binet.is> wrote in message
news:1131236104.271254.53250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
J. J. Lodder wrote:
More like a fossilized version of Old Norse; Danish and Norwegian
have
changed a lot, but Icelandic hasn't. Are there any theories as to
why
some languages change faster than others? I don't think I've ever
seen
any attempt to explain it.
Population size matters.
In Iceland almost all of the (very small) population
has always been living in just one town,
No, until quite recently the population was almost all rural, the
towns
came very late.
Would you say that in Iceland, there were two unifying forces in the |
resistance to change, especially from the time of its founding to the
modern era?
The Church and the isolation? Were there others? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:02 am
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
| Quote: | sigvald@binet.is writes:
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
In reality, what you find is that colonies and frontiers tend to be
more conservative than the perceived "center" of a language.
Yes, but in the case of Icelandic and the Scandinavian languages,
Icelandic is the "center" as it is the modern version of the "Old
norse" language, while the other languages are derived from the "old
norse".
I suspect that Iceland worked as a frontier for Norse for a long time
and Icelandic is the most conservative version for that reason. I'd
also suspect that within Icelandic, the farther you get from
Reykjavik, the more conservative (and closer to Old Norse) you get.
|
No, there is almost no dialectical difference within Iceland at all and
there is no place that is closer to Old norse than another.
You can say that Icelandic is more innovative than the Scandinavian
languages as Icelandic has created new words while the other languages
merely add foreign words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:03 am
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
In message <1131296696.943312.302750@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
sigvald@binet.is writes
| Quote: |
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
sigvald@binet.is writes:
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
In reality, what you find is that colonies and frontiers tend to be
more conservative than the perceived "center" of a language.
Yes, but in the case of Icelandic and the Scandinavian languages,
Icelandic is the "center" as it is the modern version of the "Old
norse" language, while the other languages are derived from the "old
norse".
I suspect that Iceland worked as a frontier for Norse for a long time
and Icelandic is the most conservative version for that reason. I'd
also suspect that within Icelandic, the farther you get from
Reykjavik, the more conservative (and closer to Old Norse) you get.
No, there is almost no dialectical difference within Iceland at all and
there is no place that is closer to Old norse than another.
You can say that Icelandic is more innovative than the Scandinavian
languages as Icelandic has created new words while the other languages
merely add foreign words.
Does this bear out the evolution-in-isolation theory, then? |
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:11 am
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
Pat Durkin wrote:
| Quote: | sigvald@binet.is> wrote in message
news:1131236104.271254.53250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
J. J. Lodder wrote:
More like a fossilized version of Old Norse; Danish and Norwegian
have
changed a lot, but Icelandic hasn't. Are there any theories as to
why
some languages change faster than others? I don't think I've ever
seen
any attempt to explain it.
Population size matters.
In Iceland almost all of the (very small) population
has always been living in just one town,
No, until quite recently the population was almost all rural, the
towns
came very late.
Would you say that in Iceland, there were two unifying forces in the
resistance to change, especially from the time of its founding to the
modern era?
The Church and the isolation? Were there others?
|
The isolation of Iceland has been somewhat over empasized, Iceland is
surrounded by ocean and thus accessible by sea unlike many areas inland
that were much more isolated from coastal settlements than Iceland ever
was (until the time of railways, that is).
Icelandic has preserved a lot of the structure, causus etc from the Old
norse but the vocabulary has changed a lot and is changing over time.
Icelandic gained a great number of words from Hansa and English
merchants and French, Basque and Flemish fishermen since the middle
ages and there has never been any resistance to loan words, provided
that they fitted the framework of the language.
The church cannot have been a part of any resistance to change, with
the latin as the church language and most of the bishops from other
countries for the first five centuries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Aitken
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:53 am
Post subject: Re: An animated history of the alphabet |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 14:11:06 -0800, sigvald@binet.is wrote:
| Quote: |
Pat Durkin wrote:
sigvald@binet.is> wrote in message
news:1131236104.271254.53250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
J. J. Lodder wrote:
More like a fossilized version of Old Norse; Danish and Norwegian
have
changed a lot, but Icelandic hasn't. Are there any theories as to
why
some languages change faster than others? I don't think I've ever
seen
any attempt to explain it.
Population size matters.
In Iceland almost all of the (very small) population
has always been living in just one town,
No, until quite recently the population was almost all rural, the
towns
came very late.
Would you say that in Iceland, there were two unifying forces in the
resistance to change, especially from the time of its founding to the
modern era?
The Church and the isolation? Were there others?
The isolation of Iceland has been somewhat over empasized, Iceland is
surrounded by ocean and thus accessible by sea unlike many areas inland
that were much more isolated from coastal settlements than Iceland ever
was (until the time of railways, that is).
Icelandic has preserved a lot of the structure, causus etc from the Old
norse but the vocabulary has changed a lot and is changing over time.
Icelandic gained a great number of words from Hansa and English
merchants and French, Basque and Flemish fishermen since the middle
ages and there has never been any resistance to loan words, provided
that they fitted the framework of the language.
The church cannot have been a part of any resistance to change, with
the latin as the church language and most of the bishops from other
countries for the first five centuries.
|
In any case, a theory has to explain more than one case. The other
European language which is notorious for having changed very slowly is
Lithuanian, the speakers of which live on a plain with no natural
frontiers, surrounded mostly by speakers of distantly-related or
unrelated languages, with whom they have interacted continuously.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in